Look... There's nothing in my sleeve. I went to the Kentucky forum. I looked for a thread on this play (knew there would be one), and posted the comments. 5 minutes.
Effin BS
kentucky.forums.rivals.com
Now. This is not an anomoly. You could find these comments for every close win we've had since the internet existed.
So the question is, how are you right and ALL the teams we've ever beaten that say the same stuff you do... They are wrong.
Now imagine you weren't a CFB fanatic. And you saw two fan bases make identical comments like this. And you look, and they are generally right about the calls they are complaining about. You'd probably come to the conclusion that the games aren't fixed, and the refs miss a crazy number of routine calls. That's my conclusion.
I'd love to say I'm the most logical and rational person out there. I'm not. But between the two of us, I'm the only one even making an attempt to disassociate with the orange tinted goggles for the purpose of looking at the bad reffing. And I know that's the case, because we have real estate agents and landscapers out there missing a dozen calls a game in our favor, and you NEVER feel the need to point out those particular countervailing examples.
I don't know how you do not understand that whatever the KY board or any other board may or not say has no bearing of the factual matters that I speak of. It's simply not a condition on whether my assessment is true, logically speaking, that no other board ever complained rightly or wrongly.
And of course you looked for
that play: it is an anomaly or outlier that sticks out like a sore thumb on the season. Regardless, I
never said that was not a bad call. You imagined that. And the truth of my claim in no way depends upon it in any fashion. One can't validly argue from the fact that one questionable call went our way (or a few) to the conclusion that a massive set of examples going the other way can be discounted automatically, and no independent assessment of the latter is necessary.
You basically say the following: "All boards complain. Therefore every individual who complains is biased in his assessment." And: "One call went Tennessee's way. Therefore it cannot be true that a sustained unidirectional pattern involving a huge number of calls and no-calls went against Tennessee this season and with no similar pattern and number going the other way." Both of those are invalid forms of argument.
Finally, you are wrong that I do not make an effort to take an unbiased view when reviewing calls. I do. You are not the lone ranger there. I watch the plays multiple times and one step in that is to do exactly what you allege it never occurs to me to do. There are not anywhere near a similar number of bad calls and no-calls in our favor. I also called your attention previously to the fact that others on the board have calculated the comparative stats for this year for non-pre-snap calls. (Although it is my view that no statistics can ever replace assessment of plays and contexts.)
It seems like you are jumping through all sorts of illogical hoops in order to avoid and distract others away from simply rewatching the videos and noting all the incidents and their contexts.
I think the pattern is too clear and unidirectional and the numbers too great to be attributed to mere coincidence. Incompetence, as I said before, would be more random.
I have also said that
no backstory is necessary to justify an interpretation of the pattern of facts as they present themselves. Poo-pooing a backstory, real or imagined, is a distraction. People who throw out the things their television has taught them to think sound smart like cabal, Q, vast, etc., are making fools of themselves. They think that to invent a red herring and then sneer at it is a logical argument. They think others are as dumb as themselves and will fall for a false and misleading analogy by prior conditioning. I take you to be smarter than that.
My (mere) guess is that as an athlete it was drummed into your (and all of our heads) that it was shameful to ever complain about or blame officiating. Now that is because it affects players' psychologically, even if they are correct. But an observer of a game has not such need to close his mind to patterned officiating calls and no-calls. And no such need to mock less disciplined ball players who blame officiating, rightly or wrongly. Because we are not now players. It is in no way shameful or unsportsmanlike to call attention to the truth in our circumstance. It is the SEC officiating in our games that has been shameful, not us.
But I am ok with you thinking whatever you want. I don't think you are open minded and I see no reason to attempt to persuade you. Also this back and forth is prolly boring erbody else. So I will let this go and urge you to do the same.