Paul Finebaum’s Defense of Tennessee and His Critique of SMU and Indiana: A Dive into College Football’s Complex Landscape

Paul Finebaum, the celebrated sports commentator and host of The Paul Finebaum Show, has long been known for his sharp commentary and candid takes on college football. Recently, Finebaum has been particularly vocal in defending the Tennessee Volunteers while simultaneously casting aspersions on programs like Southern Methodist University (SMU) and Indiana University, labeling them as frauds. Finebaum’s insights often carry weight due to his deep-rooted knowledge of the SEC (Southeastern Conference) and the broader college football landscape. His defense of Tennessee and critique of SMU and Indiana encapsulates larger narratives in college football — from the storied traditions of certain programs to the rise and fall of programs that seem to bubble up only to collapse when faced with higher-level competition.

The Tennessee Volunteers: Resurgence or Mirage?

For years, Tennessee football has been in a state of flux. A program once synonymous with college football dominance, particularly in the 1990s under head coach Phillip Fulmer, has struggled to regain its former glory. After a series of coaching changes and disappointing seasons, Tennessee seemed to be on the rise under current head coach Josh Heupel. However, despite the optimism surrounding Heupel’s offense, which is fast-paced and high-scoring, Tennessee’s status in the broader college football hierarchy has often been debated.

Paul Finebaum has staunchly defended Tennessee’s place in the college football elite, and for good reason. Heupel’s tenure has shown flashes of brilliance, as evidenced by Tennessee’s 2022 season, when they reached the College Football Playoff picture, finishing 11-2 with a thrilling victory over Alabama. Finebaum’s defense of Tennessee is built upon several factors: the legacy of the program, the success of the current coaching staff, and Tennessee’s potential to return to championship contention in the future.

While Finebaum has offered positive assessments of Tennessee’s upward trajectory, he also acknowledges the challenges facing the program. The SEC is notoriously competitive, and Tennessee’s defensive struggles have often been a point of concern. However, Finebaum’s broader view seems to lean toward a belief that Tennessee is on the right path, especially when compared to other programs that have failed to live up to their own hype.

The sense that Tennessee is on the rise is often shared by Heupel’s ability to develop high-powered offenses, coupled with the faithful fan base that remains passionate about the program’s return to national prominence. Despite setbacks, Finebaum’s faith in Tennessee remains strong, rooted in both the history of the program and its emerging future.

SMU: Overhyped and Underperforming

In contrast to his defense of Tennessee, Finebaum has been particularly critical of programs like SMU, particularly when it comes to the Mustangs’ rapid rise in recent years. SMU, which has historically been a middling program in the American Athletic Conference (AAC), began to receive considerable attention after its substantial investments in NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals and efforts to bolster its football program. However, according to Finebaum, SMU has failed to live up to the hype surrounding its resurgence.

One of the core issues Finebaum has with SMU’s rise is its lack of sustained success against top-tier competition. While the Mustangs have shown flashes of brilliance, particularly in the AAC, they have often faltered when stepping up against Power Five programs. This discrepancy has made Finebaum question whether SMU is truly capable of challenging for a national championship, or if it is simply a flash in the pan.

Finebaum’s critique of SMU extends beyond on-field performance; he also raises concerns about the program’s reliance on external factors, such as heavy investment in NIL. While NIL has become a game-changer in college football, Finebaum suggests that it might not be the recipe for long-term success. In his view, SMU’s reliance on NIL deals could be seen as an artificial means of climbing the rankings, but when faced with more established programs, their lack of true football development and depth becomes evident.

Moreover, Finebaum’s critique highlights the importance of traditional programs with deeply embedded football cultures. Programs like Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State have established themselves as perennial contenders because they have consistently developed talent and sustained success over decades. SMU, in Finebaum’s eyes, is not quite at that level — and its rapid rise could be seen as an unsustainable anomaly. The Mustangs’ efforts to “buy” their way into prominence through NIL are seen as a short-term strategy that may not stand the test of time in the harsh competitive landscape of college football.

Indiana: A Case of Unfulfilled Potential

Similarly, Finebaum has been outspoken about the Indiana Hoosiers, another program that has failed to live up to its occasional bursts of promise. Indiana’s football program has had sporadic success, such as their 2020 season in which they finished 6-2 and earned a top-12 ranking, but these peaks have often been followed by sharp declines. Indiana’s inability to maintain a high level of play has made it another target of Finebaum’s criticism.

Indiana’s football struggles are multifaceted. While the Hoosiers have occasionally recruited solid talent, they lack the necessary depth and consistency to compete in the Big Ten, a conference that is home to powerhouses like Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. Finebaum points to the Hoosiers’ inability to maintain their 2020 momentum as a sign of their status as a program that is perpetually on the fringes of success but unable to break into the upper echelons of college football.

Finebaum’s label of Indiana as a “fraud” is likely tied to the perception that the Hoosiers have been overrated due to a few isolated successes. While a program like Tennessee has endured years of disappointment but consistently competes at a high level, Indiana’s occasional flashes of promise seem hollow when weighed against their repeated failures. Finebaum’s take is that Indiana’s sustained mediocrity cannot be ignored, and that their occasional moments of success should not be mistaken for a legitimate place among college football’s elite.

Indiana’s failures are further compounded by its lack of a defined football identity. In contrast to a program like Tennessee, which has a passionate fan base and a storied history, Indiana lacks the kind of ingrained football culture that can drive success over time. As Finebaum suggests, without a firm foundation and sustained success, any attempt to elevate Indiana into the upper tier of college football feels like an illusion.

The Broader Picture: Media Narratives and College Football’s Changing Landscape

Finebaum’s critiques of SMU and Indiana also tie into broader narratives about the shifting landscape of college football. With the advent of NIL, the Transfer Portal, and the realignment of conferences, the rules of engagement in college football are changing rapidly. Some programs, like SMU, may attempt to leapfrog their competition by throwing financial resources into their football programs, while others, like Indiana, may overinflate their potential based on a brief period of success.

However, Finebaum’s critiques are also a reminder of the importance of consistency, tradition, and long-term strategy in college football. While the new era of NIL and the Transfer Portal has reshaped how programs operate, the fundamentals of recruiting, development, and coaching still matter. Programs that have sustained success over decades, such as Tennessee, will continue to be the models of excellence in the sport.

At the same time, programs like SMU and Indiana might continue to be viewed with skepticism until they can prove they are capable of sustaining success in the face of the most challenging competition. Their reliance on external factors, rather than internal development, makes them vulnerable in the long run. Finebaum’s commentary on these programs is a sobering reminder that, in college football, short-term gains can easily be overshadowed by the inevitable pressures of high-level competition.