JW,
I'll admit to getting caught up in Brett Favre's ridiculous game-winner last week in Minnesota, a play so perfectly executed they should send the ball directly to Canton. Sure, I've bitched about Favre from time to time (to time), but I can't deny his (occasional, fleeting) greatness. He actively won that football game, and in the Age of the Rinky-Dink Pass, not many quarterbacks can say that.
Still, some problems remain, namely the continuing glorification of Favre to the detriment of everyone else on the field. Listen to that call again. Not "great catch" but "Favre did it." Forget Greg Lewis's epic positioning, timing, and footwork, we're breathlessly told. This was Favre's accomplishment, and it's his story.
Meanwhile, despite Favre's insistence that revenge won't be a factor when his Vikes meet the Packers on Monday night, you can bet that it will be the chief factor for everyone covering the game, as well as most of the people watching it. Favre's presence in the wake of last Sunday's heroics has so eclipsed the teams themselves that we're forgetting two very important facts: 1) The Vikings appear to be a very good team, and 2) The Packers might not be. As of today, the Vikings are minus-3.5. Give the points.
In other news . . .
Tampa Bay at Washington promises to be one of those games that remind you why too much television is a bad thing. Why not go outside and throw the ball around with your kids? I guarantee you'll have more yards of total offense than the Bucs and Skins.
Tennessee at Jacksonville boasts the highest stakes of any game this week. After all, Tennessee has everything going for them except wins, and of all of the 0-3 teams in recent memory, they seem most likely to rebound. Lose this week in Florida, though, and even I'll be calling for Vince Young, if only to improve the Titans' draft positioning.
New York Jets at New Orleans should salvage an afternoon slate whose second best match-up is NBC's encore presentation of Meet the Press. Unless it's crossed into three figures, take the over.
Baltimore at New England has my full attention, if only because I'm so certain the Patriots will lose. Don't forget, this is a revenge game, too. The Ravens were this close to ruining the Pats' perfect season in '07. (Click here and fastfoward to 4:55 for some Rex Ryan idiocy that's almost too good to be true.) This is their first meeting since.
-GM
GM,
When it comes to picks, I'm not going to share mine with our readers this week. Anyone who's followed my lead knows I've made some poor predictions in weeks past (e.g. Miami over Virginia Tech). Strangely enough, my walk hasn't mirrored my talk, and I've actually had an outstanding season gambling so far. But as my second-favorite band's No. 2 singer once wrote...
"I ain't gonna crawl upon no high horse 'cause I got thrown off of one when I was young, and I ain't no Cowboy, so I ain't goin' where I don't belong." -Mike Cooley, Drive-By Truckers
So let's just talk some amateur football. For those who consider the regular season a playoff, this week has some marquee games that actually help prove that flawed point. In fact, I'll be at the best of them, so let's start with that one.
LSU at UGA: Initials are fine, right? The Dawgs are actually giving 3 1/2, meaning Vegas has absolutely no respect for LSU, the No. 4 team in the nation. The problem, in my opinion, is that Georgia has little reason to be respected either. Based on previous performance this season, both teams would get rolled by the Tide or chomped by the Gators. But yes, I expect Georgia to take care of business at home, mainly because LSU forgot how to run the football, and UGA is figuring out how to stop the homeruns--the only reason the Tigers edged Mississippi State last week.
Oklahoma at Miami: Landry Jones, a redshirt freshman, is starting again for the Sooners because Sam Bradford still isn't ready. Did the Hurricanes get trounced last week at Va. Tech because they're not who I thought they were, or because the Hokies proved that their game against Alabama to open the season was actually a battle of two top-three teams? It's the latter, folks. If you look at who has proven what, it's Alabama first, then VT, then Florida, but of course, Florida is yet to be tested. The Big 12 is overrated; the ACC is underrated; Miami will win, or my name isn't, ehhh, JW.
