Feinstein Article

[Highlander]

Feinstein displays the typical "SEC is awesome" diatribe that I despise so much. Case in point:

Clemson was exposed on Saturday, not only as unable to compete with a top-level team but as having a résumé that wasn’t as impressive as it looked. Georgia’s loss to Vanderbilt took care of that.

Miami remains unbeaten but was very fortunate to beat a 1-5 North Carolina team on Thursday night


OK, so Georgia is overrated and Miami is average/decent. Got it.


While the ACC clearly consists of one excellent team, three decent teams and everyone else, the depth of the SEC is breathtaking. Sure, Alabama continues to roll, but consider Saturday’s results in the conference: Mississippi, with half its defense out, upset No. 6 LSU; Auburn went into No. 7 Texas A&M and won a wild shootout even with Johnny Manziel again producing more than 500 yards in offense; Tennessee upset No. 11 South Carolina at the buzzer; Missouri, ranked No. 14, traveled to No. 22 Florida and won with a backup quarterback running the team and Vanderbilt (yes, Vanderbilt, coached by the man who could have been Maryland’s coach) stunned No. 15 Georgia.

Huh? So Tennessee's upset of South Carolina is an example of SEC depth. Who did both of those schools lose to? That's right, the same overrated Georgia team that Clemson beat. Mississippi upsetting No. 6 LSU is depth? But Georgia already beat LSU head to head and you said Georgia is overrated, so it sounds like LSU may be overrated too. But wait, when #14 Missouri beats Florida they're awesome, but when #7 Miami beats Florida, they are just decent/exposed. And best of all, a bottom half of the SEC Vandy beating a banged up Georgia is an example of SEC depth, while Clemson beating a healthy Georgia is an example of ACC weakness? He even goes ahead and discounts FSU's likely win over Miami as them just exposing a mediocre team, yet I doubt he'd say the same thing about Alabama's likely wins over Auburn or LSU, despite the fact that neither team has a noticeably better resume than Miami.

It's just bias, plain and simple.

You could just as rationally argue that LSU is overrated and is being exposed by mediocre competition, Georgia is fading due to a series of injuries and is a shadow of who they were at the beginning of the season, Texas A&M has a great offense but no defense, and the Aggies just got exposed by a mediocre Auburn team that couldn't beat overrated LSU.

I'm not going to argue that the SEC isn't still superior to the ACC top to bottom, because the ACC has 4-5 bad teams while the SEC only has a couple. But I think you've at least got an argument at the top of both conferences as to which one's top 5 is better, and dismissing it out of hand is going on reputation rather than on the field results.

[PSurprise]

What he said^

[roywhite]

Missouri was nothing great in the Big 12, but now in their second year in the SEC, they're showing quite well. That seems at odds with the SEC being a super conference.

Not particularly an FSU fan, but I'd love to see them get a shot at a National Championship, and take down an SEC team, which is likely to be Alabama.

[killerleft]

That story is just Feinstein exposing himself again, as he does from time to time.;)

[devildeac]

That story is just Feinstein exposing himself again, as he does from time to time.;)

Not touching that one, killer, not touching that at all:o. But I know what you mean;).

[Henderson]

Feinstein displays the typical "SEC is awesome" diatribe that I despise so much. Case in point:


OK, so Georgia is overrated and Miami is average/decent. Got it.



Huh? So Tennessee's upset of South Carolina is an example of SEC depth. Who did both of those schools lose to? That's right, the same overrated Georgia team that Clemson beat. Mississippi upsetting No. 6 LSU is depth? But Georgia already beat LSU head to head and you said Georgia is overrated, so it sounds like LSU may be overrated too. But wait, when #14 Missouri beats Florida they're awesome, but when #7 Miami beats Florida, they are just decent/exposed. And best of all, a bottom half of the SEC Vandy beating a banged up Georgia is an example of SEC depth, while Clemson beating a healthy Georgia is an example of ACC weakness? He even goes ahead and discounts FSU's likely win over Miami as them just exposing a mediocre team, yet I doubt he'd say the same thing about Alabama's likely wins over Auburn or LSU, despite the fact that neither team has a noticeably better resume than Miami.

