SEC Bias is Intolerable - An Email to Pat Forde
by JRPasadena on Oct 25, 2009 2:32 PM CDT
123 comments
(Yes, I edited the Headline to correct the typo. Have at it.)
Below is the text of an email I sent to Pat Forde this am.
Pat,
The fact you get paid to write is incredibly comical. After reading your column this week on Alabama and comparing it to last week’s pile of dung on Texas (and I only use that childish metaphor because that is the metaphor your column began with last week), I will never waste my time reading another word you write. I am also canceling my subscription to ESPN magazine, just in the off chance I come across your byline. The moment I see your talking head on my television, I will fast forward right through it.
Your SEC bias is blatantly obvious and the result is lazy, uninspired analysis, ossifying in my mind why blogs are usually a much better bet to find cogent commentary. The fact that you pull a check spewing your nonsense is mind-numbing to me.
Let’s break down the two columns heretofore mentioned.
OU and Texas beat each other senseless for 60 minutes. Both Venables and Muschamp prepared stellar defensive game plans and each defensive unit executed those plans extremely well. With the intensity of a rival game, both offenses struggled to counter those excellent game plans. The young men from both Texas and OU engaged in basically a back-alley bar brawl, one of the most ferociously physical games in the 100+ game series.
But that’s not the way you saw it. You focused your lead on a cow taking a dump and compared the game to that.
It was bovine poetry in motion. It was an apt metaphor for this game.
What amazing writing, Pat. Adam Gopnik, Malcolm Gladwell, Seymour Hersch, Calvin Trillion and (the hundreds of) other great American writers must be looking over their shoulder terrified at you supplanting them as the best essayists in America.
Instead of basing your analysis on what actually happened, you preferred to speculate.
This much seems clear: No. 20 Oklahoma would have won Saturday with Bradford playing the full 60 minutes.
It (OU) has now lost three games by a total of five points and can only wonder what this season would have been like with the 2008 Heisman Trophy winner (and All-America tight end Jermaine Gresham) healthy.
Hhhhmmm. Maybe you prefer speculating to actually commenting on facts because you refused to look at facts at the beginning of the season. As an "expert" (I guffaw when I read you described as such) you picked OU to win the Big 12 despite having to replace 4 of 5 linemen (and considering Trent Williams was moving from right to left tackle, OU was basically replacing 5 of 5 linemen). Any "expert" knows (as did the other 7 at the beginning of the season) that you don’t replace an entire offensive line and go undefeated. Colt McCoy’s sophomore drop-off was caused SOLELY by a new offensive line not giving him time to throw. Before the season I told every college football fan I knew that Bradford would be running for his life this year, much like Colt was his sophomore year. As it turns out, Sam will not be running for his life because, unfortunately, an inexperienced line led to his season-ending injury.
Does Pat mention any of that? Nope he just speculates that if Grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle. You are right, Pat. Amazing insight. Never mind that Grandmother will never have wheels.
And never mind that Texas won a brutally physical, prize-fight of a game. They didn’t win with "style".
If this was a statement game for the nation's No. 3 team, Texas didn't state much of a case.
And this week’s column? Is this logic used for Alabama? Does Forde point out that Alabama’s performance was worthy of a pile-of-pooh metaphor? Of course not. Somehow you focus on Cody deserving to be carved into Alabama’s Mount Rushmore. And instead of analyzing facts you outright lie.
Alabama led 12-10 but was on the verge of losing everything -- a game it had controlled, a season it had dominated, a national championship it coveted.
"A game it had controlled"? Are you referring to the 6 plays the Alabama offense ran in the third quarter? Or was it the 9 minutes of time of possession Alabama had in the second half? Or was it the 84 yards of total offense Alabama produced in the second half? Or was it the 265 yards the Alabama defense gave up Jonathon Crompton? (Jonathon Crompton, for Chrissakes!!) Or was it McElroy’s impressive 120 yards passing, an average of 4 yards per attempt. Or was it the fact Alabama could not score a single touchdown in this game? Or was it the fact that Cody had to block another field goal and Lincoln missed another earlier field goal, any of which would have been the difference in the game
These "game-controlling" stats are FACTS, Pat; facts are not something you really concern yourself with, but I needed to point them out anyway. This "game-controlling" effort came from Alabama in a game played AT HOME against a team who lost AT HOME to UCLA. If ever was needed the metaphor of a large pile of elephant EXCREMENT to describe a game, this would qualify. But not you. Someone reading your column would think this was a game for the ages.
And when a fan makes the obvious point that this game was a cesspool and Alabama’s offense mightily stunk it up, you cannot look past your Saban man-crush to agree.
One Alabama fan with a 1980s perm came up to me shortly after the game -- not to rejoice in Cody's block, but to rip Saban for the goal-line sequence.
Instead of acknowledging how the facts of the game support that fan’s analysis, you make fun of his appearance and give this amazing response:
And now you know why Saban makes $4 million a year -- to put up with fans like that.
And now you know that you are exposed for the fraud you are. Sit in that Podunk town in Kentucky and continue to run Party propaganda for the Soviet Eastern Conference. Continue to steal by substituting cogent analysis with coach crushes. (Perhaps if you actually pulled away from a coach’s jock for a few minutes, you could actually let facts drive your writing. How ridiculous was your man-crush on Rick Pitino after his Art of Success-inspired behavior was brought to light around the same time your love letter was delivered?)
I will never read another word you write and I will encourage as many others as I know to do the same thing.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
6 recs |
123 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
I puked when I read his piece on Alabama
Absolutely pathetic. You wrote what I thought. Nice
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
by kriess on Oct 25, 2009 2:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What a letter!
Hahahaha… I love it. I ripped him apart for that RRR article on the ESPN comments. Unfortunately, I doubt he reads any of them, and if he does, he probably gets to the first negative word and then skips ahead. The phrase “ESPN” is derogatory in my house. (eg: With such well-informed opinions like that, you could work for ESPN. [Note the overwhelming sarcasm])
I know that it is all about ratings and web-hits for them, but it is absolutely ridiculous. The only people I can stand in the whole network are Ivan Maisel and Beano Cook… and Beano is pretty insane, but funny.
I am still going to go to Forde’s articles. Not to read his drivel, of course, but because I’m going to write down all of the advertisements, and make note to consciously boycott those companies to the best of my abilities.
"We takin it all the way back to Awwwstin, Texas, baby!"
by 2100 San Jac on Oct 25, 2009 2:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You're Right. That is a Perfect Reason to Keep Reading His Drivel.
I am still going to go to Forde’s articles. Not to read his drivel, of course, but because I’m going to write down all of the advertisements, and make note to consciously boycott those companies to the best of my abilities.
Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
by JRPasadena on Oct 25, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa!!