USC at Cal: It's a shame that both teams will still be respected after this game. The Trojans don't have the horses this year to run all over anybody, so it will be another one- or two-score victory, which will force Cal out of the AP rankings, drop the school to 25th in the coaches' poll, and have half the media talking about how USC still deserves to play for the national championship if it wins out, regardless of who's still undefeated. This is the country we live in. No, no... as another great artist once said...
"This is our country." -You know who.
-JW
Friday, October 2, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
A Gun Piece: Bet you never saw it comin'
GM,
Remember when those crazy locals in Washington, D.C. tried to ban handguns, only to see the Supreme Court rule the ban unconstitutional and essentially yell "Play on!" to the D.C. citizens who like to murder each other at six times the national rate? Well, guess who's gonna be hearing another big-city gun case. That's right! Your favorite panel of nine will get to decide what the entire city of Chicago isn't allowed to decide on its own. This Wall Street Journal piece, released late this morning, shows that the Supreme Court will be reviewing, among other things, a Chicago handgun ban. The chief judge for the then-presiding Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook (a Ronald Reagan appointee), defended his court's decision to uphold the ban when he wrote, "Federalism is an older and more deeply routed tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon." In other words, he's a states' rights guy; he even added that "local differences are to be cherished." And if this weren't about gun ownership, a guaranteed American right that conservatives typically love, you and I would completely agree with that last quotation. Of course, the SC has pretty much decided in recent history that Courts of Appeals shouldn't be the final authority on Second-Amendment cases. Sonya Sotomayor agrees, and we groan on principle.
Gun control is pretty far down on the list for me. The criminals will find a way to kill me with or without bans--perhaps even with or without guns (!)--so it's my job to avoid places where violent crime is widespread. As conservatives, we love our local rights and despise unnecessary federal intervention, but what about when a town wants to ban handguns? Do we want the SC setting them straight? GM, as someone who would get my vote for any political election, please set me straight on where we should stand.
-JW
-GM
Remember when those crazy locals in Washington, D.C. tried to ban handguns, only to see the Supreme Court rule the ban unconstitutional and essentially yell "Play on!" to the D.C. citizens who like to murder each other at six times the national rate? Well, guess who's gonna be hearing another big-city gun case. That's right! Your favorite panel of nine will get to decide what the entire city of Chicago isn't allowed to decide on its own. This Wall Street Journal piece, released late this morning, shows that the Supreme Court will be reviewing, among other things, a Chicago handgun ban. The chief judge for the then-presiding Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook (a Ronald Reagan appointee), defended his court's decision to uphold the ban when he wrote, "Federalism is an older and more deeply routed tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon." In other words, he's a states' rights guy; he even added that "local differences are to be cherished." And if this weren't about gun ownership, a guaranteed American right that conservatives typically love, you and I would completely agree with that last quotation. Of course, the SC has pretty much decided in recent history that Courts of Appeals shouldn't be the final authority on Second-Amendment cases. Sonya Sotomayor agrees, and we groan on principle.
Gun control is pretty far down on the list for me. The criminals will find a way to kill me with or without bans--perhaps even with or without guns (!)--so it's my job to avoid places where violent crime is widespread. As conservatives, we love our local rights and despise unnecessary federal intervention, but what about when a town wants to ban handguns? Do we want the SC setting them straight? GM, as someone who would get my vote for any political election, please set me straight on where we should stand.
-JW
JW,
I'm always annoyed when principles get in the way of what I'd really like to believe. In this case, I'd love it if all guns could be wiped from the face of the earth at my mere command, but I'm mindful that deeper issues are at stake. Having never discharged, touched, or been in the same room with a loaded weapon, I'd be fine with sacrificing your right to hunt on the altar of my right not to be fired upon, but I understand that the matter is more complex than that. We're dealing with self-protection here, and we're dealing with regional identity. Both are significant, and neither should be lightly disturbed.
