Recency bias explains it.If y’all believe that Texas is a playoff team, and save one bad int, we were right in it. Now all of a sudden Ole Miss is as good or better than Texas?
That’s what some of the score projections say
We've played one good game (MTSU), which gave everyone (Bama fans and media) a "Bama is Bama" outlook. It seems this game was a false positive.
We've played one game that was mediocre (Texas). That's probably too kind of a word to describe the game but as bad as the offense was, the defense played great and held them to 13 points at the beginning of the 4th, which should have been enough if our offense could have contributed with some long drives and points. This result had everyone (Bama fans and media) wondering "Is Bama Bama?"
Then there was last Saturday. If we just go with the results on the field (ignoring any conspiracy that some laid down and tried to affect the outcome) there's no bad word that comes close to the result. The only thing I can say is I watched college football all day long last Saturday until Sunday morning (CO/CO St) and I didn't see one team that looked so inept. The result had everyone (Bama fans and media) asking "Is Bama broken?"
So how do you interpret these three results which are dissimilar?
I think the hesitancy to pick Bama is based on recency bias. In two straight games we've got worse and with the problems that's haunted us (OL, QB and lot of penalties/mistakes) it just seems too much to think reinstating JM fixes it all.