Whenever there is a coaching change, a lot of fans go overboard. At Tennessee, they apparently have mistakenly confused Knoxville with Poland circa 1989. Impressive show of Solidarity, though. Ha!
So, thank goodness national media figures like Pat Forde are here to calm everyone down and to bring perspective to this situation. Pat Forde, that voice of reason, who only got his job because he was the guy at the Lousiville-Courier who broke the 2003 story that then Louisville-coach Bobby Petrino was interviewing for the Auburn job before it was even open, certainly wouldn't do anything crazy like exploit and add further fuel to this fire. No way. He'd just write something like this. In case you can't read, and I'm looking at you Tennessee fans and "alumni", don't worry, he also appeared on the Doug Gottlieb show on ESPN Radio and PTI on ESPN (that's a television channel, Rocky Top Nation. It's like a radio, but with pictures!).
If you don't feel like reading senseless drivel, and I know you probably do on a Friday morning, let me paraphrase for you: Lane Kiffin is a worse version of Hitler and Darth Vader combined.
In lieu of writing an actual, coherent essay, allow me to follow my own lead from the post-national title game hubub and just respond point by point to some of Forde's assertions.
1. Lane Kiffin is a horrible person for taking this job
And we open up 0-1. Alright, I am supposed to believe that Lane Kiffin is a horrible person for taking this job? This job that he never went on a Saban-esque rant swearing he wouldn't take, because no one ever asked? The job that he told his AD, on Saturday when USC called, that if he got the offer he'd take? Gasp, betrayal!
I know a lot of people have jumped on Kiffin for this, both in and outside of the mainstream media, but let me try to break this down. Lane Kiffin was offered a pay raise. He was offered a pay raise at a school that has a better history, reputation, and talent on the roster than his current roster. He was offered a pay raise at a school that is without a doubt the most prestigious school on the West Coast. He was offered a pay raise to leave a school that he had no ties to, to return to a school that he coached for for four year. He left his job in Knoxville to take a job in Southern California. He left the job for a pay raise at a school that plays in a conference that gives him a better shot at a conference and National Title game.
Listen, it's cruel if you are a Tennessee fan, but this job is a promotion. USC is a better job than Tennessee. This also leads me to my next point
2. Lane Kiffin is a horrible person for breaking a contract
Let me poke holes in this argument in two ways. First, his contract included a clause that declared if Kiffin was fired or if he resigned before the end date of the contract, the party that terminated the contract would owe the other party $800,000. This means that from the first day of the f-cked up marriage, both sides had already planned on divorce. So the idea that Kiffin "betrayed" the university is ridiculous. It's also hypocritical. No school, other than Notre Dame, is ever lambasted for firing a coach early. So, Tennessee could have declared this season's 7-6 result "unacceptable," fired Kiffin and no one in the media would care after a day. Or, if Pete Carroll had called Tennessee last weekend and said, "I want a new challenge, and you're it," they wouldn't have dropped Kiffin like Tupac dropped albums after he died (tragic)? Kiffin didn't break the contract, he followed the rules of the contract and terminated it early. If I was Jemele Hill, I would find some cool way to phrase this view, but sadly I can find no clever way to work Marlo Stanfield shouting "My name is my name!" I wish Cleveland was more street.
Second, the reality is that there is a hierarchy in academia. In the NFL, you have an equal chance to win with all 32 franchises. Everyone spends the same amount of money, so being in one market or another, one division or another, doesn't make certain jobs more attractive than its peers. That's why you don't see coaches leave one job for another mid-contract. In college, it's different. If you are tenure track at Tennessee, then the school has given you a lifetime contract. No one would ever fault a professor at Tennessee for leaving his tenure track position for the same position at Harvard. Harvard means better pay, better resources, smarter students, better location, and better publishing deals for your work. Sure, you could build up your program at Tennessee, and maybe even occasionally have a groups of students that rival Harvard's. But at Harvard, you would consistently do better with less effort.
It is the same thing with college football. USC is an Ivy League school of football. It has the best resources, best athletic pool, and the best financial capital. Going there is a no brainer as a coach. You get paid more to win more with less hassle.
3. He didn't earn this!
This argument is based on Kiffin's career record: 5-15 with the Oakland Raiders and 7-6 with Tennessee. I'm not exactly sure what an NFL record has to do with college coaching, after all, Pete Carroll was barely better than .500 in the NFL and Bill Callahan took a team to the Super Bowl. Besides, who the f-ck wins in Oakland?
So, let's look at Lane's college track record. He was a highly successful recruiter for USC as an assistant. He was a decent play caller as offensive coordinator, if decent is having an offense in 2005 that averaged 45+ points per game and made it to the national title game. He was the right hand man for five years for arguably USC's greatest coach. At Tennessee, he took a five win team and in two years, brought in one top 10 recruiting class, improved the team to seven wins a took them to a bowl game, drastically improved an awful quarterback in Jonathan Crompton by making him servicable, and had more or less locked up another top 10 recruiting class. If he had been hired in 2006 when he was still at USC, people would've thought it made sense. When the king leaves, you promote the heir.
He doesn't have a strong sample size, but to say he didn't "earn it" is pretty weak. Mark Richt didn't "earn" the job at Georgia, since after all he had never coached a winning team, but he's worked out great. Carroll hadn't "earned" it since he had never been a head coach in a college game or coordinated a recruiting season. Flipping out about Kiffin's experience is pretty ridiculous, and only looking at the evidence that proves your flimsy point is lazy and poor journalism.
4. He is a dirty recruiter, which is the last thing USC needs
Well, now that is completely correct. He was a lead recruiter when USC brought in Reggie Bush, which is like marrying the person you have an affair with-- you know they'll do it again, but it's your fault for not seeing it coming. In light of Kiffin's own repeated secondary violations at Tennessee, it's an incredible display of hubris to hire him one month before they go before the USC with the threat of the "lack of institutional control" penalty out there. Ahh, hubris.
Also, if Kiffin's lead recruiter Ed Orgeron really was calling players that were already on campus in Knoxville to follow him, that's beyond low. And, unlike John Calipari apparently, Kiffin will be held responsible for his assistants.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
And Around and Around We Go
Wow.
Wow.
Wow!
When I woke up on December 30 to watch some low level bowl games, I was excited for two things: the Jan 1 and BCS bowls, and how the recruiting season would shape up in January. I was convinced that was all that was left to look forward to until next summer, since not even I can get up for watching 7 v 7 and tackling drills on ESPNU during the spring. Unless Saban's on, in which case I watch to see if he can make another player cry and to see whether or not it's true that he gets his coaching genius from constantly drinking a flask filled with mountain gorilla hair and lemur eyes.
Since then, we had a major scandal. Mike Leach was fired over a disagreement between him and the administration about whether or not Adam James was a douche before or after his concussion (I hear it from reputable doctors, who do not exist nor having medical degrees, that the answer is both). The real stunner, however, was the Texas Tech pulled in a big time coach-- former Ole Miss and Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville. While there are certainly questions about this hiring-- most notably, how a coach that fired his last spread-based offensive coordinator and built his reputation on the power running game will handle a roster built for Leach's "air raid" passing attack-- but the positives far outweigh the negatives. He is a national name that coached at a football school in a BCS conference, won their and made a serious run at a national title, and owned his rival school by going 8-1 against Alabama. He still has ties in the South after being a SEC head coach for 13 years, and now can recruit the rich state of Texas. Texas Tech made the Big 12 South interesting under Leach. While there will be growing pains in the next four years as Tuberville turns over the roster, in five years I would assume the program will be in even better position than it is today.
And then Friday happened.
The college football world was rocked when the best coach in America (best defined as: national titles, recruiting prowess, record in bowl games and against rivals, and having fully functional heart valves) jumped ship to the NFL. When Pete Carroll left USC, it was a big deal because it not only took possibly the biggest fish in college football out of the ocean, but it also suddenly opened one of the premier jobs in college football, and certainly the premier job in the West. This move, in and of itself, raised amazing questions that make college football rumor mills and In Touch magazine so much fun: what will happen their recruits? will Matt Barkley transfer? is he leaving because of inevitable NCAA sanctions?
The answers: who knows, but it'll hurt; no; and the court of public opinion says definitely yes.
But we didn't even get to the major question: who will replace Carroll at USC? Well, after such big time college football names as Mike Riley (woo! and he was the most qualified), Jeff Fischer, Jack Del Rio, and every college football fans greatest wish-- Herm Edwards, USC finally found a coach. Denying all logic, they got a coach with actual college football experience. The man they found? Lane Kiffin. Yes, that Lane Kiffen. Yes, the Tennessee coach. Yes, that Lane Kiffin. Yes, that Lane Kiffin. Yes, that Lane Kiffin (looks like plenty of eye candy in Los Angeles. Finally, that city has been ugly as shit for too long). More importantly, all rumors say that defensive coordinator Monte Kiffen, recruiting coordinator Ed Orgeron, and his incredibly hot MILF of a wife are all going with him to SoCal. Yes, that Mrs. Kiffin.