The problem, I think, occurs when those in love with theory (liberals) attempt to converse with those who favor practice (conservatives). Though banning handguns and other firearms is a theoretical nicety, and one I like on paper, even an incidental examination of the "war" on drugs suggests that commercial realities fail to heed the dictates of politicians. If enough people want something, someone will find a way to sell it to them, and the idea that taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a possibility is either wishful thinking or willful blindness.
Furthermore, while this is a situation where I'd normally apply the principles of Originalism, an attempt to parse the absurdly-structured 2nd Amendment is an exercise in grammatical and syntactical futility. I spend half my professional life dealing with pesky commas, but I'm ready to assert that numbers one and three in the sentence that follows are among the worst ever written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seriously, guys. What the f--k?
If it's safe to assume, as many have, that the commas following "militia" and "arms" are grammatical archaisms, we're still left with the worst of Originalist dilemmas. The main thrust of the amendment (the prohibition against infringment) is syntactically beholden to a historical rather than a contemporary reality. Guns, the framers seem to be saying, have a purpose in the life of a free state. What happens, though, when society moves past the framers' understanding of that purpose?
I'll argue, if I'm forced to choose a side, that the central position of the amendment should be obeyed whether or not the first thirteen words still work for us. There's a reason, after all, why dependent clauses are said to be subordinate.
In any case, it's obvious why the Court agreed to hear this newest case. They didn't go far enough in Heller, and they want to expand it westward. First the District, now the states and cities. Lock and load, boys. Fire at will.
I'm always annoyed when principles get in the way of what I'd really like to believe. In this case, I'd love it if all guns could be wiped from the face of the earth at my mere command, but I'm mindful that deeper issues are at stake. Having never discharged, touched, or been in the same room with a loaded weapon, I'd be fine with sacrificing your right to hunt on the altar of my right not to be fired upon, but I understand that the matter is more complex than that. We're dealing with self-protection here, and we're dealing with regional identity. Both are significant, and neither should be lightly disturbed.
The problem, I think, occurs when those in love with theory (liberals) attempt to converse with those who favor practice (conservatives). Though banning handguns and other firearms is a theoretical nicety, and one I like on paper, even an incidental examination of the "war" on drugs suggests that commercial realities fail to heed the dictates of politicians. If enough people want something, someone will find a way to sell it to them, and the idea that taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a possibility is either wishful thinking or willful blindness.
Furthermore, while this is a situation where I'd normally apply the principles of Originalism, an attempt to parse the absurdly-structured 2nd Amendment is an exercise in grammatical and syntactical futility. I spend half my professional life dealing with pesky commas, but I'm ready to assert that numbers one and three in the sentence that follows are among the worst ever written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seriously, guys. What the f--k?
If it's safe to assume, as many have, that the commas following "militia" and "arms" are grammatical archaisms, we're still left with the worst of Originalist dilemmas. The main thrust of the amendment (the prohibition against infringment) is syntactically beholden to a historical rather than a contemporary reality. Guns, the framers seem to be saying, have a purpose in the life of a free state. What happens, though, when society moves past the framers' understanding of that purpose?
I'll argue, if I'm forced to choose a side, that the central position of the amendment should be obeyed whether or not the first thirteen words still work for us. There's a reason, after all, why dependent clauses are said to be subordinate.
In any case, it's obvious why the Court agreed to hear this newest case. They didn't go far enough in Heller, and they want to expand it westward. First the District, now the states and cities. Lock and load, boys. Fire at will.
-GM
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Two Rants, Loosely Connected
JW,
I've been waiting to complain about this story for quite a while. As its headline suggests, the article predicts an upcoming war over whether or not to extend the federal income tax credit for first-time home buyers. Given the fact that Cash For Cars You're Sick Of . . . er, Cash For Clunkers . . . practically had to be killed with a silver stake through its heart, I'm predicting that the home buyers' credit doesn't go quietly. As anyone familiar with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare can attest, it's almost impossible to stop giving people money once you've signed that first check. The word "entitlement," it seems, was chosen for a reason.
