Saturday College Football Open Thread

The picks ( all 2 units unless otherwise indicated):

Oregon -20 over Stanford (3 units), Iowa State -5 over Kansas, Vanderbilt -3 over Tennessee, Mississippi +18 over LSU, Oklahoma -11 over West Virginia, San Jose State +3 1/2 over BYU, Missouri -5 over Syracuse, Kansas State -13 over Baylor (4 units), UCLA +4 over USC (5 units), Army -3 over Temple, Mississippi State -6 over Arkansas, Oklahoma State -10 over Texas Tech, South Florida +7 over Miami (Florida), Clemson -17 over North Carolina State, Boise State -28 over Colorado State, Northwestern +7 over Michigan State, Maryland +31 over Florida State, Cincinnati -6 over Rutgers, Washington -21 over Colorado, Wisconsin -2 over Ohio State, Georgia Tech -14 over Duke, Tulsa -1 over Central Florida, Iowa +18 over Michigan, Notre Dame -24 over Wake Forest.

Open Thread.

< Friday Night Open Thread: Goodbye Twinkies | Israel and Hamas: Bombings Intensify >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And Paula Broadwell education credentials (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    Go down the toilet

    Paula Broadwell, the biographer with whom former CIA ­director David Petraeus had an extramarital affair, abandoned her bid for a doctorate from Harvard in 2007, failing to advance to PhD candidacy after four semesters at the Kennedy School of Government, and now faces the prospect of an ethical review at King's College London, where she has resumed pursuit of a doctorate.

    West Point is also denying her claim that she won an award for being the most physically fit cadet in her class...sigh

    Glass houses, stones, and all that...sheesh

    Why didn't anyone catch onto the (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    her overblown credentials claims earlier? Like when she was out hawking the Petraeus biography? According to your post, MT, it's been five years since her Harvard failure.

    She has hardly been a shrinking flower these last five years. Why did no one look into her claims?


    My guess (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    It isn't nice to "investigate" soldiers right now.  Her classmates knew though, man...coming out of ALL the different schools soldiers remember forever who was the honor grad, who got special honors.  They compete so hard against each other it is forever etched in their brains.  My husband can rattle that stuff off coming out of a dead sleep.  My guess is her West Point class was always snickering but she had hooked up with a powerful General.  And literally soldiers have to have civilians speak for them sometimes, question certain things because of the power structure.  And the press did on this, they did their job and I saw an interview with two members of the press that have really investigated her and they did a good job.  A lot of right wing soldiers like to pretend they don't need civilians poking around and speaking out, but they do and they always will.

    Is her six-minute mile claim holding up? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    That a dunno (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    I really thought she had her caca together though.  Watched a video of her giving a discussion.  Thought she must be a great soldier and intel officer.  It would appear that if she hadn't had the other writer on the Petraeus bio it probably wouldn't have ever gotten written.  Spouse did immediately wonder why she wasn't active duty and was reserves.  He said it was peculiar coming out of West Point and all dressed up like that.....sigh

    Jill Kelley didn't fool me, Paula Broadwell did :)


    Check out this photo (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    of McKayla Maroney and Obama. Pretty funny.

    Okay, that's pretty funny. Obama is a very (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    charming guy and clearly an actual human being, unlike the MittBot.

    I disagree with many of his policies, but I suspect I would like him as a person. When i consider all the presidents who have served in my lifetime, i was born during Truman's last year in office, the Democrats win the likeability sweepstakes for me.

    Truman was a bit of a curmudgeon, which I like more and more as I become a bit of a curmudgeon. Ike seemed to be unoffensive. He had that whole kindly grandfather thing going on.

    Jack Kennedy was great. Charming, intelligent, witty and self-depracating. Johnson was many things, but good company was not one of them. Nixon, OMG, all the charm of a pit viper.

     Gerry Ford seemed nice and harmless. The policies he advocated, especially during his time in the House, were not good, but I really liked his wife Betty. Jimmy Carter was a bit too self-righteous for me. It's interesting to me that while I agreed with many of his ideas and policies, i found him hard to take.

    Reagan. Man, I never got what people saw in Reagan. I did not find him charming or funny. I thought he was a tool and a fool. Poppy Bush was a privileged snob who looked down on the masses, but hid it better than his wife.

    Clinton was charm personified. And smart and funny. Not urbane in the way that Kennedy was, but not a rube. GW was a jerk. A total jerk. I hated his policies, and I found him to be unpleasant at best. Why anyone wanted to have a beer with him was beyond me.


    Oh, look: (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    IOWA    17
    MICH    42

    To the dismay of many here (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:38:49 PM EST
    The SEC Champion likely just snuck back into the National Championship game for what will be the 7th straight time.

    And why is that? Why not Oregon if (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:45:19 PM EST
    the Ducks win against the Beavers? They would have only 1 loss just like Alabama or whoever the SEC champ is.

    As we know from last year, winning your conference is not a requirement for going to the championship game.


    You won't see the Ducks there (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:47:35 PM EST
    unless Alabama loses again.