This is amazing. This, combined with the fact that Mark McGwire admitted publicly that he did use steriods while he played, has to be a wet dream for the four menopausal men that sit on the sports reporters. For the first time in two decades, Mike Lupica won't need 2 Cialis and a longing stare at the picture of Dick Schaap on his bedside table to get a hard on. Vilifying head coaches that leave their players in college football is better than a 3 way for those guys, AND they get steriods? Not even the BCS announcing a 100 year, $2 tril extension with ESPN, with a clause that forever forbids places for non-BCS teams and the word "playoff" to be used ever again on the network would make this show as enjoyable for those over the hill, irrelevant douchers.
So . . . how can Tennesee possibly top this drama? Lord knows they'll try, I can't wait to see. Top two choices, if I'm the UT AD? Duke Head Coach (and former UT OC) David Cutcliffe or Texas Defensive Coordinator Will Muschamp.
And 'round and 'round we go again.
Wow.
Wow!
When I woke up on December 30 to watch some low level bowl games, I was excited for two things: the Jan 1 and BCS bowls, and how the recruiting season would shape up in January. I was convinced that was all that was left to look forward to until next summer, since not even I can get up for watching 7 v 7 and tackling drills on ESPNU during the spring. Unless Saban's on, in which case I watch to see if he can make another player cry and to see whether or not it's true that he gets his coaching genius from constantly drinking a flask filled with mountain gorilla hair and lemur eyes.
Since then, we had a major scandal. Mike Leach was fired over a disagreement between him and the administration about whether or not Adam James was a douche before or after his concussion (I hear it from reputable doctors, who do not exist nor having medical degrees, that the answer is both). The real stunner, however, was the Texas Tech pulled in a big time coach-- former Ole Miss and Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville. While there are certainly questions about this hiring-- most notably, how a coach that fired his last spread-based offensive coordinator and built his reputation on the power running game will handle a roster built for Leach's "air raid" passing attack-- but the positives far outweigh the negatives. He is a national name that coached at a football school in a BCS conference, won their and made a serious run at a national title, and owned his rival school by going 8-1 against Alabama. He still has ties in the South after being a SEC head coach for 13 years, and now can recruit the rich state of Texas. Texas Tech made the Big 12 South interesting under Leach. While there will be growing pains in the next four years as Tuberville turns over the roster, in five years I would assume the program will be in even better position than it is today.
And then Friday happened.
The college football world was rocked when the best coach in America (best defined as: national titles, recruiting prowess, record in bowl games and against rivals, and having fully functional heart valves) jumped ship to the NFL. When Pete Carroll left USC, it was a big deal because it not only took possibly the biggest fish in college football out of the ocean, but it also suddenly opened one of the premier jobs in college football, and certainly the premier job in the West. This move, in and of itself, raised amazing questions that make college football rumor mills and In Touch magazine so much fun: what will happen their recruits? will Matt Barkley transfer? is he leaving because of inevitable NCAA sanctions?
The answers: who knows, but it'll hurt; no; and the court of public opinion says definitely yes.
But we didn't even get to the major question: who will replace Carroll at USC? Well, after such big time college football names as Mike Riley (woo! and he was the most qualified), Jeff Fischer, Jack Del Rio, and every college football fans greatest wish-- Herm Edwards, USC finally found a coach. Denying all logic, they got a coach with actual college football experience. The man they found? Lane Kiffin. Yes, that Lane Kiffen. Yes, the Tennessee coach. Yes, that Lane Kiffin. Yes, that Lane Kiffin. Yes, that Lane Kiffin (looks like plenty of eye candy in Los Angeles. Finally, that city has been ugly as shit for too long). More importantly, all rumors say that defensive coordinator Monte Kiffen, recruiting coordinator Ed Orgeron, and his incredibly hot MILF of a wife are all going with him to SoCal. Yes, that Mrs. Kiffin.
