I Ride Giants, Raiders, etc.

I've been unable to get on the internet for the past week, which prevented me from losing money on WASHINGTON(+3)over dallas, and michigan(+20.5) over OHIO STATE, among others. I'd assumed that the only way Dallas would be favored over the 'Skins was if they were at home, and I was really pissed that I didn't catch that Dallas was a road favorite on Monday Night. I would definitely have taken Washington as a home dog.

Of course, Dallas won, 14-10.

Michigan got ripped, 45-7. Chances are good I would not have taken Michigan, even though I thought they might turn up and lose by 14. I didn't want to mar my enjoyment of the possible slaughter, which, of course, came to pass, even though Michigan kept it close for a half.

It's Sunday Morning, and I just finished watching Spurs beat Blackburn, one-nil. England is about to host South Africa in rugby. So far I haven't been able to find a spread for this game, but I'm sure the Springboks are a clear favorite, as they have beaten England 5 or 6 times in a row, including twice in last year's World Cup. England is already on the board, though, 3-0.

South Africa just tied it, 3-all.

I'm looking at the NFL, and I'm pretty disappointed that I couldn't bet earlier in the week. New England opened as a1 or 2 point dog at Miami, and is now favored by 1.5. I really like the Pats here, but I don't know about paying a 2 or 3 point premium. On the other hand, New England is 16-1 following a loss the last few years, and Matt Cassel looked really good last week, so...

I'm thinking about paying the extra vig to get nygiants(-3)over ARIZONA. This could be a good test for the Giants, and I see alot of people picking the Cards, just as I see a lot of people picking the Jets to upset Tenessee. These picks make sense, as these teams are not really so dominant that we should expect them to run the table, but I just don't see the sense of trying to cherry pick the weeks that these teams will stumble.

Bill Simmons picks Arizona this week, at the same time as he lists them as one of the 14 teams who has effectively negated their home field advantage by building a state-of-the-art stadium. Add to this factor the fact that the Giants have been consistently good on the road for the last couple of years, and I like the Giants. It doesn't hurt that the Giants play defense, either. I like the fact that the Giants have an outstanding pass rush, coupled with the fact that Kurt Warner has a tendancy to fumble when hit. There are alot of reasons to like the Cardnails, but I think there are more reasons to like the Giants. nygiants(-3.5)over ARIZONA The vig was too much.

I don't like the Giants as much as I liked them as a 3 point dog at Philly, but I still like 'em.

I like indianapolis(+3)over SAN DIEGO. I know the Chargers have had the Colts' number lately, but right now San Diego is last in the league in pass defense. Not exactly where you want to be when Peyton Manning is in town. Both of these teams got off to slow starts this year, but Indy has really picked it up, while the Chargers seem to be banking on the fact that Denver sucks. You can argue that San Diego really needs to win this game, and you'd be right. But Indy is in a 4-way tie for the AFC Wild Card, with no hope of catching Tennessee. I'd rather bet on a team that needs to win and is actually playing well.

The only thing that has me worried is that Holiday Inn ad Peyton Manning did. It shows him getting flack from hotel employees who are apparently fans of their hometown teams. It ends at San Diego, with the implication that they are one more scalp for Manning's Colts. Is this commercial bulletin board material for the Chargers, or the future unfolding before our eyes?

Denver may suck, but they are at home against Oakland, the face of suck. Detroit may be in the dictionary under suck, but Oakland should be. They represent the best chance for Denver's awful defense to actually stop somebody. DENVER(-9)over oakland.

I'm starting to lose faith in the Washington Redskins. They've lost their last two games, and they haven't exactly hammered the crappy teams they've managed to beat. Here's their chance to show that they are as good as the Eagles, by beating up on a crap team. I don't think they blow out the Seahawks the way the Eagles did, but hopefully they win by at least four. washington(-3.5)over SEATTLE

I'm really curious to see what happens in the Eagles at Baltimore game. It features a desperate team that doesn't run the ball and that just found out that you can tie in the NFL, against a solid defense playing at home. I can see why people like the Ravens here, but Philly scares me enough that I'm avoiding this one. Philly will finish this season as the butt of many jokes, but they will take some scalps along the way. Baltimore might be one of them.