It's just bias, plain and simple.

You could just as rationally argue that LSU is overrated and is being exposed by mediocre competition, Georgia is fading due to a series of injuries and is a shadow of who they were at the beginning of the season, Texas A&M has a great offense but no defense, and the Aggies just got exposed by a mediocre Auburn team that couldn't beat overrated LSU.

I'm not going to argue that the SEC isn't still superior to the ACC top to bottom, because the ACC has 4-5 bad teams while the SEC only has a couple. But I think you've at least got an argument at the top of both conferences as to which one's top 5 is better, and dismissing it out of hand is going on reputation rather than on the field results.

Methinks someone could use a bit more fiber in his diet.

[OldPhiKap]

Georgia, SC and Missouri would kill most ACC teams. Few ACC teams would win in Neyland. Or in Baton Rouge after sundown.

I am a huge ACC homer. But the SEC, legitimately, had 8 teams in the top 25.

Vandy would be favored over its counterpart in the ACC, and deservedly so.

Like to think differently, really would. But, nah.

[JasonEvans]

Georgia, SC and Missouri would kill most ACC teams. Few ACC teams would win in Neyland. Or in Baton Rouge after sundown.

I am a huge ACC homer. But the SEC, legitimately, had 8 teams in the top 25.

Vandy would be favored over its counterpart in the ACC, and deservedly so.

Like to think differently, really would. But, nah.

They are a football league that also plays basketball. We are a basketball league that also plays football.

But, that fact does not mean that teams from one or the other cannot rise up and play at an elite level and compete for a national title. There is little question that FSU, Miami, and Clemson are among the finest football teams in the land this year. FSU is more than deserving of their lofty national ranking. Similarly, there is little question that Kentucky and Florida will likely be among the finest college hoops teams in the land this coming season.

If the ACC and the SEC played each other in basketball, the ACC who whup up on the SEC -- probably by the same margin or more than the SEC would beat the ACC in football.

-Jason "oh, and Feinstein hasn't written anything intelligent about sports in years" Evans

[Highlander]

Georgia, SC and Missouri would kill most ACC teams. Few ACC teams would win in Neyland. Or in Baton Rouge after sundown.

I am a huge ACC homer. But the SEC, legitimately, had 8 teams in the top 25.

Vandy would be favored over its counterpart in the ACC, and deservedly so.

Like to think differently, really would. But, nah.

I agree with you that the South Carolina/Ole Miss/Florida/Tennessee programs would eat the Pittsburgh/Ga. Tech/Wake Forest/NC State's of the world for lunch. I'm not arguing that the SEC isn't a better conference than the ACC from top top bottom. What I'm saying is that the top 4 ACC teams match up pretty well with the top 4 SEC teams, and Featherston completely discounts the ACC's elite's head to head record against the SEC, while giving all the SEC teams a pass for similar egregious losses. The SEC has 8 in the top 25, but both conferences have 4 in the top 15.

Consider these hypothetical matchups:
1. Alabama vs. FSU
2. Missouri vs. Miami
3. Auburn vs. Clemson
4. LSU vs. Va. Tech

Assuming a neutral field, I don't think it would be a surprise if the ACC split those four games.

I also thought this was interesting. Looking at your example, Vanderbilt's (1-3/4-3) counterpart in the ACC would probably be Duke (1-2/5-2). Vandy would likely be favored in that game, but would you be incredibly surprised if Duke beat Vanderbilt in a bowl game?

I am definitely an ACC homer as well and give the SEC its due for its past success, but I think SEC conference losses count less in voters minds than any other conference's losses, and it's always bothered me. If Alabama were to lose to LSU or Auburn this year and still wins the SEC championship with one loss, would you be surprised if they ended up in the BCS title game over an undefeated conference champion like FSU or Oregon? I wouldn't.