This is amazing. This, combined with the fact that Mark McGwire admitted publicly that he did use steriods while he played, has to be a wet dream for the four menopausal men that sit on the sports reporters. For the first time in two decades, Mike Lupica won't need 2 Cialis and a longing stare at the picture of Dick Schaap on his bedside table to get a hard on. Vilifying head coaches that leave their players in college football is better than a 3 way for those guys, AND they get steriods? Not even the BCS announcing a 100 year, $2 tril extension with ESPN, with a clause that forever forbids places for non-BCS teams and the word "playoff" to be used ever again on the network would make this show as enjoyable for those over the hill, irrelevant douchers.
So . . . how can Tennesee possibly top this drama? Lord knows they'll try, I can't wait to see. Top two choices, if I'm the UT AD? Duke Head Coach (and former UT OC) David Cutcliffe or Texas Defensive Coordinator Will Muschamp.
And 'round and 'round we go again.
Friday, January 8, 2010
2009 National Title Game and the Asterisk Argument
Last night's game was awesome. It was a game that featured big plays, big injuries, and a big win for a coach who has big contract over a big coach that has an even bigger contract.
It's time to celebrate Alabama and Nick Saban's 3 year turnaround of a perennial power that had been dormant for a decade? A starting QB that hasn't lost a game since middle school? A running back that became the first player since Matt Leinhart to win the Heisman and National Title in the same season?
Nope.
No, we have to have the "asterisk" argument. Why? Because of articles like these. And these. And these.
So, allow me to respond to the following points. Before I begin, let me say this: my heart goes out to Texas fans. As a Cleveland fan, I have always been amazed that my teams find new, interesting, and increasingly unpredictable and inexplicable to lose big games. Watch the Shot, the Drive, the Fumble, the Stop, the 9th, etc. It is frustrating. It makes you want to cry. It makes you break beer bottles, windows, and car windshields. I have done two of those, and seen one. It's horrible.
It doesn't change the fact that you lost, fair and square.
Point 1: With Colt in, clearly Texas would have run away with that game. After all, they only lost by 16 with a true freshmen!
False. I'm certainly not going to argue that Colt playing wouldn't have been better for Texas. He's a great player. But to say definitively that he would make a 16 point difference is ridiculous. If he was in the game, might they have scored a TD on that second possession? Yes, it's possible. But, equally possible, is that Alabama could have still held them to a field goal and actually gotten a bigger momentum swing from holding Texas to a FG. Or, since they never would have ran the ball inside the 5 with Colt, there is also a possibility that Alabama could have intercepted McCoy, who knows, maybe even could have ran it back for a TD. What would have happened for the rest of the game if Alabama actually went up 7-3? To say if we changed the past in this one way, this exact result would have happened, is ridiculous and faulty. Could Texas have won with Colt in the game? Yes. Could Colt have also played so bad, that he was yanked and Gilbert would have ended up playing anyway.
The other problem is that we have no idea what the coaches would have done had McCoy stayed in the game. Obviously, Texas would have been much more aggressive, that's a given. Alabama probably would have also responded by blitzing more, but bringing up a safety to bracket Shipley rather than playing cover 2 to avoid the big play. Who would've won that battle-- we'll never know. Likewise, would McElroy had only thrown the ball 11 times all game had McCoy stayed in the game? Probably not, and probably would have gotten the ball to Julio Jones more than once. Texas' D looked great in the second half, but it is also easy to look good when every sequence is "run, run, play action pass on 3rd and long."
Point 2: Ok, but you have to admit, with Colt playing the game, Texas never would have looked that sloppy
Sorry, but they would. The sloppiness argument really does not hold weight. It's a bowl game. The BCS Bowls always have this problem-- it's a natural consequence of not playing a game for over a month. When you don't play, you get rusty. No amount of practice, scrimmaging, or drills can prevent it. Think back to week one, and how bad and out or sorts good teams looked. That was after 5 weeks of practice, but it wasn't enough. The same thing happens with bowl games. Rust leads to miscommunication, dropped passes, blown coverages, blown protections-- all the stuff we saw last night. One player getting injured isn't what caused this problem. The problem is the bowl games in general. We saw it in the Rose Bowl, Orange, and Sugar. I mean, look back to last year's National Title Game. Florida was stagnant on offense, Bradford looked completely out of sync with his receivers, and it was sloppy. Second half-- a little better by both teams. This year's game, more or less the exact same formula. It was foolish to expect this year's game to be any different on either side.
