A "yea," and a "nay"
So
The rules and probabilities are found here.
I think it's one of those shows that's only making a brief, seasonal run, so it'll probably end this week or next. If you have no life, like me, you should check it out tonight or tomorrow, if only to see how weird Howie Mandel is.
-------------------
Seriously, does ESPN have anyone on their college football staff doing actual analysis?? This USC vs. every team in history crap is so fucking gay. This is the best the "worldwide leader in sports" has to offer, just days before the game of the millenium? Take a trip over to CFN and see what real sports coverage look like. Just with respect to today's Las Vegas Bowl, for example, CFN has pages and pages of "keys to the game," "what to look for," "player watches," etc. ESPN has just this, along with a few meager stats:
You can only imagine the crap they're going to throw at us before the Rose Bowl.Get with the damn program, ESPN.
posted by Anonymous @ 9:47 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
How can ESPN dare make such a comparison? Do they not realize that football has changed into a completely different game in the last 37 years? It is a little obnoxious the lengths that they will go to slob all over the Trojans' collective knob. By the way, football players were slower back in '69, but they were much tougher. Texas wins this hypothetical contest, simply by beating the piss out of USC.
I thought Howie Mandel moved to Canada?
This is maddening. I agree with Frankie on this one. First of all, ESPN might as well do a special titled "Who would win in a race: Jesse Owens or Michael Johnson?".
'Sure, it's easy to say Michael Johnson, but you have to remember that Jesse Owens was running in the presence of Hitler. And he was also black. Possibly more black than Michael Johnson. Jesse Owens wins. And now back to poker.'
Comparing sports teams/players from different eras is completely ridiculous. One cannot conjure up a greater example of the apples v. oranges comparison. And speaking of which, apples are better at being oranges than oranges are.
What would Hammurabi's take on supply-side economics be? Who knows, and furthermore, who cares, you moron.
Also, shouldn't a question like "USC 2005 v. Mike Ditka?" be posed AFTER USC wins the Rose Bowl. ESPN might as well be saying that the 2005 USC football team would have been able to beat every team in NCAA, NFL, and CFL history, at the same time, minus USC's offensive line, by at least 40 points, but are they good enough to beat the '05 Texas Longhorns? HMMMMM? If ESPN weren't already predicting a Dewey victory, I might take these sports musings as a compliment. But predictably, ESPN has already assumed a USC win. Otherwise, USC could beat any other team ever, other than the '05 Texas team who, coincidentally, is not good enough to beat any other team, past, present, or future, save the ones they have already beaten (the Big 12 was weak this year).
This is yet another chapter within the volumes of ESPN idiocy that posed the question, 'Who would win: the '79 Steelers or the '93 Cowboys?' Answer: the Buffalo Bills of any year, of course. Why? Because I'm Chris Berman and I'm the king of asinine hypotheticals.
Lastly, the '69 Longhorns would indeed kick '05 USC's ass.
Hook 'em.
What would Hammurabi's take on supply-side economics be? fucking awsome line cole.
But lets get to the real question about the trojans. Who would win between the 2003 Trojans and 2003 National Champion LSU Tigers?
Hammurabi's views on economics are hard to codify anyway...
Sorry.
Hear hear, Cole, well played.
The biggest question in my mind is whether or not the experts are going to call it an upset when we completely dismantle this "historic" team.
Post a Comment
<< Home