Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Predictions that Don't Predict Anything

I can't stand columnists that sorta, kinda, maybe make "almost" predictions, but do it in a way that covers their asses. A way that they can say, regardless of the outcome, "Hey, I was right." That is gutless and pathetic. Why write the column if you don't have cajones to tell us what the hell you think? It's like a weatherman saying "It might rain today." If it rains, he says, "I told you it might." If it doesn't, then it's, "I didn't say it WOULD rain." If you are gonna take the time and energy to open your suck and spit out those ambiguous "insights", do me a favor...put your energy to better use and just blow me.

With that sentiment in mind, we look at a column fashioned last week by Chris Fowler (it's in espn insider). Fowler titles it "History tells us not to write off UCLA just yet". Ok, fine. He then goes on to give examples of lower rated teams ruining contenders chances at the end of the year. Setting the stage for what would seem to be a prediction that UCLA is going to upset the Trojans.

He breaks down the strengths of the teams, and explains what MUST happen for UCLA to pull off the upset. He warns us not to count them out:

"But you never know in a rivalry game that's supposed to be one-sided. No foregone conclusions. You have to remind yourself sometimes, because we are in the assumption business: look at the track record, presume you know what is going to happen, then start focusing on the step beyond that. "

So, Chris, is UCLA going to win?

"It's likely USC will make it eight straight over the boys in blue, matching the Bruins' series win streak that bridged the Larry Smith, John Robinson (Part 2) and Paul Hackett eras."

It's "likely USC" will win? No forgone conclussions? The only thing forgone is frustration. Chris covers his ass with ambiguous terms like "likely" and by telling us that just because the rivalry has been one sided lately there is no reason to assume anything.

So, basically, he is telling us that ANYTHING can happen. NO SHIT! Thanks for the insight there. So, did everyone get that? Did everyone digest the wonderful insight into this game from ESPN's college football host? Don't count your chickens before they hatch. USC will maybe win, but we don't know for sure. THANKS, CHRIS!

You blew it, Chris. Clearly, you WANTED to predict UCLA to win. You did. It's obvious. But you didn't have the balls to do it! Chris even made this comment:

"I have thrown that at Corso and Herbstreit for years, trying to gauge their interest in going out on a limb. You see, they pick a big upset about as often as Jim Tressel hits a dance club. "

Well, Chris, you had the chance to do what they wouldn't. AND you had the chance to be right. But you didn't have the sack.

Next time, save it. If I want a namby pamby almost prediction with a caveat hidden in the fine print, concealed in ambitguity, that strategically covers your ass...I'll watch the local weather. At least the bitch on there knows how to give a proper blow job.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home