Of course, I'm also interested in the Jets at Tennessee. It's noon, Central time, and I, with my Sattelite dish, have just started to watch this game. We'll see if the Jets can hang.

Notre Dame was probably saving their voodoo for USC, or maybe for next year. Don't wanna needlessly squander karma with Charlie's job on the line. Charlie probably figured if the Irish couldn't beat Syr-excuse without some voodoo then fuck it--this season's over. And it is, as the Orangemen beat Notre Dame, 24-23. A loss to USC will bring ND to 6-6, which I think still makes them bowl-eligible, sadly enough. All they needed to do was beat Syracuse and they would have been 7-5, and could have pretended they were still relevant. Now they are a bowl game loss from 6-7.

The Jets are up, 7-0, after a quarter. The Lions lead Tampa Bay, 17-7. Good thing Cincy got that tie, or the Lions #1 pick could be in jeopardy. Too bad the best college player out there is Michael Crabtree. Matt Millen must be turning over in his grave...or in the unemployment line.

The Jets are up 10-0, right in front of the 2 minute warning. The Lions trail, 21-17. Hello Michael Crabtree!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

I think I've run out of steam betting on college football. Of late I've mainly just been taking picks from Zach Rosenfield of Accuscore, and I guess you could say he's been running out of steam too.

I didn't bet it, but I really like Indiana to cover vs Penn State. PSU is favored by 35.5. Right now they are tied in the 2nd quarter. Make that PSU, 10-7 in the 2nd.

I was right--Penn State won, but by only 27--34-7.

Northwestern beat Michigan, 21-14. I thought it a little strange that 3-7 Michigan was favored vs 7-3 N'western. Beat Minnesota and everybody forgets that you suck.

I cock-block Myself

I didn't post my picks for the past weekend, because I was sick. How sick?

I got a flat tire on my rental Impala on Friday, and didn't change it until Sunday. In other words, I was paying for two days of rental where I didn't drive because I felt too weak to change a tire.

Aside from watching Premiereship Football (aka Soccer), College Football, more Premiereship, Pro Football, some Rugby*, and some more NFL, and half of Season II of Dexter, my main activities included wondering if this is how it feels to have AIDS....or an oral herpes outbreak.

My symptoms have included a sore throat, fever, visibly swollen glands in my neck, and inflamed/bleeding gums, along with a mouth full of canker sores--hence the oral herpes comparison.

I went to the ER this morning to see WTF I have, though I am definitely improving. Based on the doctor's checks, which included inspecting for lesions around my groinal region, and questions, which included whether I had any history of immunodeficiency issues, I gather that this is what it feels like to have herpes or the HIV. So I have that going for me, my accurate guess, that is. On the other hand, the above has probably effectively cock-blocked me with any hypothetical female readers for the near future....other than psycho-meth-whores like Dexter's sponsor, perhaps.

Speaking of accurate guesses, my NFL picks were carolina(-9.5)over OAKLAND and
nygiants(+3)over PHILADELPHIA, both of which came through for me. I bet both of them as soon as I saw the lines, back on Tuesday or so. I expected the Giants line to drop to a pick or so, in which case I may have gone for a middle. Never happened. The line stayed at 3, while the vig flux indicates money came in on the Giants, followed by $$ on the Eagles. Carolina's line did go to ten, however.