Point 3: Whatever, dick. Alabama may have won, but it was without Colt. Therefore, it's not a real win. It's an asterisk
You have got to be kidding me. Injuries happen. They are part of the game. If you are a good team, you rebound and recover. If not, you struggle. Was Colt's injure at an ideal moment? Nope, it came at a horrible time, but that's the game sometimes. This is not the first time it has happened.
What about Ohio State in 2006? They go down 7-0, Ted Ginn, Jr. then returns the kick off 100 yards to tie the game, showing he's by far the fastest and arguably most athletic player on the field that game. When he teammates jump on him, they accidently break his foot. Without him, Ohio State no longer has any deep threat to challenge a weak Florida secondary, which allows Florida to rely on single coverage on the WRs, bring a safety up to stop the run, and blitz with impunity to prevent Troy Smith from ever setting his feet. Did Ginn make a big difference? Huge, I know because even though he didn't have many big catches against Michigan that year, he attracted so much attention it left huge wholes in Michigan's defense for other receivers to get open and the running game to attack. Let's put an asterisk next to Florida, since Ginn was actually a better player arguably than McCoy, since he was a Top 10 pick that year and now McCoy has a 2nd round grade from some people. I've never heard anyone argue this, other than idiot rednecks in Gnaddenhutten, OH (real place, google earth it).
Or what about last year? I don't see anyone giving Utah an asterisk for their Sugar Bowl win last year after Andre Smith was suspended the week of the game, giving him replacement virtually no time to prepare and the offensive line even less to gel? Cohesion is essential to any offensive line, and no matter how good your QB or running back may be, without the big uglies helping them out up front they aren't going anywhere. Left tackle anchors any offensive line, which means as much as any other player on an offense, so asterisk? Why don't we take that win away from the Mountain West, or try to discredit or discount it?
Or, even better, let's look at Texas' own experience this season. I don't remember hearing any Oklahoma fans say at the start of the Red River Shoot Out, "You know, if Bradford gets hurt in the first drive of this game, that would actually help open up our game plan." Oklahoma lost 16-13 that game. Is Sam Bradford 3 points better than Landry Jones? Probably. Would Texas have made it to the National Title game without that win? Probably not. Either undefeated TCU or Cincinnati would have made it, or even a 1 loss Florida would have gone in. After all, Oklahoma was still one of Texas' better wins this year, and losing that game would really have hurt their BCS rankings.
The same thing is true with the title game. Alabama is a team built on its front 7, so just imagine how good they would have been had starting LB Dont'a Hightower not been lost for the year in September. Would Texas have been able to score even 21 points with that full defense on the field?
I can't say it enough: injuries happen. They suck, it is frustrating and infuriating when it happens to your team, but they are part of the game. To discount your opponent's victory in a title game is weak. Be upset, be frustrated, but at the end of the day admit the truth.
It's time to celebrate Alabama and Nick Saban's 3 year turnaround of a perennial power that had been dormant for a decade? A starting QB that hasn't lost a game since middle school? A running back that became the first player since Matt Leinhart to win the Heisman and National Title in the same season?
Nope.
No, we have to have the "asterisk" argument. Why? Because of articles like these. And these. And these.
So, allow me to respond to the following points. Before I begin, let me say this: my heart goes out to Texas fans. As a Cleveland fan, I have always been amazed that my teams find new, interesting, and increasingly unpredictable and inexplicable to lose big games. Watch the Shot, the Drive, the Fumble, the Stop, the 9th, etc. It is frustrating. It makes you want to cry. It makes you break beer bottles, windows, and car windshields. I have done two of those, and seen one. It's horrible.
It doesn't change the fact that you lost, fair and square.
Point 1: With Colt in, clearly Texas would have run away with that game. After all, they only lost by 16 with a true freshmen!
False. I'm certainly not going to argue that Colt playing wouldn't have been better for Texas. He's a great player. But to say definitively that he would make a 16 point difference is ridiculous. If he was in the game, might they have scored a TD on that second possession? Yes, it's possible. But, equally possible, is that Alabama could have still held them to a field goal and actually gotten a bigger momentum swing from holding Texas to a FG. Or, since they never would have ran the ball inside the 5 with Colt, there is also a possibility that Alabama could have intercepted McCoy, who knows, maybe even could have ran it back for a TD. What would have happened for the rest of the game if Alabama actually went up 7-3? To say if we changed the past in this one way, this exact result would have happened, is ridiculous and faulty. Could Texas have won with Colt in the game? Yes. Could Colt have also played so bad, that he was yanked and Gilbert would have ended up playing anyway.
