Kirk Herbstreit Needs a Snickers

College GameDay analysts - Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit in particular - have been none too kind to the Cincinnati Bearcats this season. UC, of the American Athletic Conference, finished the season 13-0 and became the first group-of-5 team to get invited to the college football playoff.

What was Herbstreit's initial reaction? On ESPN's selection special, he said this:

"But I'm confused. What about that narrative that the Group of Five wasn't allowed to get in? I heard there was a lot of buzz out there that the committee would never put a Group of Five (team) in. It's weird. They must not have gotten that rule."

After receiving backlash for his comment, he doubled-down on Twitter with this post:

"After SEVEN years of b*tching and complaining from a vocal minority that the CFP system is rigged and the 'small guy' will NEVER GET A CHANCE-haven't heard much from ya last couple days. Everything okay? What's the next conspiracy theory?? Can't wait! Cause that one is history."

I normally respect Herbstreit's commentary. The guy tends to give a fair analysis, even when it's not popular. While he may have gone to and played for Ohio State, he doesn't allow that to interfere with providing his nonpartisan take on things. But he's dead wrong here, and not only is his commentary on the matter painfully ignorant; it's flat out offensive.

Herbstreit seems to imply that since a single group-of-5 team made the playoffs in 7 years, that somehow means they are now (as have they always been) viewed and treated as equals. He seems to think, once a minority breaks through the glass ceiling somewhere, they no longer have to work harder than their peers to reach such a point. Yeah, that's a load of horsesh*t right there.

There are 130 teams in the FBS. Of those 130 teams, Cincinnati is the ONLY unbeaten team in the country. Let me repeat that: There are 130 teams in the FBS. of those 130 teams, Cincinnati is the ONLY unbeaten team in the country. Yet here we are, debating about whether or not they're worthy of a playoff spot, because they're not in the Power-5. Oh, but since the only undefeated team amongst 130 made a playoff, that then proves anyone can make it to the playoff. Riiight... Let's dive even deeper. Not only was Cincinnati the only unbeaten team in college football; they needed some serious help along the way. Ohio State lost twice. Oregon lost twice to Utah. Oklahoma lost twice. Baylor lost twice. Oklahoma State lost twice. Michigan State lost twice. Mississippi lost twice. If any, ANY of these teams lost one fewer game (perhaps two in Oregon's case), they would have replaced Cincinnati in the playoff. Oh, and I intentionally left one team out - Notre Dame. The only reason the 1-loss Irish aren't ranked ahead of Cincinnati is because, by seemingly miraculous happenstance, Cincinnati beat Notre Dame in South Bend this year. A person may have a better chance at winning the lottery than Cincinnati (or any group-of-5 team) had at being selected for the college football playoff. So, no, Kirk, this doesn't somehow disprove the fact (not conspiracy theory) that group-of-5 teams face a near impossible uphill climb to even be considered for a spot in the 4-team college football playoff.

Also, I just gotta say Kirk's tweet rubbed me the wrong way. He implied that the "little guy" - the minority - needs to stop whining about equality, for since they were given one chance, they're now obviously equals. I know he was talking football, but that kind of mentality, when extended to other parts of life, is dangerous. What, after electing 43 white presidents, since Barack Obama got elected, that derides the notion that racism is still prevalent in this country and POC need to stop talking about it? While a first is incredibly important, it does not equate to a norm, and until we're proven that said first is more a trend than an aberration, it's painfully ignorant and offensive to suggest otherwise. Kirk, eat a Snickers.

https://thespun.com/aac/cincinnati/fans-were-not-happy-with-kirk-herbstreits-comment-on-sunday

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2021/12/08/tim-brando-criticizes-kirk-herbstreit-tweet-cincinnati-playoff

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!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog