I am a longtime ESPN viewer, and I'm extremely disappointed with the dissipating quality of programming. When I watch games or game analysis on ESPN, I now feel the same way Mark May feels when he goes on the air with Lou Holtz: completely frustrated that I'm listening to someone who has no idea what he's saying. Every year Lou Holtz says the same thing "Notre Dame will win the national championship." It's like he doesn't even know we're not in the 1980s anymore. Maybe his world is some weird version of Groundhog Day, and every day is January 2, 1989. Fast forward to 2013, Notre Dame truly finds the luck of the Irish (Should have lost 2-3 games easily) and they'll play for a national championship. Do I think they'll win? Absolutely not. The SEC owns college football. I may not like Alabama, but I respect SEC football. But until they play next week, Lou Holtz looks slightly less out of his mind.
Today I sat through 2 BCS games, featuring Stanford and 3 BCS misfits (Wisconsin, Northern Illinois & FSU). I was actually happy to see Corso pick Northern Illinois, though I have a feeling he was told by his fellow FSU fans to do so because he's known for being wrong. But it was better than seeing his usual biased nonsense. Seriously, the 3 weeks this year that FSU's rival, Florida, was featured on GameDay, Corso picked 2 live dogs (for Texas A&M and Tennessee), and then when he was finally smart enough to pick the Gators, he had to be a jerk by doing the FSU chop while holding an alligator - in Gainesville. Nice, Corso. How'd it feel to see the Gators beat your precious Seminoles IN TALLAHASSEE? Yeah, you got that pick wrong too.
Anyway, ESPN has started saying a lot of things that just...irk me. Like how most announcers on ESPN obviously don't know the primary definition of "fortuitous." But I let that slide because most of them didn't go to school to develop their vocabularies, and I'm sure they've been hit in the head a lot. But because of those types of people, the meaning they have ascribed to the word is now acceptable in the English language. I guess this shouldn't surprise me in a world where "f-bomb" and "amazeballs" are in English dictionaries.
My linguistics background is hardly the main source of my frustration. But perhaps a lexicology review would help. For example, when someone on ESPN refers to FSU as a "national power," I get confused. In my vocabulary, "national power" means someone who actually plays and beats - or at least plays close games with - strong competitors. I think of a "national power" as someone who contends for a national title...or has won a national title in the last decade. ESPN's definition is..."losing to NC State, but beating Boston College and losing at home to best team on the schedule (Florida)." Agree to disagree?
According to ESPN, FSU has a "great defense" that is "a different animal." In my mind, this would be more along the lines of....Alabama's defense from last year. You know, holding quality opponents to low scores and shutting out LSU in a national championship game. ESPN's definition is apparently "holding Murray State to 3 points and shutting out Savannah State." Another difference of opinion?
Maybe ESPN is just excited about FSU because of Corso...or because Samantha Steele married an overrated former Seminole. Who knows. But that's another thing: replacing Erin Andrews with Samantha Steele. A Florida grad with a Liberty grad. Who do you think knows more about the college football experience? Just saying... Don't get me wrong - I don't think she's bad at her job, but she seems so nervous on camera, doesn't always seem to know about the stuff she's clearly reading, and well, Erin was just better.
So obviously I'm a Florida alum and I'm biased and I'll never credit FSU with anything other than it's clown college. And obviously I've stated in the past that I don't exactly have a fondness of the Big Ten....but my biggest pet peeve of all this year was the constant reminder - for at least 3 months before the season even started - that "the Big Ten is back." According to ESPN, being "back" means...the conference champion finished 8-6 as a BCS misfit. They went what, 2-5 in bowl games?
I can't get over this one. And all the hypothetical nonsense about Ohio State...and "what if they didn't impose the bowl ban?" I'll tell you what would have happened: they would have had to forfeit all wins later because they're cheaters. Plain and simple. Also, teams would have actually cared about beating them. I'm sorry, but a truly elite team does not need overtime AT HOME to beat Purdue. A 5-loss Oklahoma State team just beat Purdue on a neutral field 58-14. UCF made it a game with the Buckeyes. Cal completely outplayed Ohio State in Columbus. They barely beat Michigan State (by 1 point), who finished with only 3 conference wins. Needed overtime to beat Wisconsin - who went to the Rose Bowl by default because 1/3 of the Big Ten Leaders division was ineligible. Let's be real. If Ohio State had any postseason hope, teams would have cared to beat them.
Go ahead. Say I'm biased and uninformed. But what I'm saying is true. ESPN should have asked for a dictionary for Christmas. And now that it's basketball season....see my post from last year about Joe Lunardi's true accuracy. But judging by all the Big Ten football hype, I can't say I'm surprised that ESPN gives credit and praise where it's not due. If I say to someone "Duke will make the field of 68," that person will stare blankly and maybe even throw something at me. But when Lunardi says such blatantly obvious things, he probably gets a raise.
::SIGH::
Anyway, it's officially January 2nd (after 2 in the morning now) and I'm too excited to sleep because the Sugar Bowl is today, which means GATOR TIME!
Sorry, Charlie (Strong), but I'm all about the orange and blue.
GO GATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