    Okay, but why? n/t (none / 0) (#37)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:50:39 PM EST
    Because tomorrow night (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:56:28 PM EST
    the rankings will likely be:
    1 Notre Dame
    2 Alabama
    3 Georgia

    Oregon at best will be 4 and maybe 5. If you can get two of the top three to lose again (like today) they have a chance.

    And I don't think Georgia deserves to be there but they will be.


    I guess my question is: (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    why will Alabama move up ahead of Oregon? Is it the computers? Will the computers decide that a one loss 'Bama is better than a one loss Oregon? If so, the BCS really is besotted with the SEC.

    Geez, a play-off system cannot get here too soon for me.


    It's because (none / 0) (#47)
    by rdandrea on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    The human component of the rankings has a short attention span.

    It's better to lose early than to lose late.


    E.C.B. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    East Coast Bias. Alabama could lose to Appalachian State next week and still get in. I'd pick ND to beat Alabama, despite all of the haters out there, ND has won some very impressive games, more so than Alabama considering Ala lost to a mid-25 ranked team.. I admit ND has a weak Offense, but they have one of the best defenses in the country, they can hold Ala to a low score, low enough to win. Of course, Ala may lose in the SEC Champ game and the like, so let's see what happens.



    Agree. Defenses win (none / 0) (#43)
    by Natal on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:24:39 PM EST
    big games.  Oregon finally met a strong defense tonight.

    True (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:58:15 AM EST
    Alabama could lose to Georgia in the SEC Title game,
    but Alabama did not lose to a mid-25 ranked team. And no, Alabama couldn't lose to App State next week and still advance (for two reasons, a two loss team doesn't advance and they don't play App State).

    Now, as to why an SEC champion would likely advance and not Oregon...the SEC has never lost a BCS Championship game. Until they get knocked off the SEC will always be seen as better.

    Oregon's only chance right now is to hit the trifecta: Notre Dame to loses to USC; UCLA beats Stanford; the Ducks Beat the Beavers; then the Ducks beat UCLA in the PAC-12 Title game. (And I'm a Duck fan).

    To keep the SEC out...Georgia loses to Georgia Tech and then Georgia beats Alabama in the SEC Title game.


    Appalachia State is a huge (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    threat. See U. of M.  

    This IMO is funny (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    Newtie on Romney's gifts remarks:

    NEWT GINGRICH:.....Second, it's an insult to all Americans. It reduces us to economic entities who have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy, and if it had been that simple, my question would have been "Why didn't you out bid him?"

    EVAN SMITH: Right, "You had the money..." you could be in the gift giving business if you had elected to be.

    NEWT GINGRICH: He had enough billionaire supporters that if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all of his super PAC friends together and said, "Don't buy ads, give gifts." It'd be like the northwest Indians who have gift giving ceremonies. He could have gone town by town and said, "Come here and let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts." They could have an elephant coming in with gifts on it. link

    I'll jump back in today (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:03:54 AM EST
    with my pick of the day. In a meaningless game, South Carolina plays at home against in-state tiny school Wofford. South Carolina has Clemson next week so they don't care in the least for this game other than to get the win.

    South Carolina hasn't lost to Wofford since 1917. But Wofford runs an offense that is unlike any other offense in college football. It's commonly referred to as the wingbone which might best be described as a triple option running game from the shotgun with lots of laterals, reverses, and you really never know where the ball is going. It's also a great clock killer.

    The last five times they've played the largest margin of victory for SC was 24. The average margin of victory is 16.

    Since we have so many dog lovers here:
    Take the Wofford Terriers +31

    I'll take the other side of that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    31 is not enough for such a mismatch talentwise.

    Mine is for 1 unit (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    yours for 2?

    UPSET ALERT! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    With 1:20 left in the 3rd quarter, The Terriers have the Gamecocks tied up in a 7-7 knot.

    Go Ducks... (none / 0) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:19:03 PM EST

    Ducks game is on ABC at 5 PM (PST). (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    I am so happy the Ducks game is on broadcast TV, and is not the late game on ESPN. As someone who lives without cable, I have missed many a Ducks game this season.

    I'm hoping the rest of the Ducks schedule ends up on broadcast TV this season.

    Oh, and that late game (7:30 PM (PST)) on ESPN? Tonight it's the Beavers game. Why is it always an Oregon team?


    Oregon-Stanford going into OT. (none / 0) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:25:53 PM EST
    Tied at 14 all at the end of the 4th quarter.

    Stanford's defense has played a good game today. I just hope they play a somewhat less good OT.


    Stanford wins with an OT field goal. (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:38:36 PM EST
    Notre Dame will move up to #1 as Kansas State also lost today.

    I fear this means a championship game between the Irish and some crummy SEC team.


    The crummy SEC team (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    will win. This is Notre Dame's worst nightmare. They only wanted one of Oregon or Kansas State to lose. They don't want any part of Alabama.

    Wow, CARDINAL! (none / 0) (#33)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    BTD:  Did they make you any money tonight?  I still don't get how the spread works.  It's a good thing.  I always lose money if I gamble.  

