I’m fairly certain you’ll never be asked to do that, but… yes.
Then you do it in stages: 1st thread is to ask for nominations, second is the poll itself with the nominated people. 
Last game, a defensive back dropped a sure interception. Guess which joke-cliche Billick pulled off. Rowr. Outside of that, I liked his insight.
Was it “you have to make that play”? Because I’m okay with that one- it’s not so much a cliche since, well, what else would you say?
The great majority of color commentators are smart, personable, reasonably articulate guys. Indeed, in all the years I’ve watched football, I can only think of two color commentators who were bad enough to lessen my enjoyment of a game: Howard Cosell and Dennis Miller.
So, I “like” MOST color men. But while I like Phil Simms, Darryl Johnston, Cris Collinsworth and Troy Aikman, I can honestly say none of them has ever taught me a single thing that wasn’t already obvious. Years ago, Ron Jaworski was a valuable resource, but not recently. Brian Billick is currently one of the few insightful TV commentators.
Strangely, I find that Al Michaels tells me more interesting facts about football than either John Madden or Cris Collinsworth does.
Al and Chris. Joe Buck and Aikman are awful though both are better than Theisman.
If you score to go from 17-7 behind to 17-14 points behind, you are correct in saying you are “within 3 points.” One of the definitions of the word is “not beyond.” 3 is not beyond 3, so usage is correct.
My favs would be Collinsworth and Buck.
Chris Berman was the guy I was trying to think of. Does anyone like him?
He irritates the heck out of me with his: “He will go all the way” comments and the whoop whoop noise he makes, which I already mentioned.
I fear Berman will permanently lose his voice someday… sometimes nothing comes out when he’s talking…
Yes, it does mean “not beyond.”
Within Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (underlining is mine)
17 minus 14 is 3. 3 is not beyond 3. 3 is a quantitiy. Therefore, a team with 14 points is within 3 points of a team with 17 points, by this definition. It is also a common usage in sports, and words are defined by usage, ultimately.
Collinsworth gets the thumbs up from me.
At the other end of the spectrum, Gruden needs to get a coaching job. I mute MNF.
Yes, they are. Let’s take the Merriam-Webster example you quoted: “live within your income”.
I make $1,000 a year. I spend $1,000 a year. Would I be using the idiom correctly if I claimed to be living within my income?
Yes, I would interpret it as such.
More technically, if you if spent more than $1,000 per year, you would be living beyond your income. By not doing so, you are not living beyond your income. And, here, not beyond equals within.
eta: I understand that you may think differently, but I would suggest that if you want to further discuss it that we change venues, as this is a pretty off-topic hijack.
I like Collinsworth and Simms. I LOATHE Aikman and Buck. (I hate Fox Sports in general)
To you it is. To me, [mis]use of within is a fundamental question WRT whether a commentator is any good. 
I think so, but in my case, I don’t fear it.