As was the bill in question, whose shades of optimism and egalitarianism ("Let's all own a home!") are meant to disguise its essential foolishness. A power grab and a misguided attempt at economic intervention (see "Socialism"), the tax credit is yet another example of the government favoring one group (those too young or poor to have bought a home before 2009) over another (everyone else). The fact that the arena in question (housing) is one in which artificial intervention already screwed us once only deepens the harm. Some lessons just refuse to be learned.
I've been waiting to complain about this story for quite a while. As its headline suggests, the article predicts an upcoming war over whether or not to extend the federal income tax credit for first-time home buyers. Given the fact that Cash For Cars You're Sick Of . . . er, Cash For Clunkers . . . practically had to be killed with a silver stake through its heart, I'm predicting that the home buyers' credit doesn't go quietly. As anyone familiar with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare can attest, it's almost impossible to stop giving people money once you've signed that first check. The word "entitlement," it seems, was chosen for a reason.
As was the bill in question, whose shades of optimism and egalitarianism ("Let's all own a home!") are meant to disguise its essential foolishness. A power grab and a misguided attempt at economic intervention (see "Socialism"), the tax credit is yet another example of the government favoring one group (those too young or poor to have bought a home before 2009) over another (everyone else). The fact that the arena in question (housing) is one in which artificial intervention already screwed us once only deepens the harm. Some lessons just refuse to be learned.
The problem, as usual, is that most people are either too simple-minded or too greedy to look beneath the surface of what appears at first glance to be a pain-free gift. Buy a house and get eight grand. Not a tax break but a credit--a check for $8,000 even if you didn't pay anywhere near that much in taxes (and many, many people don't). $8,000 is a tactile thing; its impact is immediately felt. Spending money that doesn't exist, though, is deceptive. There's no immediate consequence, and nothing but logic and a study of history reveals that the end of the road must be higher taxes, decreased benefits in other arenas, or national bankruptcy. Obama knows this, of course, as do members of Congress. But tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections--they can only be ruined by them. Perhaps more than anything else, Conservatism is about understanding that fact.
-GM
GM,
Your entry describes perfectly why we need conservatism to have the loudest possible voice in our government. "Tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections," nor can today's Americans vote outside of their own personal box (i.e. on principle), nor can today's Americans understand that scarcity is an actual, certain phenomenon that cannot be overcome no matter how "paperized" the monetary trail becomes. If individual citizens are to will themselves to believe that debt, whether personal or federal, can never hurt you, we need our decision makers to steer the ship using their knowledge to the contrary. This is why a dictatorship would theoretically be the most superior form of government if the dictator also happened to be the smartest, wisest, fairest, most moral person in the country. Popularity, usually gained by appealing to a sea of ignoramuses, wouldn't drive policy.
Meanwhile, the government of college football runs freely without having to worry about the opinions of its followers. Most people want a playoff, but the college football presidents insist on relying on computers and the opinions of buffoons, morons, and the archaic. Take a look at the latest coaches' poll. California, despite losing 42-3 to Oregon and having the same record, is ranked six spots ahead of Oregon! Penn State lost at home to a still-undefeated Iowa and remains four spots ahead of the Hawkeyes. In what world does that make sense?! The only reason Penn State and Cal remain ahead of teams with objectively better credentials is that these coaches value their own preseason rankings ahead of what has actually happened!!! And this s--t dictates post-season fates!
Meanwhile, the government of college football runs freely without having to worry about the opinions of its followers. Most people want a playoff, but the college football presidents insist on relying on computers and the opinions of buffoons, morons, and the archaic. Take a look at the latest coaches' poll. California, despite losing 42-3 to Oregon and having the same record, is ranked six spots ahead of Oregon! Penn State lost at home to a still-undefeated Iowa and remains four spots ahead of the Hawkeyes. In what world does that make sense?! The only reason Penn State and Cal remain ahead of teams with objectively better credentials is that these coaches value their own preseason rankings ahead of what has actually happened!!! And this s--t dictates post-season fates!
