Making football interesting

I’m not much of a Taylor Swift fan. It’s not because I don’t like her — I very well could like her. It’s just that I don’t listen to much music so I have no idea whether I’d like her or not.

I have the vague notion that maybe I should shake it off, but I’m guessing that’s a song about a bathing a dog, so maybe I shouldn’t. Or maybe I need to put a ring on it. Taylor’s not married, right? Or does someone else need a ring?

By the way, it’s also not because I don’t like music. I do like music. It’s just, as I said, that I don’t get around to it much. There’s only so much time left when you’re busy reading appellate opinions and watching professional wrestling. Baldur’s Gate alone could be a career.

But I have been aware of Taylor Swift lately. I think it’s because she made it to the Super Bowl. I don’t know how this happened, but it appears to be true.

I should also note here, in case there’s some doubt, that I’m not much of a football fan. I can watch the occasional game, but I don’t enjoy seeing people hurt each other.

You may think this doesn’t gibe with my love of professional wrestling, but that’s not true. Professional wrestlers are trying to keep each other safe. It’s not a combat sport. It’s more a mix of ballet, competitive debate, commedia dell’arte and kabuki. When you see someone doing a cartwheel and an aerial triple somersault while pretending to be fighting, you have to acknowledge the artistry.

None of the above is relevant to what I’ve been wondering lately. What I’m wondering is: Don’t the other players aside from Taylor Swift have wives, girlfriends or groupies? Why aren’t we seeing them on TV? Shouldn’t they be suing for some sort of discrimination against people without huge album sales?

It doesn’t seem fair and it’s a missed opportunity.

What’s going on in the stands or VIP boxes could be much more interesting than the games. There must be somebody up there who doesn’t like how Taylor Swift is getting all the attention. There must be somebody up there yelling at their spouse about leaving lights on before the game. There must be somebody up there having an affair while hubby is busy getting tackled.

Why don’t we have The Real Housewives and Hangers-On of the NFL? It’s an obvious hit! I might even watch it on a week without too many rulings.

The game and the reality show could be separate programs or — on another channel — could be running simultaneously in real time on split-screen.

No more arguments over the remote control.

I want credit for this idea.

Artificial regulation. Humanity isn’t enough.

At least that was one of the themes of comments from lawyers reacting to a proposed rule promulgated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court released 88 pages of reactions to a rule that would require that a human vouch for the accuracy of briefs created with the help of artificial intelligence.

This is fascinating reading and I’m hoping someone out there will input it into a computer so we can get some artificial analysis. It’s only fair.

In case you’re wondering, the other commentary themes were, essentially, we don’t need another rule since we’re supposed to vouch for stuff anyway, and how do we even know when we’re using AI when we do research?

My favorite comment: “The proposed rule unfairly targets AI-generated research even though the problem of inaccurate citation long predates AI.”

Could there be an AI equal protection class action in our future? Hey, if corporations can be people … .

Now how many of those responses do you think were generated by AI?

Categories / Op-Ed