Nice letter, holy shit!! Well thought out and executed. I hope like hell he reads that…
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
by KWashburn on Oct 25, 2009 3:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha...nice letter
I actually like Pat Forde. He doesn’t really offer much of anything in the way of analysis, but his Forde Yard Dash is usually a fun read. He’s also very insightful when it comes to Kentucky/Louisville basketball, which I’m partial to. So he’s going that going for him, which is nice.
by jc25 on Oct 25, 2009 3:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I usually enjoy his articles very much, especially his Forde Yard Dash. But lately he has been drinking the SEC kool-aid a little too much and it has infected his writing like the plague.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
by kriess on Oct 25, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
A savage attack on Pat’s obvious bias, to be sure.
But have you ever heard the phrase, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? You clearly have a case and evidence to back it up, but your first paragraph is so vitriolic I doubt he reads the rest of it, because he probably gets several emails with that tone a season.
If he does read the rest of it, there’s little to no chance that he responds to you, except to throw some of the dung back in your direction. At worst he’ll take out of context the worst parts of your email and respond to them publicly, with the strawman aimed at making you look like Yosemite Sam with an internet connection.
Next time, then, if you decide to do something like this, I would suggest you come with a more civil tone and present the facts as you did later in your email. You can make fun of it, to be sure, because unless the guy’s just a douchebag, he has to be able to laugh at himself, but no need to back-handedly insult his intelligence.
You have a really good point and I think you had the right idea, but just to give you (and anyone else who feels like calling out one of these pundits) a better chance of being taken seriously, I thought I would offer what I consider to be advice.
That said, I think everyone feels the same way you do towards some of these guys. Judging only from their writing, you’d assume they were filling out a form letter for each of their stories:
Let me first just point out what a [Travesty/Determined Effort] we saw on Saturday. [Non-SEC team/SEC team] [did win/not only won], but showed [its weaknesses/real toughness] in [hanging on for its life/gutting it out] against a [terrible/feisty] [opponent] squad…
by Horn Brain on Oct 25, 2009 3:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
this
I can understand the point that you are trying to drive home, but this really seems like an overreaction. The above poster is right: this letter is written in such a vindictive, immature tone that any points that are made in it are going to be ignored due to the lack of respect displayed by the writer. Even if you had more to base your judgement on than the two articles you cite, and that this perceived bias is truly as great an injustice as you paint it, you still should respect the man when you write to him. I’m sure Pat Forde has worked hard to get where he is at (even though “where he is at” is being an ESPN cronie), and puts effort into his work, and rightfully shouldn’t give the time of day to people who write letters like this. Also, when you are laying out the evidence to support your claim, it makes a stronger point if you don’t lace all of it with opinions of your own.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Oct 25, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing about that statement...
Is that it’s not true. At least for fruit flies.
by ajax77777 on Oct 25, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
but just to give you (and anyone else who feels like calling out one of these pundits) a better chance of being taken seriously, I thought I would offer what I consider to be advice.
Maybe I would have a better chance of taking your unsolicited advice seriously if your photo wasn’t so ridiculously infantile.
by JRPasadena on Oct 25, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
That is all you got? Attack his photo. Weak sauce.
by Wells on Oct 25, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry but this rant is just embarrassing.
to sit down and take time out of your day to “call out” a guy that’s paid to publish polarizing articles on espn in order to drive site traffic is sad. find a hobby and don’t take everything you read so personally.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
by burrito on Oct 25, 2009 3:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You just called out a guy
who is upset with the way the media covers-up and exposes things at their sole discretion, but consistently lack any real facts to base their claims off of.
How are you any different? Its not embarrasing, its his opinion, and he’s entitled to it. Now I agree he could have handled it in a better way, but he did what he did and I’m sure he’s happy with getting it off his chest as it was quite alot to write.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
by kriess on Oct 25, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Burrito...
You have to be kidding, right? The SEC and USC bias is comical, obvious, chronic, and nauseating to boot. I am happy he nailed Forde to the mat with facts. I for one am over the Tebow, SEC, Bama tugfest on a weekly basis. When the Big XII has a defensive slugfest, it is a woeful game chock full of excrement…when it is in the SEC, it is a defensive game for the ages with the King of Kings persevering in the face of adversity.
If you cannot see how calling them out on it would make one feel better, I am sorry. Perhaps his fire for the Horns burns a bit brighter than yours…
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 25, 2009 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if it takes 1000 words to an espn writer to prove how much of a fan i am count me out
whining about writer’s OPINIONS is just a big pet peeve of mine. they are paid to make people upset because that’s what drives pagehits/ratings (see: Fox News/MSNBC). letting yourself get worked up about it benefits no one. if forde writes positively about texas does that suddenly make them no. 1 in the bcs? all I see when i read rants like this is grown men getting their feelings hurt.
nothing that anyone writes has any consequence to texas’ season. wins and losses are all any TRUE fan should be worried about. the success of our season is determined by what happens saturday and not what people write about sunday through monday.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
by burrito on Oct 25, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Influential people that have votes...
read these articles and snippets from “experts” which COULD sway their votes one way or the other. Is it a conspiracy? An emphatic no. We are all different…when you attack him for venting, you can become the target from those who are empathetic to his cause. What you see as getting worked up others may view as responding in kind. That being said, you felt the need to chastise him…you felt the need to take time out of your day to “set him straight.” So it appears the “response” cycle will be able to continue…
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 25, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
apples and oranges
visiting a public discussion board and writing a personal email aren’t exactly the same thing. now, if i had written 1000 words and messaged JRP personally, you could make that comparison.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
by burrito on Oct 25, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will agree to disagree...hook em.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 26, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
meant to say sunday through friday.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
by burrito on Oct 25, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell that to Auburn of 2004.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ranting hardly serves a purpose other than to get it out of your own system
But it sure won’t affect Forde’s work. As mentioned, it’s actually part of his job to incite further division so he’s simply doing that. You probably feel a bit better, but you’ve not changed anything. Also, untolerable is not a word. I hope you didn’t include that in your letter. Grammatical and spelling errors remove all credibility in these types of letters.
My personal experience has taught me to write out my emotions, but not to hit send until 24 hours have passed. Then read it again and make the changes that come from clarity of mind.
It was a fun read though.
by UT92 on Oct 25, 2009 4:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Angry letters/emails, with all words spelled correctly or not, are noted by corporations (just as they are by politicians). It is worth ensuring ESPN hears about the low-quality product Forde generates under their name. We need more angry emails, not fewer.
by Orangetower87 on Oct 25, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but it's webtraffic, not letters that drives their decisions
Politicians read letters because they are elected by their constituents. Corporations read them to determine viability of products in the market, and possible liability issues. ESPN and such look at this type of journalism and the ensuing letters (believe me, they get angry letters from the SEC fans too) as “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. The more you yell at them, the more they see a reader that’s going to be surfing their site at an even higher rate. They love these letters because it shows strong interest and despite JRPasedena’s threat to boycott them, they’re willing to bet (and I am too) that he’ll be back.
