Wait for it... SEC=SPEED

Submitted by Marshmallow on
About 5 minutes after the game, the ESPN crew was talking about how Alabama played its game, with defense, no turnovers, few penalties and a strong running game. That's true, if you ignore the 1st quarter, when Alabama failed to convert a fake punt after taking the ball to start the game, and then botched the kickoff return after Texas scored a FG. I predict that the news reports tomorrow will go one step further and beat the dead and rotting horse that the Tide won this game because of the superior speed of the SEC. Who is ready for 9 months of that drumbeat? People in my office were honestly saying Bama has a speed advantage over Texas. Mark my words, that is going to be a theme of the coverage of this win, despite the fact that Texas can go toe to toe with any team in the country in terms of elite speed.

Sgt. Wolverine

January 8th, 2010 at 2:06 AM ^

Alabama played its game with defense...against a freshman quarterback who had minimal game experience and who didn't expect to play. And even then they nearly lost. I'm looking forward to avoiding most of the game analysis.

lunchboxthegoat

January 8th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^

it really sucked that Colt got hurt. I think the game tells that health Colt = no NC for Bama. Texas looked like they were going to lay the wood to Bama until the drive that took him out.

blacknblue

January 8th, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^

I think they ran ball so much because every time they tried to pass all of their receivers were covered and McElroy ended up being sacked. Their offense didn't do much in the first half either, they just got great field position against a Texas defense they never got to sit down for more then four plays.

MI Expat NY

January 8th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^

You're right, Alabama played conservatively in the second half. But as little proof as there is to the statement that Texas would have won with McCoy, the same is true about the statement that Alabama was the superior team. Alabama had two sustained drives on offense (The first TD drive and the missed FG drive in the second half), and neither of those were drives were longer than 60 yards. The rest of their TDs were a result of big plays (long TD run, pick-six, Fumble near the goal-line and the interception that sealed the game). Alabama was clearly the best rushing attack Texas had faced this year, and it showed, but the flip-side is, Alabam didn't look like theyy could pass at all against Texas. Texas blanketed the receivers and unleashed a pass rush of the likes Alabama had never seen before. If Colt McCoy plays, a man who was arguably more important to his team's success than any other player in college football the last two years (yes, even more than Tebow), this game is completely different. It's too bad we didn't get to see that game.

ThWard

January 8th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^

But this can't be right, Landon: "But as little proof as there is to the statement that Texas would have won with McCoy, the same is true about the statement that Alabama was the superior team." Qualify it all you want with McCoy's absence, but "winning the game" provides at least SOME proof, no? I'm with you in general - thought Texas could have hung around or won... but an injury - even to Colt - can't discount 100% the final outcome, can it? I don't know. Maybe.

MI Expat NY

January 8th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^

Either argument (McCoy plays and Texas wins, or Alabama was superior) basically relies on the flipside of the same assumption: If McCoy plays Texas either would still have had or would not have had the disasterous first half. I don't see how you can prove that assumption based on anything that happened on the field. Texas without McCoy /= Texas. Texas played without their most important player for 56 of the 60 minutes. Results of this game cannot be conclusively offered as proof that Alabama was better. They won the game, they get the title, and in the end I guess that's all that really matters. I just hate to see this result be added to the list of "evidence" that the SEC is soooo much better than the rest of college football. Last night, my eyes told me that Texas, with McCoy, is every bit as good as Alabama.

MichiganFootball

January 8th, 2010 at 2:17 AM ^

The most annoying part was the Alabama fans chanting SEC after the outcome of the game was decided. Are you really going to chant about how great your conference is after beating a Texas team that was playing a freshman qb?

4godkingandwol…

January 8th, 2010 at 2:27 AM ^

Yes, it was against Alabama, but if Texas, a team that is stacked with talent all over the place, cannot move the ball effectively with a freshman QB, I think it helps one understand why Michigan has struggled so mightily the last couple years. Not true apples to apples, but when he threw that shovel pass interception, my god, did I just have a flashback to some of our less memorable moments these past two years.

Blazefire

January 8th, 2010 at 9:13 AM ^

No, because that shovel pass interception was the proper call there. The guy was uncovered, with about 20 yards of free space in front of him, and the pressure was closing in. It was, for all intents and purposes, a hand off. He should've been able to handle it. Our shovel pass interceptions have been directly into the opposition's hands.

UMichGA

January 8th, 2010 at 2:28 AM ^

After watching the game and having to live in SEC country, I know it won't matter how they won. Tomorrow everyone around me will talk about how the SEC is the greatest and Alabama 'whipping' up on Texas just proves their point. I hate living in SEC country. Seriously, anyone want to switch places? :) -UMichGA

Blue Ninja

January 8th, 2010 at 2:58 AM ^

Sad but true the SEC has some bragging rights with a team form their conference winning 4 straight NC's. Doesn't make it any more bearable but they do have some bragging rights...unfortunately. At some point the tide (pun unintended) will begin to turn on the SEC because whenever a team or conference gets too dominant in any sport popular opinion and national coverage begins to turn negative after awhile.

Blue In NC

January 8th, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^

I know doing comparatives is not an exact science but it sure looked to me like Texas probably would have won vs. Fla (assuming healthy McCoy). Texas looked like it could go head to head with Bama and FLA basically looked overmatched in the trenches against Bama.

OSUMC Wolverine

January 8th, 2010 at 9:36 AM ^

I think Iowa and Wisconsin could play well against Alabama also. Both teams are inside teams, disciplined passing and hard nosed assignment conscious defense. The speed advantage would be greatly reduced. Moving forward, this is why these teams will give us fits, as we are going more speed oriented and will have trouble answering these types of systems particularly in November. There really should be some outdoor northern bowl games...I would attend just to support the idea. There should be an SEC-BigTen challenge in December played on neutral New England fields. Weather being the difference...

Irish

January 8th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

The game rang a bit hollow in the end, everyone tuned in to watch the best 2 teams at their peak go at it and that wasn't what happened. Maybe its just me