I watched Dancing with the Stars (DWTS) on Monday night only for the purpose of watching Chad Ochocinco dance. I’ve never watched a single second of that show in my life, and I ended up watching a whole hour out of the two-hour show while only mildly wanting to rip my eyes out (while folding laundry with my wife, which means I’m the coolest person ever, or the lamest person ever. I can’t figure out which (oh wait, I can: lame)).

Chad did his little dance with Cheryl Burke, and I was actually and legitimately impressed. Yet I think the judges totally gypped Chad and Cheryl with three scores of six, and then Shannon Doherty is pretty much awful and somehow gets the same score.  Whatever. 

I think Chad has three attributes that will help him to do well at DWTS: #1: He’s black (that sounds racist until you watch a white American male like Jake Pavelka dance). #2: He’s a professional athlete, #3: He’s very competitive. I have no problem with Chad doing this show, and I hope he wins.

HOWEVER, Chad is doing another show, which will air on VH1 sometime in July, called “The Tournament,” which will be another dating show with a “twist.” There will apparently be 10 one-hour shows of Chad choosing among respectable… [holding laughter] women (ha ha! [couldn't hold it in]). First off, he starts with 85 women, and then each week he picks the skank hos who would’ve given themselves up to him anyway, and he awards the winners with a “game ball.” Granted, this is hilarious, but is this really necessary?  I mean, just the show itself.  Why do we need another dumbass dating show?   As I’ve said before, we all know Chad is the biggest media whore since William Randolf Hearst (yes, it’s a little esoteric, but so is the word “esoteric.” Study more history and vocabulary.). But does he have to do DWTS AND “The Tournament.” I mean, when is he going to focus on football?

Of course, all of this will easily be forgotten if Chad comes to camp in top shape and the Bengals win another AFC North championship along with at least one playoff victory. Still, the DWTS can easily be forgiven; it’s an athletic competition anyway, and there is a low chance of him getting hurt. The Tournament, on the hand… Isn’t this just a televised version of your Friday and Saturday nights, Chad? The show isn’t quite an “athletic” competition, unless you really want to get all dirty about it.

As I said before, all of this will be forgotten if the Bengals win. If we start losing? Chad will be the number two scapegoat, behind the usual Mike Brown.

Speaking of which, Mike Brown might have shocked only the sherpas in the Himalayas when he objected to the new overtime rules. His reasoning is that under the current rules the overtime situation is more “dramatic.” True, it’s very dramatic, but how can the NFL justify allowing at least one half of the starting members of a football team — for both teams — not to possibly play at all when the game is on the line?

Granted, the new rules seem to be the wimpy way of making a true overhaul of overtime. I would’ve voted against it too, but then I would’ve lobbied for a new change in rules, not sticking to the “same old same old” like Mike Brown.

First off, when a rule applies for just the postseason, that means that all the regular season games — the games which teams played their guts out just to reach the playoffs — mean less. That’s just total bull crap.  Okay, maybe a regular season game means “less” than the postseason, but what if the last regular season game of the year goes into overtime and those teams don’t have the new rules?  And what if those two teams are fighting for a playoff spot, where whoever wins goes to the playoffs and the other one goes home?  Under the current rules, if one team scores after the coin flip, that team wins.  Touchdown, field goal, a safety dance, whatever. And the other team doesn’t even have a chance to have the other half of its starters on the field.

 That’s just stupid (not the “safety dance.”  That’s cool.). 

 Either have the rule for all games, or don’t do it at all. It’s the pansy way of doing it. I can’t really add my own two cents about the overtime rules, because Cincinnati Enquirer writer and Si.com contributor Paul Daugherty gives an excellent argument about how overtime rules should be revised. It’s pretty simple: Each team gets a possession in overtime, whoever has the most points at the end of the second possession wins. If it ends in a tie, it will end in a tie.

When I first read Daugherty’s article, I didn’t quite agree with his idea, but then I thought about it more and it makes perfect sense, and it can offer even more “dramatics” than Mr. Brown can handle. Think about it this way: If the first team scores a touchdown with an extra point, and the other team gets a chance to retaliate, then the other team has to score a touchdown and go for a two-point conversion. How is that not awesome? If the first team goes for a field goal, then the other team has to go for a touchdown. If not, game over (unless they just go for a field goal for a tie, which would just stupid and cowardly and make me want to punch them in the face). That just alleviates all the problems that the college system has, like the possibility of multiple overtimes, and the loss of special teams. This idea makes too much sense to me; I am very jealous that I didn’t come up with it first.

And one last thing that has nothing to do with what I have previously written, the Bengals will get additional third and fourth round draft selections because of the loss of certain players from last year. This is good. I’m looking forward to the draft. If you haven’t done so already, check out my blog about the draft… It’s all about sports. Trust me.