Carolina won, 17-6, despite Jake Delhomme going 7 for 27 with four picks. The last time anybody threw so many interceptions, and so few completions and won was Ken Anderson in 1975, also over the Raiders. (Nobody has mentioned the last time a 10 point favorite did this and covered....the Bengals won that '75 game, 14-10, and I have no idea if they covered. Good chance the Raiders were favored back then, so probably.) Given that the Raiders had three first downs last week, I think it is safe to say that they are becoming historically bad. In fact, all you geniuses who insist on putting the Detroit Lions at the bottom of your power ratings may want to wake up. The Lions have been losing close games, and should be 31st, or maybe even 30th. What's the point of power ratings if they just mirror the standings? Tell me something I don't know. Power ratings should tell who is playing best (or worst) right now....That's why I have no problem with putting the Giants over the Titans. I have a problem with reflexively putting the Titans on top just because the Giants lost a game. I put the Titans ahead of the Giants right now because of the sloppiness the Giants exhibited Sunday night. Look for ex-BC coach Tom Coughlin to remedy this in the weeks to come...and since it was for the 6th time in a row BC beat Notre Dame, I'll only mention the score, 17-0.

It also helps that Pugilant Mick refrained to call me and ramble psychotically about how he hates Boston College. He did this a couple of weeks ago for MSU, and we whooped on the Irish back in week 3. I'm sure he'll deliver a good rant if I bring up the score. (17-0) Or the streak (Six in a row.) They even made the AFLAC trivia question during the game who had the longest winning streak vs Notre Dame in history. I think it was MSU, back in the '50's or '60's.

Back to the Giants game. They won 36-31. My biggest fear was that Philly would score with 3:00 or so to go, then elect to go for two, so the Giants couldn't win with a field goal. As a handicapper, I was fine with the Giants losing by two. I'd also be okay with them losing a couple of times, though it is probably too late to disguise them. Something drastic will have to happen for them to be seen as anything other than the dominant team in the NFC. Eli will have to break a pinkie, or the Cardinals will have to learn to play defense. Yes, that kind of drastic.

On the other hand, how many times did the Giants fumble? How many times did they lose the ball after the runner was down? These are not hypothetical questions. I lost count. I know Giant running backs were ruled down before a fumble on consecutive plays on one 4th quarter drive. They also won a critical replay challenge, while the Eagles lost two of them. I'm not saying any of these were bad calls, but an awful lot of breaks went against the Eagles. Kind of like Tom Hanks in Philadelphia. Maybe not. I've never seen the flick, but I've seen a ton of ads for it the last couple of months. Maybe Karl Rove found a new way to get out the queer-bashing vote, not that he'd need to with the number of states with gay marriage on the ballot this year. You'd think they coulda laid low until Obama got elected, rather than risk fouling his chances. There were so many states trying to legalize gay marriage it was starting to freak me out. I felt like I was hopped up on Sarah Palin's medication, minus the valium.

Speaking of which, I figured the only way we'd have her around to mock for the next four years was if John McCain won, but apparently she has deluded herself into thinking she is the future of the Republican Party. Deluded, that is, unless enough like-minded people decide to support her, which they just might. After all, Dan Quayle ran for President in '96. I'd rate her chances at the nomination as at least double his. Of course he didin't have a snowball's chance in hell....maybe triple his. Not sure who her competition is....If the Republicans can't come up with anybody better I may just become a registered Democrat...(shudder). Maybe she is Hillary's legacy. If she turns into our dippy version of Margaret Thatcher I'd say Hillary is at least 2/3 responsible.
John McCain would be 1/3 responsible, just like he's about 1/3 responsible for everything he does these days.** Sarah is like a combination of Dan Quayle, Ross Perot, and Brooke Shields. Can she win? Not in a Routon. Maybe in a Mustang....she could be re-branded as "the Mustang Candidate," now that Maverick has been beat into the ground. Is it just me, or are these
IQ-Quiz things everywhere? Everywhere online, at least. Thanks to them, I know that Terrell Owens is smarter than Sarah Palin. On the other hand, she is smarter than the average "West Virginia Mountaineer," which may explain their result this weekend (see below). I assume they mean the WVA football team, as opposed to a composite of hillbillies--or mountainbillies. I didn't choose them to compare to Sarah because she is a hillbilly, the Mountaineers are just who you get at the bottom when you check college football scores.

