Saturday College Football Open Thread

I'm still mired in a slump, going 6-8 last week (though my 10 unit and 5 unit picks came through, giving me a nice profit for the week.) For the year, I am 55-60. Here are this week's picks:

Syracuse (+6.5) over Cinn, Purdue (+17) over the Illini, Pitt (-9.5) over Louisville, Mich St. (+6) over Iowa, Northwestern (-4) over Indiana, Tennessee (+18) over South Carolina, Auburn (-7) over Ole Miss, Nebraska (-6) over Missouri and Michigan (-3) over Penn State.

Best bets - Georgia (pick) over Florida, Oregon (-7) over USC. Oregon especially is a stone cold lock. Bet the mortgage money (kidding.)

Go Gators!

This is an Open Thread.

< Review: Denver's New Four Seasons Hotel | Immigration Judge Rules Against ICE, Prevents Deportation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh Nooooooo (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    BTD going with Vegas on Mizzou vs Nebraska game. Hopefully, this will be one of those he gets wrong this week. Go Tigers.

    Letdown game (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    on the road.

    Tough spot for Mizzou.


    Go Blue. And SF Giants (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    But whatever might a 5 unit and 10 unit be?

    That number (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    multiplied by your normal wager. (e.g. betting 5 units would be $500 rather than your normal $100 per contest)

    BTD is at his best on his multi-unit wagers. Skip all the rest and he has a tidy profit on the season.


    Signs from the Stewart/Colbert rally (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 12:35:11 PM EST

    Fear gives me a Boehner

    Use soy milk. It dilutes the tea.

    Agree 100%:

    When income dictates outcome, democracy dies

    Not government but big money in government is the problem.

    But proof imminent that Pope sh!ts in woods (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ellie on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    Apparently, Paps has issues with Stephen Hawking's take on universal origin.

    In fact, Benedict specifically praised - and blessed - science and scientists in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. [Me: What? They couldn't at least give Galileo a h/t here? C'mon, still too Soon?]

    But he also made clear that part of the role of science is to reveal God in the universe.

    "Scientists do not create the world; they learn about it and attempt to imitate it," he said.

    "The scientist's experience as a human being is therefore that of perceiving a constant, a law ... that he has not created but that he has instead observed," the pope said.

    That perception, in turn, "leads us to admit the existence of an all-powerful Reason, which is other than that of man, and which sustains the world," he said.

    Hawking says in his book, "The Grand Design," that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

    "Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the introduction.

    As an equal opportunity spook, I live for stuff like this, and deeply appreciate it coming down on the almost-best weekend of the year: All Souls (AKA All Hallow's E(v)en(ing) followed by All Saints, what with the candle-lighting and the roll-call of the departed.

    It's like Draft Pick day for Heaven.

    Meanwhile, back on the material plane, congrats BTD on the chaaa-CHINNNGGG!

    heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    good to see you're on the bandwagon. i'm nervous as hell.

    Oregon (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    has the much better team, the motivation, the home field, the chip on their shoulder.

    USC has Lane Kiffin.

    Oregon should be a 20 point favorite.


    heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    but this is IT for usc- no bcs, no bowl game. this is their season. and it's at usc...

    Oops (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    I thought it was Autzen.

    Stick with the pick though.


    yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    if it was at autzen, it would be a bet-the-mortgage. but at usc is why i'm nervous...

    Still love the ducks (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    in this spot.

    I'm with you, Turkana. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    The Ducks should win. I do believe they are the better team, but USC has nothing to lose and a lot to prove. So, I am optimistic, but concerned.

    The Beavers are winning so far. At the half they lead Cal 28-0. Of course, they do have two more quarters in which to lose this game.
    Go, Beavs!


    Ducks win!! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:47:21 PM EST
    Oregon defeats USC 53-32. Compute that BCS.

    Confused (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    Thought after last week Oregon was going to be ranked #1. See that ESPN has Auburn #1 and Oregon #2. What changed or was I just mistaken in my perception?

    BCS computers hate Oregon. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    Oregon tops the list in the human polls. The computers, however, seem to be programmed to hate the Ducks. I don't know why.

    Anyway, when the human and computer polls are somehow mushed together, Oregon lands at # 2.

    If Oregon wins today and Mich. State and Missouri both lose, the computer might just short-circuit and burn itself out rather than give the Ducks the top spot.


    In the BCS Poll (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 05:02:19 PM EST
    #1 and #2 are equals at the end of the regular season. They both are awarded the same prize. Makes no difference.

    one of the computers has oregon 8th (none / 0) (#29)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    with tcu 1st.

    McDonald's Tells Workers VOte GOP (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    Along with their recent paychecks, employees received a pamphlet from their employer on company letter head that stated "as the election season is here, we wanted you to know which candidates will help our business grow in the future." While pointing out that the vote is the employee's "personal decision," the pamphlet explicitly states, "if the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not"


    A certain independently owned franchise (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 11:51:04 AM EST
    of McDonald's in Ohio, that is, according to the linked item .. not "McDonald's" corporate, as implied by your comment, Squeaky.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    The Krocs should sue the guy for sullying McDonald's name.

    Haven't gone back to check, but (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    I thought I recalled that Mrs. Kroc flipped the company's politics from right to left after her husband, the founder, died.

    I Think You're Right (none / 0) (#61)
    by daring grace on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    I LOVE it when these liberal widows end up with the RW dearly departed estates:

    From wiki here are her bequests:

    Her will included significant bequests for a number of organizations.

        * $1.6 billion for the Salvation Army
        * $225 million for National Public Radio
        * $50 million for the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice
        * $50 million for the University of Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
        * $20 million for the San Diego Hospice & Palliative Care (doing business as "San Diego Hospice and The Institute for Palliative Medicine")
        * $10 million for the Zoological Society of San Diego, which runs the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Wild Animal Park
        * $5 million for San Diego's KPBS public radio and television stations


    Yes (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    I know....., but I love the name Kroc, and considering that McDucks is their legacy, they should sue....

    And McDucks should sue too...


    Not "Scrooge McDuck," surely ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    who first appeared, it seems, in 1947.  Not likely a legacy of McDonald's, which dates to 1940 as a local hamburger joint, but as a national corporate chain only to 1955.  Or were you referring to a different "McDuck"?

    lol (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    McDucks is my pet name for McDonalds...    

    DC Rally (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    Ok, the big song is " I can't change the world, but the least I can do is care", really?  

    So much for trying to change the world, that was so last century.  

    And I always do the least I can do (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    Yeah, not inspiring!

    I meant to have it on while I caught up on some work, but I forgot. It would have made my spreadsheet more entertaining anyway. I'm sure I can catch a replay when I repeat the process tomorrow.


    You missed the memo (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    Incremental changes (baby steps) is all we can do. This decade we will conduct a study to define caring, next decade we we write a manual on how to care, 3 decades from now we will distribute the memo etc.

    Quite funny...except (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    another point of view would say that "not doing 100% doesn't mean doing 0 or 10 or 20." "Incremental" can and does have a wide range. Middlin' doesn't sound full of bold and fire and all that, but (and I'll bet you've experienced this) it often gets things done. We need the goals; but, we need the steps to get there...thats the old strategic planner in me.

    Well haven't seen (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:36:07 PM EST
    "Middlin' working out real good in producing either good policy or good politics.  Doesn't look like  the majority of the country is real pleased with what you consider real accomplishments. I don't agree with you and I'm not exactly alone in my assessment. BTW, it has nothing to do with impatience. It has to do disliking the policy decisions that have been made and the legislation that has passed. Nothing productive in going in the wrong direction.

    One other thought (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:48:27 PM EST
    Why are the right and some of the progressives in agreement (apparently) about going in the wrong direction? Is the coalescence around the issues or around anti-Democratic sentiment? Seriously. Noone denies that many, many Americans are angry and/or disappointed. After we have the "cleansing" will we find agreement among apparent opposites then? And, if so, what steps will follow?  (A subtext to this obviously relates to any contention that somehow it must be wrong if a matter isn't popular in the moment. I'm sure that most people here recognize the limits of popularity contests.) As things come into clearer view--in terms of choices AFTER the election--it will be interesting, indeed.

    I'm not going into right and left (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 12:25:23 AM EST
    There is a general feeling among a whole lot of people in this country that the government is not working on behalf of the people. There was a wave in 2006 and 2008 against the Republican Party because their policies were not working for the majority of folks. In 2006 the Dems were given a small majority and told voters that the reason that they couldn't change the policies was because their majorities were not big enough and the Republicans were standing in the way. Well that worked and the people decided to give the Dems the a super majority in both houses. Well guess what, the policies really didn't change all that much. They were policies that favored the corporations and the rich at the expense of the needs of the people when the Republicans were in power and they are policies that favor corporations and the rich  corporate still. Basically, IMO people are in the same "throw the bums out mood" that they were in in 2006 and 2008. The only difference is that the  the ones being thrown out now are Democrats.

    I definitely don't think that lives will improve if the Republican regain the majority but then I don't think much will improve if the Dems keep it either. Bottom line the majority think that what is going on is working they just disagree on how to fix it.  


    Correction (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 07:58:13 AM EST
    Bottom line the majority think that what is going on is not working, they just disagree on how to fix it.  

