Top 5 arguments used by SEC fan
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:58 pm
Seems we've had some pretty good debate in here the last few days. I thought I'd stir the pot just a tad more by offering my (tongue-in-cheek) top 5 list of arguments SEC fan is infamous for; much of which is based on things I read in here on a regular basis. So without further ado...
1. Simply put, The Meatgrinder: It's the most famous of 'em all. The Meatgrinder argument is used primarily in two ways: A) To rationalize how much tougher the SEC's schedule is over your team's conference schedule and B) To justify playing piss poor out of conference competition. Example, "Yeah, so we played Somalia Pre Flight, Chic Cosmetology, and ITT Tech - what of it? We can't possibly play these SEC juggernauts AND .500 Pac 10 teams in one season. The vag can only take so much."
2. The "look at the bowl records" argument: This is possibly the most underrated argument often used by SEC fan. What I love about this argument is how it is ALWAYS used when the timing doesn't call for it. For example, the subject of debate could be about the lack of miles SEC teams travel when playing out of conference teams. How does SEC fan retort? Perhaps with a well thought out take on how many SEC teams actually do travel comparatively? No, not quite. SEC fan is above quibbling over such semantics. They like to go above and beyond, you know, prove a greater point. Of course, the first reaction in this instance might be to go to The Meatgrinder. If that fails, well, what better way to claim victory in a debate about a detailed subject than to thump your chest and belt out, "WE OWN YOU IN BOWL GAMES. 'BODE!"
It often makes me wonder if SEC fan utilizes this tactic in every day situations.
Wife: John, you didn't take the trash out again. Why are you such a lazy bum?
John (SEC fan): :pause:
John (SEC fan): The SEC owns you in bowl games you STUPID BITCH! Look it up!
Wife: Uhh, what?
3. The Transitive Property: To be fair, mtool could write the book on this one, but SEC fan certainly isn't above it. I mean, seriously, what better way to determine who's better than to use logical equations which involve hundreds of variables and don't account for how teams individually match up? Here's a REALLY classic example - Penn St sqeauked by Ohio St who got crushed by Florida two years ago in an MNC game, therefore, Florida would beat Penn St this year. Yup, folks, believe it or not, I've had that one laid on me. Perhaps there are multiple layers of cleverness at work here that the rest of us mere mortals simply cannot comprehend? Yeah? Anyone?
4. One of my personal favorites. The "BECAUSE I SAID SO!" argument: This is sort of like when Sean Salisbury ends his little skirmishes against John Clayton with that finger wag and the authoritative "PERIOD!" that he exclaims at the end. Period. That means there are no further perspectives that could possibly be brought to the table. It's end of discussion. Because he said so. The "BECAUSE I SAID SO!" argument is much simpler than the transitive argument, of course. It's really more of a canned, refined version of the transitive that in fact cuts out the transitive. Some SEC fans embrace this approach as it eliminates all that really difficult thinking things through stuff.
Simply, it's the ever so trusty, "Florida would crush USC by at least 20 points! BALEE DAT!" How do you even respond to that? Do you just mess his hair and tell him to skedaddle? How can one be so convinced of the result of an event that hasn't even taken place? Most fans want to see a game play out before making any declarations. Not SEC fan though. They're perfectly content with substituting their opinions for actual game results.
5. The "Big Ten sucks because of Ohio St!" argument: This argument is sort of a hybrid of "BECAUSE I SAID SO!" and the transitive property. The two isolated wins over Ohio St in MNC games will forever serve as "bode" over the Big Ten in the eyes of SEC fan. Despite the fact they only involved two games and two match ups, these games are used as criteria early and often to judge the overall worth of the Big Ten conference, even today. For example, "Penn State sucks because they play in a conference that got crushed two years in a row by SEC teams in the title game." 15 year from now, I suspect this argument will still be uttered.
1. Simply put, The Meatgrinder: It's the most famous of 'em all. The Meatgrinder argument is used primarily in two ways: A) To rationalize how much tougher the SEC's schedule is over your team's conference schedule and B) To justify playing piss poor out of conference competition. Example, "Yeah, so we played Somalia Pre Flight, Chic Cosmetology, and ITT Tech - what of it? We can't possibly play these SEC juggernauts AND .500 Pac 10 teams in one season. The vag can only take so much."
2. The "look at the bowl records" argument: This is possibly the most underrated argument often used by SEC fan. What I love about this argument is how it is ALWAYS used when the timing doesn't call for it. For example, the subject of debate could be about the lack of miles SEC teams travel when playing out of conference teams. How does SEC fan retort? Perhaps with a well thought out take on how many SEC teams actually do travel comparatively? No, not quite. SEC fan is above quibbling over such semantics. They like to go above and beyond, you know, prove a greater point. Of course, the first reaction in this instance might be to go to The Meatgrinder. If that fails, well, what better way to claim victory in a debate about a detailed subject than to thump your chest and belt out, "WE OWN YOU IN BOWL GAMES. 'BODE!"
It often makes me wonder if SEC fan utilizes this tactic in every day situations.
Wife: John, you didn't take the trash out again. Why are you such a lazy bum?
John (SEC fan): :pause:
John (SEC fan): The SEC owns you in bowl games you STUPID BITCH! Look it up!
Wife: Uhh, what?
3. The Transitive Property: To be fair, mtool could write the book on this one, but SEC fan certainly isn't above it. I mean, seriously, what better way to determine who's better than to use logical equations which involve hundreds of variables and don't account for how teams individually match up? Here's a REALLY classic example - Penn St sqeauked by Ohio St who got crushed by Florida two years ago in an MNC game, therefore, Florida would beat Penn St this year. Yup, folks, believe it or not, I've had that one laid on me. Perhaps there are multiple layers of cleverness at work here that the rest of us mere mortals simply cannot comprehend? Yeah? Anyone?
4. One of my personal favorites. The "BECAUSE I SAID SO!" argument: This is sort of like when Sean Salisbury ends his little skirmishes against John Clayton with that finger wag and the authoritative "PERIOD!" that he exclaims at the end. Period. That means there are no further perspectives that could possibly be brought to the table. It's end of discussion. Because he said so. The "BECAUSE I SAID SO!" argument is much simpler than the transitive argument, of course. It's really more of a canned, refined version of the transitive that in fact cuts out the transitive. Some SEC fans embrace this approach as it eliminates all that really difficult thinking things through stuff.
Simply, it's the ever so trusty, "Florida would crush USC by at least 20 points! BALEE DAT!" How do you even respond to that? Do you just mess his hair and tell him to skedaddle? How can one be so convinced of the result of an event that hasn't even taken place? Most fans want to see a game play out before making any declarations. Not SEC fan though. They're perfectly content with substituting their opinions for actual game results.
5. The "Big Ten sucks because of Ohio St!" argument: This argument is sort of a hybrid of "BECAUSE I SAID SO!" and the transitive property. The two isolated wins over Ohio St in MNC games will forever serve as "bode" over the Big Ten in the eyes of SEC fan. Despite the fact they only involved two games and two match ups, these games are used as criteria early and often to judge the overall worth of the Big Ten conference, even today. For example, "Penn State sucks because they play in a conference that got crushed two years in a row by SEC teams in the title game." 15 year from now, I suspect this argument will still be uttered.
