Sunday, October 15, 2006

Well, that was fun: An analysis of possible responses to flak about Mizzou's loss to A&M

(Since I'll be hearing about it from the Aggies I know.) (Not "ex-Aggies," as they'll soon correct you: Once an Aggie, always an Aggie. Whatever.)

- "Well, we would've won ... if our coach wasn't an idiot." Yeah, I don't understand that fake field goal either, but a) it's one thing to criticize a coach for a whole pattern of plays, yet another to criticize him for one, b) turning on Pinkel so quickly after treating him as deity after the first six games seems a mite ridiculous, and most importantly, c) three points in that situation wouldn't have ended up making a difference anyway.

- "Well, we would've won ... if it weren't for the refs." Yeah, Temple's knee touched the ground before he fumbled, but as a general rule I hate blaming any loss on the refs. (Exception: OU had a legitimate beef in the Oregon game.) One play does not a game make. And we never give refs the credit on tough calls they make correctly.

- "Well, we would've won ... if the game had been in Columbia." That's probably true, especially given how hostile an environment Kyle Field is. But resorting to this argument is really just whining. While you're at it, why not just make everyone's record 6-6 before the season starts?

- "Oh yeah? Well ... your mom." Though it might not convince the person giving you a hard time, this is always a reliable backup retort.

- "Well, we would've won ... if we hadn't fumbled on the 1 on that 70-yard pass." This is the one I'm hearing most often. Yes, seven more points would've given us the win, but it's unlikely that the rest of the game would've unfolded exactly the same. Moreover, this is pretty much the same as saying, "Well, we would've won ... if they hadn't played better than us."

Which is why I'm going with:

- "Well, we don't deserve to win when we play like that." It's true. Mizzou didn't have it all together, especially in the second half. They can do so and escape with a win sometimes, but not against a good team — and especially not on the road. And, while the "Well, but" excuses just provoke the gloaters into an argument, this response takes the wind out of their proverbial sails. (Best of all, though this makes it sound like you're agreeing with them, you're sneakily implying that your team beat itself — thus that the other team wasn't good enough to win on its own. Mwahaha!)

Oh, and I'm still predicting a win over K-State next week.

3 comments:

Kara said...

I'm just going to assume that had Chase Daniel scored what would have been the game-winning touchdown (at any point in the second half, I'm not even thinking of a specific play), he probably would have fallen and broken his collarbone in the end zone. Really, we come out ahead this way.

Kara said...

Also, I feel like if we had pulled out the win, we just would have been setting ourselves up for a letdown at KSU. I'll trade a loss at A&M for a Homecoming win any day!

Anonymous said...

Y'all right the longest blog entries I've ever seen, and unfortunately I can't relate to them because I live in Switzerland. I wish I could though.