    Agreed (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:51:32 PM EST
    Assuming my Domers don't choke against USC, we just had the number 1 and 2 team do so so it's a possibility, it's ND-Ala, 2 great defenses so it'll be some 17-14 game if we're lucky, there probably won't be that many points. It'll be fun to see how many ESPN bloviators lose it if ND can beat a vaunted SEC team. Poor Colin Cowherd might have a stroke. I do look forward to Mike and Mike on the Radio as I'm sure Golic will just be bursting! LOL

    Don't know if you are a Duck or a Beav or indifferent, but sorry about the Ducks Casey. I know I want one of my Washington Schools to win just out of state pride. In fact, I say my state should secede if we don't get a Title. ;)

    Seahawks also looking good.



    Thanks, Jackson. It's a tough loss, but (none / 0) (#41)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:40 PM EST
    Stanford played the better game tonight. The Cardinal defense was so on top of things. They shut down the Ducks offense at almost every turn.

    3:55 1Q: UCLA 10, USC 0. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    These Bruins are serving notice that last year's 50-0 shellacking at the hands of the Trojans -- the biggest margin of victory by any team in the history of this storied intercity rivalry -- is, in a word, history.

    7:38 2Q: UCLA 24, USC 0. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    This is why you don't taunt your opponents, just because you won big over them last year. You think the Bruins were ever going to forget that?

    Sure, the taunting didn't help USC's (none / 0) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    chances, but what really changed UCLA was dumping that miserable excuse for a coach Rick Neuheisel and hiring Jim Mora jr.

    7:02 3Q: UCLA 31, USC 20. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:23:46 PM EST

    15:00 4Q: UCLA 31, USC 20. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    If the Trojans lose, they're eliminated from the Pac-12 title chase. If UCLA wins, they take the South Division.

    FINAL: UCLA 38, USC 28. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    Congratulations to the Bruins, the 2012 Pac-12 South champions.

    This game has to be the biggest disappointment of all for the Trojans, standing in the wreckage of what had once shaped up as a very promising season, back when QB Matt Barkley announced that he was returning for his senior year.


    I wonder if Pat Haden (none / 0) (#26)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    is now looking into how much it will cost to buy out the remainder of Kiffin's contract.

    USC now 7-4 after starting the season ranked #1 or 2 in the nation.  Not quite what Haden had in mind coming off that long period of sanctions.

    Kiffin's job will really be in jeopardy if they don't beat Our Lady next game.


    And replace Kiffin with who? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:50:41 PM EST
    Despite failing to meet the (perhaps unrealistic?) expectations of their own preseason hype, the Trojans are still 7-4, and not 4-7. I think it would be stupid for Pat Haden to relieve Lane Kiffin, who took over a USC program on NCAA probation, and held it together even with the loss of scholarships.

    Well I might be available ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    for the right price.  Of course, the team would have to put up with my lockerroom ravings about the GOP, organized religion and Roswell.

    Seriously, I'm just giving a read on the situation with a team loaded with talent seeming to underachieve a lot this year, at a school where expectations are traditionally very high and patience is not much in evidence.

    And imagine if they lose to ND to finish out. Especially if it's a thumping.  I think you might see a mob with the torches and pitchforks outside Kiffin's office at that point.

    Haden strikes me as very level headed and more patient than his predecessor, so Kiffin's job may not yet be on the line.  But the outside pressure, the tradition of winning championships and not settling for second or third best, these factors will weigh on him.


    Something fun (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:02:03 PM EST
    Anonymous claims they stopped Rove from hacking the election and because he thought he had this, that is why he melted down on Fox.  It is as plausible as a grand Benghazi coverup, secret Spectre gunships, and CIA being told to just DIE already conspiracy.......so let's party.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:49:03 PM EST
    surely, worth a smile.

    Yes, I don't think so, either (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:47:28 PM EST
    I think Rove was paying attention to the same misinformation that gobsmacked Romney, who apparently thought he was going to win so fervently that he had not even prepared a concession speech.
    Not that I think that Karl Rove would not have hacked the election if he could have. But I don't think that it was at all possible for him to have done so.  At least, not this time.  ;-)
    But wait, wait!  What about the black helicopters from the UN???  Are they still around????

    The black helicopters from the UN (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    are coming to take your guns :)  It will start the day after the inauguration.  They have special UN silencing equipment added to them, you won't even hear them coming.  All your guns will be gone and you will wake up in an Obama reeducation camp.

    LOL! Well, they are just (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:20:49 PM EST
    going to have to pry our two shotguns, one rifle, and one (legal) handgun out of our cold, dead hands. (Oh, yes, and our compound-bows and arrows, too.)   ;-)

    BTD CFITP (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:31:21 AM EST
    With what I believe is his 3rd consecutive winning week.

    BTD on the day: 12-11-1 (+2 units)
    On the Season: 122-105-8 (-12 units)

    Me on the day 1-0 (+1 unit)
    On the season 4-1 (+3 units)

    Go Wofford