-JW
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday Football Roundup: Chaos and Regret
JW,
When the 2010 NFL season rolls around, remind me not to make any picks or predictions until at least week four. Though I followed what are usually reliable instincts, last Monday's collection of idiotic pronouncements was so bad I feel like President Obama when his teleprompter goes out--floundering, stuttering, and so message-less it's a miracle I'm allowed to keep my current job, much less get a "better" one. Though ranking the Rams below the utterly hapless Tampa Bay Bucs was a grave error indeed, it's nothing compared to my worst mistake: pronouncing the Cincinnati Bengals' season over. After watching the Bengals outplay the Pittsburgh Steelers yesterday, I'm ready to declare the obvious. Ochocinco was right, and I was wrong. And if you don't think it hurt to type that admission, well . . . child, please!
Here's the thing: Take away Brandon Stokley's crime of the century and you're left with a 3-0 Bengals team that's opened the season by impressing the hell out of everyone on Hard Knocks, beating a popular Super Bowl pick on the road, and knocking off last year's champion at home. In addition to trotting out noteworthy skill players (plural) for the first time in ages, the Bengals just seem tough, committed to something. I can't believe I'm saying this, but after seeing them claw back into contention yesterday after giving up 13 to start the game, I found myself expecting them to pull it out. Given the Pittsburgh-Will-Never-Lose-Or-Win-By-More-Than-Three principle, I even guessed the final score!
Despite the fact that the Bengals are 2-1 rather than undefeated, I love them as a dark horse wildcard team. Yeah, they've got the same record on paper as the odious Packers and Bears, but wouldn't you take them over either of those teams? In a heartbeat? Maybe I'm making too much of three games, but this looks like a team that's breaking some hearts come December.
What did you see this weekend?
-GM
GM,
You're not thinking clearly, although you did tell me before the end of the Titans/Steelers game in Week 1 that Pittsburgh won't win or lose a game by more than three points--an astonishingly wise, barely hyperbolic prediction. Sure, Cincinnati has been much more impressive than we've expected, but there are only two wildcard spots per conference these days, and the Bengals aren't getting one. Do you honestly think Cinci will finish with a better record than the Jets/Patriots, the Chargers/Broncos, and the Steelers?! (My prediction that Baltimore would cruise is so coming true, so forget about a division title for the Bengals.) Sure, Denver might lose its next five games (Dallas, New England, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh), but you know the AFC East is taking a wildcard spot, and if you trust Cincinnati to take advantage of an easy schedule, you're much less jaded than I am.
As for the college game, I still feel good about my analysis from a week ago. Miami lost, sure, but it had the toughest game of all the ranked teams last week. Meanwhile, Boise State rolled (and covered) again, and Alabama made a huge statement against Arkansas. I proclaimed Ole Miss, North Carolina, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan to be losers. Two of them lost, and the others beat Southern Miss, Nevada, and Indiana by a combined 20 points. Of my question marks, Penn State, Cal, and LSU proved to be in the loser category. You don't go into Starkville and come four inches from losing to Mississippi State without taking a free fall in the mental standings of college football intellectuals. The Tigers play at Georgia this week and host Florida the next. It'll take a hell of a lot of opponent swine flu for LSU to get through those unscathed.
I'll close with a prediction and a question. An undefeated Boise State team could actually play for the national championship ahead of a one-loss BCS-conference team, mainly because the program has earned so much respect this decade. But can an undefeated Houston team play for the championship under any circumstances?! Sure, with defense like this (0:25 is particularly bad), the Cougars will get blown out if they do, but it's chaos and regret that I pull for every year in this willfully inferior college football system. And if Boise State beats Houston 62-10 in the Rose Bowl on January 7, we'll get both.
