Let the disrespect begin!
by krazieman on Dec 7, 2009 10:58 AM CST
Email
PrintI'm sure everyone remembers all the analysts pronouncement of USC as one of the greatest teams of all time before the game was played. And after our less than optimal performance against Nebraska, I'm sure we'll get the same disrespect. I know Colt doesn't watch TV, but hopefully him and the team are paying attention and getting fired up.
Here's one column
Here's more to add
Also, was I the only that found it was easier to watch Jerry's big ass tv than watching the game? I figured after paying for the ticket, I want to watch the live game rather than the TV, but it was just so massive and so clear. Also, the screen was so clean, not littered with ads like the the screen at DKR.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Exactly
I read that BS last nite and actually wrote in to Stewart Mandel. I actually respected his opinions till I read the garbage he was spewing. It was really more like hatred than any kind of analysis. Guess Si.com has no interest in having the largest fan base in America visit their site very often.
I say we Boycott Stewart and SI.
Ans you’re absolutely right, let the disrespect begin. Let 85% of the country think Bama is going to walk all over us. I am just fine with that.
This team has been doubted by everyone in the national media for 2 years. Lets show them what we’re made of come Jan 7th!
Hook ’Em
by LonghornForLife on Dec 7, 2009 11:07 AM CST reply actions
Let's not get all Aggie here . . .
. . . and start boycotting writers who think we might lose a game. And believing that we’re going to lose is not “hatred.”
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
Point Taken Honpkins Horns
Guess hatred is not the word I was looking for… but calling the game a huge mismatch or an anticlimax (and i’m paraphrasing Mandel here) certainly reeks of a strong bias (if not our-right hate).
by LonghornForLife on Dec 7, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions
It's not bias or hate . . .
. . . it’s an opinion, and one with which you have every right to disagree strongly with. I don’t think Mandel has revealed himself to be strongly pro-Texas or anti-Texas over the years.
If, say, Craig James says that he thinks Texas will win easily, would that mean he’s biased against Bama? Would that opinion reek of hate?
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
Totally agree
The national media (especially Mandel) just has no memory — and they’re trying to generate controversy. He could have written the same article, citing close Bama wins, and could have concluded that Texas was the massively better team.
Let’s get set for the month long SEC love-in!!!
I'm not critisizing his opinion
My problem is his dismissive attitude towards Texas. He’s makng it sound like we don’t belong on the same field as Bama. That is my problem with it. Admittedly, I was a little baked when I read the article late last nite and should probably read it again to get my facts straight…
But Mandel is using just 1 game from this season to make a snap judgement about a team that has lost 1 game in the last 2 years…. Surely, we belong on a field with any team in the country.
It is perfectly fine to say that Bama will beat Texas in what should be a great MNC game. That is an opinion. To say that a team that has gone 25-1 over the last 2 years doesn’t even belong on the same field as Bama, that is what bothered me.
I’ve read Mandel enough over the last 3-4 years to know when he is offering solid, well thought out analysis and when he’s just taking shots at someone for whatever reason.
Anyway, we’re on the same side here. Last thing I want do to is start an argument with a fellow horn. I hope I was clear enough in explaining my position. Certainly don’t mean any hate.
Hook ’Em
by LonghornForLife on Dec 7, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions
This next month is going to be a huge excercise in patience.
Just realize, that you won’t be able to change most people’s minds about Texas. The college football nation right now is decidedly anti-Texas because we’re the ones that benefited from the annual BCS crap. A lot of people don’t believe we deserve to be in the national championship game. The only thing we can do is hope our team proves everyone wrong on January 7th.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
One thing's for sure...
the guys in Vegas with money on the line have it at, what, a line of 4.5 in favor of bama? I’ll put my credence in the people who actually have something at stake.
ESPN said the line started at Bama -3
It may have moved since then though.
Vegas
Remember, the Vegas line is just a way to balance off bets. All it reflects is the collective bias of their customers.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
Krazieman
Check your link. When I click on it I’m logged on to the site as “krazieman”. Also, I think this article was already a fanshot.
Let 'em
There will be bulletin board material a’ plenty over the next few weeks.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 7, 2009 11:35 AM CST reply actions
Another one
Don Borst, FOX Sports – Texas shouldn’t have gotten a ‘second’ chance
All about fuel for the fire so let’s dig em out, but let’s not give them any ammo for being “entitled” or “whiners”. Just more reason to show up in CA.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 7, 2009 11:53 AM CST reply actions
I defended Mandel above . . .