[sagegrouse]

If Alabama were to lose to LSU or Auburn this year and still wins the SEC championship with one loss, would you be surprised if they ended up in the BCS title game over an undefeated conference champion like FSU or Oregon? I wouldn't.

Yep, I would be surprised if a one-loss Alabama got into the final BCS title game ahead of two undefeated teams from the group of FSU, Oregon, Ohio State and Baylor. Alabama would not have made the title game last year if Oregon had not lost to Stanford in the next-to-last game.

I suspect a "spread-the-wealth" attitude among many poll voters; many would be really happy to have a conference other than the SEC win the BCS championship.

sagegrouse

[Bob Green]

What I'm saying is that the top 4 ACC teams match up pretty well with the top 4 SEC teams, and Featherston completely discounts the ACC's elite's head to head record against the SEC, while giving all the SEC teams a pass for similar egregious losses. The SEC has 8 in the top 25, but both conferences have 4 in the top 15.

I believe you mean Feinstein.

[Highlander]

I believe you mean Feinstein.

I do, and thanks for the correction. Featherston is one of my favorite authors. Very sorry to have sullied his name by accident.

[Duvall]

I also thought this was interesting. Looking at your example, Vanderbilt's (1-3/4-3) counterpart in the ACC would probably be Duke (1-2/5-2). Vandy would likely be favored in that game, but would you be incredibly surprised if Duke beat Vanderbilt in a bowl game?

Per Sagarin (http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm), Vanderbilt would be favored over Duke on a neutral field...by two points.

All hail the Ancient and Holy Southeastern Conference, long may she reign.

[75Crazie]

Per Sagarin (http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm), Vanderbilt would be favored over Duke on a neutral field...by two points.

All hail the Ancient and Holy Southeastern Conference, long may she reign.
Vandy has defeated a top 20 team (at the time) at home and played a top 20 team closely on the road. Duke got blown out at home by the only team so far on its schedule that is even remotely close to the top 20. I see no issue with anyone favoring Vandy over Duke.

[Dev11]

Vandy has defeated a top 20 team (at the time) at home and played a top 20 team closely on the road. Duke got blown out at home by the only team so far on its schedule that is even remotely close to the top 20. I see no issue with anyone favoring Vandy over Duke.

I'd argue with my Duke blue glasses superglued to my face that we don't know the ceiling for this Duke team because they haven't lost a game with their starting quarterback healthy yet. That said, their closest victory with that starting QB in place was only a 13 point win on the road against a pretty bad Virginia team. Vanderbilt's best win is against a Georgia team that has been decimated by injury.

Now that I think about it, I'd love for Duke to face Vanderbilt in a bowl game this year. I think it would be a pretty good measuring stick for this team and the program.

[jimsumner]

I'm disappointed Feinstein didn't address Navy's decisive win over Duke.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[Duvall]

I'm disappointed Feinstein didn't address Navy's decisive win over Duke.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

I think we can guess what Feinstein's reaction was. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2180747)

[OldPhiKap]

I'd argue with my Duke blue glasses superglued to my face that we don't know the ceiling for this Duke team because they haven't lost a game with their starting quarterback healthy yet. That said, their closest victory with that starting QB in place was only a 13 point win on the road against a pretty bad Virginia team. Vanderbilt's best win is against a Georgia team that has been decimated by injury.

Now that I think about it, I'd love for Duke to face Vanderbilt in a bowl game this year. I think it would be a pretty good measuring stick for this team and the program.

I would love to make a bowl, but would not want an SEC match if we can avoid it. That "decimated" Dawg team won in Knoxville, which is not easy (ask Steve Spurrier). Agree it would be a good measuring stick, but would really be surprised if we really go off as only a two point dog to Vandy. If we can show the ability to run with VT this weekend or Miami in a few weeks, that is a different story. I believe we have that possibility -- no one could accuse me of being dour on the Devils I assume -- but we are talking about potential while Vandy is talking about "having done." Really hope we get there this week!


