home

Saturday College Football Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 05:59:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

No real thinking this week (probably a good thing). I may add some night games later ( all games 2 units):

Kentucky +220, Louisville -16, Missouri +17½, Michigan -10½, Cincinnati -5, Texas A&M -7, TCU +4 , Penn State -3½, Nebraska -1, Pittsburgh +17, Mississippi +14,

Big game picks - USC (+280), Alabama (-8).

Open Thread.

< Paul Ryan: Equates Smell of Manure With Success | Romney Supporter Interviews: Ignorance and Bigotry Abounds >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday College Football Open Thread | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Roxy! has designed a new computer game (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:16:47 PM EST
     Just roll your favorite salvia ball across your human's keyboard and they will toss it for you!!! :D

    Pitt (none / 0) (#1)
    by RustedView on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 07:07:49 AM EST
    Given the way Notre Dame offense played last week I don't know that it's safe pick to think that they won't cover the spread. Just my 2 cents

    ND ties the game at 20-20 with a 2 point (none / 0) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    conversion with two minutes left in the game.

    Pitt has played a better game than I thought they would, and the Irish have pretty much sucked.

    It looks like, barring a last second score by either team, this game is going to OT.

    Parent

    Irish win 29-26 in 3 OTs. (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:53:36 PM EST
    ND is now 9-0.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#38)
    by RustedView on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    I hereby eat crow on this one. I am very disappointed with the Irish. Maybe this sounds arrogant.  ... But I think ND plays to their opponents level.  That's why they could beat a very strong Oklahoma team but struggle with a middling Pitt team.

    Needless to say, this kind of play does not merit a national championship.  Unless Kstate bama or Oregon loses a game, it will be hard to argue that nd should be n the title game.

    Parent

    To Coral Gables: is this a typo? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    "Kentucky +220"?

    It's called the "money line"... (none / 0) (#3)
    by dgwohl on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    ...he's confident that Kentucky (the underdog) will win the game outright, rather than taking the point spread (which in this case would be Kentucky plus 7). He'd win 220 on a 100 unit bet. So if he's right, it's a bigger payday than a normal point spread bet.

    Parent
    I'm curious about your Alabama/LSU and Oregon/USC (none / 0) (#4)
    by dgwohl on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    Seems like Alabama and Oregon should cruise, but this is the time of year when surprises abound...

    eeek, don't say that (none / 0) (#12)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    about the Duck...Alabama...yes say it loud and clear.

    Parent
    fishcamp, will you be able to see the game? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    It's airing on Fox (the regular Fox, not cable) at 4 PM PDT. This will be first Oregon game on regular broadcast TV this season. And it's about time, I say.

    Parent
    Oregon leads USC 21-3 at the start of the 2nd (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    quarter. So far, so good for the Ducks.

    If Oregon wins today, will they jump over ND? ND won, but it took 3 OTs.

    Parent

    GO DUCKS!!! (none / 0) (#42)
    by dgwohl on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:46:18 PM EST
    Kinda scary...yeah next time I'll keep quiet. :)

    Parent
    DUCKS WIN! DUCKS WIN! (none / 0) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    Oregon beat USC 62-51.

     Kenjon Barner set a new Oregon record for yards rushing in a single game. Kenjon racked up 322 rushing yards tonight. Nice job, Kenjon.

    Now, will ND stay in the #3 spot in the BCS rankings or will Oregon leap ahead of the Irish and reclaim #3?

    Parent

    More Kenjon Barner: he scored 5 TDs. (none / 0) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:56:20 PM EST
    Freshman QB Marcus Mariota threw for 304 yards and 4 TDs.

    BTD had USC at +280. So, did he win or lose? CG? What say you?

    Parent

    BTD lost that one (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    he took the money line rather than the points (although he would have also lost with the points I think)

    Loved the storm trooper look as the Ducks broke out another new look.

    Parent

    BTD bet against the Ducks?!! WTF??!! (none / 0) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    That'll  teach him.

    Parent
    My guess is that since Oregon did not (none / 0) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:13:27 PM EST
    win by 281 points or more, BTD won.

    Parent
    62 to 51? Good Lord... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    I take it that neither team fielded a defense?  

    Parent
    It may be safe to say (none / 0) (#50)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    That the Pac-12 no longer plays defense.

    Parent
    The Pac-12 plays defense. (none / 0) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    The Ducks' defense has done a great job in previous games this season of holding opponents' offenses back. Last night was an old-fashioned shoot-out, though.

    Both teams fielded some very gifted offensive scorers. And don't forget, USC had the "NFL-ready" Matt Barkley at QB, while the Ducks had a lowly redshirt freshman in that position. :-)

    And I cannot say enough about Kenjon Barner. He is having an amazing year. Just amazing.