. . . but anyone who types
The referees had an excuse: They work for the Big 12 Conference, which desperately needed Texas to avoid an upset by Nebraska.
and
Four times over the years, the Big 12 has screwed itself out of the national title game with a huge upset in the conference championship game. They weren’t going to allow that to happen again, no matter how dominant Ndamukong Suh was for Nebraska.
and
But since Texas coach Mack Brown wanted a second placed back on the clock, and because the Big 12 wanted to have a second placed back on the clock, and because all of the six major BCS conferences HAD TO HAVE a second placed back on the clock, and because the referees figured they might never have a chance to work for the league ever again if they do this wrong … it was like that.
and
It’s reminiscent of the infamous Fifth Down Game for Colorado in 1990.
is a Grade A Moron.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions
Why would that happen?
The Big 12 missed out on ALOT of BCS money by not having Nebraska upset Texas. Both schools would go to BCS games rather than 1.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
Exactly. The Big 12 LOST Money by Having Texas Win.
I remember this being explained a few years ago when we had to go to the Holiday Bowl and being used as the silver lining when Kansas State beat OU. The entire conference (and all of the teams in the conference) gets money for each team that simply shows up in a BCS Bowl. The team could lose, and the conference gets over a million to distribute amongst its schools.
If Texas had lost, then Nebraska automatically gets a BCS bid and Texas, by virtue of being in the Top 10 (or is it Top 8, or Top 12… I forget), takes the place of the second non-BCS school in another BCS bowl game (Boise State, in this case). This is the same rationale for how Oklahoma State would have gotten in had they not lost to OU and dropped out of the Top 10 (or… 8, or 12, whatever it is…). Since Nebraska is so lowly ranked, though, they cannot hope to get an at-large bid by virtue of rank, so winning the Big 12 Championship was their only shot.
Ultimately, Texas won, and only one Big 12 school gets to go, and the conference is likely to see less money as a result.
It's top 14
But you nailed it. So every person clamoring that the big 12 set this up is insane. Now why Colt didn’t just throw that ball into a Nebraska player (not hard, but low enough to stop the clock sooner) is beyond me. Either way, the big 12 lost here.
And on another note, I find it interesting that after the Alabama/Tennessee game they were getting the same treatment we are getting now. There game was even a home game! Yet now they are unstoppable? This whole season has been cyclical and no team is dominant. If Texas can actually run the ball, throw it deep with a few double moves to open up the short passes, I could even see Texas winning this game without problem….if Greg Davis is Greg Davis…well….game on!
Thanks
Sorry for the repost, I did try to add some commentary too.
No one appreciates your sarcasm though.
Good commentary!
People do tend to look to the FanPosts first, but the FanShot is a truly great function for posting good photos and links you come across.
Sorry
didn’t mean to direct any negative sarcasm toward you. We’ll probably see that link and more several times this month. And you posted some good commentary with it and another link. The point I get out of your post is that we’re going to get a lot of it starting now. Thanks for the good post and apologies for being unintentionally rude.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 7, 2009 1:18 PM CST up reply actions
No problems
I shouldn’t have jumped the gun on that conclusion.
Anyways, I need to be more focused at work and at securing a BCS game ticket.
HA!
Glad to se yall have about the same amount of patience for people who dont look at fanshot first, as we do at RBR!
by tidefanstuckatlsu on Dec 7, 2009 8:34 PM CST up reply actions
Only issue I'd raise with Mandel is this:
“heavily favored USC” referring to the MNC four years ago. That’s media bias w/o checking facts: 7 points is not a heavy favorite. Neither is 4 1/2 or whatever Alabama is favored by at this point.
Stop worrying about ESPN and Dr. This and Expert On That. They get paid for what they write or say — not what they get right.
Again, I don't think that's "bias"
Getting a fact wrong, or interpreting a fact differently (at what point in a championship game does a favorite become a “heavy favorite”?), doesn’t necessarily indicate bias on the part of the writer.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 7, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
By bias, I mean he wants to make a point about the expectations THE MEDIA
had entering USC-Texas . . . Trojans were the greatest team since the ‘72 Miami Dolphins. . . and he doesn’t care about (or is too lazy to look up) the true facts.
I never felt the underdog team won that game. I thought it was a tossup going in, maybe a very slight (point or two) edge to USC.
Music to my ears...
Who gives a crapt what the pundits have to say. Let them talk and let them write whatever they want to. We all know the SEC is the best conference in the history of the entire world. Right? Just like USC was the best football team ever since the Romans. Right We all have been down this road before. January 7th is when all the predictions and prognostications will cease to hold even an iota of value. I’m not even big on pulling the “disrespect” card. If we need “disrespect” to get you fired up for the National Championship game, then were screwed anyway. Come game time is when I would like for us to do our talking. On the field. Somehow I feel that Colt, Ship, Sergio, Houston, Earl, and the rest will have a lot to say!
Vince Young >Tim Tebow.
I think It was Jason Smith I was listening to last night
and he was going on a tirade about how Texas shouldn’t have had the second added back on, because not every play is reviewed to make sure the exact amount of time went off the game clock, thus a play at the end of the game shouldn’t be held to a different standard of practice. It was the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, and I generally respect Jason Smith for the most part. It is like saying that you shouldn’t review the spot of the ball on a very close 3rd or 4th and 1 because the booth doesn’t review the exact spot of the ball on the first two downs.
It doesn’t take much thinking to figure out why the spot of a ball, or the amount of seconds left on the clock, should be under more scrutiny in those situations: because the consequences of the call are immeasurable more important. There is no need to analyze what inch-line the ball should be at after a first down run, because the team still has two more plays to move the ball, so the importance of that spot is nothing compared to what happens the next few plays. Likewise, there is no need to make sure you have the EXACT second correct on the game clock after an incomplete pass with, say, 6 minutes left in the third quarter. The variation between a few seconds at that point in the game is completely inconsequential. There are still plays to be run, whole possessions to trade, etc. But to suggest that the officiating in regards to something like seconds or inches should be uniform, regardless of the stakes of each individual play, is completely backwards. That is the entire reason video review was invented, so that when a game comes down to something as small as the spot of a ball, or the number of seconds left on the clock, the officiating crew can make sure that the correct calls are made.
I don’t know why Jason Smith would be upset with how the game ended, but he was truly angry with how the game ended, and kept saying that Nebraska was completely legitimate in claiming that the BCS had something to do with it, and that the fact that the second was added back on was somehow the officials overextending their reach in order to assist Texas. I can live with everybody thinking that we will lose to ’Bama, but if this crap about us not even deserving to play in the NC keeps up I am going to start getting pretty pissed off.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
I get his point
I made a similar point in the celebration thread. The problem isn’t that the replay review was incorrect — it was absolutely correct and consistent with how time-related replays are handled in football and basketball, where the issue occurs more frequently.
The problem is the inconsistency with how replay handles these situations and how they’re handled in regular play. In theory, the clock should have stopped when the ball hit the railing. But in practice, the clock stops on a play like that after (1) the ref sees the ball hit the railing, (2) the ref blows his whistle, (3) the clock operator hears the whistle and (4) the clock operator actually stops the clock.
There is a natural lag time in that sequence of events. If Colt’s pass had hit the railing with 10:01 remaining instead of :01 remaining, there’s no doubt in my mind that the clock would have run to 10:00, if not 9:59, naturally.
But on replay, it is assumed that the clock would stop at the very instant it should if events 1-4 listed above occur simultaneously, even though that is inconsistent with how the clock is operated on all of the other plays of the game. And truthfully, there’s no other way it could be handled on replay — there’s no way to assume how much of a lag time would exist, particularly with a scoreboard clock that isn’t operating in .1 second increments.
So it’s an inconsistency, but an inconsistency there’s no way around.
Just because it is inconsistent doesn't mean it is flawed
It is just that officiating practices are affected by the context of the game, and that is how it should be. Football would be god awful if the booth had to stop the game after every incomplete pass in order to figure out what the game clock was at when the ball hit something. Fact is, as I stated above, the variations in seconds during a game are pointless until the end of a half. For 99% of the game clock management is fine with the clock operator watching the ref’s actions in order to determine when to start and stop the clock, but for those last few seconds, it is completely necessary for the booth to review the play to make sure the correct call is made. The rulebook doesn’t say the clock should end when the ball hits something, the ref signals incomplete, and the clock operator hits the button; that is just the practice in order to run an efficient game. The rulebook says that the clock should stop when the ball hits something. In this situation, it was imperative that the booth review the play and apply the rule by the letter so that the most fair outcome was achieved.
I’m not disagreeing that technically there is an inconsistency between how the game clock was managed at the end of the game and how it is managed for the rest of the game, but I disagree with the notion that it is because of this inconsistency that our victory was somehow less legitimate. The inconsistency doesn’t exist to favor any team, it exists to make sure that in situations where minute details have a large effect on the outcome of a game, the correct, and thus fair, call can be made. The inconsistency isn’t something that hurts the game, but is actually necessary.
What if LenDale White’s 4th down run in the 2006 Rose Bowl had originally been spotted as a first down, but review had showed that the spot should be moved back, thus giving Texas the ball, and allowing VY to make history on 4th and 5. Would that championship be any less legitimate because of the inconsistency in ball-spotting standards?
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
We're on the same page
We agree that there’s an inconsistency, we agree that the inconsistency is unavoidable, and we agree that it in no way makes our victory illegitimate. Not sure if I made that last point clearly enough in my post.
OK cool, I wasn't sure if you were actually agreeing with Jason Smith or not
Unfortunate that this even needs to be discussed, but whatever, we won, on to Pasadena.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
The Jerry-Plex
Also, was I the only that found it was easier to watch Jerry’s big ass tv than watching the game?
Everyone always says that, but I didn’t think the TV was really that distracting when play was happening nearby.
I definitely had to check the screen during some of those horrific goalline plays.
WHAT A GAME.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
