All That and a Bag of Mail: Mizzou Trip Edition
Published on: September 06, 2012 | Written by: Clay Travis
Before we get rolling on the mailbag, how about a golf clap for Ole Miss fans?
So far they've been absent from our tattoo race and any awkward fan photos, but this is quite a doozy. An actual pile of poo where Starkville is located? On your body for the rest of your life?
That's quality fandom.
Not bad for Ole Piss! (The message boards are rolling. Did you see what I did there? I switched an M for a P! It's the best insult ever! An M for a P!)
Our beaver pelt trader of the week is Missouri defensive tackle Sheldon Richardson. Please keep talking. You're the only SEC player who has said anything remotely interesting all season.
On to the mailbag, but first, one more look at the Ole Miss tattoo.
David Farmer writes:
"The paramount question after the DNC is how much tail Clinton nailed after his speech - over/under 4.5 women?"
I watched Clinton's DNC speech last night because he's an absolute political master. I don't care who you vote for -- it's possible I'm the only person in America who thinks both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama would be good presidents for the next four years -- but Clinton is a complete political genius. So as I'm watching him speak I wondered two things:
1. If term limits don't exist when does he lose?
2. What percentage of female delegates would sleep with him the night after his speech?
Let's take them both in order.
First, I'm not sure Clinton ever loses. Clearly, he wins in 2000. (Hell, Al Gore actually won that election and he had a shadow of Clinton's political skills). In 2004, I think Clinton wins because if 9/11 still happens -- who knows if it would have? -- we rally around the President in power. Plus, who do the Republicans put forward against him that wouldn't have looked old and decrepit. John McCain four years earlier? He gets crushed by Clinton. Anyone else John McCain beat to get the nomination in 2004? The options are even weaker. The only real question becomes who do the Republicans run in 2008. Because the economy got so bad in 2008 it might have been impossible for any incumbent to win. (This is where hardcore Democrats argue that the economy would have never gotten so bad if Clinton was in charge). Toss in the heart issues and it's possible Clinton has to step down for health reasons before 2008.
Regardless, even the most hardcore Republican on Earth realizes that Clinton absolutely destroys Romney in 2012. I mean, like a Reagan vs. Mondale 1984 style landslide.
Clinton's ability to communicate in conjunction with his Southern drawl -- which just captivates poor white voters across the country, seriously, it does -- makes him virtually unbeatable on a national stage.
Now, to the second question, did you see the rapturous way women were gazing up at Clinton during his speech? This is a guy who cheated on his wife with an intern thirty years younger than his wife. Yet women don't care. They're over that. I was in D.C. during the Clinton presidency and the number of women who read the Starr report and came away even more turned on by Clinton after reading that report is completely underrated. The Starr Report was like 1998's "Fifty Shades of Grey." If Clinton had tied Lewinsky up...good Lord, there'd be a huge baby boomlet right now of kids born in the wake of the Starr report.
So what's a fair percentage of the women in the audience who would sleep with him if given the opportunity?
I go with 20% of the women in the arena, ages 18 to 80.
Do you guys think it's higher or lower? This may be way low.
Clinton is the Russell Brand of politics. For all we know there might have been someone under his lecturn pleasuring him while he spoke last night.
"Clay, I like to think I'm a level headed Auburn fan and I know the rest of the AU nation will hate me for this but I think Auburn would be smart to fire Gene Chizik after this season and hire Bobby Petrino. It's becoming more obvious every day that the national championship was won because of Super Cam and Chizik is never going to come close again unless he is able to get another once in a generation QB. I like Chiz, think he is a great guy (leather jacket and all) but c'mon man everyone knows Petrino would do a much better job with that team than Chizik is doing. I know he has the nc under his belt but look at the product on the field and you can see that we are not going back to that level anytime soon. Can you imagine if Mike Shula would have won a NC in '05 (he kind of came close to it? just go with me ok?) Bammer would have been too drunk on winning number 27 or whatever to realize it was a one time deal and the never would have gotten Lord Saban. I don't want to miss an opportunity like that and I think this is it. We should have hired him in '03 but our guys didnt have the balls to go through with it but they could correct that now. What do you think?"
