In a surprising article on SI.com, Auburn is talked about in a semi-positive way. In the article, Andy Staples lays out the blue print for success for stopping Tebow. There are two paragraphs or so giving Auburn a little praise from the 20-17 win over Florida in the Swamp in 2007. There is also a little mention of the Ole Miss fluke from last year.
But it can’t all be positive. In true national media fashion, SI has put their nega-spin on a situation with a headline about Auburn losing it’s top receiver due to suspension for the first 4 games. I love you Montez, but would anybody call him our top receiver? I guess he is our top guy from last year statistically, but when those numbers are 24 catches for 277 yards, we really shouldn’t be worried about losing our “top” receiver should we? I’m sure we’ve got some guys who will pull those numbers in half a season. Yeah, laugh at me.
Anyway, back to the gripe. Everybody knows that 99% of the people who look at the headline won’t read the article, and will just think, “Dang, first off they lose to ‘Bama, then they hire Chizik, then they got players arrested for beating a guy over the head with a lead pipe and spitting on him, now their BEST player is suspended too! Auburn is just awful and in shambles”. SI can ruin a team with one article, and with headlines like they are getting it started for Auburn. If you click the headline and read the article it just states the facts about how he can’t play for an academic reason. My whole point is, if the story isn’t negative or bad, why be ambiguous and word the headline (which is all people read anyway) in a negative way. I guess that’s just good journalism.
Am I taking this too far and being a baby about verbiage in a headline? Am I doing the whole “Everybody hates Auburn” thing? If this was the only case, I would say yes. If they hadn’t ranked us 117th and picked us the worst team in football, I would say yes. But this isn’t the only case and we are as good as dead to them, so I’m going to complain.