College Football's Most Loathesome

p'colabamaman · February 11th, 2010, 10:58 PM

Check out this blog on the top 50 most loathesome people in CFB. I've only read the top ten, which I thought was pretty entertaining, as well as truthful.
Scroll way down beyond the opening article.

Hey Jenny Slater.

Something entertaining to read in this slack period.

TIDE-HSV · February 11th, 2010, 11:12 PM

	Quote:	p'colabamaman
	Check out this blog on the top 50 most loathesome people in CFB. I've only read the top ten, which I thought was pretty entertaining, as well as truthful. Scroll way down beyond the opening article. Hey Jenny Slater. Something entertaining to read in this slack period.

When this popped up on ITAT, they were complaining that Saban didn't make the list...

TidefaninOS · February 12th, 2010, 07:06 AM

Good and entertaining read, and pretty much spot on. I noticed that Holtz was rated as #22 - I would swap out Holtz and Mark May though, I think. There's absolutely NOBODY that I can think of off-hand that would make me want to watch and listen to Lou Holtz! He's a blithering idiot!

derek4tide · February 12th, 2010, 07:39 AM

I think he should be #2 or #3.....

	Quote:
	12. Tim Tebow .....For nearly four years now, we've been subjected to round-the-clock replays of his teary motivational speeches; the kind of marionette-on-crack touchdown celebrations that would get (and frequently have gotten) other SEC players pegged for 15 yards; and verbal fellations by everyone from Thom Brennaman to Gary Danielson to Sarah Palin...... Exhibit A: The Web site of Tebow's father's ministry, the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association, claims that three quarters of the people in the Philippines "have never once heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Gee, that just happens to be almost the same proportion of people in that country who are Roman Catholic. But I'm sure that's just one of those crazy coincidences!

Mystical · February 12th, 2010, 08:04 AM

interesting

TidePrideGA · February 12th, 2010, 08:09 AM

Glad that someone agrees with me that Craig James is annoying.

TommyMac · February 12th, 2010, 08:22 AM

It can't be a valid list without Trooper Taylor on it. Matter of fact, there are quite a few other boogs who should be on the list, with Bobby Lowder at the top of the list.

TidePrideGA · February 12th, 2010, 08:30 AM

	Quote:	TommyMac
	It can't be a valid list without Trooper Taylor on it. Matter of fact, there are quite a few other boogs who should be on the list, with Bobby Lowder at the top of the list.

Yeah he should have definitely been on it. Guy is a tool no doubt about it.

DaveMitch · February 12th, 2010, 08:54 AM

Thanks for posting!! I thought the top 10 was spot on!!

Roll TIDE!

rhm54 · February 12th, 2010, 09:52 AM

I agree 1,000,000%. I think Pugh is despicable.

Quote:

5. Ryan Pugh

	Quote:
	Charges: Bar none, the dirtiest player in college football, and I'm not the only one who thinks so: Googling "Ryan Pugh chop block" returns 8,170 results. The Auburn O-lineman closed out his freshman year by injuring Clemson defender Dorell Scott on a chop block in the Peach Bowl; ended his sophomore season with a chop-block on Alabama's Luther Davis while Davis was still trying to get off the ground; and this past year, as a junior, managed to knock both a Ball State lineman and Tennessee defensive end Wes Brown -- who'd already been battling knee problems most of his career -- out of games via cheap hits. Even Auburn fans are starting to cringe every time his name is called. Sentence: After shattering both tibiae and fibulae while being pancake-blocked in Auburn's 2010 opener against Arkansas State, has his shins amputated and his feet attached directly to his knees, a la Hank Hill's dad on "King of the Hill."

Hal Bennett · February 12th, 2010, 10:00 AM

There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to any of this.

I have my own particular likes and dislikes, and I have a set of values whereby I try to justify those likes and dislikes. But I know from experience that a lot of people disagree with me.

My theory is that as TV coverage of Sport has greatly expanded, particularly football, basketball, and baseball, obviously the number of announcers and commentators has proliferated. There is no way that the quality of performance could keep up as more and more of these people moved into the broadcast chairs and tried to make us believe that they were, and are, quality broadcasters.

There used to be a bare minimum of these people, such as Lindsey Nelson, Chris Schenckel, Red Barber, Mel Allen, Jack Buck, Keith Jackson. When these guys started out after World War II, there wasn't any such thing as a color commentator. Those started coming in during the sixties. But this original list of men were quality. Sure, you might hear some comment such as Chris Schenkel "is a little squirt." But what you could not argue with was that each one of them was a consummate professional.

What was it that separated them from most of these guys today? Maybe the question should be, WHY were they more professional, and WHAT did they do that was better than what is done today?

I think that the controlling factor that made these men what they were was the influence of the two world wars. Two whole generations of men (and women) went through the military in this country, and the result was that those who went through it came out knowing what their fellow men would put up with and what they would NOT put up with.

For example, if during World War II you s a soldier were to try to stand up in front of a platoon of men and act and speak like a lot of these personalities on TV act and speak today, you would get hooted down by much of the rank and file of the platoon. You therefore could lose your position as head of the platoon -- in a heartbeat. As the years have gone by, and military service has become voluntary and even looked down upon, this mitigating factor, this curb on silliness has largely disappeared.

Some professionals of today, ministers and lawyers in particular, learn from experience that you cannot get up in front of a group of people and keep their attention by being silly. Their experience is like pebbles in a rushing stream. The longer they speak before different groups, the more refined they -- or most of them -- become. Not so with TV Sports people. They appeal to SEGMENTS of the population, not to the whole population, as the military called for. Ministers and lawyers have to deal with THE WHOLE ROOM they are facing.

A SEGMENT of the population, for example, likes Finebaum. Another SEGMENT of the population can't stand him. Yet he can survive, even flourish, because the two segments are not combined "in one room", or on one parade ground, as was the case in the wartime military. Finebaum therefore is taken seriously by those who "dig" him, and the rest of us wonder how ANYone could "dig" him. This situation would never "fly" in the military. He would either "shape up," so that he didn't alienate "half the platoon," or he would be gone.

That is the case with many TV and radio sports personalities of today. ESPN of course would like you to think that they are appealing to the broadest swath of the population. In my opinion, they are rather a monopoly, and there is no Teddy Roosevelt out there today who will act as a Trust Buster. Therefore I'm guessing that a large part of the population does not like what they do. But because they are a monopoly, there is nothing that can be done about it. No one has come forward effectively to counteract them, just as no one in Alabama has effectively come forward to counteract Finebaum.