It’s all about the traffic because that’s how they get paid.
by UT92 on Oct 25, 2009 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
but i am still glad he did it
by Orangetower87 on Oct 25, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm where to begin
- Forde, although more prone to write off (and about) emotion than fact as you pointed out, is not that bad in my opinion…sure Maisel is probably more knowledgeable, is more fact-based in his writings, but Forde has found his niche with his widely popular Forde Yard Dash He grew up on UK basketball, currently has a man-crush on Saban and Tebow simultaneously, but has done a fair job at staying unbiased and covering the nation well…again he is popular because of his writing style
-
— He got called up to “the big leagues” for a reason…same way former DMN writer Kevin Blackistone…I grew up reading his good stories and he deservedly is in a larger market and does soem work for ESPN…dumb and dumber (bohls and golden) will forever be minor league because (a) they do not have an interesting style or gimic and (b) they don’t come hard enough with the facts, so save your venom for writers like them that deserve it
- I love our Longhorns, but let’s call a spade a spade…the RRR was ugly, so I have no beef with Forde for saying so…he didn’t say the game was a pile of cow dung, he said it was ugly, and it was…for a national writer to come in and see the #3 team in the nation he expected more and so did I, but as a longhorn fan I’m just glad to get away with a win Alabama’s biggest rivalry is probably LSU or Auburn; Tennessee’s biggest rival is Alabama (sounds a lot like TX and OU and A&M and TX respectively, right?)…so Alabama got Tennessee’s best shot…i don’t care that bama was at home (we have struggled vs. a lesser talented A&M team at home many times)…bama and Cody made some incredible plays (and Lincoln kicks way too low)…great SEC game on an October afternoon…Forde doesn’t crown them champs, merely writes how big they played when pushed to the brink…some championship like defense (and luck)
-
— Texas beat up a pretty bad Mizzou team…a Mizzou team that is in the cellar in the Big 12 NORTH!! It’s all relative, and I’m not going to get too excited by this blowout
Forde was assigned to write up one of his humorous and hyperbolic — albeit light on the stats — columns, and he did that.
Now, if he decides to go work for CBS as an analyst, then we can talk
by trueorangeblood on Oct 25, 2009 5:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I always thought of Florida as Tenn's biggest rival, and prob. FSU as UF's biggest...
…and Miami as FSU’s biggest.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 25, 2009 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um..
go to the Iron Bowl some time and see if there is any doubt about who Alabama’s biggest rival is.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 26, 2009 12:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's perfectly cromulent
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Oct 25, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irregardless, I could care less.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 25, 2009 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We've got an "irregardless" sighting
It’s just a matter of time until BiC and the knights of non-standard English join the fun.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Oct 25, 2009 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ehhh...you're aware that I made both the mistakes in that comment intentionally, right?
by burntorangehorn on Oct 25, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where the hell have you been?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Oct 26, 2009 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reading everything
I think I’m too dumb to comment intelligently on most of the things that are written here, and too smart to make uninformed comments like some of my dumber peers.
:)
by Meekrob on Oct 26, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are a philospher and a poet
Don’t let the knights of standards and practices hold you back Meekrob.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Oct 27, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think of myself as having a pretty good memory.
But you put mine to shame. How do you remember this stuff?
by ajax77777 on Oct 25, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He eats three packs of apple sauce a day
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
by run Bevo run on Oct 26, 2009 12:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then LH should really go for the jars.
It’d be far more cost effective.
by ajax77777 on Oct 26, 2009 12:46 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pure grain alcohol and rainwater.
No idea, my memory for things in the real world is much better than my memory for things here but yes, I hear that I have an absurd memory a lot.
All I can tell you is that no apple sauce is involved. I find it revolting. It’s a consistency issue.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Oct 26, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, oh...Simpsons reference.
Got it now.
“Me fail English? That’s unpossible.”
by burntorangehorn on Oct 25, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good boy, Ralphie ....
How do we get out of here…?
I know ….we’ll dig our way out…
no no dig up stupid!
by Xerxes on Oct 26, 2009 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thrilled the Typo Generated More Responses Than Anything Else
Fellas. Look at your keyboard and check the letter to the right of the “U”. Hhhmmm. An “I”.
I copied, pasted, titled and published in a hurry because I needed to take my daughter somewhere.
In any event, trueorangeblood if you choose to be a Forde apologist or fan, please, by all means, knock yourself out. Ditto to the Copy Editors here.
However, 2100 San Jac & Mulliganville – I live less than two miles from the Rose Bowl, pulled 24 tickets to the 2005 National Championship (at a dollar cost average of $350 a ticket and could have sold the lot for about a $22,000 profit) and threw a tailgate at the stadium that people still talk about. You two are invited.
Everyone else can kiss the behind of Little and Brown and Pat Forde.
by JRPasadena on Oct 25, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesom...I live in Mission Viejo. Done and Thank you.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 25, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops...Awesome. Stay off my case professors.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 25, 2009 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They still talk about it?
Wow, that must have been one hell of a tailgate, or they really need to get a life.
by Wells on Oct 25, 2009 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is up with the cracking on our own?
I like his passion for the Horns and calling a spade a spade. You know, how CNN and most media outlets lean to the left but claim to be unbiased…uh, OK Keith Olbermann…
JR vented in a place where venting should be permitted without attacks from those seek the same outcome to this season: A Horns stomping of an SEC opponent already crowned the MNC like USC in 2005. He is defensive due to being ganged up on by his own. Not cool IMHO.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 25, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A) Leave off the politics, no good will come of it.
B) When the AP vote mattered in the BCS formula, I had a friend who wrote a letter to EVERY AP voter making a case for the horns to make the 2004 Rose Bowl. It was a two page, highly cogent essay with an appendix. I don’t remember how much time and money it cost him but I remember being shocked. I also admired what he did and understood the point. Any voter he could sway in the slightest mattered. The AP vote doesn’t matter now unless you’ve got a version of BCS hypochondria.
C) At the same time, I don’t understand the point of this. ESPN pays writers to argue agendas that will generate traffic. Right, wrong, or indifferent as long as the writers generate traffic and ratings ESPN will keep paying them. It’s like getting upset about a cable news station which doesn’t fit your particular viewpoint. They don’t care. As long as they satisfy their particular built in demographic, and consequently keep their advertisers happy, they won’t change. Your indignation doesn’t alter economic reality.
D) If you don’t like what ESPN et. al. are presenting drop a note to the Ombudsman or other similar entity and stop visiting or watching whatever offends you. Complaining to the writer/personality themselves is often an easy trip to the wastebasket, if you make it out of the spam folder.
E) It has been a long time since I have written a fanpost, but the last time I did there was an edit function which could change the title. I am merely surprised it hasn’t been used. The “untolerable” in the headline had me expecting something written by a burnt orange Homer Simpson. I was surprised by how well presented it was, even if overly vitriolic in my own estimation. But that’s also coming from someone who doesn’t care in any way, shape, or form what an ESPN talking head has to say.
F) We’re going to have fun with the language. BZ, BOH, Wells, and I have all butchered the language at one time or another. That’s what happens when you’re trying to write something quickly. Folks have fun with it, you can either choose to have fun with it too or have your feelings hurt that you walked into the nerds locker room and they gave you a hard time.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Oct 25, 2009 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair Enough...
on the politics…just making a point. Actually, I am not sure if I have forgiven Keith yet for taking a solid one hour of entertainment from me, not to mention the chemistry with DP, each Sunday night in the 90’s and selling his soul and bolting for a newsdesk. Just a butcher of a move IMHO. I want to like Keith, but his views now make it difficult.