I'm disappointed Feinstein didn't address Navy's decisive win over Duke.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Perhaps Feinstein was deemed "nonessential" and has been on furlough.


I think we can guess what Feinstein's reaction was. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2180747)

Heh. Never heard that, great link.

[Atlanta Duke]

Perhaps Feinstein was deemed "nonessential" and has been on furlough.

The terms now are "exempt" and "non-exempt.":) I used to work for the Feds and the term "non-essential" was dropped since it allegedly caused a crisis of self-worth for some of those to whom the term applied.

[davekay1971]

Like many, I enjoyed Feinstein's early work, particularly Season on the Brink and his fine work on the Army Navy rivalry. Unfortunately, Feinstein simply doesn't do that kind of quality work anymore. He's devolved into essentially charging against the same windmills over and over and over again, using whatever forum he has to grind his personal axes. Some of those axes are pretty fun to witness being ground (The Feinstein assault against Mark Emmert comes to mind). Others are just annoying and redundant...and frequently misguided.

His radio show on CBS radio (which also features imp-troll Doug Gottlieb) is beyond awful because of Feinstein. He ventures into repetitive axe-grinding diatribes, usually from atop a very high horse, drops names like Miley Cyrus drops self-respect, and sidebars into political rants (which would be okay if his political insights weren't the worst form of vapid regurgitation of his preferred party's talking points...I love intelligent political discussion even when I disagree with it).

As a Dukie about the best I can say for Feinstein is he is unabashed in his views and doesn't seem to care about the popularity of them...and he is equally unabashed about his respect for K. That counts for something. But it doesn't, unfortunately, keep his work at the quality it once was. Nor does it mean he keeps his deeply entrenched views stay consistent with changing facts.

[Duvall]

What's this now?

John Feinstein: "Duke [football] is now officially respectable." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/in-college-football-alabama-oregon-florida-state-and-ohio-state-form-this-years-big-four/2013/10/27/c178018a-3de5-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_print.html)

He said it, he can't un-say it.

[Atldukie79]

So I may as well register this comment under this thread as anywhere(since Feinstein mentioned it). I keep reading that Duke is bowl eligible for the first time in school history...or it is sometimes referenced as first time since becoming a member of the ACC. Feinstein, Dinich and numerous other "reporters" have made this breatheless claim in light of our recent victory over VT.

If bowl eligible means a .500 season or a winning season, then the 16 consecutive such seasons in the '30s and '40s would seemingly qualify. Bill Murray had more than a few back to back winning seasons in the 50's while a part of the ACC.

Perhaps "bowl eligible" has been co-opted for only the modern game. Maybe they are confusing bowl eligible with bowl participation.
Though I can't substantiate which seasons, Duke also turned down bowl participations some seasons.

The claim carries the implication of eternal ineptness at Duke, which is mis-leading and simply not the case. Yes it is ancient history to some that Duke was once consistently good, but it is inaccurate to claim otherwise.

Am I too sensitive????? :)

[davekay1971]

What's this now?

John Feinstein: "Duke [football] is now officially respectable." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/in-college-football-alabama-oregon-florida-state-and-ohio-state-form-this-years-big-four/2013/10/27/c178018a-3de5-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_print.html)

He said it, he can't un-say it.

Well, he can ignore he said it I guess.

Keep in mind, this is to the best of my recollection as this is an exchange I listened to before I screamed at the car radio and changed the station, on the John Feinstein Show on CBS Sports Radio (which I turn on, apparently, to get my blood pressure up)

Feinstein: "The ACC is one good team and that's it. Miami just got exposed by Virginia Tech. I have one thing to say about Virginia Tech: Duke."

Feinstein's sidekick: "And then they lost to Boston College."

Feinstein: "Boston College is a good team. They've had a good program. Boston College had Doug Flutie. Duke has been bad for so long, the last great Duke football player recently died."

