It's Super Bowl week and I am trying to rectify the one wrong call I've made this post-season. But, does that mean I'm actually BACKING the Chicago Bears?

I will also look in on why a certain Blue Jay deserved more HOF consideration, and why the NHL, is again, clueless. Oh yeah, and Harry Potter's gettin' NAKED...

Welcome to the latest Ol' One-Two Punch. Let's get started...

ONE: The NHL is apparently putting feelers out to find the eventual replacement to commissioner Gary Bettman, and the name that is springing forward is the President of the Texas Motor Speedway, Eddie Gossage.

Oh, that's just @#)%* brilliant…

After all these years the NHL is yet-again proving it has NO idea what it's marketing.

Now, I don't doubt that Mr. Gossage is the promotional genius they say he is. But, the notion that a man who is raised in the South – in the racing world – is going to have a clue how to promote hockey is just asinine.

I'm going to explain something to the NHL, and I'm going to do it in small words.

The problem with the National Hockey league is NOT marketing, it's cultural. The NHL is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, for the blue-collar American crowd, the sport is – simply put – not Red, White and Blue enough.

There aren't enough college players from the local schools, and there aren't any guys with the name "Ricky Bobby Fay-Wray" tooling around in a good ol' American made two-ton vehicle. Heck, these guys have enough trouble with "Davis Love III," let alone trying to tell an Akhripov from an Antropov.

In short, a tiny portion of the league's best players are American. To a big segment of the U.S. that matters -- they want to watch Americans, doing American things – and the NHL doesn't have much of either.

And for the nouveau sporting crowd? The sort that likes their SUV's with a hybrid engine and are pushing soccer to new heights?

Well, hockey is too violent, too crass. It seems too much like the sort of thing the first group of guys would like. Sure, it has players from around the globe, but few of them hail from the RIGHT European nations. The ones these Americans so desperately want to convince that the U.S. is not completely made up of the NASCAR set (which, as an aside, is the most environmentally destructive sport you could imagine – why not just burn a bunch of Styrofoam while you're at it?).

So there you go, hiring a huckster auto-racing mogul isn't going to make the NHL seem more Apple Pie. And, the cry of "SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY" won't fill any more seats.

The NHL is a niche sport. Live with it, and put teams in the niches where people love the game.

If you must, give franchises like Nashville another 10-15 years to get to that first generation of kids who were born when the Preds were in town, and maybe they will find the NHL more relevant. But, otherwise, don't alienate the fans you have trying to chase two groups that could care less.

TWO: Boy, did the Flames win on the Craig Conroy deal.

He's back one game, he scores twice, they give him a chanting, standing "O," he almost cries at the bench he's so happy… yes this is an example of a marriage that works.

I like Jamie Lundmark, the kid the L.A. Kings got back, but aside from a brief run last season, he's looked completely out of his depth at this level, and time is all but out.

The Kings weren't going anywhere, and Conroy wasn't going to do much for them, but he is going to be a big part of the Flames success. And, dollars to doughnuts, he ends up back on the first line with his old buddy Jarome Iginla.

ONE: The Toronto Blue Jays just signed Victor Zambrano (who at one time wasn't "the other Zambrano,"  he was actually THE Zambrano).

It's not the worst move -- the guy misses a lot of bats, now sometimes it's because he's five feet out of the zone, but I can live with the four and five walk games as long as he's only giving up a two or three singles.

Regardless, though, the fact that he was the centerpiece in the Scott Kazmir deal? That's got to leave the New York Mets feeling sick.

How good would New York look with a rotation that could trot out Pedro and Tom Glavine, and than had young arms like Kazmir, John Maine, and yes, even the erratic Oliver Perez.?

You can even argue (pretty easily actually), that Kazmir could have been the piece that would have taken them to the World Series.

And he's only 23.

It's another example of why, unless you're getting an A quality asset, you should never deal quality youth in an attempt to "get over the top."

TWO: I didn't belabor this then, and I'm not going to belabor this now, but…

Tony Fernandez should have received more consideration for the Hall of Fame.

I'm not saying he should have been in, but how much difference was there between Tony and Ozzie Smith – really?

