It's closer to "mang" or maybe "main".
AI isn't. Well... it is an artifice, but not intelligent. It's a propaganda tag for a conglomeration of hundreds, if not thousands, of programs that inspect parts of The gigantic library of data (which doesn't include everything, not just yet) and format responses. You've already discovered that the structure is incomplete and that it includes erroneous data. The real problem with it is that certain powers believe results are invariably correct, and act on them. GIGO. Caveat emptor.
SEC is an entertainment juggernaut, and part of the refs' job is to keep it entertaining. We have been used to XII refs making calls that are - or appear to be - prejudiced against us, for various reasons, many of which were appallingly - sorry, uphaulingly - stupid. Earlier this year, we watched (well, some of us did) SEC refs hand a game to LSU, over South Carolina. Conventional wisdom has been to blame such on incompetence, rather than intent. Sometimes it looks like the W is in the script for the season, and the refs are making sure the outcome goes that way.
My first rule of officiating is "Don't call what you don't see" and the second is "Don't try to make up for it, when you blow a call". Third is "Be consistent'.
One of the most aggravating reffing things is seeing them call "foul" on something that has no effect on the play or a player. Recently one of the Talking Heads mentioned that a SEC ref had told him they were told, by league office, not to call fouls "away from the play" unless they were really bad. I've noticed that SEC refs tend that way, and that at least some of the coaches begin games by seeing how much they can do without getting called. I always thought Saban was good at that.