Feinstein's sidekick: "Thaddeus Lewis is very mad at you right now."

Feinstein: "Get out of here."

So, in one quick exchange, Feinstein managed to use Duke as an example of what a fraud Miami is because they lost to a team that lost to Duke, state that Duke doesn't have a good team (at least, as compared to Boston College...which, if you've paid any attention at all to ACC football in 2013, makes no sense at all), dismiss Thaddeus Lewis, and, apparently, ignore the existence of Clemson as a "good team".

The best sense I can make about Feinstein is that his ego is so big, that he's genuinely angry at Duke athletics for not following his suggestions for choosing their AD. Ever since they didn't follow his AD suggestion, in his view, Duke athletics has done nothing right, and everything wrong. The only person in Duke athletics spared from his windmill-charging vendetta is Coach K. Whether that's because he has some loyalty to Coach K, because K is simply too hard to attack given his standing in the world of college athletics, or because he's simply too intimidated by K to attack him, I don't know. I suspect he's got some loyalty to K.

But he'll dismiss Duke football's obvious growth as much as possible, because admitting that Duke did a good job hiring Cutcliffe would be counter to his argument that Duke athletics, well, sucks.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, he can ignore he said it I guess.

Keep in mind, this is to the best of my recollection as this is an exchange I listened to before I screamed at the car radio and changed the station, on the John Feinstein Show on CBS Sports Radio (which I turn on, apparently, to get my blood pressure up)

Feinstein: "The ACC is one good team and that's it. Miami just got exposed by Virginia Tech. I have one thing to say about Virginia Tech: Duke."

Feinstein's sidekick: "And then they lost to Boston College."

Feinstein: "Boston College is a good team. They've had a good program. Boston College had Doug Flutie. Duke has been bad for so long, the last great Duke football player recently died."

Feinstein's sidekick: "Thaddeus Lewis is very mad at you right now."

Feinstein: "Get out of here."

So, in one quick exchange, Feinstein managed to use Duke as an example of what a fraud Miami is because they lost to a team that lost to Duke, state that Duke doesn't have a good team (at least, as compared to Boston College...which, if you've paid any attention at all to ACC football in 2013, makes no sense at all), dismiss Thaddeus Lewis, and, apparently, ignore the existence of Clemson as a "good team".

The best sense I can make about Feinstein is that his ego is so big, that he's genuinely angry at Duke athletics for not following his suggestions for choosing their AD. Ever since they didn't follow his AD suggestion, in his view, Duke athletics has done nothing right, and everything wrong. The only person in Duke athletics spared from his windmill-charging vendetta is Coach K. Whether that's because he has some loyalty to Coach K, because K is simply too hard to attack given his standing in the world of college athletics, or because he's simply too intimidated by K to attack him, I don't know. I suspect he's got some loyalty to K.

But he'll dismiss Duke football's obvious growth as much as possible, because admitting that Duke did a good job hiring Cutcliffe would be counter to his argument that Duke athletics, well, sucks.

While there's still lots of room on the bandwagon, John's ego would take up a lot of space.

Better off with him on the outside. JMHO.

[Reilly]

While there's still lots of room on the bandwagon, John's ego would take up a lot of space.

Better off with him on the outside. JMHO.

What if we used some sort of hot air balloon contraption for a bandwagon? "We need more air in balloon four ... John, get to the starboard side and bloviate." Could be a way to get to El Paso ...

I like Feinstein more than most on this board, I'm guessing, but he's a train wreck of a radio host. He used to be great as a radio show guest on Tony K's show, where he could drop in, spew his stuff, and get off. But when he has to run the whole show, he's been really lost in the times I've heard him, falling into the typical bad sports talk radio trap of talking not about sports, but the inane details of the show itself ... "OK, next we have to take a break, and then after the break, we're going to talk about X, and the producer is telling me it's time to take a break now ....."