Unverified Voracity Says A Tearless Goodbye Comment Count

Brian

Thank Jesus. Paul Maguire will blight your television screens far less often this fall:

Although not formally announced, ESPN's Mike Soltys confirmed Sunday that college football analyst Paul Maguire, 70, will have a "reduced role" this season. Rather than having a full slate of games, says Soltys, Maguire will work only "the occasional game and do some studio shows and radio."

As long as that "occasional game" is the Society of Eastern European Panhandling Midgets versus Regan Pornography Czar Ed Meese's Metacarpals, I'm okay with it. Anything less obscure and we have issues. Just keep him away from the otherwise excellent Nessler-Griese pairing. And all other ones involving the Big Ten.

Side note: Maguire is 70! That guy is hitting up the Just For Men like crazy.

Hype video. Haven't had one of these for a while, and this one is well-executed:

(So… yeah, the top recommended Youtube video I'm getting for this: "So Ronrey." Is this because I posted about soccer earlier?)

Wait… what? The Free Press on Tim Hardaway Jr's commitment, screencapped because they'll probably fix it now:

evan-metrics

It appears someone let a spellchecker loose on that article with "replace all" checked, or something. I'm at a loss how "Smotrycz" can become "Metrics" and "ESPN" can become "SPUN," though the latter is a serendipitous slam at the Favre-Owens Network. Evan Metrics sounds like a superhero from Square One who goes around teaching people about kilograms and centiliters; I suggest people condemned to write Smotrycz for the next four and a half years band together and force him to officially change his name. We'll buy him a Zorro mask and a meter stick in exchange.

M-Boned. So, yeah, the athletic department has switched official providers of Michigan apparel from the locally-owned M-Den to the Jerry Jones-owned and spammy-sounding "eSports Partners." The reason is the same reason it always is: money. eSports Partners has guaranteed millions that the M-Den could not, though I strongly suggest that the Athletic Department keep its PIN numbers to itself. Be suspicious of any barristers, yo.

Cue consternation from dual sources. MATW, the first link in the previous sentence, knows more about this than I do but has a dog in this fight; I don't really have an opinion yet.

There can be no better reason to do it than someone else's reason not to. Outgoing Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen is not well-loved by his fan constituents, who have to turn to Fox Sports Atlantic to catch any Pac-10 game not involving USC. And I don't think we should be big fans, either. TSN's Dave Curtis has an exit interview of sorts:

Q: So what are the chances of a playoff down the road?
A:
We get playoff proposals around the calendar, with many more coming in the late fall. There just isn't anything that would be good in our opinion. We would have to go to 16 teams. The political pressure for participation would be even more intense than in the BCS. You'd have to play the games until the championship on campuses, so you'd be playing games at Michigan and Ohio State, weather-wise, in late December or January. Most of the TV time periods that are attractive then are taken by the NFL. There are some many factors that people never consider.

Well, one: that's just, like, his opinion, man, that you'd "have to" go to 16 teams. Why would the political pressure for participation be more intense? And why couldn't you structure a playoff such that everyone worthy is included? This is common anti-playoff gambit: you can't have a good playoff that makes sense, you have to have a stupid one because of fuzzy reasons I will not justify. In it is an admission that a properly structured playoff would be awesome.

Two: the bolded section is one of the best aspects of a true playoff. Who hates it when NFL playoff games are rough and tumble affairs on the frozen tundra of Lambeau? Oh, that's right: no one.

Low places. Vegas has released a bunch of win over-unders. Your most relevant set:

Michigan

Over  6 reg season wins -165

Under  6 reg season wins +135

Six seems low but you have to bet 165 to win 100, so it's not a great deal or anything. Still… if anyone wants to do the Forbidden Thing and wager on your own team, there you go.

Etc.: I've mentioned the hole Kiffin finds himself in re: QB recruiting before; Bleed Scarlet has a terrific overview of the situation, which after the commitment of Barry Brunetti to West Virginia comes down to hoping Jesse Scroggins does not pick USC as expected or grabbing a flier. The WLA reviews Rich Rodriguez. There are holes in Michigan's recruitin' bucket.

Comments

PA Blue

July 4th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^

I'm willing to accept the argument that the regular season is like a long playoff, with each game a potential eliminator for a team (actually, it is like a double elimination structure for most teams--lose once, you still have a chance, lose twice and you are in trouble) but would like to see a additional rules. For example, there should be a rule that no 2-loss team can play for the title when there is an undefeated team remaining.

PA Blue

July 4th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^

Hawaii wasn't as great that year as their record, but it is the only way the argument that the regular season is a playoff makes sense. If we want to think of the regular season that way, you have to accept that an undefeated team gets in before a 2-loss team, no? Otherwise it isn't a playoff at all, which is OK as well but then let's stop giving lip-service to that notion.

Noah

July 6th, 2009 at 2:40 PM ^

No, my point is that the "regular-season-as-playoff" argument doesn't work at all, mainly for this reason - bad teams in bad conferences (Hawaii) look better than good teams in good conferences (LSU). The point of a playoff is to pit teams against each other that wouldn't normally play, so that you can see which is better head-to-head, not by some arbitrary rankings or point systems. The problem, as always, is determining which teams get into the playoffs - but I maintain that it's a problem preferable to Hawaii ending up in the title game by default.

jamiemac

July 6th, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^

I have to say, that after being away from the computer on a five-day run drinking binge up north, its a little disappointing to see Brian reference some football odds for the upcoming season and nobody even commented on that subject matter!! I think UM will be Bowl Eligible this season. And, if anyone else does, its worth putting money down. If they only hit 6 wins on the dot, you get your money back. Do It! It really is not the Forbidden Thing!