(11-14-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 09:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yes, some of you are mentioning the quality of promotions, productions, and announcing (calling of games). It matters. There are some excellent broadcasters out there. There are some though, that are too biased, and some that don't have the command of football rules and strategies particularly well. Some voices are just obnoxious.

Agree, NBC does a good job of showcasing Notre Dame games; but if one is a fan of certain opponents ND is playing, they can sound annoying at times.

ESPN loves the highly ranked and favorites. But the money matter is the driving force. Maybe I observe them too much. Jesse Palmer, for example, is not exactly the oasis of balanced opinions. He sure was beating the drum for Ohio State to be picked for the playoffs last season, and was bitter when OSU didn't make it.

Personally, I have been comfortable with most of CBS's work.

The quality of pre-game, half-time, and after-game shows are important factors. Some burned-out old coaches (and players) are informative and enjoyable listening to; others, not so much.

The thing with NBC is they are paying for Notre Dame games and they know the majority of people watching are Irish fans. The fans of the opponents are not likely to tune into any other games. There will be casual fans as well, but they are more likely to tune into the novelty of watching ND or be in search of a competitive game.

I think, in general, Mike Tirico does a very good job. If NBC was paying for a conference's rights then I think their approach would be different.

Here and there, a few in the broadcast industry will annoy me, but the only one that truly rubs me the wrong way is Tim Brando. I never felt that way until I listened to his radio show a few times and discovered the guy was a total jacka$$.

All in all, he's agenda driven. In the old days, he loved poking the eye of BCS proponents. Lately, he pushes conspiracy theories about Alabama and the SEC office.

Yeah, Tim Brando is with Fox and Raycom now. He's been with ESPN, Sirus XM, and CBS. He has moved around. He has said enough to render the impression he has a condescending attitude toward the SEC. He's not alone in displaying such. Some of these guys have loyalties elsewhere, or paid by networks with comparatively lower or no SEC affiliations, and perhaps are resentful of SEC success, dominance, and popularity.
Alabama is the King on the throne of college football. Some sportswriters outside the SEC footprint will take their jabs at them, as expected. But it is basically frustration.
I don't mind 'Bama facing a tough challenge or two, but want to limit such to the SEC. It would be healthy to have a few schools nipping at 'Bama's heels in the SEC. The conference is a bit short in achieving such right now.

The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

(11-14-2018 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 09:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yes, some of you are mentioning the quality of promotions, productions, and announcing (calling of games). It matters. There are some excellent broadcasters out there. There are some though, that are too biased, and some that don't have the command of football rules and strategies particularly well. Some voices are just obnoxious.

Agree, NBC does a good job of showcasing Notre Dame games; but if one is a fan of certain opponents ND is playing, they can sound annoying at times.

ESPN loves the highly ranked and favorites. But the money matter is the driving force. Maybe I observe them too much. Jesse Palmer, for example, is not exactly the oasis of balanced opinions. He sure was beating the drum for Ohio State to be picked for the playoffs last season, and was bitter when OSU didn't make it.

Personally, I have been comfortable with most of CBS's work.

The quality of pre-game, half-time, and after-game shows are important factors. Some burned-out old coaches (and players) are informative and enjoyable listening to; others, not so much.

The thing with NBC is they are paying for Notre Dame games and they know the majority of people watching are Irish fans. The fans of the opponents are not likely to tune into any other games. There will be casual fans as well, but they are more likely to tune into the novelty of watching ND or be in search of a competitive game.

I think, in general, Mike Tirico does a very good job. If NBC was paying for a conference's rights then I think their approach would be different.

Here and there, a few in the broadcast industry will annoy me, but the only one that truly rubs me the wrong way is Tim Brando. I never felt that way until I listened to his radio show a few times and discovered the guy was a total jacka$$.

All in all, he's agenda driven. In the old days, he loved poking the eye of BCS proponents. Lately, he pushes conspiracy theories about Alabama and the SEC office.