-JW
When the 2010 NFL season rolls around, remind me not to make any picks or predictions until at least week four. Though I followed what are usually reliable instincts, last Monday's collection of idiotic pronouncements was so bad I feel like President Obama when his teleprompter goes out--floundering, stuttering, and so message-less it's a miracle I'm allowed to keep my current job, much less get a "better" one. Though ranking the Rams below the utterly hapless Tampa Bay Bucs was a grave error indeed, it's nothing compared to my worst mistake: pronouncing the Cincinnati Bengals' season over. After watching the Bengals outplay the Pittsburgh Steelers yesterday, I'm ready to declare the obvious. Ochocinco was right, and I was wrong. And if you don't think it hurt to type that admission, well . . . child, please!
Here's the thing: Take away Brandon Stokley's crime of the century and you're left with a 3-0 Bengals team that's opened the season by impressing the hell out of everyone on Hard Knocks, beating a popular Super Bowl pick on the road, and knocking off last year's champion at home. In addition to trotting out noteworthy skill players (plural) for the first time in ages, the Bengals just seem tough, committed to something. I can't believe I'm saying this, but after seeing them claw back into contention yesterday after giving up 13 to start the game, I found myself expecting them to pull it out. Given the Pittsburgh-Will-Never-Lose-Or-Win-By-More-Than-Three principle, I even guessed the final score!
Despite the fact that the Bengals are 2-1 rather than undefeated, I love them as a dark horse wildcard team. Yeah, they've got the same record on paper as the odious Packers and Bears, but wouldn't you take them over either of those teams? In a heartbeat? Maybe I'm making too much of three games, but this looks like a team that's breaking some hearts come December.
What did you see this weekend?
-GM
GM,
You're not thinking clearly, although you did tell me before the end of the Titans/Steelers game in Week 1 that Pittsburgh won't win or lose a game by more than three points--an astonishingly wise, barely hyperbolic prediction. Sure, Cincinnati has been much more impressive than we've expected, but there are only two wildcard spots per conference these days, and the Bengals aren't getting one. Do you honestly think Cinci will finish with a better record than the Jets/Patriots, the Chargers/Broncos, and the Steelers?! (My prediction that Baltimore would cruise is so coming true, so forget about a division title for the Bengals.) Sure, Denver might lose its next five games (Dallas, New England, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh), but you know the AFC East is taking a wildcard spot, and if you trust Cincinnati to take advantage of an easy schedule, you're much less jaded than I am.
As for the college game, I still feel good about my analysis from a week ago. Miami lost, sure, but it had the toughest game of all the ranked teams last week. Meanwhile, Boise State rolled (and covered) again, and Alabama made a huge statement against Arkansas. I proclaimed Ole Miss, North Carolina, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan to be losers. Two of them lost, and the others beat Southern Miss, Nevada, and Indiana by a combined 20 points. Of my question marks, Penn State, Cal, and LSU proved to be in the loser category. You don't go into Starkville and come four inches from losing to Mississippi State without taking a free fall in the mental standings of college football intellectuals. The Tigers play at Georgia this week and host Florida the next. It'll take a hell of a lot of opponent swine flu for LSU to get through those unscathed.
I'll close with a prediction and a question. An undefeated Boise State team could actually play for the national championship ahead of a one-loss BCS-conference team, mainly because the program has earned so much respect this decade. But can an undefeated Houston team play for the championship under any circumstances?! Sure, with defense like this (0:25 is particularly bad), the Cougars will get blown out if they do, but it's chaos and regret that I pull for every year in this willfully inferior college football system. And if Boise State beats Houston 62-10 in the Rose Bowl on January 7, we'll get both.
-JW
Friday, September 25, 2009
Tips and Picks: The Week 3 Edition
GM,
I hope you've saved all your yardwork for this Saturday. The NCAA is throwing us a collection of stinkers so miserable that I'm considering alternative programming. Really, these games are rotten to the core. Last night, we saw South Carolina upset Ole Miss, which I had predicted but didn't even profit from because Vegas also smelled a rat and didn't offer decent odds. How often does a No. 4 team visit an unranked team and only give 4.5 points?! I've now gone from ripping Jevan Snead to feeling sorry for him. At this rate, he won't get drafted.
