Catch 5's picture

Catch 5

Alabama

Member since 25 October 2011 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 670 | Leaderboard

I'm a Bama fan looking to expand my knowledge and experience beyond the South. I mostly read the articles but will occasionally spout off to defend SEC country or question the perveived evils of oversigning.

Favorites

  • SPORTS MOMENT: 1992 Sugar Bowl, when Langham stripped the ball. Awesome.
  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Current: Barrett Jones All time: Mark Ingram
  • COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER: N/A
  • NFL TEAM: Atlanta, I guess. No real affiliation
  • NHL TEAM: Philly, but I dint know why.
  • NBA TEAM: N/A
  • MLB TEAM: Braves
  • SOCCER TEAM: Manchester United

Recent Activity

Comment 7 hours ago
Let me explain why this is a terrible idea for college football. 1. OOC scheduling is pretty bad as it is (nationally. The B10 is better in theory than most) but if you get no benefit of an improved resume, what is the incentive to schedule a rough opponent when you could set upa few glorified practice games during the season instead? 2. Pretend for a moment that Michigan was good. Going into The Game, the Wolverines are 9-2 and ranked in the top 15, while OSU has played the first 11 games undefeated - but you have a few players dinged up, including your quarterback. No one is hurt so badly that they couldn't play mind you, just nagging things like bruises and strains. Now, with the division already wrapped up and your place in the B10 championship game guaranteed, do you risk serious injury to these key players that would limit your chances in the B10CG and beyond our play it safe and rest your starters in what now becomes a meaningless game? What is more important, the rivalry or the championship? As it is now, you are better off playing to win every game. That is not the case when you have guaranteed spots in a larger playoff field.
Comment 8 hours ago
So you feel the SECw is over rated then? Take the polls out of the conversation for a minute. We are 8 weeks into the season, and there is currently 1 loss by an SECw team to anyone outside of the division (Arkansas to Georgia). Before you come back with "they haven't played anyone", note that they have as many or more OOC wins over currently ranked opponents than any of the other conferences - and this doesn't include the LSU win over Wisky. That is an impressive stat.
Comment 20 hours ago
The Florida offense, yes. Their defense held Mizzou to less than 120 yards and they still got beat that badly. Muschamp is all but gone.
Comment 15 Oct 2014

I think that is very accurate.  I would make one addition:  a 1-loss Mississippi team would be above the B10 champ ONLY if that loss is a close one to (a 1-loss) Georgia in the SECCG.  In that scenario, Georgia would go as your #2 and the Miss. team would take the #5 spot (as Bama and Auburn would each have at least 2 losses).

Bama has been plagued by very un-Bama-like mistakes.  They were very impressive against Florida and the defense has played very well for the most part while the offense (and especially the special teams) struggled.  This feels very much like the 2010 team that went 9-3 then absolutely destroyed Michigan State in the Cap1 Bowl.  That team didn't get it figured out until it was too late, and this one better hurry up or they will be in the same place.

Comment 15 Oct 2014

I don't disagree with much of that.  Ole Miss and State should have to win the West to get in (and the way they are playing, one of them will).  If one of them makes it to the SECCG undefeated and drops to a 1-loss Georgia, they can still make it, but a 1-loss Mississippi team isn't going to the playoffs without at least a divisional title.  Now Auburn or Alabama could do this.  Bama needs to play a LOT better (they look like a 3-loss team the last couple of weeks) but if they win out they are likely in (especially if that win over WVa that you don't credit much keeps looking better) whether they win the conference or not.  Same with Auburn.

As for the 2008 season - I think that mock pick is about right though I might have slipped in a Boise or Utah that year..  That was Bama's coming out year, but they were still young and played over their heads all year - I never thought they were the best in the country though.

Comment 14 Oct 2014

The only thing we do know is that Indiana (the worst team in the B1G) beat Missouri (a middle of the road SEC team),

That may be the only game you are aware of, but you would be ignoring a lot of football that has been played.  LSU (possibly the worst team in the SECw this year) beat Wisconsin (one of the better teams in the B10) on a neutral field.  Alabama beat WVa, who beat Maryland, a middle of the road B10 team. If we draw this out a little further, Auburn beat K-State, who beat Iowa St, who beat Iowa, a middle/upper tier B10 team.  And then there is South Carolina (possibly the worst team in the SECe), who beat ECU, who beat Va Tech, who beat OSU (possibly the best team in the B10).  The B10 is 0-4 against currently ranked teams.  SEC teams are 3-1, and the Mississippi teams appear to be the best teams in the SEC.  You can claim bias and skewed polls all you want, but the results on the field back it up.

Note:  I realize that transitive wins get ridiculous, but at this point, the only transitive losses you can point to re: the SEC are TCU and Baylor are better than Tennessee, and pretty much anybody is better than Vandy - both of which I agree with.  The point is that there are several bad losses with the B10 (and other conferences as well) but much less with the SEC.  That should show you the polls are not nearly as biased as you believe.

Comment 14 Oct 2014

I used current rankings specifically because teams like Missouri are obviously NOT the #18 team in the country - but if you want to include that win, fine - add the Wisky-LSU loss as well and the B10 record becomes 1-5 (and the SEC goes to 4-1)(and the P12 and B12 both gain 2 more losses, each to BYU and UCLA).  Can we count West Virginia too since they've been in "others receiving votes" all year.  If so, the SEC gains another win and the B10 gains another loss.  Any way you look at it, the SEC, as a conference comes out well in out of conference play against notable opponents - despite the constant drum beat that they don't play anybody.  

