Godfrey touched on the gambling sponsors / segments, just wanted to say nothing is worse than listening to podcasts force in a gambling segment, and this is from someone who gambles a lot on sports. If I want gambling content I’ll find it, doesn’t need to be forced. Don’t make a turn like Spittin Chiclets which was great listen until it started forcing in gambling picks.
I appreciate this point. We haven't had a gambling sponsor for a while now for the reasons Steven has covered on the SW, but just a matter of personal preference, I've always felt the best use of gambling info in podcasts is to provide an entry point to talk about the game. (That's how we've most often used it, both when sponsored in years past and not.)
For sure, if Draftkings wants to throw money around then obviously secure the bag. I think referencing a spread as a talking point is certainly different ,and fine, compared to tuning in to hear about what side of the spread the hosts think is the pick though, which is usually the gateway drug to listening to someone put together a nauseating same game parlay.
Nothing is worse than hearing the people that you know that do gamble on sports talk about all of the parlays they almost hit or what games they have action on.
Either Godfrey isn't as plugged in to the vibe at USC as he thinks he is or I'm not, because man, I don't think any sane member of that fanbase, staff, or admin is expecting 10 wins this season with this schedule. His 9-win projection would frankly be an overachievement. Their Vegas win total is set at 7 for good reason: as it stands now, they're clear dogs against LSU, Michigan, Penn State, and ND along with arguable toss-ups against Wisconsin, Washington, Nebraska, etc. If I'm a reasonable USC fan (which I like to at least think I am), I'm content to let others in the conference scrap for second place behind Ohio State in 2024 as long as I'm seeing:
1.) Measurable improvement on defense. The staff looks good on paper, but was all the talk about finally taking that side of the ball seriously (read: in practice and game prep) just lip-service from Lincoln? They don't need to become the '85 Bears overnight, but let's see sound fundamentals, proper alignments, and fewer missed tackles.
2.) More cohesion on the O-line. Seems like a sneaky-underdiscussed issue in light of the glaring ones on defense, but are we sure they've got the right guy in Josh Henson? Where is this unit going? I expect if Miller Moss is the full-season starter that he'll make them look better on passing downs given how quickly he seems to get the ball out, but can they get any semblance of a run game going against a team like Michigan?
3.) The staff hold on to a good portion of their blue-chip commits. Do I expect them to sign all three of Justus Terry, Julian Lewis, and Isaiah Gibson? Probably not. Can they keep at least two of those three and land a couple more?
College Football would need to get rid of the college part to have a draft. If, for example, a player wanted to study engineering, you can't force him to go to a school that doesn't offer that course of study, nor could you force a kid to go to Stanford that can't handle the work or make someone go to a school that has an inferior business or journalism school than another school.
Godfrey touched on the gambling sponsors / segments, just wanted to say nothing is worse than listening to podcasts force in a gambling segment, and this is from someone who gambles a lot on sports. If I want gambling content I’ll find it, doesn’t need to be forced. Don’t make a turn like Spittin Chiclets which was great listen until it started forcing in gambling picks.
I appreciate this point. We haven't had a gambling sponsor for a while now for the reasons Steven has covered on the SW, but just a matter of personal preference, I've always felt the best use of gambling info in podcasts is to provide an entry point to talk about the game. (That's how we've most often used it, both when sponsored in years past and not.)
For sure, if Draftkings wants to throw money around then obviously secure the bag. I think referencing a spread as a talking point is certainly different ,and fine, compared to tuning in to hear about what side of the spread the hosts think is the pick though, which is usually the gateway drug to listening to someone put together a nauseating same game parlay.
Nothing is worse than hearing the people that you know that do gamble on sports talk about all of the parlays they almost hit or what games they have action on.
Either Godfrey isn't as plugged in to the vibe at USC as he thinks he is or I'm not, because man, I don't think any sane member of that fanbase, staff, or admin is expecting 10 wins this season with this schedule. His 9-win projection would frankly be an overachievement. Their Vegas win total is set at 7 for good reason: as it stands now, they're clear dogs against LSU, Michigan, Penn State, and ND along with arguable toss-ups against Wisconsin, Washington, Nebraska, etc. If I'm a reasonable USC fan (which I like to at least think I am), I'm content to let others in the conference scrap for second place behind Ohio State in 2024 as long as I'm seeing:
1.) Measurable improvement on defense. The staff looks good on paper, but was all the talk about finally taking that side of the ball seriously (read: in practice and game prep) just lip-service from Lincoln? They don't need to become the '85 Bears overnight, but let's see sound fundamentals, proper alignments, and fewer missed tackles.
2.) More cohesion on the O-line. Seems like a sneaky-underdiscussed issue in light of the glaring ones on defense, but are we sure they've got the right guy in Josh Henson? Where is this unit going? I expect if Miller Moss is the full-season starter that he'll make them look better on passing downs given how quickly he seems to get the ball out, but can they get any semblance of a run game going against a team like Michigan?
3.) The staff hold on to a good portion of their blue-chip commits. Do I expect them to sign all three of Justus Terry, Julian Lewis, and Isaiah Gibson? Probably not. Can they keep at least two of those three and land a couple more?
College Football would need to get rid of the college part to have a draft. If, for example, a player wanted to study engineering, you can't force him to go to a school that doesn't offer that course of study, nor could you force a kid to go to Stanford that can't handle the work or make someone go to a school that has an inferior business or journalism school than another school.
Oh yes the biggest news in the CFB world… I joke, I know y’all will cover it soon! Good show