Only one of this week's games--Miami at Virginia Tech--pairs two top-25 teams. This makes gambling difficult, perhaps even less fun, but what's a boy to do?
No. 9 Miami (-3) at No. 11 Virginia Tech:
Again, the oddsmakers tend to agree with me about Miami's ability. How could the home team not be favored in this one?! On the other hand, the Hurricanes have been playing great football, and Jacory Harris made me a believer in that convincing win over Georgia Tech. I loved this Miami team on Monday, so I have to love them today. Take the 'Canes to cover.
Texas Tech (+1) at No. 17 Houston; Over-under is 73.5:
Easily billed (by me) as the second-most entertaining game this week, this is Houston's chance to prove it's for real. With an almost-even line, an over-under of 73.5, a potential BCS buster on the field, and a 9:15 kickoff, you must find some action on this one. With the late start in mind, plan to turn to your drunkest buddy and tell him you want the over at 60. It might work. You can't tell anything from watching highlights of these two teams. The defenses look terrible, and the offense looks unchallenged. If you're not brave enough to take the over, go with the Red Raiders. Houston only has two more challenges on its way to what I now hope will be a national title game against Boise State. The other is Mississippi State. I say the exposure comes now.
Notre Dame (-7) at Purdue:
Take Purdue to win outright. I give it a 40-percent chance, and you'll get 2.25 times your investment if it does. Now that's value!
Arizona State (+11.5) at No. 21 Georgia; Over-under is 50.5:
I'll be at this one, and I have no idea why they put the over-under so low. UGA is averaging 34 a game and allowing the same number ("amount" for the less educated). Like all Pac 10 teams in recent memory, the Sun Devils can put up some points and allow some. With student bodies that consistently rank in the top 10 for girls and partying, neither school has time for wrapping up, getting off blocks, or batting down passes. Take the over, and take it with as much "confidence" as your wallet will allow.
-JW
JW,
If you had asked me during the fourth quarter of last night's Ole Miss-South Carolina game whether or not the Rebels would shed their 13-point deficit for a last-minute win, my answer would have been an enthusiastic yes. As in, mortgage-the-house yes. Visit-the-pawnshop yes. Dexter McCluster couldn't be stopped, Jevan Snead had taken his rightful place in the Jonathan Crompton School of Sucking Too Badly to Risk a Pass, and Stephen Garcia looked about as competent as a freshman walk-on. At a junior college. With no football team. Clearly, Sports Illustrated knew what they were doing when they released this beauty. It takes a truly special team to blow a game that winnable.
Which is not to say, mind you, that Ole Miss didn't deserve the loss. It's just that I can't remember the last time a team rose so high on so little. Fans used to college football's incestuous seasoning of regular season rankings with preseason expectations have seen scores of lesser examples (Georgia in 2008; USC in every year since its founding), but something about the Rebels' 2009 hype was particularly ridiculous. This was the 4th best team in the country? Given Snead's numbers and bizarre interaction with Houston Nutt during drives (repeatedly yelling at his coaches to "speed things up," according to reports), last night's Rebs would have been hard pressed to be the 40th best. The fact that I expected them to pull out the win anyway is proof only that South Carolina isn't quite ready to win those games. Not that Ole Miss is.
As we look ahead to this weekend's NFL action, then, I suggest we keep in mind whatever lessons we can draw from the Rebels' misfortune, and the most important among them is this. An overhyped team that's beaten nobody is always susceptible to an underdog that's moving in the right direction. And yes, Minnesota, I'm talking to you. Bank on it.
