[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[terry]

Come on, folks. We all know what ESPN is doing. They exist for one purpose: ratings. Controversy and disagreement generate ratings. Sober, well-considered agreement does not generate ratings. So, ESPN has an inflexible rule: their "talking heads" must try to generate controversy and disagreement, even when none exists.

ESPN pumped up Russell Wilson for the Voldemort early in the season, Richardson in mid-season, and Griffin late in the season for one reason -- they wanted controversy. They didn't want everyone just nodding and agreeing that Luck was the best player. They wanted suspenses and uncertainty, even when none should exist, so that people will keep watching ESPN.

ESPN has fostered the construct that a Voldemort contender must have a "statement game" in the last week of the season for one reason -- it generates attention, controversy, and disagreement. They want to keep the viewers hanging on their every word, so they need to create suspense and uncertainty, even when none should exist.

ESPN is pumping up Griffin as the possible # 1 draft pick for one reason -- they want suspense, uncertainty, and controversy. They want people to watch their draft-day TV coverage. They don't want a foregone conclusion. It's all about ratings.

So, why in the world would any of us pay attention to ESPN's talking heads? They're not trying to inform or educate. They're trying to generate ratings.

P.S. Some of the points in this post came from John Platz. We talked about it when I gave him a ride from the Phoenix airport to the hotel when we arrived for the Fiesta Bowl.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[stonewallpoke]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[washingtonismoney]

That said, comparing Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf is insulting to Griffin. To this day I don't understand why Leaf was considered such a high pick--he never completed above 57% of his passes in a season IIRC. (Weirdly, the NFL had a brief infatuation with college quarterbacks who weren't accurate, with the immortal Kyle Boller pick--the man whose career completion percentage is only just above 50%, if that.)

So, yeah. Luck--great player. Griffin--also a great player.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Spiny_Norman]

I attended Leaf's last college game, the 1998 Rose Bowl.  He and Washington State played well, but fell just short of beating Michigan.  Final score was 21-16.  Before I filed out, I snapped a picture of Ryan Leaf on the sidelines.  Was he crushed that his team had come so close to knocking off the eventual co-national champion?  Was he consoling his teammates?  Was he thanking the fans?  No, he was smoking a cigar.

I knew that he was not ready for the NFL.  There is nothing remotely comparable between Manning-Leaf and Luck-Griffin.

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?

[Griffins78]

Now you know how we feel. We made Robert Griffin look silly, and yet he's the best thing that ever happened to college football now.

What do you OSU fans that saw both Baylor and Stanford play think about Luck vs. Griffin?