clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

SHUTDOWN FULLCAST 4.45: WEEK EIGHT SAYS CHICKEN FOR BREAKFAST IS FINE

New, 834 comments

THE INEVITABILITY OF BAMA (AGAIN) AND THE HAMMERING PANDA

Wisconsin v Michigan Photo by Leon Halip/Getty Images

FULLCAST BACK. This time without Ryan, who we subbed out for Jane Coaston, MTV News writer, Michigan fan, and Hammering Panda evangelist. It’s like all the other podcasts where we bring someone else in: better by subtraction of one of our three inept selves, and then improved further by having an actual competent person on the show.

TOPICS:

  • The Hammering Panda and Man Berg, aka the Big Ten’s two best-named players taking the same field for Illinois/Michigan. This is the only reason to even think about this game.
  • Discussion of the biggest game of the week...EASTERN MICHIGAN AT WESTERN MICHIGAN
  • Fine, fine, we talk about the various fictions one has to write in order to get to a competitive and real Texas A&M/Alabama game. Remember how it’s in Tuscaloosa? That’s neat!
  • Jason points out that the SEC West is set on random this year. See: Gus Malzahn, tough-minded, defense-first coach.
  • Oregon/Cal exists? Why?
  • What NC State is (a kind of demon raccoon that thrives in trash fires) and why they could theoretically be a problem in a noon game with Louisville
  • The IT JUST MEANS MORE game of the week is MTSU/Mizzou, which Mizzou could totalllllllllllly lose
  • Jason leaves like Mack Brown in the middle of the broadcast, meaning Jane and Spencer take advantage of the opportunity to yell about Colorado, which SEC coach is secretly a democrat, and why Chick-Fil-A needs to stop this stupid shit where they insist no one believed in chicken for breakfast
  • WE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN CHICKEN FOR BREAKFAST
  • Oh, and in those reader questions, we talk about how Baylor is the most hated team by media this season because almost no one in college football media has the faintest clue how to start talking about what happened at Baylor. That’s bad! As in really bad, as in almost as bad as conducting a report/review that you just summarized in a separate summary of public findings without naming individuals at all.