I pretty much loathe most members of the media when they take the approach, like many sports talk radio hosts, that they are omnipotent and any challenge to their mental fortitude must be from a lesser cognitive being. In case some have not noticed, newspaper and magazine subs are way down…most companies are losing money…and not just to the online competition or options. Many fans and CUSTOMERS are tired of the vitriolic nonsense that is spewed for baseline fact regardless of sport. Case in point: There is no argument against a playoff in college football that makes sense to anyone. Yet, we are forced to settle each year for a substandard, subjective and at times an incomplete season (did FL really win it all last year? I think not) due to contracts, presidents getting paid, and they are concerned about fans having to travel 3-4 times to follow their team to a true national championship. Hollow, tired, and juvenile is what that argument is. Until this travesty of a system is righted, SEC and USC bias will continue to fester annually.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 25, 2009 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Case in point: There is no argument against a playoff in college football that makes sense to anyone.
I disagree. I don’t like the playoff on several reasons, and they have been discussed ad nauseam right here on BON. I would rather keep the bowls than go to almost any of the playoff formats that have been proposed by anyone of NCAA import.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 26, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Err...
Make that NCAA import, political influence, or otherwise relevant to the decision-making process. One of my major gripes is that anything but a conference champion should necessarily be eliminated from contention for a national title, and every single proposal I see has involved wildcards, and wildcards are about the dumbest thing in sports.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 26, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 26, 2009 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Take a look at the list of BCS gaffs:
2007: Which 2 loss team is most deserving? Gag…just a horrific year for the BCS
2006: Michigan and Florida each would have griped about being snubbed…turned out it was Michigan’s “turn.”
2004: Auburn goes undefeated and is sitting outside looking in basically due to make-up for the following snub……..
2003: USC gets passed over by Oklahoma who loses the Big XII championship game to Kansas St. 35-7.
So, 4 out of the last 6 years have ended in controversy and you like the BCS bowl system for crowning a champion. Or, perhaps you do not feel it is important to crown a champion in college football…so long as we have the history and nostalgia of the bowls. Perhaps you should ask the kids from our own beloved Longhorns if they feel the system worked properly last year. This system is atrocious and notorious for screwing over deserving teams. It is nothing more than a sham.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 26, 2009 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I’d much rather award arbitrary championships to teams that have slightly-above-500 records or teams not even ranked in the top 5, as often happens in the NFL or college basketball, or even 1AA football. Seriously, there’s no good reason a 13-6 New York Giants team should be etched in historic stone, while an 18-1 Patriots team is all but forgotten. A better argument can be made that playoffs are a sham.
At least the BCS guarantees the Champion will be [at worst] a top-3 team, and worthy of glory. That’s good enough for me, and certainly isn’t reason enough to restructure the entire sport.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 26, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not usually the type of guy to use message board shortcuts...
…but: this.
I enjoy March Madness, but it’s inexcusable when a fourth-seeded team wins the national championship. It’s even worse when a wildcard wins the Super Bowl or World Series.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 27, 2009 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but this argument is hollow...
I do not wish for a full blown 16 team playoff…matter of fact I love the flex system which would ensure we do just enough to remove doubt and subjectivity. Comparing a proposal of actually crowning a champion in college football in a legitimate fashion to the NFL playoffs IS apples and oranges. Can you explain how the above FACTS on BCS gaffs is good for the game? I cannot and preserving some regular season lovefest is not enough for the majority of the sporting public.
I would be happy with a four teamer…but an 8 teamer would be perfect. It preserves the regular season, only allows one or two “less desirables” a shot, and if they roll through 3 top 4 teams, they would have earned it outright.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You need to learn...
to distinguish facts from opinions. I have no problem with any of the Champions the BCS has produced. In my opinion, the best team has been awarded the title in every year of its existence. For instance, while you may not agree that Auburn should have been left out in 2004, I doubt seriously that they belonged in that game, and even more that they would have defeated USC.
The reality, as I see it, is that in most given years we have a pretty good idea of who the best team is (USC in 2004, for example), and the BCS is a round-about way, through the illusion of objective analysis, of awarding the title to that team. And consider that most of the biases incorporated into the BCS (2009 Florida, for example) have been earned through years of success, making a college football national title the hardest to earn in all of sports. You cannot simply be a one-hit wonder in college football, as Cincinatti is discovering. But if Cinci repeats their success for the next couple of years, they will earn a birth in the title game (I love this dynamic, by the way).
All of this ensures that we place glory upon a team that has publicly earned it. And again, I have no problem with that.
However, if history is any indication, I will have a problem with roughly 50% of the crowned champions under a tournament format, and although the tournament will begin small, as a trojan horse strategy to invite the concession of purists, money-incenticves will expand it to 16-32 teams in less than a generation, at which point we will suffer that strange disconnect of placing glory upon a surprise champion, whom we find ourselves doubting as worthy of such glory.
There is no way to establish a “best team.” So I would prefer we just dispense with the pretense of objectivity and give the glory to the team we want to. After all, there are reasons our biases award titles to certain teams, whether it be the charisma of the players and coaches, a signature, exciting win, or years of accumulated success. A “champion” is simply a team we want to celebrate and remember, and my opinion is that these attributes are more worthy of celebration and remebrance than a team that simply got hot for 3 consecutive games, or that benefitted from tournament dynamics.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 27, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
tournaments
are the best way to crown a champion.
Or I guess we should just give the golf majors to Tiger or Phil (they can switch off every year) without having to beat the other players.
And we can give Nadal and Federer the tennis majors (they can switch off, too!).
by longhorn_dan on Oct 27, 2009 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
this argument continues to be a slow, uphill battle against ignorance and superficial thinking.
Obviously college football champions have to beat other teams. It is in doing so that they earn whatever biases you perceive the system uses in their favors.. Florida and USC have put themselves in a better position to win a title this year (than, say, Cinci or Iowa) because of the perennial success they’ve had throughout this decade, which they’ve earned. But if Florida doesn’t win its games this season, no one will want them to be champion, and no one will vote them as such, and to assert otherwise is ridiculous.
And your tennis and golf examples serve my argument better than yours. Neither sport has a “champion,” in the sense we’re discussing here. You win individual tournaments (like football games), but not an entire season. My analogy would be that if Federer wins 20 tournaments in a row, but loses the final tournament of the year, then he should still be ranked number one for the season (which he would be, because most international sports haven’t entirely given in to the lowest common standards for entertainment value – ie: the tournament ). But by the rules that govern most U.S. sports, if he loses only that final tournament, then the 20 in a row he won before that meant absolutely nothing.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 28, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow indeed
this argument continues to be a slow, uphill battle against ignorance and superficial thinking
its more creepy than anything when you state that you know the difference between facts and opinions, and then blatantly contradict that sentiment in your VERY FIRST sentence
You need to learn to distinguish facts from opinions
I never thought I’d get to the point at which I considered a regular BON poster to be consistently more arrogant and condescending than a certain other poster who never misses a chance to attempt to belittle those who question his one-man jihad against Mack, but you certainly seemed to have done so.