    You state it well, MO Blue (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    Very well. The difference between you & me on the above statement: I believe that there will be more than marginal difference--in the positive gain column--if Democrats are in charge of the House. Again, incrementally.  But, as you note, it has every marking of a "throw the bums out" election (a practice periodically controlling about every 12 or so years...even without the economy.) And, as we both note, an almost obvious step will involve two groups--both dissatisfied--wanting to go in potentially opposite directions. Solomonesque solutions? Or, which side blames the other the most in about 6 or 7 months?

    They're doing what Obama told them (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 08:41:46 AM EST
    to do:  He railed against the insiders in Washington and said to vote them out.  

    Now that he's shown that he's an insider -- of course, he was, but he positioned himself otherwise then -- we'll see what that means for him in 2012.

    But you can see what it means already for other insiders in 2010.


    I agree CC (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    Except that Boehner will be the "insider" next time. Ping-pong. It is going to be a potential gridlock...unless they find something to agree on that each side markets differently. Kind of the Clinton 1995 model.

    2012 "Insider" Joke (none / 0) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    If a Boehner lasts more than 2 years, Bob Dole might as well be President! :-).

    But the wrong direction that (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    conservatives and some Democrats think we are going in is not the same direction; those on the right think we need to go more to the right, and those on the left think we need to go more to the left.

    I'm surprised you don't understand that, christine, and disappointed that you, like a few others here, are going out of your way to box the the left crowd into a corner with all the conservatives on the sole basis that both are unhappy with Obama.

    I am not critical of Obama with the goal of ending up with more conservative policies, anymore than someone on the right is critical of him because they want what they see as more liberal policies.  

    As for the incrementalism of which you are so fond, I think before you can declare that we are on our way to meeting our goals, you first have to identify whether your goals and Obama's goals were the same to begin with.  And, with health care, for example, I don't know how you can declare that they were when he wasn't willing to even discuss the best solution to the crisis - and made sure that those critical to the legislation were on board with shutting out the single-payer discussion, as well.  How do you solve problems when you don't consider all the solutions?

    And then look at where it went from there.  

    Let's say that I have a recipe for a particularly complicated and time-consuming and labor-intensive dish.  I know it's going to take time, but I know that the end result will be worth it.  But, let's say that for whatever reason, I can't actually make it myself - I have to leave it to a group of people I consider to have the same goal that I do.

    The first thing that happens is that the person now in charge of this operation declares that one of the main ingredients will not be included in the recipe - and we aren't even going to talk about why that is a problem.

    The next thing that happens is that a group of other people start picking at the ingredients list, taking a look at what the finished product is supposed to be, and start making noises like they have no intention of eating it.

    So the Cook-in-Chief makes a few more changes to woo these uncooperative people into changing their minds.  But instead of cooperation, he gets more criticism - and so more changes are made.

    Meanwbile, as we see this major tinkering with what was a good recipe, we try the same thing the other side did - we declare that we won't eat the finished product, either - and what happens?  Nothing.  We are ignored.  Us, the people who entrusted them with this great recipe - our input isn't considered worth listening to.

    The end result is barely edible - it smells terrible, for sure, and maybe if you are starving, you would be happy to have "something" to eat, but here's the thing - whether we like it or not, the cooks have decreed that we are all going to be forced to eat it.  Not all of it, not right away...the hungriest among us are only getting crumbs, and it's not clear how long that will continue.  

    Most of this abominable creation has been turned over to the same proprietor who has been making and selling really bad food for a long time, so it now appears that what was created was something these people wanted to sell, and not what we wanted to buy.

    According to you, we got something to eat, even if it's not what we wanted.  We're supposed to be happy and believe that this barely-edible abomination is just the first step toward a better dish, and that the Cook-in-Chief and all his sous-chefs are going to keep working to improve the dish.

    But you keep forgetting that we had a good recipe to begin with - they want you to forget that! - so what are we really to think about whether our goals and the Cook-in-Chief's were ever the same when he wasn't even willing to try the recipe that a lot of cooks agree is the best one out there?

    Finally, given that so many of the elements in this execrable dish came as a result of "suggestions" from a school of cooking that none of us has any intention of signing onto, there is no chance we believe they will have a better recipe, be able to put it together better, and create a good product.

    We're not buying what our own Cook has created, and we're not buying what the other side wants to create, either.  


    it's like making puff pastry (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    without the butter .  . . .

    The health care plan is (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 12:03:00 PM EST
    like making a grilled cheese sandwich and omitting the cheese. The affordable health care plan omits affordable health care.  