(Yes, sir, you at the back, stop having your heart-attack, I said it.)

Well, Tony was a MUCH better hitter:

Yes, Smith had 300 more hits, but Tony hit almost 30 points higher for his career. Plus, he did it in far fewer at-bats -- he had more doubles, triples and home-runs than Ozzie – and he drove in more runs.

Now, of course defensively Smith was the "Wizard of Oz," but Tony? Tony didn't do a lot of the acrobatics, because he didn't have to. He got to balls like nobody else. It may also surprise you to see that Tony's career fielding percentage at short is better than Smith's. And while Ozzie is considered to have better range, both were seen as far beyond the average player of their time.

The Golden Glove is a little bit like the mob – once you're in you stay in. So, Fernandez was denied a few years of Gold Gloves because of incumbents like Alan Trammell in the AL.

Anyway, if Fernandez puts up the years he had in Toronto in almost ANY American town, he'd be getting a lot more recognition  and would probably have stuck around for a few ballots.

Okay, rant over.

ONE: So, apparently, Harry Potter is getting naked on stage.

Yep Daniel Radcliffe is going to be playing the lead role in the play Equus (for those who haven't read it, it's a particularly nasty bit of business involving, madness, horses, abuse and forcible bindings).

This is actually a relatively good move for the kid. It's the gritty edge he needs, but it's an East London play, so if he flops – well,  Hollywood won't really know. And if it does well, the right PR flak can spring it so that he has a career after Potter.

It's a much better call than doing some crap-tastic "indie" flick. For that I expect we'll see young Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). After-all, Eric Stoltz is pretty well dead – someone has to take on all those roles for red-headed junkie?

TWO: And speaking of dead careers…

Hey, look, the Police are back. You know Sting, and that other guy, and the other guy… and the other, other, guy…..

(Hmmm… I guess they soft-rocked me to sleep in the '80s.)

ONE: Alright I blew it last week – big-time. I was right about the Indianapolis Colts. But, like most everyone else I was completely off on the Chicago Bears.

I should have realized that with the Bears being almost universally declared dead, the team would show some pride and fire, and that the defense still had a dominating week left in them.

Honestly, though, what really surprised me was their ability to run the ball. I know New Orleans isn't a great run stopping team, and I know the Bears have a pair of good backs in Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson – but I just didn't see it coming.

Still, I can end up 10 of 11 and that's not bad.

So, the question for this Sunday is: can the Bears run the ball as successfully as they did in the NFC Championship game? The Colts have definitely stiffened their resolve (and their D) in the post-season, and that comeback against the Pats has to have everyone there feeling extremely confident. It's like David didn't just slay Goliath – he also made him wash his car first.

But…

This just smells like a classic "unsatisfactory Super Bowl" year -- the kind where a team devoid of charisma and elegance beats a team far easier to appreciate.

This usually means a defensive team (say the Baltimore Ravens or the Tampa Bay Bucs) beats a slick offensive one.

If the Bears win, is there really a single player that you would hold up and say – "now that, that's a legendary football player?" Does Brian Urlacher even have that status?

So, ergo, the Bears fit the ugly winner role perfectly.

Besides, do you REALLY think the cosmos is done taunting Peyton Manning? Can't you just see this entry in Canton:

"Manning was one of the most talented quarterbacks never to win a Super Bowl. Manning played in the big game just once, in 2007, when after defeating his arch-rival Tom Brady in the AFC Championship, Manning was out-dueled by Rex Grossman of the under-dog Chicago Bears. Manning threw four picks on the day – one shy of the game record. After that, Manning never again managed to compete for the league's ultimate prize."

So, I think the Bears do run the ball effectively, and I think they play tough defense, and, actually, I think the Colts also play well. But, I smell a pick-six for the Bears, and a blocked punt, or a bad call, or a stupid clock decision – and the Bears end up winning a nail-biter.

Let's call it 27-24.

TWO: Dear Andre Rison,

Blaming Mike Clemmons for your inability to play professional football (at the now tender age of 39) is sort of like blaming the Pope for Mary Kate's eating problems.

Your friends,

Reason and logic.