You do not merely have a difference of opinion with those posters with whom you disagree. You seem intent on attacking the intellectual capacity with anyone who dares to state a different viewpoint than you.
And it’s definitely just not on this thread. Look at any recent discussion about the relative merits of Greg Davis in which anyone dared suggest that Davis might not be the worst OC of all time.
Are you capable of having a difference of opinion without a case full of vitriol?
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Oct 28, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 28, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
meh...
strive for internet nobility all you’d like, I’m tired of poorly-considered arguments being asserted with brash, unblinking matter-of-factness.
I consider it perfectly reasonable to expect that if someone is to disagree passionately and emphatically that his posts elevate beyond empty stock arguments.
Mulliganville may not be wrong regarding his position on a playoff, but he is wrong (literally, semantically) in his continuous and baffling assertion that Auburn has factually been screwed. And yet, there he is, a few posts down, asserting it once again.
You don’t like me. Fine. That has no bearing on the legitimacy of my points. While admittedly condescending in tone, all three of the quotes that you’ve boxed represent valid criticisms of the arguments I’ve been given, and none exceeds the boundaries of the typical discourse exercised daily at BON. People are asses to each other here all the time. My suspicion is that your involvement in this exchange has less to do with my disregard for civility, and more to do with your perpetual disagreement regarding my contentions.
Still, if my style offends you sincerely, then I apologize.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 29, 2009 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The simple aspect of this exchange is
You do not HAVE to be condescending in tone…but you are repeatedly. What is even more puzzling is that if there are 3 unbeatens in 3 major conferences at the end of the season, how can anyone make a case for one of them NOT getting screwed? That is just stubbornness on your part…but that is my opinion.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 29, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All inflammatory remarks aside
The problem lies in your refusal to accept that I can genuinely believe the BCS is a superior system. I have been giving you very thorough explanations as to why I believe it is. To suggest that I am stubbornly disagreeing with you is also to suggest that you aren’t really reading my posts, in which case you are practicing the internet equivalent of “wating to talk,” rather than listening.
To say that I am stubborn is to assume that I know deep down that your opinion is absolute truth, and yet I just don’t want to admit it. Which is not the case.
Regarding the condescension: while I admit that I certainly intended a bit of condescension as I wrote several of those posts, oddly, I don’t consider any of the particular quotes that Hopkins Horn pulled to be so. I often am very literal and academic with my language (which, by the way, creates a lot of confusion in face-to-face conversations), and the terms “ignorant” and “superficial,” for instance, are not necessarily derogatory. I meant to use them as they are intended in literal rhetoric.
And my remark about your contradicting yourself was serious, you really did contradict yourself, and while I could have removed the term “creepy,” there was probably no way any such remark wasn’t going to be perceived as inflammatory. Still, the passages are clearly condescending, and so I apologize; I mean no serious harm.
Strangely enough, this exchange is on an unrelated thread centered around another poster’s extremely condescending email to a member of the mainstream media. So you see, it all comes back around,
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 29, 2009 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I certainly agree and understand
that you believe the BCS system to be a superior system to, in this instance, an 8 team playoff. I actually would even take a 4 teamer…but I think there would be too much controversy still. I certainly do not understand the BCS supporters, based on the controversy in the majority of years of the system, continued support of a system that still cannot deliver an objective champion year in and year out…and perhaps here is the disconnect. The majority of people, it appears, wish for college football to join the party of annually crowning a champion without a thread of controversy not including an officiating gaff.
Regarding my contradiction…while it can be debated whether an Auburn squad being left out of a title game while standing unbeaten after an SEC gauntlet has officially been screwed, I would wager a vast majority feel they were, and this majority would feel the same about each of the other two squads which were “selected” to play in the BCS title game were they the one left out. Thus, due to the system, one team had no shot at the title game. It is about time to remove the title of national champion from this joke of a system…call it what it is…the BCS Champion. Nothing more.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 29, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, in 2003
USC finished #1 in the AP and Coaches Poll, with OU losing to K State 35-7 in the ridiculous conference championship game required of 3 of the 6 BCS conferences. My goodness, they all do not even play by the same rules. The Trojans were snubbed. If that is not a factual screwjob, I just cannot help you.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 29, 2009 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And to add insult to injury...
K State took the required BCS offering…and OU received an AT LARGE bid which just happened to be in the national championship game!!! An AT LARGE Title game bid…um, OK. This also cost the Horns a BCS slot that season. Such a jacked up system it is just laughable.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 29, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And in fairness
I went back and read all of the posts in this thread to see if I was out of line, and I find myself legitimately wondering if you actually read the exchanges, or just the first lines.
I’ve made an extended effort to put forth a serious argument toward two individuals, one who repeatedly will not concede that the assertion “the BCS simply screws teams” is his opinion, not a fact, and another who read through my sincere and thorough argument only to reply with a nonsensical and snide remark (as if I genuinely believe that the PGA should simply award all championships to Tiger).
Exactly how am I the bad guy here?
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 29, 2009 2:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can certainly distinguish fact from opinion...
and the facts are quite simply that the BCS takes turns screwing programs. Who are you to say that Auburn could not play with USC in 2004…we will never know thanks to the very worst post season format in college sports. If TX would have lost the Big XII championship in 2005, they would have been removed from the title game and replaced with Penn State who did not have to play a conference title game. How would that have been fair and appropriate? They each would have had one loss with Texas clearly having the better season by far. The timing of the loss would have been the dagger for the Horns here.
I realize you understand this unfair mechanism which only affects certain teams in the BCS format. Again, the system is deplorable as it is subjective. While it was created to be more objective, quite the opposite has occurred.
You point out an interesting phenomenon that only occurs in college football…rankings on pedigree for some while other programs “need to prove themselves.” I could say you need to understand that these are annual titles, not teams of the decade. If you are the best one year, can beat the best that year, then you deserve the title…whether you are Utah, Texas, Alabama, USC, TCU, or Florida. The snobbery in college football would make some $250,000 initiation country clubs blush.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although it is a bit comical...
its more creepy than anything when you state that you know the difference between facts and opinions, and then blatantly contradict that sentiment in your VERY FIRST sentence.
It is your opinion that Auburn got screwed. It is my opinion that they did not. Nowhere has it been asserted anywhere in history (legally or culturally) that championships need to be awarded by any criteria what-so-ever. The concept of a college football national champion began when the media decided to look at each season, and give a prize to the team it FELT had the best season. We’re the ones who have spun that concept beyond rationality and attempted to devise a metric by which objective champions are to be crowned, which pretty much makes us idiots. Let us place glory upon whom we want, as there are deeper (and in my eyes, more valid) reasons for why we want it that way.
But this discourse can go nowhere, so long as you continue, erroneously, to assert that Auburn factually got screwed.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 28, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there were 3 unbeatens and TX was on the outside looking in...
and you did not think they got screwed, you would need to have your pulse checked.