    I understand incremental transformation (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    is terribly frustrating to some of you who are burning with the desire to force the country make the Great Leap Forward

    Spoke with a friend of Ronnie Gilley's (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    last night, and I don't know exactly what the "vote buying" involved that they say that the Alabama casino owners actually supposedly attempted, but this person told me that for the most part it was taking members of the Alabama legislature across the street from where they work to a restaurant for dinner and talking.  It's a pricey place, around $80 a plate, but when you want to talk to members of Alabama legislature about issues you may have with existing law this is the generally accepted way you go about this and you foot the bill.  The person also told me that they themselves had done this, and now Ronnie Gilley is a crook for doing it?  All 11 defendants in the sting have pled not guilty.

    Something even dumber on the part (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    of governor Riley is that now Ronnie Gilley is considering moving Country Crossing five miles from the existing location, across the border into Florida.  Florida will benefit, and Alabama will lose the state taxes and the citizens of the Dothan area who want to gamble there will gladly drive five miles I'm certain.

    Not happening (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    Electronic Bingo is illegal in Florida other than on designated Indian land or at existing pari-mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties.

    Is there something native American owned (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    in that area? cuz it sounds like they are already getting it set up.

    and in my opinion the dumbest (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    part is that if people want to play electonic Bingo, just play on Fort Rucker.  You just need a friend with a military I.D. to do it, then you are their guest.....and gamblers love other gamblers :)  The M.P.s might have to see a picture I.D. from you, but after that head to The Landing hangout and play.  Governor Riley can't tell you what you can and can't do on an Alabama military post or base.  I don't know if Maxwell AFB in Montgomery has it too, but probably.

    MT (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    just a hunch, but if those casino facilities close down to prevent a raid by the State or the Feds (they aren't illegal if no one is playing them), wouldn't you think it's safe to say they are illegal?

    If they had legal machines they would welcome the inspections right?


    I haven't kept up with Country Crossing (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    difficulties and the raids.  So I'm not sure what is a legal or illegal machine :)  I don't gamble in a tradition sense.  I think I'm a nontraditional risk taker.  I thought the fight to keep any and all gambling out of Alabama was silly though, and a waste of money and time to fight.

    Illini win it. (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    Illinois, with a shocking win two weeks in a row, beat Purdue 44-10. Sorry about that, BTD.

    Iowa looks good at the half, leading the Spartans 30-0. Let's go, Hawkeyes. Win it for the Ducks.

    Missouri is losing, also at the half, 24-7 to the Cornhuskers. C'mon, Tigers. You can pull this out.

    Please note I said "shocking" win. (none / 0) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    As an Illinois native I harbor some residual childhood affection for the Illini, and my Mom is a big fan. So, I guess it's take victory whenever it comes because with Illinois it won't be that often.

    Last week it was Indiana; this week Purdue. Is there any team left in their schedule that is bad enough the Illini stand a chance?


    LOL (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    My son is at U of I, so I am a newly forced Illini fan. Will be the Illinois-Minnesota game in a few weeks when we go visit, so I hope they keep up their totally shocking streak!

    Minnesota at home for sure. (none / 0) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    The Michigan and Northwestern games should be exciting and even though they're on the road, they could pull out either of those games.  

    The Illni are for real this season, which is great 'cause it really gets BTD's goat that the Fighting Zookers are winning.  


    Any seat of higher learning (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 07:32:12 PM EST
    in this fitful, adolescent nation which once graced our autumnal, sunlit, Elysian Fields with a legendary player nicknamed "The Galloping Ghost" has already commandeered for all time, a small but not wholly insignificant place within the silken folds of this scarlet-blooded American's heart; one which no pinko-leftists with all the "high tech" implements of rash, ill-considered communique can ever threaten to permanently dislodge or usurp.              

    Condolences to the Hickenlooper family. (none / 0) (#37)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 08:54:03 PM EST
    George Hickenlooper, a filmmaker and cousin of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, was found dead in Denver this morning. He was 47.

    Hickenlooper was in Denver to prepare for the upcoming premiere of his latest film, "Casino Jack," at the Starz Denver Film Festival.


    It is hard not to notice (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 11:55:43 AM EST
    that Germany drags its feet when it comes to creating moral hazard and they currently only have an unemployment rate of 6.8% and their unempolyment rate has actually decreased in the past 15 months.  Just things I can't help noticing as the TBTF and our leadership stands us up against the wall and threatens to shoot the dog.

    Another Sunday stuck watching (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    a mediocre at best '9er game so I can follow the Jets game sort of {sigh}

    Alaskans in Spelling Bee (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    Joe Miller (Miller as in "Miller Lite")
    Scott Adams (Adams as in "Sam Adams")
    Murcowski? Murkasky? Murkiski? Murkawasaki? I really need the write in list....