Skip to main content

Admit it, ESPN Saban-homers, you were wrong!

I found it utterly hilarious to listen to the ESPN talking heads discussing the college football national championship game from last night. It's as if they were all involved in a you-got-it-more-wrong-than-I-did shouting match.

"You picked Alabama!"

"Oh yeah?!? Well, you picked them by 50!"

"At least I knew who Trevor Lawrence was!"

"I said Lawrence was a better quarterback than Tua!"

"Oh, no you didn't! You never even uttered his name!"

Then there were "experts" who went the denial route, saying, "I still can't believe it happened. I'm stunned. I woke up today and thought, 'Was I dreaming?'"

Just admit it, you drank the Nick Saban/Alabama Kool-Aid and were wrong, as Donald Trump would say, "bigly!"

I admit, before bowl season began, I thought Alabama was going to win the title. After watching the semifinal games between the Tide and Oklahoma, as well as Notre Dame and Clemson, however, I said right then and there, "Clemson is going to win the title and do it in convincing fashion." Why? I felt like Clemson had the far better defense; Alabama's was overrated; Tua, while promising, was not quite as good as his stats would indicate; the Tide's kicking game was problematic; and the Tigers just came across as wanting it more. Combine all of those ingredients and you have a 44-16 ass-whooping by the Tigers.

I think it's time for many in the media to admit Alabama, and the SEC in general, aren't as dominant as they had thought. While the four-team playoff isn't without its flaws (see Central Florida), it does condense the opportunity for bias. Before it was implemented, the two teams which passed the subjective eye-test with the highest scores were rewarded with slots in the title game. With the postseason expanding from 2 to 4, bias is less likely to impact the eventual national champion. While the SEC is without a doubt a great football conference, they tend to get by more on reputation, courtesy of the media, than actual performance. No other conference, major or minor, takes a week off by playing only FCS schools. No other conference could see a team of theirs lose the final game of the regular season, be ineligible for the conference title game, and wind up in the national title game. The SEC may have a great reputation on the field, but they should have to earn it on an annual basis just like everyone else.

Let's look at how the conference fared in bowl season. The SEC went an even 6-6 (hardly dominant). Their wins included: Alabama's semifinal triumph over Oklahoma; Texas A&M came back in the 2nd half to crush North Carolina State; Auburn dominated 6-6 Purdue; Florida beat up on an undermanned Michigan team; LSU held on against Central Florida; and Kentucky did similarly against Penn State. The conference's losses included: Alabama's 44-16 defeat at the hands of Clemson in the national championship game; Mississippi State beating themselves against Iowa; heavily-favored Georgia falling to Texas; Vanderbilt falling short against Baylor; Missouri losing to Oklahoma State; and South Carolina getting shut-out by Virginia. The only major conference that fared worse than the SEC in bowl season was the Pac-12 at 3-4. The ACC (6-5), Big Ten (5-4), and Big XII (4-3) all finished with better records than the supposed superior conference.

Not only that, but before the four-team playoff was implemented and champions were determined by the eye-test as much as anything else, the SEC had won 7 of the previous 8 titles. In the five years since said implementation, the SEC has won the title twice, tied with the ACC for the most of any conference, with the Big Ten winning the other.

I'm not saying Nick Saban isn't a great coach; that Alabama isn't a great program; or that the SEC isn't a great conference. All I'm saying is it's about time for the media to stop looking at them with rose-colored glasses, while treating everyone else as inferior, even before the season starts. The SEC should have to earn their way to the top season in and season out, just like every other conference. While they can say all they'd like that Clemson's last-second win against Alabama a couple years ago was partially due to luck; even the most ardent of Tide/SEC fans can't say that about the 44-16 route the Tigers put on the Tide last night. Roll Tide, Roll?!? Not hardly...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"