I should clarify in view of a couple of comments, yes this would be called defensive holding and not DPI because the pass isn't thrown. It'd only be DPI if thrown to #3.

People keep theorizing that the game plan was to take away Heupel's strengths by limiting deep shots and making them work the field until it's compressed. I'll push back - the game plan was "this is our defense so we're going to run it." Yes, it's a good fit to Heupel's base scheme. But Heupel hasn't really been running that scheme, and it was clear pretty fast they were going to take things slow in this game. As time wore on and Bama needed stops and turnovers, you HAVE to adjust your defensive approach to play complementary football and get stops or turnovers. Tennessee had no need to take risks, so you aren't going to get lucky picks sitting in zone (bc they were NOT taking shots down field). Bama, at that point, needed to force Tennessee into throwing downfield, with the expectation that their QB wasn't very good at making them and might force a game-changing turnover. But all that seems mind-bogglingly academic when the reality is I saw zero indication that Bama can run anything but their base 3-3-5 stack scheme. They aren't multiple. They can't run a 4-4 and go cover-1. They can't run a 5-2 and press man on the outside. Understanding real life isn't Madden (players can't run whatever you call no matter what without practice), you need to rep a Plan B, C, and D to succeed at a playoff level. So, until proven otherwise, I just have to assume Bama's D can be elite when their scheme matches up against the opponent scheme and game situation. It will suck when it doesn't. And "they're going to pound the ball on us in a low scoring game until we tire late" is unfortunately a scheme/situation teams are seeing a LOT of in playoff-deciding games now.

I may talk more on it, but I see two common threads: 1) Gilliam blew up so, so many plays on the interior that it totally wrecked Bama's offense. 2) The crowd noise meant silent count, which keeps the OL from getting the jump on snaps and generating push, which meant they were dealing with leakage almost every play. 3) My bigger coaching concern was a general lack of poise and execution from their offense than the calls. 4) Tennessee's defense hadn't been properly tested by a true passing attack. They graded out FAR better in the secondary than I anticipated.

SOR in ESPN works by calculating the chance that a team would have the same record with a given schedule. What I've noticed over time is that it appears to dramatically overestimate the difficulty of going 11-1 with a PAC-12 /MWC level schedule. It's not clear why.

If Bama wants to compete with playoff-caliber teams, who often rely on power and great OL play (not RPO or spread), they MUST add a secondary power scheme to the defensive playbook. Heupel outcoached Bama by NOT running his scheme. Bama MUST adapt their scheme (or DC) to match.