The idea that a SEC, Pac 10, or Big XII team runs the table and is shut out for a shot at the national title proved everything that is wrong with the BCS system beyond reasonable doubt…and we lock away criminals for life using that basis. I believe it can aptly be applied here.
Additionally, it has become obvious that a conversation cannot be held with you regarding your omnipotent love affair with awarding storied programs the OPPORTUNITY to play for some fictitious national title while others get tossed to the garbage bin until they are worthy. The very thing we bang on OUsux for, choking in the big game, Boise and Utah have managed to figure out with some regularity given the chance. What is Iowa’s problem this year, that they were ranked too low to begin with and a one loss USC team, who choked on the road to Washington mind you, will remain ahead of them because the Trojans are typically good and Iowa isn’t as storied of a program? We also used to listen to music on 8 Track tapes and cassette tapes…but A BETTER MEDIUM was found and utilized. Welcome to the digital age.
Where the BCS falls completely short is when there is one unbeaten followed by a handful of one loss teams. “Selecting” who is worthy to play in the “title game” is the problem. Anointing one program over another, IMHO, makes zero sense. Find an Auburn player from 2004 and ask them if they got screwed…then ask them if that is their opinion or a fact.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 28, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The direction of this argument...
…has gone completely off point from the OP’s topic. Better to take it to another post.
Better yet, can it altogether, before the underhanded comments get out of, er, hand.
by UT92 on Oct 28, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even were I to think Texas got screwed
it would still merely be my opinion.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 29, 2009 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing I would consider an improvement...
…would be a flexible (4-8 teams, max). The most desirable characteristic should be the maximum possible exclusion of undeserving teams. For example, any team that does not win its conference championship is absolutely eliminated. If there were four or more undefeated teams, all other teams would be absolutely eliminated. If there were fewer than four, put in as many undefeated teams as there are (yes, in 2007, Hawaii would’ve been in, and LSU would’ve been out) and add one-loss conference champions based on the composite formula (BCS standings, in other words) to fill out the minimum field of four. Unless there aren’t enough undefeated AND no one-loss conference champions to field the minimum field of four (highly unlikely), any and all teams with two or more losses would be absolutely eliminated. In the event there were fewer than four undefeated and one-loss conference champions, we’d have to go to two-loss conference champions to fill out the field of four.
But under no circumstances do I want wildcards/at-large bids.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except for Leach
I’ve heard almost no one argue for a system that would:
award arbitrary [much less arbitrary than the current beauty contest] championships to teams that have slightly-above-500 records
The lowest seeded BB champ (#8 Nova ’85) ended up with a 25-10 (.714) record.
This isn’t at all a guarantee:
At least the BCS guarantees the Champion will be [at worst] a top-3 team, and worthy of glory.
Nothing about the system guarantees less than 4 BCS conference teams will be undefeated. If scheduling cupcakes becomes more and more acceptable and rewarded, I think we’ll see more undefeated teams. In 2007 one could argue that not only was LSU not worthy of glory, but not one of the top 3 teams since many believed they weren’t even the best team in the SEC that year. As bad as the BCS has been (leaving out Auburn in 04/USC in 03/LSU with 2 losses), it could be worse. Not improving the system until it does get worse is going to ruin at least one more season.
If you’d said top ten team (not top 3), I’d pretty much agree with you, but just because something is unlikely doesn’t make it impossible/guaranteed not to happen. Isn’t it possible that the Big 10 could end up with 2 undefeated teams in any given year? Last year the Big 12 had 3 teams with one loss and one got sent to the MNC game.
The flex system would work best because of the fluctuating number of teams deserving a shot. In lieu of that, a plus one or small play off would be a huge improvement.
by ajax77777 on Oct 29, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct
that basketball teams will likely have a record well-above 500 (which is why I also added “or teams not ranked in the top 5,” but in just the past two years, football tournaments have given us champions who closely resemble my concerns (the NY Giants at 10-6, FCS Richmond had 3 or 4 losses in 2008 before winning its tournament, and Katy won the 5A State Championship after a 7-3 season).
And personally, I think LSU was the best team in 2007; they were certainly one of the most dramatic and charismatic in recent memory. I have plenty of fond memories of wild finishes and gutsy 4th-down conversions. Plus, they destroyed tOSU in the title game. I think the SEC was just unusually difficult that year (perhaps this has created the residual SEC bias everyone is now perceiving), and the BCS took that into account.
But I would also agree to a flew system or a plus 1, as neither would oppose any of the principles I seek to preserve. But the majority is clamoring for a large tournament, and I suspect we’ll eventually see it.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 29, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Additionally
many of the tournament formats that are being suggested involve conference champions, which means, while unlikely, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibilities that a 7-5 team could win the Big XII North, and then get hot in the playoffs.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 29, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course you realize...
that Katy and Texas high school football does not take into account out of district games for playoff seeds? Those games do not matter one bit with respect to the state playoffs. In 2007 Katy ran the table undefeated…a worthy champion in comparison to those poor saps who may lose a couple of games during their gauntlet of a season.
In 2008, they were 13-3, with losses to Northshore, The Woodlands, and one district loss to Cinco Ranch, an up and comer. So far this year, they are 7-1 with their lone loss coming out of district to The Woodlands, a 5A Division-1 program. Don’t hold your breath, but there may be another state championship for Katy with a couple of “L’s.”
Why you compare the NFL playoff format to the potential playoff format of college football FBS is beyond me. There are 32 NFL franchises, with 12 teams, or 37.5% of the teams earning post season births. Unless it is a catastrophic year (2007) odds are with an 8 team playoff your winner will either be undefeated or will have one loss. The only difference will be that subjectivity will be removed, which is my main problem with the current system. Sure, the #9 will gripe…someone has to gripe…but it will not be an unbeaten power conference member griping on the outside looking in…it will be a one or two loss non conference champion upset for being left out and having to endure the Holiday Bowl or the like.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 29, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good advice
And saved me some typing
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on Oct 28, 2009 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait...
Do you still have that ticket connection? because that would be something I would talk about with my future children, Vince and Colt.
"We takin it all the way back to Awwwstin, Texas, baby!"
by 2100 San Jac on Oct 26, 2009 12:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see too much of a problem with this rant
I doubt JRPasadena thinks this will cause Pat Forde to fall on his knees and apologize, and neither would a nice email. It was an email to get something off his chest and also slap Forde over the head. Forde is okay, but the inconsistent way he handled the Texas-OU game as opposed to Alabama and Tennessee was pretty amusing. If ESPN didn’t want emails, they wouldn’t put their writers’ email addresses at the bottom of their columns.