Well that's because Brando is a mule's rear. He's a pissed off Cajun masquerading as a journalist and he pokes the eye of the adversary of whoever pays him. He is a cheaper, less able, and more vulgar Pual Finebaum. My problem with Finebaum today is that his tone has taken on ESPN biases because that's who pays him. And he's gotten lazy in listening to what his callers actually say.

Yesterday I caught the last hour of the show and an Alabama fan in New York called in and raised an excellent point. He wanted to know if we were changing the rules to enhance player safety then why did college football drop the penalty for assisting the runner? That's a valid question that both my wife and I have raised while watching games. During my whole younger life and playing days it was a 5 yard penalty to assist a runner with a push or to catch him before he hit the ground and carry him or put him back on his feet in order to advance the ball. Now everyone gets behind him and pushes while the the carrier is piled upon by the defense. It is going to get people hurt.

Well Finebaum's two Yankee minions said it had always been that way and then poked fun at Trump by calling it Fake News. Well that's because they are barely 30 and don't remember when the rule changed about 10 years ago. Finebaum simply dismissed the caller outright and re-quoted the Fake News.

It was a rule, it was a valid point, and in light of the targeting calls it makes no sense why the rule, which did exist for decades was changed. What's more the original rule against assisting the ball carrier was put in to prevent injuries after the days of the flying wedge (which produced fatalities in the game) and to as they stated then, "distinguish the sport from Rugby".

Journalists and commentators get so enamored of their notoriety that they frequently lack the humility to simply say, "I don't know" and so perpetuate ignorance by taking a stance on an issue that they are ignorant about. Brando is the worst, and Paul has been dumbed down by his ESPN experience in as much as he listens less to his audience, some of which are very informed, and dismisses things he has no clue about because he now feels the focus is upon him rather than his audience.

I remember the rule against assisting the runner. You probably remember the media coverage of the "Bush Push" several years back....that was mid 2000s. I don't remember there being much pub when the rule changed, but I do remember when it was an illegal play.

It's a good question to ask although in fairness to Paul, he probably doesn't understand enough about the game to have even noticed a difference. Of course, that's not much of an excuse.

I do agree about his cohorts. Of all places, on the SEC Network, if you're going to put someone on camera then they should have at least attended an SEC school. There's no shortage of qualified applicants there.

(11-14-2018 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 09:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yes, some of you are mentioning the quality of promotions, productions, and announcing (calling of games). It matters. There are some excellent broadcasters out there. There are some though, that are too biased, and some that don't have the command of football rules and strategies particularly well. Some voices are just obnoxious.

Agree, NBC does a good job of showcasing Notre Dame games; but if one is a fan of certain opponents ND is playing, they can sound annoying at times.

ESPN loves the highly ranked and favorites. But the money matter is the driving force. Maybe I observe them too much. Jesse Palmer, for example, is not exactly the oasis of balanced opinions. He sure was beating the drum for Ohio State to be picked for the playoffs last season, and was bitter when OSU didn't make it.

Personally, I have been comfortable with most of CBS's work.

The quality of pre-game, half-time, and after-game shows are important factors. Some burned-out old coaches (and players) are informative and enjoyable listening to; others, not so much.

The thing with NBC is they are paying for Notre Dame games and they know the majority of people watching are Irish fans. The fans of the opponents are not likely to tune into any other games. There will be casual fans as well, but they are more likely to tune into the novelty of watching ND or be in search of a competitive game.

I think, in general, Mike Tirico does a very good job. If NBC was paying for a conference's rights then I think their approach would be different.

Here and there, a few in the broadcast industry will annoy me, but the only one that truly rubs me the wrong way is Tim Brando. I never felt that way until I listened to his radio show a few times and discovered the guy was a total jacka$$.

All in all, he's agenda driven. In the old days, he loved poking the eye of BCS proponents. Lately, he pushes conspiracy theories about Alabama and the SEC office.

