The SEC Forum at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

This time I'm finding it hard to root for either...I don't really want UGA to win because I'm tired of them at this point and I'm not keen on another Bama-type dynasty.  I don't really want Texas to win, because it's their first year here and can you imagine how insufferable an already arrogant fanbase would be if they won it all in their first try?  Plus that just makes all our claims about how those teams would have multiple losses if they played in the SEC look silly, and we can't have that.

The refs were quick to throw flags against Texas, to the point I bet upset Longhorns fans are accusing the SEC of biased officiating. SEC traditionalists did not want to see a newcomer win the conference year one, for the reason bolded above. Especially Texas. Various Big 12 fanbases bemoaned the outsized sway Texas had in the conference, to the point schools like Missouri and Texas A&M were glad to get away. Some of this was overblown, perhaps a reaction to the money Texas had, although A&M has "the money" too.

One specific warning against Texas was "they think they run the Big 12." And that Texas would expect the SEC to line up and answer to them. Except the SEC has too many heavyweights to be collectively pushed around by any single school, especially by a newcomer. So given those rumblings, allow me to push a conspiracy theory: yesterday's officiating was meant to make it clear to Texas - you don't get to sit at the head of the table yet!

It might happen anyway, but even I would have a hard time making myself watch that.  If Texas didn't beat UGA the first two times, why should a win in a third round reward them?  And if they don't beat UGA in the third try, why did we make UGA have to go through it again?  In some way, the surest way I know the games have been devalued now is precisely because several ESPN personalities this weekend spent so much lung-wind trying to subtly convince the audience how much more meaningful games are now with the expanded playoff. 

Anyway, the Longhorn OL doesn't appear to be able to push the UGA defensive front around like they do other teams.  I thought there might be mitigating reasons for not sticking with the run the first time.  The second time, well, shame on me, as the saying goes.  Texas could try not shooting itself in the foot to achieve victory in a hypothetical round 3, but at this point, I think it's just in the makeup of this team.  And I have a hard time picking a team I don't think can run on the opponent.  This time Texas committed to it and kept a healthy mix of run looks that kept the run game from being too predictable or vanilla.  It just didn't help much.  

I suspect Texas would be favored in any third game, especially if Stockton is the UGA QB (which seems likely).

Vol fans whined loudly about officiating at UGA but the outcome remains on the books.  Maybe the officiating was awful, and then what?

I'm hard pressed to believe officials are intentionally making biased calls in games, I could be naive.  I've said before that if I thought the "league office" asked officials to be biased to one team over another, I'd stop watching the sport.  Obviously, they miss calls, and at times the misses can be one sided in a game.  Was that intentional?  Was there a "plot" to throw the game one way or the other?

I can't say there wasn't, it's certainly possible.  The other possibility is that some key calls were one sided because of just randomness.  Was UGA holding more than usual?  Maybe, I wasn't able to notice it, I'm sure they held and didn't get called at times.

Vol fans are convinced the refs were one sided favoring UGA in their contest.  If so, this is akin to pro rastlin.

Controversy Ensues in SEC College Football Game After Blatant Officiating Bias Angers Fans - EssentiallySports

There was a LOT of fan talk about it, more than usual.  I personally do not believe the officials go into a game wanting to favor Team A over B.  Maybe it happens, I just don't think it does.  I do agree at times officiating ends up favoring Team A.  That doesn't mean it was intentional or planned or called by the office.

I guess it's blowing off steam etc. and like the event where Kirby pushed the opposing QB, it ends up meaning nothing.

Nobody's disputing the result is in the books.  Certainly the officiating was awful, at least in one direction.  It would be dishonest for me to say otherwise.  Nothing else to really say.  Best of luck in your future games.

Welcome to the SEC.

Georgia and Bama WILL get the calls.

And believe it, or not, I am not, and have never been, a "blame the refs guy."

Just the facts.

The problem with assuming that there's no referee bias because referees don't go into games intending to favor Team A over Team B is that it assumes intentionality is necessary for biased calls.  It isn't. 

Alabama vs. LSU were prime examples over the years.  Many LSU fans thought referees were in the bag for the Gumps, and eventually the issues were obvious enough to grab the attention of media who openly questioned calls.  (The same media who likely created the problem I'm about to describe.)  Personally, I don't think the referees ever tried to tank LSU's games against the Tide.  I think referees are people like the rest of us who are subject to the constant barrage of "information" on certain things, and like the rest of us, it can't help but color our opinion.  The studies of the effects of propaganda on people who know they're being inundated with propaganda are clear.  Even when we're aware of it, it affects us.  

So when Alabama's OL has a reputation for being amazing and they are amazing without having to commit holds, does a referee have to be in the bag to miss holding calls?  I don't think so.  But believing without realizing it that this OL does what it does without holding may lead to seeing something that makes you say "Was that holding.  Eh...it was questionable, I'll let it go." 

I've said this a number of times as an illustration, but also to show I'm attempting to not be biased, I think the same thing was true of LSU DBs for a long time.  For a decade, LSU was considered DBU, or one of the DBUs at least, and not without reason.  But I noticed that our DBs got away with more grabby behavior than other teams got away with, and earlier contact with WRs than other teams got away with.  There were many times our guys made a "good play" but I was convinced there was no flag because refs were used to not throwing flags on our DBs.  It didn't have to be "I'm rooting for LSU so I will not throw a flag."  Maybe it's more "These LSU DBs keep going high in the draft and becoming NFL stars and they're so well coached, look how they defend right to the edge of what's allowed."  When maybe sometimes it was just PI. 

Granted, Alabama seemed to have more instances of that working in their favor, but I'm just pointing out how narratives affect calls.  I doubt the officials were intentionally biased toward UGA, but I raise my eyebrows when calls start getting a certain amount lopsided.  UGA is the team now who loads the NFL with stars and has recently won two NCs and has all the narrative about it's great staff, coach, players, etc.  I think it's naive to believe that has no effect on the referee crews.  And the no-call on the late hit on Ewers was flat-out egregious, nobody but the homerest of homer UGA fans could say otherwise.  I don't recall if it made a difference.  But it was a horrible no-call on an obvious PF.