It was angry, it was a bit mean, but it wasn’t a profanity-laced attack that lacked cohesion or thought. He had some interesting facts for us to read, and even Forde, if he took the time to read it, could actually interact with a useful criticism of a column he just wrote. Knowing what’s on the ESPN comment threads, it’s most likely one of the more thought-out criticisms that Forde will get.
by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 25, 2009 8:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much says exactly how I feel about it
People can disagree over whether or not sending e-mails like that actually accomplish anything other than getting it off your chest, but I think it’s the only way to call Forde’s attention to his own BS. I can just see him after writing that piece of garbage, sitting there enormously satisfied with himself. It probably never occurred to him that he just allowed himself to by mesmerized by yet another terrible offensive performance from Alabama, only a week after chastising Texas and OU for a defensive slugfest. At least Texas and OU both scored TDs.
Some will say that Forde is fully aware of the reactions that will result from every word he writes, but I think he and almost all sports columnists are vapid narcissists who are completely unaware of the possibility that they might be wrong about something. I think they truly believe they are bringing enlightenment to the world
ESPN wants a #1 vs. #2 SEC championship so bad they can’t stand it. I’m surprised Brent Musberger was allowed to argue that Texas should be #2 over Alabama. I would have figured a producer would have been in his ear telling him to STFU.
by bassale47 on Oct 25, 2009 9:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Forde/ESPN = DOUCHEBAGS
You can't spell COCKSUCKER without OU.
by nathantx57 on Oct 26, 2009 1:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
DOOOOOUUUCHEBAAAAAGS
You can't spell COCKSUCKER without OU.
by nathantx57 on Oct 26, 2009 1:38 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Herbie and Musburger
You know it funny, but till last week, I actually liked Pat Forde as well. He always seemed to have a soft spot for Texas. I distinctly remember him making a case for us to be in the title game last year.
Anyway, that aside, I wanted to point out that for all the bashing that ESPN and its affiliates get on this site (99% of it well deserved), I though Herbie and Brent did a good job calling our game. I have the game DVRed and went back and looked at some of the things they were saying. Herbie especially (who seems blown away by all our facilities when he visited Austin) kept saying that the Horns were making as strong a case as anyone in the country to be no. 1. Even Brent chimed in a couple of times reminding folks about how both the great SEC powers survived against mediocre teams while Texas looked like the most dominant and COMPLETE team in the country.
Infact, don’t quote me on this, but I think I heard Kirk say something aobut how he thought the Longhorns had the most potential to be the most complete team in the country by seasons end.
I guess whay I was trying to say was that although we hate ESPN around these parts, they aren’t always that bad. Atleast the game broadcasters gave us props, but I guess they had to!
by LonghornForLife on Oct 26, 2009 10:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"Herbie" has OSU ranked higher than everyone else (one guy is tied with him) ... Objective?
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Oct 26, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Griffin
of ESPN who has “covered the Big XII since its inception” and live in San Antonio reports this morning that “Texas is cruising to its first Big XII Title”.
by brownf on Oct 26, 2009 11:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn't read the whole article...
…but I don’t know why people get so mad at sportwriters. This is their job. They write about sports. And of course everyone has their biases, they just don’t make it blatant ala Lou Holtz on national TV. I don’t get why you guys let some dude you’ll never meet in your life rile you up so much. At the end of the day, what he says doesn’t mean squat as long as we win out. Just win, baby.
In-VINCE-able.
by iamjackburton on Oct 26, 2009 1:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think people that truly understand football...
get irked when subjectivity comes into play and is so easily identified. A defensive struggle in the SEC is smashmouth football. When it happens in the OU TX game, it is not viewed in the same light. Oh really? I will take TX defense this year over ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE COUNTRY. They hit hard, with a purpose, and just knock opposing QB’s out of the game. IMHO, the Horns and Oregon are playing the best football right now.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 26, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
They have a responsibility to do (at very least) adequate research and to maintain a modicum of objectivity. There is nothing objective about the way ESPN covers Texas in comparison to the way they cover Florida and Alabama.
The key point is that ESPN has asserted itself as the major catalyst in the national perception of college football teams. If ESPN takes a certain angle in an article about a specific player or team or coach, expect to see at least 10 writers for major newspapers or other national publications write a similar article within 24 hours. All of this feeds into the perspectives of voters, whether we want to believe it or not. These people don’t watch every single game before casting a vote. They look at box scores and read opinions written by other people and catch a few highlights on ESPN, and they think they know enough to put together a respectable ballot.
It’s easy to say “they’re just writers” or “just win, baby.” It’s not always that simple. Look at how many people are saying Texas could get left out of the national championship picture in favor of Iowa. Even though I think Iowa needs a TON of help in order for that to happen, it has enough traction that people are going to keep talking about it until someone loses. That seed of doubt that maybe Texas doesn’t deserve even to be #3 has been planted, and more and more voters will toss it around in their heads when they’re making decisions. This is the new era of college football. Winning is not enough anymore, and the media is the reason why.
by bassale47 on Oct 26, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh PUH-LEEZE
Let’s put it in perspective and be perfectly honest about this, shall we? Today he bags on your team, so suddenly he’s the worst writer ever in the history of sportswriters. Tomorrow he trumpets your team, and suddenly he’s the greatest writer ever and is never wrong. For every Pat Forde who bashes you and highlights the other guy, another sportswriter somewhere brags about how great you were and bashes the other guy (and oh boy, I bet he’s getting the letters, too!). It all evens out, and at the end of the day, it’s the win-loss records that matters.
Example: This week, Pat Forde is easily balanced out by Kirk Herbstreit on ESPN saying how great Texas is and how we should be number one. IT ALL EVENS OUT. You telling me that all this hand-wringing over what Forde writes in his ESPN column means more than what Herbstreit is saying when he’s on every showing of ESPN’s college football live show? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Advantage: Texas.
The OP writing the letter to Forde, although Forde will never read it (if he’s smart he knows you can’t please everyone, so why waste time reading every hate mail?), is good for the OP, because he got it of his chest. But seriously, all this hand-wringing over what this or that sportswriter writes about your team is silly. If Texas can’t get through the season without a loss with their schedule, they DON’T DESERVE to go to the champ game. It’s as simple as that.
In-VINCE-able.
by iamjackburton on Oct 26, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
And further, Texas is one of the lucky few programs that can at all claim that some sports writers perhaps have a bias in its favor.
ESPN champions the “glory” teams, that is the wealthy and elite teams with large followings and high marketing appeal, and Texas is on that very short list. Ask Oklahoma St. fans or TCU fans about media bias, and I’m sure they’ll laugh at the idea that Texas has anything to complain about.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 26, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't about Texas
Don’t take what I said and imagine it’s something you want to argue with.
My problem has nothing to do with where Texas is ranked. My problem is with shitty writers who write shitty articles because they know they can get away with it. I am not the type who thinks my team is the best in the land by default and refuses to see flaws. I hate bad journalism, whether it’s an opinion column, a feature story, or a game recap. Period. And Pat Forde’s work the past several weeks reeks of bad journalism.
And Kirk Herbstreit didn’t say Texas should be number one. He put Texas at number three because we haven’t been consistent on offense. The only positive thing he said about Texas was that it probably doesn’t matter where we are ranked right now because if we win all our games, we’re in. That’s an entirely different thing than critcizing Texas’s performance against OU and then praising Alabama for an even worse performance the very next week. Don’t confuse the two.
by bassale47 on Oct 26, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 26, 2009 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay buddy
If it pleases you, feel free to hold them to some semblance of journalistic integrity. Compared to what PB and the boys here at BON do, these guys are hacks.