More to your point, I don't have a problem with two teams from the same conference being in the playoffs.  If the idea is to have the best 4 teams play for it, then how can we not allow for the possibility that 2 of these teams are in the same conference?  Be that Alabama-LSU in 2012 or OSU-Michigan in 2006(?) - yes, the B10 would have had 2 in that year (something many from your area of the country was all in favor of back then) - or two teams with one or less losses in the SECw this year.  I do think conference championships should have a priority, but if your conference hasn't done anything noteworthy, and your champion has a bad loss and no signature wins, I'm sorry, but you are going to get passed over by a non-champion with a "good" loss in what is proving to be a very tough division. 

Comment 13 Oct 2014

Well, they played Michigan State twice (in '11 and '12), losing 4-3 and 5-2 and beat some team called Michigan-Flint 4-3 in '13 (I have no idea if they are any good or not but if they are from that far north, they are likely decent).  Not as bad as I would have thought.

The records hadn't been updated for the weekend when I posted earlier.  Bama is currently 6-1 after the weekend games.

Comment 13 Oct 2014

I agree (they are included in the count - if that was unclear).  My point is that the ACC has them scheduled several times because of their new agreement - kinda the same with the Pac and B10.  The B12 and SEC don't have any games against ND, and also have the fewest P5 games.  This doesn't excuse them for not scheduling more (and if ND were to play an SEC team they would likely not schedule another) just an observation.

Comment 13 Oct 2014

 Rankings of teams you've beaten mean diddly squat

???  So in your eyes, beating Kansas in their house is a better win than beating East Carolina at home?  Sorry, but that is stupid.  How can you possibly say that wins over ranked opponents is not relevant?

 I can guarantee you they hardly travelled for those games. 

Of the 11 OOC games against P5 teams, 3 were/are at home, 6 were/are true away games, and 2 were neutral sites. 

Comment 13 Oct 2014

It is a valid criticism, but they do have the best resume right now without one.  If you disagree, who has a better one?  Would you really feel better about them had they beaten Kansas the first week of the season instead of Southern Miss?

Comment 13 Oct 2014

Given that they play so little power 5 competition outside of their own conference.

They play a few less than other conferences (though that seems to often be those that play Notre Dame a lot).  By my count, the SEC plays 11 P5 teams this year, the ACC plays 16 (Notre Dame 4 times), B12 plays 10, the P12 plays 11 (NDx3), and the B10 plays 17 (NDx3) ... but you're asking the wrong question.  Afterall, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, and others are P5 teams, but don't really pose a serious threat to a top team.  Why not look at ranked opponents?  Again by my count, the SEC, to date has played 4 currently ranked teams with the ACC playing 7, B12 playing 4, the P12 playing 2, and the B10 playing 4.  The SEC has by far the best record against those opponents (3-1, .750); ACC (2-5, .286); B12 (0-4 .000); P12 (1-1, .500); B10 (0-4, .000). 

Comment 13 Oct 2014

It does solve the problems.  We just create new ones.  The BCS was designed to get the #1 vs #2 teams to play each other.  The problem was that there were often a team or 2 that could claim those 1 and 2 spots.  Now that we moved it to 4 teams, we will most assuredly get everyone with a claim on the top spots in, but now we are going to bitch over who's #4 and that is what will kill college football. 

Comment 13 Oct 2014

Perhaps by Div 1 standards, but for the club level, many of them are decent.  Bama is sitting at 5-0 right now.  I work walking distance from where they play their home games and catch a few games every year.  It is a little slower than the progames I've watched, but fun and entertaining nonetheless.  They are working towards becoming officially sanctioned teams - I look forward to seeing how they do against "real" teams if they do.

Comment 06 Oct 2014
"South Carolina beating Georgia is the only win against a currently ranked team in the entire SEC East.  Think about that." South Carolina also beat ECU and Georgia beat Clemson, who is ranked by the Coaches. For fairness do you know how many ranked teams the whole B10 has beaten?
Comment 02 Oct 2014

History is written by the victorious.  That is the difference between being a "gang of treasonous scumbags" and "freedom fighters" or patriots.  You have to win to be seen in a favorable light.

Comment 02 Oct 2014

To me, Redskins is the more descriptive word, no?  Indians is a name Columbus gave the natives because he thought he was on the other side of the planet, but we let that one stick around because we didn't want to bother correcting ourselves I guess.  That seems more offensive to me:  calling someone something they clearly are not.  Then again, PC is a subject I'm better off staying away from - as I'd never once (before the recent hoopla) considered Redskins to be a slur, nor had I ever used it with malice intent.  

Comment 02 Oct 2014

I wish I knew Fido.  I really didn't notice it until JPW but it has probably been around a lot longer (I've never been much for noticing fashion on anyone).  My main concern with Blake Sims as far as his race goes is only that he is limited in his "Bama Bangs" production because of racial genes.  Perhaps he'll usher in a new era in Bama hair fashion.  

Of course, there has been some notable success with it ...

Comment 02 Oct 2014

When did "Redskins" become this horrible slur?  By that standard, is "Rebels" not considered a slur for those that fought for the South?  I get it: The South wanted slavery to continue and that is the worst thing this country has ever done - but it wasn't the only thing driving the Civil War, but slavery was (a big) part of it and I guess that trumps everything else to the point that anything else doesn't matter anymore and therefore anyone who so much as breathes anything positive about anything from that era or those people are therefore racists and shall not be tolerated.  

But back to my question:  Redskins (and Seminoles, Indians, Braves, etc.) are criticized because using them as mascots is thought to be demeaning to the subjects - however when Col. Reb is the mascot, it is seen as glorifying the symbol that many associate only with the sins of the past.  So which is it - is a mascot demeaning the subject or glorifying it?