The other problem is that we have no idea what the coaches would have done had McCoy stayed in the game. Obviously, Texas would have been much more aggressive, that's a given. Alabama probably would have also responded by blitzing more, but bringing up a safety to bracket Shipley rather than playing cover 2 to avoid the big play. Who would've won that battle-- we'll never know. Likewise, would McElroy had only thrown the ball 11 times all game had McCoy stayed in the game? Probably not, and probably would have gotten the ball to Julio Jones more than once. Texas' D looked great in the second half, but it is also easy to look good when every sequence is "run, run, play action pass on 3rd and long."
Point 2: Ok, but you have to admit, with Colt playing the game, Texas never would have looked that sloppy
Sorry, but they would. The sloppiness argument really does not hold weight. It's a bowl game. The BCS Bowls always have this problem-- it's a natural consequence of not playing a game for over a month. When you don't play, you get rusty. No amount of practice, scrimmaging, or drills can prevent it. Think back to week one, and how bad and out or sorts good teams looked. That was after 5 weeks of practice, but it wasn't enough. The same thing happens with bowl games. Rust leads to miscommunication, dropped passes, blown coverages, blown protections-- all the stuff we saw last night. One player getting injured isn't what caused this problem. The problem is the bowl games in general. We saw it in the Rose Bowl, Orange, and Sugar. I mean, look back to last year's National Title Game. Florida was stagnant on offense, Bradford looked completely out of sync with his receivers, and it was sloppy. Second half-- a little better by both teams. This year's game, more or less the exact same formula. It was foolish to expect this year's game to be any different on either side.
Point 3: Whatever, dick. Alabama may have won, but it was without Colt. Therefore, it's not a real win. It's an asterisk
You have got to be kidding me. Injuries happen. They are part of the game. If you are a good team, you rebound and recover. If not, you struggle. Was Colt's injure at an ideal moment? Nope, it came at a horrible time, but that's the game sometimes. This is not the first time it has happened.
What about Ohio State in 2006? They go down 7-0, Ted Ginn, Jr. then returns the kick off 100 yards to tie the game, showing he's by far the fastest and arguably most athletic player on the field that game. When he teammates jump on him, they accidently break his foot. Without him, Ohio State no longer has any deep threat to challenge a weak Florida secondary, which allows Florida to rely on single coverage on the WRs, bring a safety up to stop the run, and blitz with impunity to prevent Troy Smith from ever setting his feet. Did Ginn make a big difference? Huge, I know because even though he didn't have many big catches against Michigan that year, he attracted so much attention it left huge wholes in Michigan's defense for other receivers to get open and the running game to attack. Let's put an asterisk next to Florida, since Ginn was actually a better player arguably than McCoy, since he was a Top 10 pick that year and now McCoy has a 2nd round grade from some people. I've never heard anyone argue this, other than idiot rednecks in Gnaddenhutten, OH (real place, google earth it).
Or what about last year? I don't see anyone giving Utah an asterisk for their Sugar Bowl win last year after Andre Smith was suspended the week of the game, giving him replacement virtually no time to prepare and the offensive line even less to gel? Cohesion is essential to any offensive line, and no matter how good your QB or running back may be, without the big uglies helping them out up front they aren't going anywhere. Left tackle anchors any offensive line, which means as much as any other player on an offense, so asterisk? Why don't we take that win away from the Mountain West, or try to discredit or discount it?
Or, even better, let's look at Texas' own experience this season. I don't remember hearing any Oklahoma fans say at the start of the Red River Shoot Out, "You know, if Bradford gets hurt in the first drive of this game, that would actually help open up our game plan." Oklahoma lost 16-13 that game. Is Sam Bradford 3 points better than Landry Jones? Probably. Would Texas have made it to the National Title game without that win? Probably not. Either undefeated TCU or Cincinnati would have made it, or even a 1 loss Florida would have gone in. After all, Oklahoma was still one of Texas' better wins this year, and losing that game would really have hurt their BCS rankings.
The same thing is true with the title game. Alabama is a team built on its front 7, so just imagine how good they would have been had starting LB Dont'a Hightower not been lost for the year in September. Would Texas have been able to score even 21 points with that full defense on the field?
I can't say it enough: injuries happen. They suck, it is frustrating and infuriating when it happens to your team, but they are part of the game. To discount your opponent's victory in a title game is weak. Be upset, be frustrated, but at the end of the day admit the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)