Hopping from one beloved, philandering Arkansan to another is a perfect mailbag segue.
I told y'all that before the season was over SEC fan bases were going to be fighting like crazy to snag Petrino. And it's barely September and it's already happening. Kentucky fans want Petrino, Arkansas fans want Petrino back, UT fans don't want Petrino this week but they will if they lose to Florida and Georgia before September is done. Now, Auburn fans, who I think will really be nervous when Mississippi State beats them this weekend are already starting to get the Petrino talk started.
Look, there's no doubt Petrino would win big at Auburn.
I think intelligent Auburn fans are already asking themselves what Chizik would have proved as a coach if Super Cam doesn't end up at Auburn. Chizik is, at best, an 8-4 type coach. Meanwhile you have one of the two greatest coaches in the past 20 years -- Steve Spurrier and Nick Saban -- running like a hot knife through SEC butter.
Last year Petrino was the second best coach in the SEC. Where would you rank Chizik? Bottom half, middle tier at best, right? So if you're an SEC program and you have the chance to get the second best coach in conference don't you have to do it?
I think so.
That's why I've been telling Kentucky fans to grab Petrino. Hell, from an NCAA perspective, he's much cleaner than John Calipari. Petrino would absolutely kill at Kentucky. (Hopefully not literally). Given how weak the SEC East is right now, he could, and I can't believe I'm writing this, win the SEC east at Kentucky in the next four years. That's how good he is.
"If you ever have a daughter and she wants to date an SEC coach who would pray it was and was not?"
Was: Les Miles. I just think he's a great family man and is really well liked by everyone who spends time around him. Same with Mark Richt.
Was not: Now that Petrino is out of the mix, I'd probably go with Saban, just because I think all he cares about is football. Can you imagine Saban showing up at Christmas dinner? Like, what if he was your son-in-law and the turkey wasn't ready to be served at the time he was expecting it to be served? He'd flip out, right? Commandeer your television that you had the Macy's parade on and start watching game film. He's not playing with the kids, that's for sure. If he's had a bad season he might kick their presents.
Hell, if he lost to Auburn he might kick your kids.
So Saban's the worst choice.
"Bama vs the NFL. What do you think the spread would be against a top 5 team, an average team and a bottom 5 team?"
Western Kentucky coach Willie Taggart came on our 3HL show Monday and said that Bama would beat five or six NFL teams. I think that's a bit ridiculous, but he's probably coming from the Lou Holtz school of talking up his opponent.
I do think Bama could keep it close against the worse team in the NFL for three quarters. For instance, would you rather have the Arizona Cardinals offensive line or Bama's? Would you rather have Bama's defense or the worst defense in the NFL? I don't think this debate is as ridiculous as it sounds because I think a large percentage of Bama's players will be playing in the NFL. And nine or ten of these guys will probably be first three round picks. So you're talking about an absolute glut of talent.
I do question Bama's wide receiving talent, however. I'm not sure the Tide has anyone who could get open against an NFL secondary. I do think, however, that A.J. McCarron is an elite talent at quarterback and will be a first or second round draft pick. I mean, do you really think that, for instance, Russell Wilson is better than he is? Ryan Tannehill? I mean there are a bunch of guys starting in the NFL who were playing college last year or the year before.
Plus, here's the wild card a bit, a college has 85 scholarship players. Whereas an NFL team only dresses about half that number. Is Bama deep enough to rotate in a lot of fresh bodies on the defensive line? And could Bama's depth at running back actually be better than most NFL teams depth at running back? (I'll tell you this for damn sure, LSU has a better collection of running backs than any NFL team).
Ultimately I think it's unlikely, but I don't think the idea is absurd that Bama could hang with the absolute worst team in the NFL.
"What's the most accurate, unbiased Civil War history book you have read that you would recommend to me?"
I believe that every American should have to read Shelby Foote's "Civil War: A Trilogy" at some point in his or her lives.
Don't be put off by the size of the books. Just start reading. It's a truly amazing work by a masterful writer.