Yeah, Tim Brando is with Fox and Raycom now. He's been with ESPN, Sirus XM, and CBS. He has moved around. He has said enough to render the impression he has a condescending attitude toward the SEC. He's not alone in displaying such. Some of these guys have loyalties elsewhere, or paid by networks with comparatively lower or no SEC affiliations, and perhaps are resentful of SEC success, dominance, and popularity.
Alabama is the King on the throne of college football. Some sportswriters outside the SEC footprint will take their jabs at them, as expected. But it is basically frustration.
I don't mind 'Bama facing a tough challenge or two, but want to limit such to the SEC. It would be healthy to have a few schools nipping at 'Bama's heels in the SEC. The conference is a bit short in achieving such right now.

The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

(11-14-2018 03:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 09:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yes, some of you are mentioning the quality of promotions, productions, and announcing (calling of games). It matters. There are some excellent broadcasters out there. There are some though, that are too biased, and some that don't have the command of football rules and strategies particularly well. Some voices are just obnoxious.

Agree, NBC does a good job of showcasing Notre Dame games; but if one is a fan of certain opponents ND is playing, they can sound annoying at times.

ESPN loves the highly ranked and favorites. But the money matter is the driving force. Maybe I observe them too much. Jesse Palmer, for example, is not exactly the oasis of balanced opinions. He sure was beating the drum for Ohio State to be picked for the playoffs last season, and was bitter when OSU didn't make it.

Personally, I have been comfortable with most of CBS's work.

The quality of pre-game, half-time, and after-game shows are important factors. Some burned-out old coaches (and players) are informative and enjoyable listening to; others, not so much.

The thing with NBC is they are paying for Notre Dame games and they know the majority of people watching are Irish fans. The fans of the opponents are not likely to tune into any other games. There will be casual fans as well, but they are more likely to tune into the novelty of watching ND or be in search of a competitive game.

I think, in general, Mike Tirico does a very good job. If NBC was paying for a conference's rights then I think their approach would be different.

Here and there, a few in the broadcast industry will annoy me, but the only one that truly rubs me the wrong way is Tim Brando. I never felt that way until I listened to his radio show a few times and discovered the guy was a total jacka$$.

All in all, he's agenda driven. In the old days, he loved poking the eye of BCS proponents. Lately, he pushes conspiracy theories about Alabama and the SEC office.

Yeah, Tim Brando is with Fox and Raycom now. He's been with ESPN, Sirus XM, and CBS. He has moved around. He has said enough to render the impression he has a condescending attitude toward the SEC. He's not alone in displaying such. Some of these guys have loyalties elsewhere, or paid by networks with comparatively lower or no SEC affiliations, and perhaps are resentful of SEC success, dominance, and popularity.
Alabama is the King on the throne of college football. Some sportswriters outside the SEC footprint will take their jabs at them, as expected. But it is basically frustration.
I don't mind 'Bama facing a tough challenge or two, but want to limit such to the SEC. It would be healthy to have a few schools nipping at 'Bama's heels in the SEC. The conference is a bit short in achieving such right now.

The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

What they resent is the death of the AP poll crowning the champion. Prior to the Jim Crow South which was a stumbling block unto itself the South put forth many great teams which were excluded from the top spot in the polls simply because the majority of poll voters wrote for Northern and Western newspapers and weren't going to crown one of ours if N.D., Ohio State, Michigan or USC were close.

The BCS ended that and the CFP has made our inclusion a foregone conclusion and as a result Southern schools are getting their shots at the title.

Remember it was a unbeaten 2004 Auburn team that was snubbed by the bowls and media that led to Slive pushing the buttons to create a better system.

Yes, Saban has helped a great deal, but the quality of Southern football has been on display nationwide and the blowouts of the former media darlings is what is resented, that and the fact they can't rig an election for football champion now the way they still try to rig them politically.

And keep one more thing in mind. Southern Football doesn't fit in with a feminist agenda that is seeking to de-masculinize the workplace.

(11-14-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The thing with NBC is they are paying for Notre Dame games and they know the majority of people watching are Irish fans. The fans of the opponents are not likely to tune into any other games. There will be casual fans as well, but they are more likely to tune into the novelty of watching ND or be in search of a competitive game.

I think, in general, Mike Tirico does a very good job. If NBC was paying for a conference's rights then I think their approach would be different.

Here and there, a few in the broadcast industry will annoy me, but the only one that truly rubs me the wrong way is Tim Brando. I never felt that way until I listened to his radio show a few times and discovered the guy was a total jacka$$.

All in all, he's agenda driven. In the old days, he loved poking the eye of BCS proponents. Lately, he pushes conspiracy theories about Alabama and the SEC office.

Yeah, Tim Brando is with Fox and Raycom now. He's been with ESPN, Sirus XM, and CBS. He has moved around. He has said enough to render the impression he has a condescending attitude toward the SEC. He's not alone in displaying such. Some of these guys have loyalties elsewhere, or paid by networks with comparatively lower or no SEC affiliations, and perhaps are resentful of SEC success, dominance, and popularity.
Alabama is the King on the throne of college football. Some sportswriters outside the SEC footprint will take their jabs at them, as expected. But it is basically frustration.
I don't mind 'Bama facing a tough challenge or two, but want to limit such to the SEC. It would be healthy to have a few schools nipping at 'Bama's heels in the SEC. The conference is a bit short in achieving such right now.

The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

What they resent is the death of the AP poll crowning the champion. Prior to the Jim Crow South which was a stumbling block unto itself the South put forth many great teams which were excluded from the top spot in the polls simply because the majority of poll voters wrote for Northern and Western newspapers and weren't going to crown one of ours if N.D., Ohio State, Michigan or USC were close.

The BCS ended that and the CFP has made our inclusion a foregone conclusion and as a result Southern schools are getting their shots at the title.

Remember it was a unbeaten 2004 Auburn team that was snubbed by the bowls and media that led to Slive pushing the buttons to create a better system.

Yes, Saban has helped a great deal, but the quality of Southern football has been on display nationwide and the blowouts of the former media darlings is what is resented, that and the fact they can't rig an election for football champion now the way they still try to rig them politically.

And keep one more thing in mind. Southern Football doesn't fit in with a feminist agenda that is seeking to de-masculinize the workplace.

Yeah, there's been a ton of good SEC football for many years now. What I'm saying is it took many years before teams in the league started getting the benefit of the doubt. Considering the consistent number and quality of non-conference wins, it should have come much sooner. No other league has sniffed the number of national titles the SEC has won in the last 20 years or so.

But yes, I would agree that they are mad over their lack of direct influence these days. That's partially why I figured two SEC teams in the CFP last year might get the wheels of change moving again.

(11-15-2018 11:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yeah, Tim Brando is with Fox and Raycom now. He's been with ESPN, Sirus XM, and CBS. He has moved around. He has said enough to render the impression he has a condescending attitude toward the SEC. He's not alone in displaying such. Some of these guys have loyalties elsewhere, or paid by networks with comparatively lower or no SEC affiliations, and perhaps are resentful of SEC success, dominance, and popularity.
Alabama is the King on the throne of college football. Some sportswriters outside the SEC footprint will take their jabs at them, as expected. But it is basically frustration.
I don't mind 'Bama facing a tough challenge or two, but want to limit such to the SEC. It would be healthy to have a few schools nipping at 'Bama's heels in the SEC. The conference is a bit short in achieving such right now.

The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

What they resent is the death of the AP poll crowning the champion. Prior to the Jim Crow South which was a stumbling block unto itself the South put forth many great teams which were excluded from the top spot in the polls simply because the majority of poll voters wrote for Northern and Western newspapers and weren't going to crown one of ours if N.D., Ohio State, Michigan or USC were close.

The BCS ended that and the CFP has made our inclusion a foregone conclusion and as a result Southern schools are getting their shots at the title.

Remember it was a unbeaten 2004 Auburn team that was snubbed by the bowls and media that led to Slive pushing the buttons to create a better system.

Yes, Saban has helped a great deal, but the quality of Southern football has been on display nationwide and the blowouts of the former media darlings is what is resented, that and the fact they can't rig an election for football champion now the way they still try to rig them politically.

And keep one more thing in mind. Southern Football doesn't fit in with a feminist agenda that is seeking to de-masculinize the workplace.

Yeah, there's been a ton of good SEC football for many years now. What I'm saying is it took many years before teams in the league started getting the benefit of the doubt. Considering the consistent number and quality of non-conference wins, it should have come much sooner. No other league has sniffed the number of national titles the SEC has won in the last 20 years or so.

But yes, I would agree that they are mad over their lack of direct influence these days. That's partially why I figured two SEC teams in the CFP last year might get the wheels of change moving again.

Whenever you use the term "benefit of the doubt" that is the problem with college football and the way they end their season and its really BAD when you do it with as small of a playoff as either 4 or even if it goes to 8. Its one thing to live with if its #16 or #24 in a playoff selection.

I realize a P4 could solve the whole selection process issue by expanded playoffs throughout the conference but even in a P5 its possible to do a 16 team playoff with no selection committee down the road. In a P5 with 16 teams its as simple as give the 5 P5 leagues bids to the top 3 teams and give the 16th spot to the highest G5 rated team which I would actually make a G5 playin game of the two highest rated G5 conference champs. The only committee is for the 2 G5 teams and that is more access than they have ever had. I could see where if that came into play there might be pressure for the B12 to go to 12 teams to get the same number of bids as other P5's. This wouldn't be that much extra games you would do away with the CCG's and there wouldn't be bowls or at least bowls for these teams.

(11-15-2018 02:30 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 11:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

What they resent is the death of the AP poll crowning the champion. Prior to the Jim Crow South which was a stumbling block unto itself the South put forth many great teams which were excluded from the top spot in the polls simply because the majority of poll voters wrote for Northern and Western newspapers and weren't going to crown one of ours if N.D., Ohio State, Michigan or USC were close.

The BCS ended that and the CFP has made our inclusion a foregone conclusion and as a result Southern schools are getting their shots at the title.

Remember it was a unbeaten 2004 Auburn team that was snubbed by the bowls and media that led to Slive pushing the buttons to create a better system.

Yes, Saban has helped a great deal, but the quality of Southern football has been on display nationwide and the blowouts of the former media darlings is what is resented, that and the fact they can't rig an election for football champion now the way they still try to rig them politically.

And keep one more thing in mind. Southern Football doesn't fit in with a feminist agenda that is seeking to de-masculinize the workplace.

Yeah, there's been a ton of good SEC football for many years now. What I'm saying is it took many years before teams in the league started getting the benefit of the doubt. Considering the consistent number and quality of non-conference wins, it should have come much sooner. No other league has sniffed the number of national titles the SEC has won in the last 20 years or so.

But yes, I would agree that they are mad over their lack of direct influence these days. That's partially why I figured two SEC teams in the CFP last year might get the wheels of change moving again.

Whenever you use the term "benefit of the doubt" that is the problem with college football and the way they end their season and its really BAD when you do it with as small of a playoff as either 4 or even if it goes to 8. Its one thing to live with if its #16 or #24 in a playoff selection.

I realize a P4 could solve the whole selection process issue by expanded playoffs throughout the conference but even in a P5 its possible to do a 16 team playoff with no selection committee down the road. In a P5 with 16 teams its as simple as give the 5 P5 leagues bids to the top 3 teams and give the 16th spot to the highest G5 rated team which I would actually make a G5 playin game of the two highest rated G5 conference champs. The only committee is for the 2 G5 teams and that is more access than they have ever had. I could see where if that came into play there might be pressure for the B12 to go to 12 teams to get the same number of bids as other P5's. This wouldn't be that much extra games you would do away with the CCG's and there wouldn't be bowls or at least bowls for these teams.

Practically speaking though, there are far too many teams at the highest level for anyone to ever come up with a criteria that doesn't in any way rely on presumption.

The so-called "eye test" or the "benefit of the doubt" is something that could never be eliminated because no one's schedule is completely balanced. Pro leagues pull it off because they're small, compact, and have a uniform system for a process of elimination. No such system is possible in college athletics.

Our complaint has been that the SEC schools prove themselves on the field more often than anyone else and yet receive a disproportionate amount of criticism for not being perfect.

So you can't remove "benefit of the doubt" any more than you can remove a negative bias.

