Friday, September 7, 2007

Week 2 College football/NFL kickoff


Oh yeah!! Who's ready to gamble? It's on now. I'm not worried about Wal-Mart, GW or Darfur. I'm only thinking about making some money. The first week of College FB started off really well. Now you add NFL to the mix and take it to the next level.


Week 2 in college football is like drinking your second beer. You have that nice little buzz, and you actually start to convince yourself that if you could spend your whole life like this you would be much more effective. But unfortunately, your perception is probably a little skewed. You start thinking about 'how is this team going to react' or 'this teams fans will be really rough on them after the loss'. That stuff is great and all, but most of these kids are basically paid athletes. They've had assholes like me yelling at them since they were 9. Concentrate on the match ups and let the other stuff fall as it may.


Whats better than week 1 in the NFL? Can it get any easier? You don't need to spend 3 hours reading a injury report because any coach with a brain protects the shit out of his key guys. But as a gambler how can't you be excited to see a team like Pittsburgh go in to Cleavland as a 4 point favorite? Seriously, 4 points when Charlie 'Biggie Size' Frye is the starting QB?


Here are my games of the week:


VT -14 @ LSU I think LSU is really good. But even at home, 14 is an assload of points against a very good and extremely well coached Virginia Tech team. Pretty much everyone I know is taking LSU, so as far as I'm concerned, this is a lock.


Alabama - 3.5@ Vanderbilt I have a hard-on for the tide this year. I really think they have a good team. Vandy is probably tougher than I think, but I'm smelling a shut out.


Steelers -4 @ Cle Really? Who made this line? Which position on Cleavland is better than the same position on Pitt? ESPN said that Cle has the better linebackers. What? Isn't Pittsburgh the team that has basically reinvented their linebackers year after year? This game won't be close.


No comments: