The Outstater
‘Alabama 27, Indiana 24‘
THE LATE BOB BARTLEY, editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, understood the intrinsic value of journalism. He imagined a campfire of prehistoric hunters where one in the circle had a better memory for game trails than the others. That member of the party earned special privileges (a Mammoth rib perhaps) irrespective of his tactical contribution to the hunt.
That prescience, that value, has disappeared for reasons to be addressed in a moment. We are all dimly aware of it but the rush of crises and events make it hard to quantify. Every once in a while, though, it becomes clear that our news “experts” are fools.
Indiana University’s 38-3 victory over Alabama in the quarterfinals was such an instance. My Grok assistant helped me gather examples:
Paul Finebaum (ESPN/SEC Network personality) strongly favored Alabama, emphasizing the Crimson Tide’s experience and implying Indiana would falter under pressure against a blue-blood program. Post-game discussions highlighted how wrong this take was, with Finebaum later focusing more on Alabama’s poor performance than a misjudgment of Indiana.
Josh Pate (host of “Late Kick with Josh Pate,” often on CBS/ESPN platforms) confidently predicted an Alabama victory, even appearing on podcasts like “Bussin’ With The Boys” to back the Tide. After the blowout, he acknowledged the miss, whining: “Never thought I’d live to see the haters be right about me.”
These, please know, were grown men whose only job was to assess the straightforward factors in a single game of manageable complexity, a boys game. They had masses of data, plenty of time and lifetimes of practical experience at their disposal, plus access to game film, practices and locker room interviews. It was not rocket science.
Yet, many writers picked Alabama outright, citing momentum from their first-round comeback win over Oklahoma. For instance: One Roll Tide Wire contributor predicted Alabama 30, Indiana 28, calling it a potential upset driven by health and momentum. Others, like certain IndyStar/Tuscaloosa News panelists, leaned Alabama in non-rain scenarios (e.g., Alabama 27, Indiana 24).
Given the game’s importance, it is shocking how many got it spectacularly wrong — Alabama’s worst loss since 1998. The game in reality underscored Indiana’s legitimacy under coach Curt Cignetti and Heisman winner Fernando Mendoza, while exposing Alabama’s struggles in the post-Saban era. Not one sportswriter anywhere in the nation got that even close to right.
Why? I don’t think sportswriters or their news counterparts try anymore. The goal has become self-aggrandizement, Internet clicks, boosterism and opinion manipulation, not accurate predictions and certainly not the truth.
And there is the perpetual flyover snobbery. A network reporter cornered Cignetti after the game to ask whether he had been worried that his team could sustain success “on the big stage.” He shot back, “Why, because we’re Indiana?”
Journalist once were taught to write as if their audience was the breakfast table of an average family. The point was that they should focus on a readership somewhat in a hurry, of diverse age and sex, individually intent on learning what was going to happen later that day, that week, that month (the weather, school closings, the economy, wars and of course sports).
That’s why my favorite sports writer, Red Smith, made a practice of filtering out the personalities and the hype to write only about what happened on the field. He wanted his readership to have a better chance of predicting the outcome of next week’s game.
We need to return to that. Go Hoosiers! — tcl
Comments...