(11-15-2018 03:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:30 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 11:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

What they resent is the death of the AP poll crowning the champion. Prior to the Jim Crow South which was a stumbling block unto itself the South put forth many great teams which were excluded from the top spot in the polls simply because the majority of poll voters wrote for Northern and Western newspapers and weren't going to crown one of ours if N.D., Ohio State, Michigan or USC were close.

The BCS ended that and the CFP has made our inclusion a foregone conclusion and as a result Southern schools are getting their shots at the title.

Remember it was a unbeaten 2004 Auburn team that was snubbed by the bowls and media that led to Slive pushing the buttons to create a better system.

Yes, Saban has helped a great deal, but the quality of Southern football has been on display nationwide and the blowouts of the former media darlings is what is resented, that and the fact they can't rig an election for football champion now the way they still try to rig them politically.

And keep one more thing in mind. Southern Football doesn't fit in with a feminist agenda that is seeking to de-masculinize the workplace.

Yeah, there's been a ton of good SEC football for many years now. What I'm saying is it took many years before teams in the league started getting the benefit of the doubt. Considering the consistent number and quality of non-conference wins, it should have come much sooner. No other league has sniffed the number of national titles the SEC has won in the last 20 years or so.

But yes, I would agree that they are mad over their lack of direct influence these days. That's partially why I figured two SEC teams in the CFP last year might get the wheels of change moving again.

Whenever you use the term "benefit of the doubt" that is the problem with college football and the way they end their season and its really BAD when you do it with as small of a playoff as either 4 or even if it goes to 8. Its one thing to live with if its #16 or #24 in a playoff selection.

I realize a P4 could solve the whole selection process issue by expanded playoffs throughout the conference but even in a P5 its possible to do a 16 team playoff with no selection committee down the road. In a P5 with 16 teams its as simple as give the 5 P5 leagues bids to the top 3 teams and give the 16th spot to the highest G5 rated team which I would actually make a G5 playin game of the two highest rated G5 conference champs. The only committee is for the 2 G5 teams and that is more access than they have ever had. I could see where if that came into play there might be pressure for the B12 to go to 12 teams to get the same number of bids as other P5's. This wouldn't be that much extra games you would do away with the CCG's and there wouldn't be bowls or at least bowls for these teams.

Practically speaking though, there are far too many teams at the highest level for anyone to ever come up with a criteria that doesn't in any way rely on presumption.

The so-called "eye test" or the "benefit of the doubt" is something that could never be eliminated because no one's schedule is completely balanced. Pro leagues pull it off because they're small, compact, and have a uniform system for a process of elimination. No such system is possible in college athletics.

Our complaint has been that the SEC schools prove themselves on the field more often than anyone else and yet receive a disproportionate amount of criticism for not being perfect.

So you can't remove "benefit of the doubt" any more than you can remove a negative bias.

Well, yes you can. Move to a P4, let them determine a champion and let the champs play it off. That's as good and as efficient as it will ever get.

(11-13-2018 08:00 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  There are number of fans that would be glad not to have their games done by Gary Danielson. There might be some champaign popping.

I’d probably pitch in to help pay for the buyout if it meant no more Gary.

(11-15-2018 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 03:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 02:30 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 11:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What they resent is the death of the AP poll crowning the champion. Prior to the Jim Crow South which was a stumbling block unto itself the South put forth many great teams which were excluded from the top spot in the polls simply because the majority of poll voters wrote for Northern and Western newspapers and weren't going to crown one of ours if N.D., Ohio State, Michigan or USC were close.

The BCS ended that and the CFP has made our inclusion a foregone conclusion and as a result Southern schools are getting their shots at the title.

Remember it was a unbeaten 2004 Auburn team that was snubbed by the bowls and media that led to Slive pushing the buttons to create a better system.

Yes, Saban has helped a great deal, but the quality of Southern football has been on display nationwide and the blowouts of the former media darlings is what is resented, that and the fact they can't rig an election for football champion now the way they still try to rig them politically.

And keep one more thing in mind. Southern Football doesn't fit in with a feminist agenda that is seeking to de-masculinize the workplace.

Yeah, there's been a ton of good SEC football for many years now. What I'm saying is it took many years before teams in the league started getting the benefit of the doubt. Considering the consistent number and quality of non-conference wins, it should have come much sooner. No other league has sniffed the number of national titles the SEC has won in the last 20 years or so.

But yes, I would agree that they are mad over their lack of direct influence these days. That's partially why I figured two SEC teams in the CFP last year might get the wheels of change moving again.

Whenever you use the term "benefit of the doubt" that is the problem with college football and the way they end their season and its really BAD when you do it with as small of a playoff as either 4 or even if it goes to 8. Its one thing to live with if its #16 or #24 in a playoff selection.

I realize a P4 could solve the whole selection process issue by expanded playoffs throughout the conference but even in a P5 its possible to do a 16 team playoff with no selection committee down the road. In a P5 with 16 teams its as simple as give the 5 P5 leagues bids to the top 3 teams and give the 16th spot to the highest G5 rated team which I would actually make a G5 playin game of the two highest rated G5 conference champs. The only committee is for the 2 G5 teams and that is more access than they have ever had. I could see where if that came into play there might be pressure for the B12 to go to 12 teams to get the same number of bids as other P5's. This wouldn't be that much extra games you would do away with the CCG's and there wouldn't be bowls or at least bowls for these teams.

Practically speaking though, there are far too many teams at the highest level for anyone to ever come up with a criteria that doesn't in any way rely on presumption.

The so-called "eye test" or the "benefit of the doubt" is something that could never be eliminated because no one's schedule is completely balanced. Pro leagues pull it off because they're small, compact, and have a uniform system for a process of elimination. No such system is possible in college athletics.

Our complaint has been that the SEC schools prove themselves on the field more often than anyone else and yet receive a disproportionate amount of criticism for not being perfect.

So you can't remove "benefit of the doubt" any more than you can remove a negative bias.

Well, yes you can. Move to a P4, let them determine a champion and let the champs play it off. That's as good and as efficient as it will ever get.

Sure, there are ways you could structure it to make it more efficient, but you could never ensure that champions from 4 separate leagues were automatically the most qualified.

Even using that criteria, you'd have to presume that one conference championship is as good as the next. There's no mechanism to achieve that goal even if the system excludes ambiguity.

Pro leagues can effectively eliminate all ambiguity because everything about the setup from the money to how a team acquires players is controlled to an extreme degree. There's no way to do all that in college sports without fundamentally altering what it is.

Actually, I think the ambiguous nature of college athletics is a part of why so many of us love it so much.

(11-15-2018 09:02 PM)MemDawg91 Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 08:00 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  There are number of fans that would be glad not to have their games done by Gary Danielson. There might be some champaign popping.

I’d probably pitch in to help pay for the buyout if it meant no more Gary.

Maybe we could all pitch in on a GoFundMe?

(11-14-2018 03:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 03:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 09:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yes, some of you are mentioning the quality of promotions, productions, and announcing (calling of games). It matters. There are some excellent broadcasters out there. There are some though, that are too biased, and some that don't have the command of football rules and strategies particularly well. Some voices are just obnoxious.

Agree, NBC does a good job of showcasing Notre Dame games; but if one is a fan of certain opponents ND is playing, they can sound annoying at times.

ESPN loves the highly ranked and favorites. But the money matter is the driving force. Maybe I observe them too much. Jesse Palmer, for example, is not exactly the oasis of balanced opinions. He sure was beating the drum for Ohio State to be picked for the playoffs last season, and was bitter when OSU didn't make it.

Personally, I have been comfortable with most of CBS's work.

The quality of pre-game, half-time, and after-game shows are important factors. Some burned-out old coaches (and players) are informative and enjoyable listening to; others, not so much.

The thing with NBC is they are paying for Notre Dame games and they know the majority of people watching are Irish fans. The fans of the opponents are not likely to tune into any other games. There will be casual fans as well, but they are more likely to tune into the novelty of watching ND or be in search of a competitive game.

I think, in general, Mike Tirico does a very good job. If NBC was paying for a conference's rights then I think their approach would be different.

Here and there, a few in the broadcast industry will annoy me, but the only one that truly rubs me the wrong way is Tim Brando. I never felt that way until I listened to his radio show a few times and discovered the guy was a total jacka$$.

All in all, he's agenda driven. In the old days, he loved poking the eye of BCS proponents. Lately, he pushes conspiracy theories about Alabama and the SEC office.

Yeah, Tim Brando is with Fox and Raycom now. He's been with ESPN, Sirus XM, and CBS. He has moved around. He has said enough to render the impression he has a condescending attitude toward the SEC. He's not alone in displaying such. Some of these guys have loyalties elsewhere, or paid by networks with comparatively lower or no SEC affiliations, and perhaps are resentful of SEC success, dominance, and popularity.
Alabama is the King on the throne of college football. Some sportswriters outside the SEC footprint will take their jabs at them, as expected. But it is basically frustration.
I don't mind 'Bama facing a tough challenge or two, but want to limit such to the SEC. It would be healthy to have a few schools nipping at 'Bama's heels in the SEC. The conference is a bit short in achieving such right now.

The problem within the SEC is not that Alabama can't be beaten. They have suffered a loss in numerous seasons whether at the hands of Ole Miss or Auburn. The problem is that within the division nobody else could manage beating Alabama and winning the division without losing once or usually twice themselves.

And in this latest string of Bama natty's only once have they been pushed in the Conference Championship game and that was last year.

But put Bama in any other conference and the dominance would be even worse, and that's the part that pisses off the Colin Cowherds of the world and the Brandos as well.

When Saban retires, we'll fall back a little bit. Even if Dabo decides to come home, he'll have to get used to a whole new level of competition week in and week out.

Hopefully we've learned some lessons from the past and understand better how to transition from excellence into a new regime. There's no good reason we shouldn't remain competitive, but the dominance will end.

My thought on the national media though is that Alabama's success pisses some of them off because it's the SEC's representative and very few want the SEC to look good. If we were talking about USC or Notre Dame or Oklahoma or Ohio State making a run like this then the narrative would be different.

Joel Klatt and Danny Kannell come to mind. They seem to be otherwise reasonable people who are willing to contort logic and portray the SEC/Alabama as favored sons. Even when an SEC club gets the benefit of the doubt, what most don't remember is that it's taken a hell of a lot of work to establish that credibility. It most certainly did not fall in anyone's lap or happen overnight.

A lot of people love to hate the guy that wins most of the time so I don't expect everyone in the media to fall back on praise for the SEC as their default, but I do expect consistency. How many years has it taken for the majority of media members to recognize Saban as one of the best? Because for many years he was the guy that left the Dolphins high and dry and would surely leave Bama at the drop of a hat for a bigger paycheck...or the guy that yelled at the media...or the guy that wasn't really that special because he had a lot of talent...or the guy who bent the rules to get talent because everyone in the SEC bends the rules.

On and on...there was always some reason the guy didn't deserve a lot of credit. At some point, they started to sound stupid rather than just opinionated so most of them changed their tune. But just watch, if Kirby Smart or anyone else in the SEC becomes the next big thing then they'll have to win at a historic clip to really get the credit they deserve.

I would contend that guys like Bob Stoops who only won a single title or a guy like Pete Carroll who left town to avoid the fallout of sanctions are more readily acceptable to major media types because there's still something deep down in their heart of hearts that wants to see the SEC guy fail.

This is something a lot of Northerners don't get: Southerners don't really care for the NFL, and prefer SEC football to it. I even prefer SEC football to the NFL. Your average northerner's mind is blown when they see Georgia having roughly the same status as the Packers in the state of Georgia or Alabama dominating the southeast like the Steelers dominating the AFC Central. The northerners don't get it, and deep down they're jealous that their own college teams aren't like that. Yes, there are some exceptions, but for the most part, the NFL rules the Northeast and the Midwest, as well as the West Coast. NCAA football rules the South. And here's something else too: in college football, most of the the time guys don't have time to go around spouting political agendas, unlike the NFL.