[Husker] Evaluations

[Wesley & Barbara Barton]

This reminds me of my one and only betting coup. A friend and I sat in our 
day room at March AF Base, with a bottle of joy juice between us, and bet 
one and all that Michigan would win. We also bet by the quarter, half and 
whatever else the guys wanted to bet on as long as we had Michigan. We 
cleaned up and gained an unwanted reputation. I never bet again that way. 
Why ruin a good thing.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Stone" <sstone at pvtnetworks.net>
To: "husker-tssi.com" <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: [Husker] Evaluations


> As the regular season draws to a close, there's a somewhat natural desire 
> on the part of List members to evaluate players and teams, so I'd like to 
> share with those who are really keen to do so a little true anecdote that 
> may serve as a cautionary tale.
>
> The 1948 Rose Bowl game was the first scheduled post-season game between 
> the Big Ten and the Pacific Coast Conference, pitting USC and Michigan 
> against each other in the days long before ESPN Game Day and All That 
> Hoopla.
>
> A day or two before New Year's, the Pasadena Independent, for which I 
> wrote articles about John Muir College football, ran a two-page center 
> spread of predictions regarding the outcome. Betty Grable picked USC while 
> her husband Harry James (names probably unknown to you younger Listers) 
> picked Michigan. Nor Jaqua, Muir's coach, picked USC while Mickey 
> Anderson, coach at Pasadena City College, picked USC. And so it went for 
> two whole pages until the very last entry. In it, Fido Murphy, scout for 
> the Chicago Bears, wrote: "Michigan will win by 48-0, and Tom Johnson will 
> be the best player on the field."
>
> Tom Johnson? I'd never heard of Tom Johnson, so I turned to the photo of 
> the Michigan starting line, and there he was. Tom Johnson, right tackle.
>
> You've probably already guessed the outcome: Michigan won 48-0, and Tom 
> Johnson was the best player on the field.
>
> At the time I didn't see how Fido Murphy (could I make up a name like 
> that?) was able to call his shot. Now, however, I realize he had access to 
> all the pertinent facts.
>
> The point of the anecdote is that anyone who doesn't have access to all 
> the pertinent facts can look pretty silly, at least in hindsight, if 
> he/she doesn't have access to all the pertinent facts.
>
> In past years, some Listers have made some pretty silly observations about 
> the abilities of various players. Some that come to mind include "Crouch 
> can't pass at all," "Frost's shotputting throwing style detracts from his 
> accuracy," "Shanle's too slow and doesn't understand the game, and 
> "Mitchell's a sure bet for all-Pro" just for openers. Inserting some 
> "maybes" "mights," and "sometimes" usually proves a good way to hedge your 
> bet. "It appears," "he seems," and "could possibly" give added padding.
>
> None of us knows what the next couple of months will bring, but you can be 
> get odds that much of it will be unexpected. I'm looking forward to it 
> with a great deal of expectation.
>
> Hope I can keep an even keel.
>
> Steve Stone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>