In-VINCE-able.
by iamjackburton on Oct 26, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be clear
I meant these so called “professional sportswriters” as the hacks, not PB and the boys. Ahem.
In-VINCE-able.
by iamjackburton on Oct 26, 2009 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thought that there is going to be a clean and simple....
grouping of 2 unbeatens to put a cherry on this ass sunday which is the BCS is wishful…as it usually does not happen? It does not happen very often…and the fact that you must win out to prevent a travesty from happening to your program indicates all that is wrong with the BCS. Utter and complete garbage.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 26, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like your response...
but I think he trashes it after reading your very first sentence.
by Hippie Killer on Oct 26, 2009 3:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
SEC Infighting
Kiffin and the Miss St coaches were each given a written reprimand for making media comments on officiating in their games vs. Bama & Florida. Surprise, surprise.
SEC officiating is very tarnished this year. I hope it doesn’t get overboard with any smack of good ’ol boyism to get their representatives stacked in the BCS.
by orangetower on Oct 26, 2009 5:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is something that I don't understand why more people aren't talking about it
Kiffin has already been threatened with being suspended, and terrible, game-swinging calls have almost become expected in at least one critical SEC game a week. One crew has already been suspended and the same is being called for others. Can’t somebody spend a little time exploring the possibility that this isn’t just a series of coincidences?
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
by circa1015 on Oct 26, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course not
Someone might discover that it’s not just a series of coincidences, and that would blow the “It’s a different culture now” theory the SEC has been floating.
by bassale47 on Oct 26, 2009 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nothing tops the big 10 crew that gave michigan a time out when they didn't have one against Penn State
there were at least four egregious calls against PSU. if you ever watch their games against Michigan, its laughable eery year. it borders on conspiracy levels. Refs have to be accountable.
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Oct 26, 2009 9:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Pat Forde actually has Texas at 2, Bama at 3
by Iron on Oct 27, 2009 11:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
which makes him more hypocritical...Im just sayin...
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forde answered my on his weekly ESPN Q and A about this.
I asked him about the Bama-Tennessee game and specifically about the comments from BON.
Here is his response:
Bruce: Whole lot of crying going on there. Let me just address one small part of it — Alabama never trailed and led by two scores with three minutes to play. Alabama controlled the game. Deal with it.
by texascfo on Oct 27, 2009 1:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Crying?
Ha! The OU/UT matchup was between two ranked teams that know one another more than well…almost too well. Neutral site, two top ranked defenses in the nation, and a very heated rivalry. Bama could not even a muster a touchdown in their game against the unranked Vols.
Hey, Pat: more excuses for a poorly written column which you cannot delete. You know BON has you on this. Sure it is your opinion…and like an independent, you can love the left and right…just to fit your mood. Sackless my man.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps Pat needs to digest this bit once more...
“A game it had controlled”? Are you referring to the 6 plays the Alabama offense ran in the third quarter? Or was it the 9 minutes of time of possession Alabama had in the second half? Or was it the 84 yards of total offense Alabama produced in the second half? Or was it the 265 yards the Alabama defense gave up Jonathon Crompton? (Jonathon Crompton, for Chrissakes!!) Or was it McElroy’s impressive 120 yards passing, an average of 4 yards per attempt. Or was it the fact Alabama could not score a single touchdown in this game? Or was it the fact that Cody had to block another field goal and Lincoln missed another earlier field goal, any of which would have been the difference in the game."
Forget about Forde…all credibility went out the window when he got defensive about Bama controlling the game…man I hope we play Bama.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 2:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep but.....
I highlighted the same section you have above and he answered this on his show and the answer above is what he provided.
by texascfo on Oct 27, 2009 2:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Of course he would provide an answer via "cyber toughness"
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
show archive
Here is the show archive:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29124/ncaa-fb-with-pat-forde
My comment is under bruce – dallas
by texascfo on Oct 27, 2009 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Okay, what was at first merely a guy ranting and getting it off his chest
to the author of a piece and to his fellow Longhorn faithful, has now become public whining. I still don’t understand how you expected to get anything other than what he gave you, but only now EVERYONE else sees more whining coming from the 40 acres.
I agree with Pat on this: Just deal with it
And move the hell on. Jeez!
by UT92 on Oct 27, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All you need to see is the comment count here...
It is a passionate topic for many here who desire that objectivity make an appearance in college football.
Regarding tournaments, they emphatically produce more excitement than any other option for crowning champions. The bottom line is college football is not interested in crowning champions.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 27, 2009 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Objectivity?!
This site and all others like it are the furthest thing from objectivity. By design. You want to bitch and moan about how we got screwed in this poll or that editorial, this is the place to do it. But you cannot seriously expect sympathy from those writers and especially not from other schools, most of which are getting jobbed probably moreso than we are.
There is not one message board out there that isn’t bitching the same storm about their school. Not one. So what the heck makes you believe that WE are the righteous ones and all the others are idiots? The fact is, everyone bitches about how they got crapped on, and only one school will say at the end that they were vindicated. Everyone else will point to a multitude of bad calls, stupid rules, and unfair articles that conspired against them.
by UT92 on Oct 28, 2009 1:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must be confused...
In no shape, form, or fashion would I expect BON to be objective (although our site editors are top notch pros at it IMHO)the …this is OUR site. Forde writes for ESPN and his analysis of two games was contradictory with a bit of a bias in the opinion of many here. The fact that he thought Bama controlled the game indicates to me that…
A) he did not watch the entire game or
B) he gives more credence to the SEC or
C) perhaps both.
Nobody expects sympathy…but do some homework before you write about a low scoring affair in the Big XII between two of the country’s top defenses. What, should we just take his word for authority? Excuse me, I shall not.
Many here are simply sticking up for their conference, program, and pointing out the gaff that is slanted writing on the national college football scale. Forde and others would gain more cred if they authored their literary styles in the manner of objectivity.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 28, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'll agree with you on most points
I too feel the sting of apparent bias when I read some things on the national outlets, but then I also realize that many other programs somehow feel it too. There are a lot of Texas haters out there, and it’s not just because we are awesome (to their chagrin), but I know they feel that we get preferential treatment in the media and polls and such too, despite what we think. It’s just the way it is.
Everyone has the same feeling about their own school as we do: “if you didn’t have your head up your a$$ you’d see how great we are”.
by UT92 on Oct 28, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, if they do not hate you then you are unworthy. Nobody hates SMU for example...
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
by Mulliganville on Oct 28, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes please quit whining
he is a national writer paid to give his opinion, so get over it…it’s not like he called texas soft…believe the word was “ugly”…
check out his latest Forde Yard Dash…he puts Texas as #2 in the country and completely bashes the SEC for their horrible refs and even pokes fun at Tebow in his halloween costume ideas section
by trueorangeblood on Oct 27, 2009 3:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