The last time I took an IQ test online I missed one question, and that was because the screen resolution made a rectangle look like a square. (I checked on a different computer to make sure it was the computer and not me....) So I'm pretty confident I'm smarter than Sarah Palin. And Terrell Owens.

I just checked my bet history, and apparantly I never took West Virginia(-7) over Cincinnati. Good. Cincy won, 26-23. I got that pick from Accuscore's Zach Rosenfeld. I wasn't crazy about his other picks, and was too sick to get motivated about any of them....Tex Tech whooped Okla State. I know Zach liked Tech, but I don't remember if he made them one of his picks. Whatever. I guess I went 2-0 this week! On the other hand, I have been diagnosed with hand, foot and mouth disease, which sounds only marginally better than snagging the hiv.

Now that I'm a suspected AIDS victim, I recon I ought to clarify my stance on Gay Marriage, or on Gay rights more generally. Basically, I think Gays have taken the place previously held by Jews, before the holocaust led to the push of anti-semitism to the margins of society. As such they deserve some sympathy. Even if you don't like the idea of them getting married, I don't think they deserve to be singled out in the language of state constitutions. They are already singled out.

The ancient Greeks believed that the health of the state depended to at least some extent on catharsis, which could be brought about through viewing tragedies, or by running somebody out of town once a year. Apparantly this worked for them, as it did for the hippie pagans in The Wicker Man. Small consolation if you're Nicholas Cage. My health currently depends on catharsis as well, so I've been prescribed something to gargle whose active ingredient is lydocaine (I think) which should make it near-impossible for me to speak. I'll probably still be able to type, however. Lucky you.

While fact-checking for the BC-ND result, I just discovered that "the average Boston College Eagles fan's IQ is 124. Now they're just making shit up. Now I doubt all these celebs even took their stupid test. I hope their marketing fails spectacularly. Given Karl Rove's past successes, it probably won't though.


*My 19-month-old son seems to have programmed my DirecTV to record every rugby game that comes on. I don't know how he did it, but neither does he. He's like that kid in the E*Trade ads, only he doesn't throw up. (The E*Trade kid is cast as too old to burp up milk on a regular basis, for whatever it's worth.)

**I suppose our shallow, herd-like, celebrity-driven culture is largely to blame as well.

Picks--Quick!

My Chrysler finally died, and I intend to buy another car today, or at least search intensively, so I dont' have time to discuss my picks.

Or Zach Rosenfield's picks rather. Remember, I'm busy, not lazy.

Okay, I'm both. But I'm really busy.

missouri(-21)over BAYLOR Time for the Tigers to run up the score.

tulsa(-7)over ARKANSAS Pugilant Mick hates Tulsa. He hates any non-BCS team with a better shot at a BCS bowl than Notre Dame. Not that I like Tulsa, but I like them to beat the Razorbacks by at least 8.

west virginia(-3.5)over UCONN Lotta road favorites. I haven't checked to see if UConn's QB has a broken leg or not, or if his replacement sucks, for that matter. I'm in a hurry. Zach seemed less confident about this one, just as I am less confident about his
central michigan(+1.5)over INDIANA pick, for instance.

Accuscore likes Texas Tech to beat Texas. The 'Horns are a 4 point favorite, and this is the game I would expect them to lose, since it is their 4th in a row vs. top ten opposition, and it is on the road. I still think Texas wins, but I'd like them better if they were favored by 2 or 3.

Michigan State is favored by six at home against Wisconsin. I might take the Spartans, but they started out favored by ony 4.5, so this isn't much of a bargain. I also don't like that State managed to get down by 7 against Michigan last week. Of course, I like that they came back to win by 14 on the road....

The game has started. I'd just about talked myself in to the six, too.