    Parent

    political question (none / 0) (#5)
    by athyrio on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:55:03 AM EST
    since this was the closest open thread I saw, was wondering what you call those robocalls you get that are slanted toward a particular candidate...just got one in Montana that first asks you who r u voting for tester or rehberg for senate, so I said tester...then it asks me if I think tester will "repeal" some law that has the potential to costs montanans several hundred dollars a year...number one I never heard of such a law and number two I think it is a lie...so I hung up...I have heard of these type calls before and wondered if there is a name for them

    they just called me again (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    I think they should be reported as I consider it unethical...


    Parent
    and they called me a third time (none / 0) (#11)
    by athyrio on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    they must be desperate


    Parent
    They're known as "push polls." (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    Here's the Wikipedia explanation:

    A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.[1] This tactic is commonly considered to undermine the democratic process as false or misleading information is provided about candidates.

    Pretty common tactic, albeit underhanded and dishonest.

    Their purpose is to make you reconsider your support for a candidate based on being influenced by something that isn't true, hasn't been proposed or isn't even an issue - it's designed to tap into your fear.

    Parent

    thanks Anne (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    they are "out of luck" with me as I have already voted LOL....but it really made me mad and so many folks are going to believe it...Rehberg will do any thing to win IMO...and the polls show it might work in our state as they are a toss up at this point...


    Parent
    Nate Silver this morning (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    ...My argument, rather, is this: we've about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.

    Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.

    Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is "too close to call." It isn't. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can't acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

    But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.
    And yet how many pundits tomorrow morning (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    will persist with the 'too close to call' myth?  Laughable and pathetic.

    Try not to think about how much money Jonathan Karl  and Peggy Noonan make. It will just make you crazy.

    Parent

    On the whole "was it improper... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by magster on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:29:58 AM EST
    .. for Silver to bet Scarborough?" debate that Silver was publicly reprimanded for by the NYT public editor, the Atlantic Magazine defended Silver and promoted that pundit journalism would be stronger if the journalists had more skin in the game.

    ...Predictions made by the political press are especially suspect. This is partly due to the hack-and-shill problem, and partly because there is no accountability for inaccurate speculative analysis. It doesn't matter that Bill Kristol has amassed a record of inaccurate predictions so long it is comical. He's still treated by television hosts and fellow conservative writers as a knowledgeable speculative commentator. I don't know how valuable speculative analysis would be in any case; but any value it has is significantly diminished by the Kristols of the world.

    Is it any wonder that I sometimes fantasize about a media landscape where predictions weren't taken seriously unless the people making them had some personal monetary stake in getting them right? How many pundits would've more carefully hedged their Weapons of Mass Destruction predictions? ...

    Of course, the daydream is unworkable -- a moment's reflection is enough to see how it could be gamed, and the perverse consequences it would have on public discourse. But I wish there really was a small, experimental "prediction casino" for opinion journalists, an online space where everyone could start with 1,000 units and make bets with one another, if only to impose a more rigorous thought process on the predictions we make. Over time, points would be amassed, and certain sober-minded people would gain stature. The odds agreed to in any bet would help signal to the public how serious the participants were. In a system like that, I wonder how many of his 1,000 units Nate Silver would wager, and how many Joe Scarborough would risk. I wonder who would amass the most units. And I bet the people who lost all their units would stop partaking in speculative journalism, if only because they'd be mocked otherwise.



    Parent
    I wold love to see that prediction casino (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    happen. It would make things a lot more honest, and also keep score.  I don't watch much football these days, but I seem to recall some of the pre-game shows in which the panel would keep track of their won-lost record on predictions.  They took a lot more pride in being accurate than political prognosticators do. Don't know if they had bets on the side, but maybe they did and it helped.

    Parent
    Maybe you could set up a TL-only (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    arena.  'Twould be interesting.  

    Parent
    I'm in.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:33:51 PM EST


    Parent
    The prediction casino... (none / 0) (#37)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    ...would be preferable to actual money betting, because with money you make a prediction to try to sway opinion and some think tank slips you an envelope with enough to cover the bet and then some.

    With the prediction casino, you're risking reputation points that can't be replenished by any outside agency.

    Parent

    too close to call myth okay by me (none / 0) (#23)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    because it may spur people to get out and vote.

    Parent
    I saw some Romney hack on MSNBC this a.m. (none / 0) (#24)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:18:02 PM EST
    wailing at the host and the other two pundits because "oh, come on, the race is TIED right now, EVERYONE knows that!" She had that same tight forced smile of Romney too.

    It's just getting sad watching these Repubs grasping at anything -- anything at all -- to push their Romney Momentum fable.