I think Foote, Taylor Branch, and Robert Caro have written the best non-fiction trilogies of our lives. But if I had to pick just one to read again, it would be Foote. By the way, Foote's a really interesting guy. When I was sixteen, he was speaking at a Civil War conference I attended in Tupelo, Mississippi -- yes, I've always been cool -- and I rushed up to him to ask for his autograph in my copy of his book.
"Sorry, I only sign books for close, personal friends."
I was sixteen!
It doesn't make the book any worse, but that's a hell of an ass move.
Anyway, do yourself a favor and start reading these books. Buy them here.
Bunch of you asked the next two questions:
"Do you think Mark Richt will play all his suspended players?"
Yes, I do.
I'm basing this on two things: 1. Aaron Murray took to Twitter asking for Richt to let the suspended players play. As soon as I retweeted him, Murray deleted his Tweet. But that makes me believe that Richt hasn't been firm in laying down the suspensions for this week.
2. I asked Richt this week whether the suspended players would play and he said he wasn't answering that question. If he was going to keep the suspension in place, wouldn't he just ago ahead and say so?
So, yeah, I think they'll all play. This just seems to be the Mark Richt way. Remember those convenient New Mexico State suspensions?
"Who has a better chance of winning Texas A&M or Mizzou?"
I think both teams have a very good chance of winning, but if I have to pick one team to win, I'd go with Texas A&M. Primarily because I think Florida is a much weaker team than Georgia is. Plus, I think Richt is going to play his suspended players which will make the Bulldog defense much stronger than it was last week.
I can't wait to see Mizzou at night and, clearly, everyone in the SEC East will be rooting for the Tigers to pull off the upset. Why? Because if Georgia loses its first SEC game, the east starts to look wide open. If the Bulldogs lose this early it certainly puts 6-2 or, potentially, 5-3 in play as a tiebreak win. And as I've been telling you for months every team but Kentucky can definitely get to 5-3 in the SEC east this year.
"Your probability of Vols being undefeated heading into Georgia, or even the Bama game?"
Going into the season I said the Vols would be 4-0 headed to Georgia. I see nothing to change that prediction at all. In fact, I think you can make a strong case that Cordarrelle Patterson has guaranteed Dooley another year coaching. I think his impact is going to be that substantial. Having said that, I also said the Vols would be 4-4 after the first eight.
So I'm still predicting an 8-4 season. And I still think the Vols lose at Georgia, at Mississippi State, to Bama, and at South Carolina before winning out.
So to answer your question I think there's a very good chance the Vols will beat Florida, probably a 55-60% chance. There's no way that the team should lose to Georgia State or Akron. So I'd say it's probably 50-50 that the Vols will be 4-0. That may not sound like much, but the Vols haven't been 4-0 since 2003.
Bill L. writes:
Is it bad that I'm 1) a South Carolina fan, and 2) not a redneck, but still think the giant Tebow Gator might be the most outstanding thing ever? I'm sure my wife wouldn't mind if I dropped ten grand on it and put it in our front yard. Also, would a stuffed chicken wearing a Garcia jersey with a beer can duct taped to his wing be appropriate for me to construct? Finally, would either of these make an appropriate wedding present?
If you were rich and could afford to spend $10k on a wedding gift, the giant Tebow Gator would be one of the greatest gifts ever.
Can you imagine the bride's face when this thing was unveiled?
And how do you move this thing once the wedding is over? The only thing better than the look on the bride's face, would be the look on the mother-in-law's face when she realized she had to figure out a way to move it from the wedding location since her daughter would be off on her honeymoon. I mean, this would just be an outstanding prank gift.
Hell, could you get ten guys to go in for a $1,000 each?
As for the South Carolina equivalent, why not just rent Stephen Garcia for the wedding? If you gave him $3k, a hotel room, and a hot bridesmaid -- or three or four -- don't you think he'd definitely show up? Can you imagine his stories? An even better idea might be to rent him for the bachelor party since there's a decent chance he'd sleep with the bride on the wedding night too.
"How much do you think I can get for a stuffed elephant wearing a Trent Richardson jersey?"
Most Bama fans would be willing to spend their life's savings for a one-of-a-kind object like that.