-GM
I hope you've saved all your yardwork for this Saturday. The NCAA is throwing us a collection of stinkers so miserable that I'm considering alternative programming. Really, these games are rotten to the core. Last night, we saw South Carolina upset Ole Miss, which I had predicted but didn't even profit from because Vegas also smelled a rat and didn't offer decent odds. How often does a No. 4 team visit an unranked team and only give 4.5 points?! I've now gone from ripping Jevan Snead to feeling sorry for him. At this rate, he won't get drafted.
Only one of this week's games--Miami at Virginia Tech--pairs two top-25 teams. This makes gambling difficult, perhaps even less fun, but what's a boy to do?
No. 9 Miami (-3) at No. 11 Virginia Tech:
Again, the oddsmakers tend to agree with me about Miami's ability. How could the home team not be favored in this one?! On the other hand, the Hurricanes have been playing great football, and Jacory Harris made me a believer in that convincing win over Georgia Tech. I loved this Miami team on Monday, so I have to love them today. Take the 'Canes to cover.
Texas Tech (+1) at No. 17 Houston; Over-under is 73.5:
Easily billed (by me) as the second-most entertaining game this week, this is Houston's chance to prove it's for real. With an almost-even line, an over-under of 73.5, a potential BCS buster on the field, and a 9:15 kickoff, you must find some action on this one. With the late start in mind, plan to turn to your drunkest buddy and tell him you want the over at 60. It might work. You can't tell anything from watching highlights of these two teams. The defenses look terrible, and the offense looks unchallenged. If you're not brave enough to take the over, go with the Red Raiders. Houston only has two more challenges on its way to what I now hope will be a national title game against Boise State. The other is Mississippi State. I say the exposure comes now.
Notre Dame (-7) at Purdue:
Take Purdue to win outright. I give it a 40-percent chance, and you'll get 2.25 times your investment if it does. Now that's value!
Arizona State (+11.5) at No. 21 Georgia; Over-under is 50.5:
I'll be at this one, and I have no idea why they put the over-under so low. UGA is averaging 34 a game and allowing the same number ("amount" for the less educated). Like all Pac 10 teams in recent memory, the Sun Devils can put up some points and allow some. With student bodies that consistently rank in the top 10 for girls and partying, neither school has time for wrapping up, getting off blocks, or batting down passes. Take the over, and take it with as much "confidence" as your wallet will allow.
-JW
JW,
If you had asked me during the fourth quarter of last night's Ole Miss-South Carolina game whether or not the Rebels would shed their 13-point deficit for a last-minute win, my answer would have been an enthusiastic yes. As in, mortgage-the-house yes. Visit-the-pawnshop yes. Dexter McCluster couldn't be stopped, Jevan Snead had taken his rightful place in the Jonathan Crompton School of Sucking Too Badly to Risk a Pass, and Stephen Garcia looked about as competent as a freshman walk-on. At a junior college. With no football team. Clearly, Sports Illustrated knew what they were doing when they released this beauty. It takes a truly special team to blow a game that winnable.
Which is not to say, mind you, that Ole Miss didn't deserve the loss. It's just that I can't remember the last time a team rose so high on so little. Fans used to college football's incestuous seasoning of regular season rankings with preseason expectations have seen scores of lesser examples (Georgia in 2008; USC in every year since its founding), but something about the Rebels' 2009 hype was particularly ridiculous. This was the 4th best team in the country? Given Snead's numbers and bizarre interaction with Houston Nutt during drives (repeatedly yelling at his coaches to "speed things up," according to reports), last night's Rebs would have been hard pressed to be the 40th best. The fact that I expected them to pull out the win anyway is proof only that South Carolina isn't quite ready to win those games. Not that Ole Miss is.
As we look ahead to this weekend's NFL action, then, I suggest we keep in mind whatever lessons we can draw from the Rebels' misfortune, and the most important among them is this. An overhyped team that's beaten nobody is always susceptible to an underdog that's moving in the right direction. And yes, Minnesota, I'm talking to you. Bank on it.
-GM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