    If they could, they'd send a drone over Nate Silver's house. They are so freaked out by stats and probabilities. They're even more math phobic than me, and that's saying something (although I'm having some fun re-learning geometry.)

    Parent

    Nate has been like a one man wrecking crew (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    lately.  

    They don't like his projections and I'm guessing a great many of them don't even understand his methods.

    Parent

    They're the anti-science folks (none / 0) (#28)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    so you have to figure they don't trust math either.

    Parent
    They don't like or understand biology either. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 12:43:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Monroe County (Florida) Supervisor (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    of Elections, Harry Sawyer, asked Gov. Rick Scott on Friday to extend early voting in the Florida Keys one more day, through 7 pm Sunday, citing the long lines at ballot sites.  Sawyer, a Republican officer holder for 24 years, had previously protested that reducing the number of days would have a "retrogressive impact on minority voters."   Sawyer said he did not know when or if Scott would respond.  On Thursday, Gov. Scott said he would not add more time to the early voting schedule--that announcement was made at a GOP fundraiser.  

    Why are they so afraid of people voting? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:28:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I saw on Maddow's show.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    that Crist greatly increased the early voting hours because of the lengthy lines and then Obama only won FL by less than 2%. Early voting was blamed for Obama's win, and that this was the beginning of the end for Crist as a Republican, and that one of the first legislative priorities of Rick Scott and the teabag enriched legislature was to reduce early voting.

    Parent
    Average wait time to vote (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    in Miami right now is 4 hours 20 minutes

    Parent
    More justification to increase mail-in voting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    to as many states as possible. You get the ballot two to three weeks before the election, can really take your time going over the ballot issues guide for initiatives, and either mail it in with a stamp or drop it off for free to a secured neighborhood drop box. No waiting in lines, no taking time off from work. Voila. But, as I commented yesterday, the Repubs here in WA are so freaked out by the polls, they are sending operatives out to "offer to collect" voters ballots for them so they can they dump the know Dem ballots in the trash. You gotta watch these crooks every step of the way.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:34:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I gather FL doesn't provide for vote-by-mail (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    as standard practice?

    Parent
    Michigan 21, Minn. 7, in 3rd qtr (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    W/o Robinson.  

    Both campaigns leaking (none / 0) (#27)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    private web site visitor info to third party trackers:

    Several pages on the Obama site included a user's personal information in the page title at the top of the page or in the URL address, Mr. Mayer said, thereby giving third parties operating on the site the opportunity to collect identifying data. The information flowing to third parties, he said, variously included the username; the proper name under which a person registered; and their street address and ZIP code.

    On the Romney site, Mr. Mayer said, he found that a number of pages included the user's name in the page title. Many pages also included a unique numerical ID number in the URL, which flowed to third parties, he said.

    "Are the campaigns identifying their supporters to third-party trackers? Are they directly undermining the anonymity properties that they are so quick to invoke?" Mr. Mayer wrote in a blog post published on Thursday morning. "Yes, they are."
    And a rare piece of good news... (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 05:48:30 PM EST
    Kellogg, Brown & Root ordered to pay $85 million to 12 Oregon soldiers, after being found negligent in protecting them from illness at an Iraqi toxic oil-field water plant.

    That KBR verdict is front page news here. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:04:32 PM EST
    Those soldiers have been fighting KBR for ten years. And, no surprise, the Pentagon was of no help to the soldiers.

    And KBR has already announced they will appeal. So, this is not over for these soldiers by a long shot.

    I have to give big props to Ron Wyden and Earl Blumenauer and Jeff Merkley. They have advocated for these soldiers at every step of the way.

    One of the sorrier things we learned from this trial is that the Pentagon enters into secret contracts with corporations, and these contracts may include clauses that indemnify the corporation from any and all lawsuits. The Pentagon is putting the taxpayer on the hook not just for accidents, but for malfeasance and negligence by the corporations.

    Parent

    There's another lawsuit coming at them (none / 0) (#36)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    Maybe it's the start of a positive trend...

    Parent
    Maybe KBR was hoping... (none / 0) (#39)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    ...that those soldiers would clean up afterwards in one of their electric showers and save them from having to worry about any suits.

    Parent
    Turn back your clocks tonight. (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    Don't forget, DST ends tonight. Set your clocks back one hour before you go to bed.

    thanks, I did turn the (none / 0) (#51)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    clocks back but couldn't sleep during the extra hour.  I guess you could claim that hour at midnight and...uh, never mind.

    Parent
    BTD CFITP (none / 0) (#47)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    Big day for BTD yesterday, and his best percentage winning performance of the year.

    For the day: 9-4 / +10 units

    Saturday College Football Open Thread | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment