View Full Version : Bcs - wtf 2011
The Alabama contingent is not happy with me gleefully tugging on their legs everyday in the SEC thread.
Now that there IS no SEC action, let us turn our focus to the annual cluster-fork that has become
the BCS and exactly WTF they think they are doing over there. Here all can argue as vehemently as they
choose and no one will get their feelings hurt. Because I say so. Let it fly. We are all brothers and sisters
here, and if anyone is offended by good-natured ribbing and commentary, let them go and find something
else to read. Your whining will not be acted upon here. Because it TRULY IS us against the BCS in my thread.
NO BIG BOWL FOR BOISE!!!!!!!!!! You have got to be kidding me. VA TECH barely played anybody and they
get to go to N.O.?? They travel extremely well, it's true, and they are playing another great-travelling team
in MICHIGAN, and of course by travelling, I mean they bring a lot of fans down. And Michiganders are good
people. Who knows who would come down from Boise. But is that the POINT? I guess it is for the BCS barons.
And if it's all about the money (it is), then how in the world do you take your two show ponies and pit them against
each other?? It's a MUCH better use of resources and a much better yardstick of who can hang with who if you let
each "Top team" play a 3-5 level team. Oh the madness. But in the end, it looks like the BCS will be used to handle
un-finished SEC business....well, in a way. Not fair to try and characterize it that way completely.
But doesn't anybody even want to KNOW what OK state has in the gun?....Stanford???
elderboy02
12-05-2011, 07:38 AM
The BCS sucks.
I guess we should get ready to watch another snooze fest.
Good, and sad article here. Easy read. Not so easy to digest.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AoXVzgRs70yhmrkjNvKRFnIcvrYF?slug=dw-wetzel_sec_reaps_reward_rejection_120311
"Now his league has grown so dominant that in any given season, the SEC is all but assured of one spot in
the title game. The other 100-some odd schools compete for the other. And now they have to compete
with the second-best SEC team for it"...
Ouch....
elderboy02
12-05-2011, 07:50 AM
I want LSU to win. I don't like Saban.
chippewastud79
12-05-2011, 08:06 AM
Unfortunately the BS is motivated by money, as is all of college sports. There is a reason that the 'not-for-profit' NCAA is a billion Billion BILLION dollar business. And it isn't for rational thought, its by creating whatever game(s) will generate the most revenue.
Things the BS got wrong in my opinion:
Michigan, although its good for the college football landscape when they are relevant, shouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl. Money definitely motivated that, Michigan may travel better than any other college football team.
Boise St. getting jobbed, again. What do they have to do to not be considered a mid-major every season? Any school from an AQ who played their non-conference schedule (see: Big East) and finished with one loss would make the BCS. :td
National Championship Game is a rematch of 'The Game of the Century' aka 'Snoozefest Part I' aka 'Alabama's Quest for a Kicker' aka 'Three and Out'. LSU defeated Alabama in Tuscaloosa, then had to essentially go undefeated the remainder of the season including playing in the SEC Championship game, while Alabama benefited from losing the game. :sh
Oklahoma State defeated five top 25 opponents, Alabama defeated 2. But the SEC is the 'most dominant' conference in the country. The media gets to hype a matchup that less than half the country wants to see, I think we all saw...........:sleep:. Oh, sorry, I fell asleep thinking about that first game.
That doesn't include West Virginia and Clemson getting bids more based on previous bowl tie-ins than current BCS structure.
At this point, they might as well return to the previous structure given that higher ranked teams in the BS are only allowed to play if they:
A. Travel well
B. Create ideal matchups
C. Bring revenue
D. Media can hype
The whole system is a joke, every year there is contoversy. I don't know what the perfect structure is, but the current one isn't correct. :2
Brad,
Though I think the cream of the SEC is playing OUTSTANDING FOOTBALL right now, as a conference, I just don't buy into the fact that the SEC is as a whole, is heads and tails better than the rest(BIG12 specifically this year). They're damn good, just not dominant as we are led to believe. I think the numbers back that up...
Unfortunately, it seems that perception is what drives this....not numbers...
As far as the BCS, as is the norm....they failed again. I am on the Baylor bandwagon, mostly because of Robert Griffen III...his play brings a smile to my face.
jledou
12-05-2011, 08:51 AM
Playoffs .... every other level of college football has them ... and they seem to do just fine.
Wanger
12-05-2011, 08:52 AM
All I can say is "meh".
I'm just glad Boise isn't in any of the big games. Until they move to a conference where it's a fight EVERY week, they need to be undefeated to get in, and I'm OK with that. Of course, I lived in Boise for a couple years, and didn't like the attitude of the people and fans there, so I'm a bit biased.
Until they actually institute a playoff system, there will always be plenty of teams saying they got the shaft in terms of bowl games. Team X travels better than Team Y, even though Team Y is a better team, the bowl selects Team X. It's all about the Benjamins, baby! A playoff with neutral site games might fill the stadiums that they wouldn't fill otherwise. Maybe keep the "bowl games" for teams that don't make it into the tourney. The NIT still draws fans when the "Road to the Final Four" is going on.
I'm just glad Boise isn't in any of the big games. Until they move to a conference where it's a fight EVERY week, they need to be undefeated to get in, and I'm OK with that. Of course, I lived in Boise for a couple years, and didn't like the attitude of the people and fans there, so I'm a bit biased.
I agree.... Hell, I'll go further and say that they have to go undefeated AND other teams have to all have 1 loss...maybe more. One huge win does not a season make. Going to the PAC12 this year, it was apparent how difficult it is, week in and week out, playing teams with talent and depth....regardless if they are actually good. Even against terrible teams, if you don't bring your A game....a loss is possible... READ : LOSING TO COLORADO....:gary
Boise going to Las Vegas makes sense to me... It is easy travel for their fan base....
I have no love for Boise....
ninjavanish
12-05-2011, 11:19 AM
Unfortunately the BS is motivated by money, as is all of college sports. There is a reason that the 'not-for-profit' NCAA is a billion Billion BILLION dollar business. And it isn't for rational thought, its by creating whatever game(s) will generate the most revenue.
Of Course it is swayed by money. I think however, you'd be fooling yourself to believe that the big push for a playoff system isn't primarily fueld by the big sports media... and money there. More games = more money for ESPN/CBS etc. You'd run into the same situation. Instead of controversy surrounding a single game, you'd have it around 4 or more. Say you have an 8 team playoff system and the 8th and 9th and 10th teams have the same record... who gets in and who gets left out? You're not fixing the problem only pushing it down the line.
Things the BS got wrong in my opinion:
Michigan, although its good for the college football landscape when they are relevant, shouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl. Money definitely motivated that, Michigan may travel better than any other college football team.
I feel you on this. Michigan... I still remember your loss at home to Appalachian State. As soon as that memory fades a little more we will get back to you.
Boise St. getting jobbed, again. What do they have to do to not be considered a mid-major every season? Any school from an AQ who played their non-conference schedule (see: Big East) and finished with one loss would make the BCS. :td
Meh, Boise can do whatever they want, until they take at least some action in an effort to really legitimize their regular season schedules, they will continue to get snubbed from the big dance. It's just my perception (whether right or wrong I don't know) but they seem to be content just playing the same or similar schedules year in and year out and then getting upset over said "jobbing". I find it annoying. I would (And I think many others would) pay them more respect if they made an effort to do something about it on the field during the regular season.
National Championship Game is a rematch of 'The Game of the Century' aka 'Snoozefest Part I' aka 'Alabama's Quest for a Kicker' aka 'Three and Out'. LSU defeated Alabama in Tuscaloosa, then had to essentially go undefeated the remainder of the season including playing in the SEC Championship game, while Alabama benefited from losing the game. :sh
Oklahoma State defeated five top 25 opponents, Alabama defeated 2. But the SEC is the 'most dominant' conference in the country. The media gets to hype a matchup that less than half the country wants to see, I think we all saw...........:sleep:. Oh, sorry, I fell asleep thinking about that first game.
I think you stray from the distinction of the BCS Game. The BCS Title Game is not intended to be an exciting or unexciting game. (Although we all hope deep down that it will be unbelieveably amazing) Its sole function is to determine and crown a champion. Regardless of who is playing, whether the score is 6-3 or 70-63, how exciting the match-up seems to anyone is irrelevant. If the purpose of taking the selected two teams against each other for the trophy is served, then the purpose of the BCS is served. If the purpose of the BCS Title game was to be the most exciting game on television then why not simply pick the two teams with the most touchdowns and disregard all other information?
That doesn't include West Virginia and Clemson getting bids more based on previous bowl tie-ins than current BCS structure.
I think I left this out of the quote from above, Oh well, not going back now.
At this point, they might as well return to the previous structure given that higher ranked teams in the BS are only allowed to play if they:
A. Travel well
B. Create ideal matchups
C. Bring revenue
D. Media can hype
The whole system is a joke, every year there is contoversy. I don't know what the perfect structure is, but the current one isn't correct. :2
See above in red. Just some thoughts.
rizzle
12-05-2011, 12:02 PM
Just a couple of points, if it matters, which it doesn't.
The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS at all. As to the money part of it, that's absolutely why. School presidents are smart enough to know that to turn the "championship" over to the NCAA in tournament style, like with basketball, would mean giving up their negotiating rights, and in turn their power, and in turn the money. Who wants the NCAA meddling in their business any more than they already do?
If they can ever figure out a way to do a playoff and keep the NCAA out of it, you'll see it happen. Until then, we have what we have. It isn't perfect, never has been and never will be. But it is designed to match the two best teams in a game to crown the national champion. They appear to have gotten that right this year. The other BCS bowls are just fluff, and have done nothing more than to dilute the value of the other bowls.
It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.
BCS is a joke. Think about 2006. Michigan and Ohio State were #1 and #2. Michigan lost a heck of a game 42-39 in Columbus. Some of the locals here wanted a rematch. It WASN'T granted and I think they made the right decision. I would argue that Michigan losing by 3 on the road must have been closer overall to Ohio State that year than Alabama is to LSU this year given Alabama lost by 3 at home. Yet, for the title game, the SEC is what it's all about. For all the rest, it's purely about money. Whoever brings in the most money (aka travels the best) will get the best bowl invitations.
The part that's frustrating is the conferences won't change because they like the money generated by the BCS. In fact the 6 major conferences rigged it so they could get the lions' share of the revenue and make it nearly impossible for any other conference team to get into a title game. If they would do their homework they might understand that a playoff could generate a lot more revenue. The article below shows how a playoff could actually generate 3-4 times as much money and would crown a winner worthy of calling themselves the national champions. http://ology.com/sports/16-team-college-football-playoff-officially-proposed-ncaa
A 16-team college football playoff has been officially proposed to the NCAA, with claims that it would generate $700 billion annually -- more than three times the $182 billion the BCS generated last year.
As the greatest victim of the BCS' tyranny, the Mountain West Conference has been a steadfast challenger to the BCS, and it is the MWC that has sent this latest playoff proposal.
"What we are trying to do is offer an alternative with the current system," MWC commissioner Craig Thompson told the Arizona Republic. Thompson based the the $700 billion estimate off of current TV contracts.
The BCS was set up 13 years ago by the six major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, Big East, ACC) and, no surprise, the six major conferences rigged the system in their own favor. Those six conferences have raked in about 80 percent of BCS payouts, and no team from any other conference has ever played for a national championship.
Thompson's plan would make it possible for champions of all 11 division 1 college football conferences to play in the playoff, as long that the teams are ranked in the top 30 in the country. The remaining playoff spots, and the tournament seeding, would be determined by a selection committee. Playoff games would be hosted at campus sites, and in existing BCS bowl venues.
Something like this must happen for two reasons: not only is a college football playoff the most fair and just way to determine a champion, it is by far the most exciting. And that second reason cannot be over emphasized.
A college football playoff would be awesome. It must happen.
The current BCS contract runs out in early 2014, and I hope to god it is replaced with a playoff.
What we have now (BCS) is commonly referred to as "The Mythical National Title" by local sports radio.
It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.
In your opinion the two best teams.... I don't agree with that....and it certainly isn't "hands down." Is Alabama a great team, yes...but they are not the only great team out there.
We have discussed the OSU/Alabama wins vs the BCS top 25 and top ten, bla...bla..bla... Let's go deeper into the opponents, teams that actually win games.
Alabama beat a grand total of 4 teams with a record better than .500. So they have 11 wins, but of those 11 opponents, 4 have won more than half their games. So 36% of the teams they beat, finished the season with a winning record.
Oklahoma State beat 7 teams with a record better than .500. So 64% of their wins are against teams that are winning more than half their games.
Let's be clear.... Alabama had their chance and didn't take advantage of that at their own house. Time to open that door, that has been shut by the voters, for a deserving team to get a shot at that MONSTER of a team, LSU.
Brad,
Though I think the cream of the SEC is playing OUTSTANDING FOOTBALL right now, as a conference, I just don't buy into the fact that the SEC is as a whole, is heads and tails better than the rest(BIG12 specifically this year). They're damn good, just not dominant as we are led to believe. I think the numbers back that up....
Oh God I hope I never give anyone the impression that I think the SEC is top to bottom better than
the rest, goodness, far from it. Out of the 12 member schools, I would think that over half of them
failed to perform anywhere near "standards" and way below all of their fan's expectations. Oddly enough,
Vanderbilt fans got a chance to see their team play extremely well for most of the year, but still had
to live with a dismal record. This year was an embarassment for a LOT of SEC schools. Back when
I used to argue with the Florida fans here, they used to tell me, "We just reload, babay..."
Not this year, apparently, lol. When I talk about these teams, bama and LSU, I am talking about those
teams and no one else. The rest are quite beatable....the top 2, I am not sure they can be beaten.
rizzle
12-05-2011, 12:53 PM
In your opinion the two best teams.... I don't agree with that....and it certainly isn't "hands down." Is Alabama a great team, yes...but they are not the only great team out there.
We have discussed the OSU/Alabama wins vs the BCS top 25 and top ten, bla...bla..bla... Let's go deeper into the opponents, teams that actually win games.
Alabama beat a grand total of 4 teams with a record better than .500. So they have 11 wins, but of those 11 opponents, 4 have won more than half their games. So 36% of the teams they beat, finished the season with a winning record.
Oklahoma State beat 7 teams with a record better than .500. So 64% of their wins are against teams that are winning more than half their games.
Let's be clear.... Alabama had their chance and didn't take advantage of that at their own house. Time to open that door, that has been shut by the voters, for a deserving team to get a shot at that MONSTER of a team, LSU.
Who do you think is better than Alabama or LSU?
We opened the door by losing. Evidently nobody wanted to come in. Just win, right?
On another topic brought up, I don't think we can discount a playoff as being just MORE MONEY thrown at the problem.
In my opinion, YES it is significantly more money on the pile, but the RESULT of the money is better in the end,
or viewed by more people as fair.
And E.J., I really hate that there can't be the bama-Stanford and LSU-OK State games on tap to show you how
incorrect I think you are on this 1&2 deal. I AM BIASED, but I think LSU and bama could take any and all comers
and walk away double digit winners. I guess we just lost our best chance to see if I am right, but YES, there are
a lot of great teams out there, I just don't think people fully comprehend the juggernaut that these two teams
really represent in full contact glory. There are great teams in football, but somehow they come down to the
bowl games and their awesome attacks just don't hold up for 60 minutes. I don't want this being a SEC against
the world thread, I started it specifically to get away from the chirping about that stuff, but there DOES exist
an element of that in my argument, I guess. I have watched all the "good games" over the past decade, and
I see the fans go nuts when Ohio State rips off a 80 yard touchdown pass, but in the 4th quarter it's always
glum looks and disbelief. NOT A SEC discussion, except that the teams I argue about in 2011 are in the SEC west.
Who do you think is better than Alabama or LSU?
We opened the door by losing. Evidently nobody wanted to come in. Just win, right?
I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?
Yes, apparently be a great team, in a great conference and "just win" against a bunch of .500/sub .500 teams....:r
Oh God I hope I never give anyone the impression that I think the SEC is top to bottom better than
the rest, goodness, far from it. Out of the 12 member schools, I would think that over half of them
failed to perform anywhere near "standards" and way below all of their fan's expectations. Oddly enough,
Vanderbilt fans got a chance to see their team play extremely well for most of the year, but still had
to live with a dismal record. This year was an embarassment for a LOT of SEC schools. Back when
I used to argue with the Florida fans here, they used to tell me, "We just reload, babay..."
Not this year, apparently, lol. When I talk about these teams, bama and LSU, I am talking about those
teams and no one else. The rest are quite beatable....the top 2, I am not sure they can be beaten.
#2 lost, thus I am 100% confident they can be beaten....in fact, they have been....:tu
On another topic brought up, I don't think we can discount a playoff as being just MORE MONEY thrown at the problem.
In my opinion, YES it is significantly more money on the pile, but the RESULT of the money is better in the end,
or viewed by more people as fair.
And E.J., I really hate that there can't be the bama-Stanford and LSU-OK State games on tap to show you how
incorrect I think you are on this 1&2 deal. I AM BIASED, but I think LSU and bama could take any and all comers
and walk away double digit winners. I guess we just lost our best chance to see if I am right, but YES, there are
a lot of great teams out there, I just don't think people fully comprehend the juggernaut that these two teams
really represent in full contact glory. There are great teams in football, but somehow they come down to the
bowl games and their awesome attacks just don't hold up for 60 minutes. I don't want this being a SEC against
the world thread, I started it specifically to get away from the chirping about that stuff, but there DOES exist
an element of that in my argument, I guess. I have watched all the "good games" over the past decade, and
I see the fans go nuts when Ohio State rips off a 80 yard touchdown pass, but in the 4th quarter it's always
glum looks and disbelief. NOT A SEC discussion, except that the teams I argue about in 2011 are in the SEC west.
Stanford is out, at least out with that scenario... Again, I don't think you get a shot at a national title if you cannot win your own conference(Oregon won the PAC12).
Right now we have a playoff system....or at least are told we do....and that is the regular season.
If they want to go a 16 team playoff and bring in at large teams, great.... But if it is 4 teams, IMO...those 4 teams better have won their conference... I could not care less if they had to go through a team that many consider the best in the Country... If you want to be the best in the country, beat that team when given the opportunity, if you can't, someone else should get a try.
You want to know irony?? You well know I think LSU is better than bama. But I KNOW LSU can be beaten.
We are not disciplined enough on offense and we don't have a good enough passer in J. Jefferson to win every
time out. I don't think bama can be beaten. They are going to make some QB mistakes, and their kicking game is
a joke in 2011. But on balance, they are still gonna get ya. We escaped with a win in Tuscaloosa, and we will
likely do so again in New Orleans. But not because we are gonna score on bama through the run or the pass.
We are going to punch em in the mouth SO HARD that they are gonna make some mistakes, and we are going
to capitalize in points or field position. We are going to FORCE errors by their passers and runners and get a quick
defensive score. We are going to kick them into their own end and our D is gonna try to keep em there. We are
going to make field goals. But as good as I think we are, we are not going to do anything but escape with
a win, because they are just TOO TOUGH. And if we can't do it easily, I don't think anyone else even has a chance.
I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?
I have argued this til they are blue in the face from ignoring me, lol.
Stanford is out, at least out with that scenario... .
This is why I was asking you in the SEC thread to pick a dog in the hunt.
I know little or nothing about who I would pit against bama and LSU in separate
big-time BCS games. I am too focused on the god-like wonder of the LSU Tigers
to know who they would play if this were being done right. I need outside
perspectives to TELL me what they think would be proper.
Let's all play a game. BCS has set this up to be a tourney. Fill in
these brackets:
LSU versus
Bama versus
I witnessed first hand the greatness of an Alabama team that was going to mop the floor with the University of Utah in a bowl game. They had weeks to prepare and I heard it for weeks and weeks about how Utah couldn't play with a team built like that Alabama team.
Hell, I heard it from fans, from professionals on television, from everyone that had sound coming out of their mouth....but that is why you play the games. Didn't quite turn out how everyone thought.... I watched that game, have watched it a few times.....there was one team that was far more physical on the field, one team that dominated play, one defense that looked faster, stronger, better.....thing is, it wasn't the one everyone said it was going to be. It wasn't done with smoke and mirrors, but with blood and sweat...
Nothing can be said that is going to change my mind on two things, that in my mind, should keep Alabama out of the BCS Championship game. 1 - Alabama didn't win their conference 2 - Alabama already played LSU and lost
I cannot express enough that YES, ALABAMA IS A GREAT TEAM! I will scream it from the rooftops....but they didn't win their conference and they already lost this game, on their home turf, a month ago.
Ah, it's the old OLS treatment.....You simply do not believe they deserve to BE THERE in the first place.
Again, just in a different thread, I agree with you there. But I guess we are not going to be able to pin you
down on two best teams in major college football, huh? ;) And I watched that game, too where the Utes hung
with bama, but I think this is a better team......still, point taken.
This is why I was asking you in the SEC thread to pick a dog in the hunt.
I know little or nothing about who I would pit against bama and LSU in separate
big-time BCS games. I am too focused on the god-like wonder of the LSU Tigers
to know who they would play if this were being done right. I need outside
perspectives to TELL me what they think would be proper.
Let's all play a game. BCS has set this up to be a tourney. Fill in
these brackets:
LSU versus
Bama versus
See, I wouldn't have Bama in a 4 team tourney, unless you had all the conference champions in already...then you could talk about teams like Stanford, Alabama, Virginia Tech, at large teams that couldn't win their own conference.
LSU vs Okie Lite and then everything else. Two best conferences this year, two conference champions. It is not like OSU is the winner of the Big East or has 2 losses. They are not exactly backdooring their way into this game...
and i watched that game, too where the utes dominated bama, but i think this is a better team......still, point taken.
fify ;)
I witnessed first hand the greatness of an Alabama team that was going to mop the floor with the University of Utah in a bowl game. They had weeks to prepare and I heard it for weeks and weeks about how Utah couldn't play with a team built like that Alabama team.
Hell, I heard it from fans, from professionals on television, from everyone that had sound coming out of their mouth....but that is why you play the games. Didn't quite turn out how everyone thought.... I watched that game, have watched it a few times.....there was one team that was far more physical on the field, one team that dominated play, one defense that looked faster, stronger, better.....thing is, it wasn't the one everyone said it was going to be. It wasn't done with smoke and mirrors, but with blood and sweat...
Nothing can be said that is going to change my mind on two things, that in my mind, should keep Alabama out of the BCS Championship game. 1 - Alabama didn't win their conference 2 - Alabama already played LSU and lost
I cannot express enough that YES, ALABAMA IS A GREAT TEAM! I will scream it from the rooftops....but they didn't win their conference and they already lost this game, on their home turf, a month ago.
Who thought Boise State would beat Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl; on a Statue of Liberty play of all things?
Yet it happened. You can't justify giving one team two shots to beat the #1 team and 4 other one loss teams 0 chances.
Who thought Boise State would beat Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl; on a Statue of Liberty play of all things?
Yet it happened. You can't justify giving one team two shots to beat the #1 team and 4 other one loss teams 0 chances.
I agree.....it is what I said...:confused:
I like the atmosphere in this thread. I can't say these kinds of things anywhere else.
There I don't know what I am talking about, here, I am in the majority, lol.
fify ;)
I couldn't recall who actually won, so I put "hung with", lol.
See, I wouldn't have Bama in a 4 team tourney.
Neither would I, top 2 anyway, in fact I think it is an insult to LSU to throw bama in there as if they
deserved it. I think that they are a giant among teams, but it's like you said elsewhere, this was not
a foregone conclusion when the pre-season polls came out or anything, everyone had their chances
to take care of business. That's why I was thinking Houston deserved a shot like anyone else until the
past weekend. I understand why the pollsters did what they did, but that's not saying it was fair.
And I don't mean fair from the LSU perspective, hell no, bring em on, we can beat em twice. But
it's the obverse...say they win, after doing nothing but doing their nails for 6 weeks. That would be
a travesty. But a NC all the same.
rizzle
12-05-2011, 02:32 PM
I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?
Yes, apparently be a great team, in a great conference and "just win" against a bunch of .500/sub .500 teams....:r
That's not what I asked you. And I do happen to still believe we are the better team, but that's a different argument all together.
And I acknowledged our loss. Had we have won that game, you're still probably looking at an Alabama - LSU championship game. Why? Because everybody else that had a clear path failed. All OK St had to do was beat a lowly 6-6 team and they were in. Done deal. Stanford got beat by Oregon who then proceeded to get beat by USC.
So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?
rizzle
12-05-2011, 02:35 PM
I have argued this til they are blue in the face from ignoring me, lol.
Your being far from truthful. But don't grafitti up this thread, too. If you've got a problem with it and want to discuss it, I'm way more than willing to take it to PM, since you seem to have a huge freaking problem with it.
rizzle
12-05-2011, 02:43 PM
I witnessed first hand the greatness of an Alabama team that was going to mop the floor with the University of Utah in a bowl game. They had weeks to prepare and I heard it for weeks and weeks about how Utah couldn't play with a team built like that Alabama team.
Hell, I heard it from fans, from professionals on television, from everyone that had sound coming out of their mouth....but that is why you play the games. Didn't quite turn out how everyone thought.... I watched that game, have watched it a few times.....there was one team that was far more physical on the field, one team that dominated play, one defense that looked faster, stronger, better.....thing is, it wasn't the one everyone said it was going to be. It wasn't done with smoke and mirrors, but with blood and sweat...
Nothing can be said that is going to change my mind on two things, that in my mind, should keep Alabama out of the BCS Championship game. 1 - Alabama didn't win their conference 2 - Alabama already played LSU and lost
I cannot express enough that YES, ALABAMA IS A GREAT TEAM! I will scream it from the rooftops....but they didn't win their conference and they already lost this game, on their home turf, a month ago.
So now your whole argument comes to light. You're a Utah fan. :r:r
Yes, you guys wiped the grass with us. We weren't ready, lost our 3 year starting left tackle the night before the game for illegal agent contact, came out flat and unmotivated, and got waxed. And then forgot about it. Well, not really forgot about it, but you get the point. You know the funny thing about this whole discussion? Were it not for the BCS, Utah would have never sniffed that BCS bowl game. But again, different argument. ;)
I agree.....it is what I said...:confused:
Sorry, I was agreeing with you. I just forgot to include that part. :D
So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?
I would argue Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. You can argue the strength of the teams that beat them, but the fact is we KNOW LSU is better than Alabama. We don't know if LSU is better than OK State; and that's the point.
We'll never know thanks to the BCS.
Think about this from the other side. If Alabama won, would you think it fair that LSU would get to play them again? Why should you have to beat one team twice and the winner of the SECOND game is the only one that counts?
rizzle
12-05-2011, 03:02 PM
Sorry, I was agreeing with you. I just forgot to include that part. :D
I would argue Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. You can argue the strength of the teams that beat them, but the fact is we KNOW LSU is better than Alabama. We don't know if LSU is better than OK State; and that's the point.
We'll never know thanks to the BCS.
Think about this from the other side. If Alabama won, would you think it fair that LSU would get to play them again? Why should you have to beat one team twice and the winner of the SECOND game is the only one that counts?
The thing is, it isn't about fair. It's about matching 1 vs 2. In some people's minds, since we lost to the best, are not the best, it is impossible to be considered the second best.
Take it a step further. Bama lost by three to the best team in the country, who lost no other games. Ok State lost by three to a 6-6 Iowa State team that lost to 6 other teams by an average of 20+ points a game. If we had lost to Mississppi State instead of LSU, do you think we should be considered?
Look, I'm not a huge BCS fan, please don't mistake it. It's simply a fluke that the two best teams this year reside in the same division. Probably will never happen again. But I think a lot of the arguments out there are simply due to SEC fatigue. And that's understandable. But it is what it is.
ninjavanish
12-05-2011, 03:23 PM
There is obviously only one way to settle this:
MORTAL KOMBAT!!!
<queue techno music>
The thing is, it isn't about fair. It's about matching 1 vs 2. In some people's minds, since we lost to the best, are not the best, it is impossible to be considered the second best.
Take it a step further. Bama lost by three to the best team in the country, who lost no other games. Ok State lost by three to a 6-6 Iowa State team that lost to 6 other teams by an average of 20+ points a game. If we had lost to Mississppi State instead of LSU, do you think we should be considered?
Look, I'm not a huge BCS fan, please don't mistake it. It's simply a fluke that the two best teams this year reside in the same division. Probably will never happen again. But I think a lot of the arguments out there are simply due to SEC fatigue. And that's understandable. But it is what it is.
First I never said anything about fair. It's not just about 1-2 because in 2006 after Ohio State beat Michigan 42-39 they were still 1-2 and yet they didn't play again in the title game. All we KNOW is LSU is better than Bama. We dont' know if any other conference champs are better because they haven't played them. Why play again when we know who is better? The only way to prove who's the best is to play it on the field. LSU-Bama has already been proven for this season. LSU-OK State or OK-Boise St hasn't been done. Nobody knows who would win either of those matchups.
rizzle
12-05-2011, 03:50 PM
First I never said anything about fair. It's not just about 1-2 because in 2006 after Ohio State beat Michigan 42-39 they were still 1-2 and yet they didn't play again in the title game.
Impossible. In the BCS championship game, 1 plays 2. Always. Michigan went and got thumped by USC and then Ohio State got thumped by Florida anyways.
All we KNOW is LSU is better than Bama. We dont' know if any other conference champs are better because they haven't played them. Why play again when we know who is better? The only way to prove who's the best is to play it on the field. LSU-Bama has already been proven for this season. LSU-OK State or OK-Boise St hasn't been done. Nobody knows who would win either of those matchups.
We're arguing about two different things. You have to be able to separate them.
And LSU would win both those matchups. Big. ;)
So now your whole argument comes to light. You're a Utah fan. :r:r
Yes, you guys wiped the grass with us. We weren't ready, lost our 3 year starting left tackle the night before the game for illegal agent contact, came out flat and unmotivated, and got waxed. And then forgot about it. Well, not really forgot about it, but you get the point. You know the funny thing about this whole discussion? Were it not for the BCS, Utah would have never sniffed that BCS bowl game. But again, different argument. ;)
Yes, big Utah fan....:tu
If not for the BCS, there would be no BCS games:confused:....it would be back to the regional games, pitting conference champions, conference tie ins ect... Kind of like all the other bowls now.... But because Utah has been invited to the dance twice and won 2 BCS bowl games...that does not mean I don't think the system is broken.
Utah is in the "haves" now....they're in the PAC12, I still think the system is broken.
Rizzle, what is your response to the fact that Alabama had an easier road to their 1 loss record, that they played an easier schedule...?
It is unfortunate, because you are biased, but it would be interesting to see what your thoughts & all the SEC crowd's thoughts would be if the situation was reversed. If we were talking about USC and Oregon or Texas and Oklahoma in a rematch and Alabama or another SEC team with a loss to a 6-6 SEC team, but having played a tougher schedule. That SEC team having beat more ranked teams, won their conference Championship ect.. That mentioned loss being just days after the school lost 2 coaches in a horrific plane crash ect....
I wonder if your thoughts on the subject would be the same. See, that is where I think that my not having a dog in this hunt, but looking at this objectively(what I feel is objective?) and thinking I'm getting the shaft on seeing the "right game" for the BCS Championship.
So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?
You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I don't know who is better. I know they played....and one team won and one team lost and that is that....
I could not care less if the masses would say the better team didn't win the game....who cares? They played the game and there was a winner and a loser, you move on from there.
As of Monday December 5, 2011 - LSU > Alabama
Your being far from truthful. But don't grafitti up this thread, too. If you've got a problem with it and want to discuss it, I'm way more than willing to take it to PM, since you seem to have a huge freaking problem with it.
Don't graffitti up my own thread? I think I am perfectly able to do whatever I want with it.
As for your inference that I am being less than truthful, it's all there in the other thread to
read. I told all of you that the better team won, many times over, and I proved it from my
own perspective with facts. The only thing you could ever admit to was the final score.
You acted as if the kicking game had no part in determining 'balance". I told you that we
had superior depth in relevant positions, and you basically told me that I was deluded.
And just as I replied and you quoted, talking about it to you Crimson people was an excercise
in futility. Then some of you huffed and puffed and said I had ruined the thread, as if!...it's a
discussion forum. The bama contingent just didn't want to 'discuss". They wanted to basically
do what you did above, make statements like we had guys hurt, we weren't ready to play, we
came out flat, etc. Not that you SAID these things this year, but it was the same mood. Denial
of the facts. SURE, I admit that I made giant statements that were more easily digestible on
one side of the discussion, like we are better balanced, we have faster players, etc. But in the
end, did you guys WIN?? Nope. So no matter what it WAS in fact, there was a reason you lost.
And I THINK you are going to lose again.
And lest you paint me again as an argumentative child, I DO think bama and LSU are the two best teams, I have
seen it with my own eyes. I am just telling you that Bama is only number one in their fans eyes. LSU has the
confidence of the masses. I KNOW, I know, we did not get all the votes. We got enough.
You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I
he wants to know if you are rational or can be dismissed.
I also want to apologize for making your crimson fever out to be a disease. You can support your team
to whatever degree you find appropriate, you can cap on me to no end over my support for the Tigers or
liken me to a child. It is all fine. I couldn't do this for a month while we wait to see the results. But I will
do just what I did in the SEC thread weeks and weeks in advance, predict victory and likely be proven
correct.......TWICE. Bwah-haha-ha-ha
longknocker
12-05-2011, 05:57 PM
I witnessed first hand the greatness of an Alabama team that was going to mop the floor with the University of Utah in a bowl game. They had weeks to prepare and I heard it for weeks and weeks about how Utah couldn't play with a team built like that Alabama team.
Hell, I heard it from fans, from professionals on television, from everyone that had sound coming out of their mouth....but that is why you play the games. Didn't quite turn out how everyone thought.... I watched that game, have watched it a few times.....there was one team that was far more physical on the field, one team that dominated play, one defense that looked faster, stronger, better.....thing is, it wasn't the one everyone said it was going to be. It wasn't done with smoke and mirrors, but with blood and sweat...
Nothing can be said that is going to change my mind on two things, that in my mind, should keep Alabama out of the BCS Championship game. 1 - Alabama didn't win their conference 2 - Alabama already played LSU and lost
I cannot express enough that YES, ALABAMA IS A GREAT TEAM! I will scream it from the rooftops....but they didn't win their conference and they already lost this game, on their home turf, a month ago.
Green Bay Didn't Win Their Division Last Year & Look Where That Got Them In The Last Super Bowl!;)
chippewastud79
12-05-2011, 06:26 PM
Green Bay Didn't Win Their Division Last Year & Look Where That Got Them In The Last Super Bowl!;)
In a playoff system ;)
In a playoff system ;)
X 2
Greg, would you care to try to objectively comment? I am really interested to hear an honest take on that from the 'Bama contingent....
Rizzle, what is your response to the fact that Alabama had an easier road to their 1 loss record, that they played an easier schedule...?
It is unfortunate, because you are biased, but it would be interesting to see what your thoughts & all the SEC crowd's thoughts would be if the situation was reversed. If we were talking about USC and Oregon or Texas and Oklahoma in a rematch and Alabama or another SEC team with a loss to a 6-6 SEC team, but having played a tougher schedule. That SEC team having beat more ranked teams, won their conference Championship ect.. That mentioned loss being just days after the school lost 2 coaches in a horrific plane crash ect....
I wonder if your thoughts on the subject would be the same. See, that is where I think that my not having a dog in this hunt, but looking at this objectively(what I feel is objective?) and thinking I'm getting the shaft on seeing the "right game" for the BCS Championship.
Another fun little tid bit....
Seldom mentioned: Alabama, LSU still on probation
Posted on December 5, 2011 by Eric Crawford
In all of the adulation the two teams received during the leadup and rehash of their regular-season meeting, and now in the runup to their rematch in the BCS National Championship game, I haven’t heard anyone bring up this little reminder:
Both LSU and Alabama are on probation. Somehow, it seems fitting to me that this scandal-filled year in college football should end with two teams on NCAA probation playing for the national title. It just fits. Also, Connecticut was on probation when it won the men’s basketball championship last spring. Nice.
The term of LSU’s probation runs to July 18, 2012. From the AP story:
The investigation found that former assistant coach D.J. McCarthy improperly arranged for transportation and housing for former defensive lineman Akiem Hicks in 2009 before later trying to cover up those actions.
The NCAA accepted LSU’s self-imposed reduction of two scholarships during the 2010-11 academic year, as well as a 10 percent reduction in official visits and reductions in recruiting calls. LSU had already begun reducing official visits during 2010-11, but the NCAA expanded the punishment to include 2011-12.
McCarthy resigned in 2009. Hicks never played for the Tigers before leaving the school.
Alabama’s case was more serious and involved vacating victories from three seasons, but school officials were relieved that they didn’t incur further scholarship reductions. Alabama’s probation runs through June 10, 2012.
From the AP:
The violations include impermissible benefits obtained by 201 athletes through misuse of free textbooks.
Alabama identified 22, including seven football players, as “intentional wrongdoers” who knew they were receiving improper benefits.
The vacated football wins were from 2005 to 2007 in which those seven played.
The victories were vacated, meaning the school may not acknowledge a win. Vacating a win is different from forfeiture, in which the loser claims the victory, according to The Birmingham News.
No Alabama sport lost postseason eligibility or scholarships.
LSU infraction report - http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&drKey=1179&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.wakeboarder.com%2Fviewtopi c.php%3Ft%3D89259%26start%3D1225%26sid%3D081b770ad a106a5b14b837b0bcf9c036&v=1&libid=1323137620788&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncaa.org%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fconnec t%2Fbcdc810047a5d86494cdd6071e1ceb2b%2F20110719%2B LSU%2BPublic%2BInf%2BRpt.pdf%3FMOD%3DAJPERES%26CAC HEID%3Dbcdc810047a5d86494cdd6071e1ceb2b&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.wakeboarder.com%2Fviewforu m.php%3Ff%3D2&title=Wakeboarder%20%3A%3A%202011%20NCAA%20Footbal l%20Thread&txt=You%20can%20read%20the%20LSU%20report%20on%20i nfractions%20here.%20(PDF%20link)&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13231377463031
Alabama infraction report - http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&drKey=1179&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.wakeboarder.com%2Fviewtopi c.php%3Ft%3D89259%26start%3D1225%26sid%3D081b770ad a106a5b14b837b0bcf9c036&v=1&libid=1323137620788&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bhamweekly.com%2Fbirmingham%2 Farticle-867-ncaa-puts-alabama-football-back-on-probation-vacates-wins.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.wakeboarder.com%2Fviewforu m.php%3Ff%3D2&title=Wakeboarder%20%3A%3A%202011%20NCAA%20Footbal l%20Thread&txt=This%20report%20links%20a%20PDF%20of%20the%20A labama%20infractions%20report.&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13231377672062
http://blogs.courier-journal.com/ericcrawford/2011/12/05/seldom-mentioned-alabama-lsu-still-on-probation/
longknocker
12-05-2011, 07:38 PM
Greg, would you care to try to objectively comment? I am really interested to hear an honest take on that from the 'Bama contingent....
E.J.: I Am Truly Sorry For Oklahoma's Loss On The Plane Crash; I Do Feel It Affected Their Play. Alabama's Deep Snapper Lost His GF To The Tornado That Tore Tuscaloosa Apart, But He & The Entire Team Played A FB Game The Next Week & Won. I Realize The Only True Way To Determine A Champion May Be A Playoff System. Even Then, It Would Be Two Games Per Team & What Would That Prove? I Think A Team 's Performance Over An Entire Year Is More Relevant. The "Existing" System In The BCS Seeks To Place The Top Two Teams Against Each Other & Most Experts Agree This Year Those Teams Are LSU & BAMA.
Powers
12-05-2011, 07:42 PM
Rizzle, what is your response to the fact that Alabama had an easier road to their 1 loss record, that they played an easier schedule...?
It is unfortunate, because you are biased, but it would be interesting to see what your thoughts & all the SEC crowd's thoughts would be if the situation was reversed. If we were talking about USC and Oregon or Texas and Oklahoma in a rematch and Alabama or another SEC team with a loss to a 6-6 SEC team, but having played a tougher schedule. That SEC team having beat more ranked teams, won their conference Championship ect.. That mentioned loss being just days after the school lost 2 coaches in a horrific plane crash ect....
I wonder if your thoughts on the subject would be the same. See, that is where I think that my not having a dog in this hunt, but looking at this objectively(what I feel is objective?) and thinking I'm getting the shaft on seeing the "right game" for the BCS Championship.
As a Florida and SEC fan, I would honestly feel the same way. A loss to a crappy opponent outweighs a tougher schedule and conference championship. That's the way the polls have always worked
In principle I have long been in the opinion that a conference championship (and really having to play a conference title game) should be a prerequisite for going to the national title. But I think this year is an exception. As Richie says, its extremely unlikely that the two best teams will go from the same division of the same conference.
Look at the '08 and '09 SEC title game. I firmly believe that Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma in '08 had they beat Florida and that Florida would have beaten Texas in '09 had we beat Alabama in Atlanta. If we had a playoff system, I think you'd see a lot more national title rematches from SEC schools
I was actually hoping that LSU would get a loss before the SEC title game to Arkansas so that everyone would have 1 loss and the BCS computers would implode and hasten the path to a playoff. It's bond to happen one year that there is no undefeated team worthy to play in the title game and we're all left w/valid opinions as to which two loss teams deserves the shot
:2
Powers
12-05-2011, 07:44 PM
This year was an embarassment for a LOT of SEC schools. Back when I used to argue with the Florida fans here, they used to tell me, "We just reload, babay..."
Not this year, apparently, lol.
Ain't that the truth, Meyer left us in a pile of sh*t :r
Ain't that the truth, Meyer left us in a pile of sh*t :r
Ever the honest broker, Michael, lol. That's what I always tell the intransigent bama fans,
back when I used to give you and others a hard time about UF, you took it like a realistic person who
understood that it's all relative, a viable world exists outside your team-view. Of course I did
NOT get too much understanding over my thoughts about Tebow, but if you check the archives,
I was right (as usual) in that I said God I hate Tebow, BUT I think that he will still be successful
in the pros. People who dog Tebow for religious showmanship usually also say he will never amount
to anything in the NFL. I knew that couldn't be. It is still an open question but as long as the team
around him supports his efforts, they seem to be capable of winning games. I think it's great that he
has taken a big step to shutting up a lot of people. I saw him once at the two yard line throw a back-
shoulder BULLET to the front corner of the endzone for a TD once against us and I thought 'say what
you will about his motion but the boy can make the hard throws with accuracy.'
What were we talking about again?
I Think A Team 's Performance Over An Entire Year Is More Relevant.
I agree with what you say here, Greg, but another Bama fan was making a case in the SEC thread
that said basically, "look, here are the teams that bama and OKST played, and here is their ranking
AT THAT TIME, blablabla..." and my first thought was, wait, you would put early season rankings up
as (partial) proof of the solidity of a team? It's A WAY of doing it, but it's not a GOOD way. Everyone knows
pre-season rankings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and anything prior to week 4-5 is
nearly useless. So I found that particular argument weak, but it might certainly help this person
make a point, just not what I would call a good point.
So I do agree that the season as a whole is a better arbiter than a playoff to a point. But when others
make their case with numbers that were a fantasy back when, I do not agree that they make a slam dunk
case for slotting team A ahead of team B at the end. I need to go back and look at those numbers. Well I don't
need to, this deal is done now by the oracles of the BCS and my team is in, so......
I would be willing to bet that if you looked at wins against top 25 teams in the final standings, one
team would be clearly on top. People might say, 'well no, we had injuries or this happened or that occurred,
but that is why you have depth, to surmount those issues. BETTER teams have BETTER depth, so that is
not valid to me, nor are untimely deaths for that matter. That kind of stuff happens and has to be left out
of the argument. That may well BE why OK St. lost, but it's not neccessarily valid here, in my book.
I DO understand it was only brought up as an afterthought, I'm not saying this was ever thrown up as
an excuse. Now, off to check the numbers, lol.
Yep, judgin by the final AP top 25 rankings, it's a tie, basically.
Bama has 2 wins, OK St has 4
Bama's combined rankings of their 2 equal 32..divided by 2 is 15.5
OK St. combined rankings of their 4 equal 69..divided by 4 is 17.25
So bama has wins over higher average ranked opponents, OK state has more
actual wins against top 25 teams. Considering the arguments being made here
and there, this element is kind of telling and kind of useless. It shows that OK
St. did in fact play a higher ranked schedule, but bama did demolish their foes
rather convincingly and had no business screwing the pooch in front of their own
fans. When it came down to it, it WAS style points, after all. That was not supposed
to be a factor...hmm. It is sad to me because UA and LSU fans are going to be glued
to the screens. But after waiting 5 weeks for the show, I think very few outsiders
will care to watch. Some might, who knows.
I say OK State deserved the chance to play LSU.
longknocker
12-06-2011, 07:56 AM
Yep, judgin by the final AP top 25 rankings, it's a tie, basically.
Bama has 2 wins, OK St has 4
Bama's combined rankings of their 2 equal 32..divided by 2 is 15.5
OK St. combined rankings of their 4 equal 69..divided by 4 is 17.25
So bama has wins over higher average ranked opponents, OK state has more
actual wins against top 25 teams. Considering the arguments being made here
and there, this element is kind of telling and kind of useless. It shows that OK
St. did in fact play a higher ranked schedule, but bama did demolish their foes
rather convincingly and had no business screwing the pooch in front of their own
fans. When it came down to it, it WAS style points, after all. That was not supposed
to be a factor...hmm. It is sad to me because UA and LSU fans are going to be glued
to the screens. But after waiting 5 weeks for the show, I think very few outsiders
will care to watch. Some might, who knows.
I say OK State deserved the chance to play LSU.
I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad? :)
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:17 AM
Rizzle, what is your response to the fact that Alabama had an easier road to their 1 loss record, that they played an easier schedule...?
It is unfortunate, because you are biased, but it would be interesting to see what your thoughts & all the SEC crowd's thoughts would be if the situation was reversed. If we were talking about USC and Oregon or Texas and Oklahoma in a rematch and Alabama or another SEC team with a loss to a 6-6 SEC team, but having played a tougher schedule. That SEC team having beat more ranked teams, won their conference Championship ect.. That mentioned loss being just days after the school lost 2 coaches in a horrific plane crash ect....
I wonder if your thoughts on the subject would be the same. See, that is where I think that my not having a dog in this hunt, but looking at this objectively(what I feel is objective?) and thinking I'm getting the shaft on seeing the "right game" for the BCS Championship.
Here are my thoughts, and they're pretty simple, really. When we lost the LSU game, I said we're out of it. Done. Like dinner. Game over. Nobody's fault but ours. And if everyone else would have held up their end of the bargain there would be no arguing over it, we wouldn't even be in the conversation. But they didn't. Stanford loses. Oregon loses. Oklahoma State went out and lost to a 6-6 team and then their crowning achievement was beating an Oklahoma team that finished with three losses? Why is that impressive? All those teams had to do was win and you wouldn't hear a peep from me because it was our fault that we lost.
And really, to try and put this "tragedy" into the equation is cheap and a sickening attempt by the media to try and garner manufactrured sympathy. What about the tornadoes that came through Alabama and damn near demolished Tuscaloosa, killed hundreds of people, including a football player's girlfriend, or the death of one our starters right before the season started? I don't recall hearing any of the pundits mentioning those "tragedies" when it came time to cast votes. That's just classless, IMO, andthose people should be ashamed of themselves.
Now, let's say OK State had won out, or Stanford. My "bias" would tell me that I think we're still a better team, but we wouldn't have a chance to prove it. So we'd probably head to the Sugar Bowl wondering about what might have been. And hoping that we get a chance to get back there again someday. :)
Stephen
12-06-2011, 08:17 AM
I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad? :)
Doesn't really matter. Ok State deserves the opportunity to try moreso than Alabama. Alabama had their shot at LSU and came up short. Now, with that being said, I think Alabama wins the rematch.:2
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:26 AM
Yes, big Utah fan....:tu
If not for the BCS, there would be no BCS games:confused:....it would be back to the regional games, pitting conference champions, conference tie ins ect... Kind of like all the other bowls now.... But because Utah has been invited to the dance twice and won 2 BCS bowl games...that does not mean I don't think the system is broken.
Utah is in the "haves" now....they're in the PAC12, I still think the system is broken.
What I meant by that, and I think you would agree, is if it were not for the BCS system, Utah would have been relegated to playing in some also ran bowl out in Idaho on blue turf or something. At least the BCS gave a shot to play with "the haves" on a stage they had never been able to play on before.
I'm not saying the system isn't broken, but it is, for the most part, doing what it was designed to do. the travesty to the whole damn thing, is it has made ALL the other bowls, including the non-championship BCS bowls, totally irrelevant, and typically boring. :tu
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:30 AM
You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I don't know who is better. I know they played....and one team won and one team lost and that is that....
I could not care less if the masses would say the better team didn't win the game....who cares? They played the game and there was a winner and a loser, you move on from there.
As of Monday December 5, 2011 - LSU > Alabama
It IS relevant for the basis of this whole freaking conversation, IMO.
My part in this converstion has nothing to do with the fact that LSU > Alabama. I'm saying that just because Alabama isn't number 1 doesn't mean they can't be number 2. And for the BCS championship game, that is all that matters.
As of Monday December 5, 2011 - Alabama > Oklahoma State
I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad? :)
Oh HELL no.....like I said, I feel no stress, LSU is in the game. I am just picking apart BCS
arguments in a thread I made so that I could do it without offending the pure SEC crowd in a
thread that Michael created. I understand how I come off over there, I didn't want to throw
salt in it. No I just believe that by the pure logic of wins and losses, that bama has a less solid
case than OKSt. They would get mauled in the Superdome. bama will not be mauled.
Rizzle, I have finally worn you to a nub, post No. 62 is absolutely perfect in it's reasoning and result.
See my post in No. 66 to prove that I also get it...sort of.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:38 AM
Oh HELL no.....like I said, I feel no stress, LSU is in the game. I am just picking apart BCS
arguments in a thread I made so that I could do it without offending the pure SEC crowd in a
thread that Michael created. I understand how I come off over there, I didn't want to throw
salt in it. No I just believe that by the pure logic of wins and losses, that bama has a less solid
case than OKSt. They would get mauled in the Superdome. bama will not be mauled.
Bad, I know I'm a dumb Bama fan, but explain that to me, please.
You'd have to read what I wrote in the SEC thread to get the total picture, but in a nutshell, and using the 'Kid's'
reasoning to bash with, on paper, Kid states that both teams have 4 top 25 wins. On a actual piece of paper,
Bama has 2 top 25 wins. Those top 25 'week of' stats are written DOWN somewhere, but they are not relevant
to the argument here at season's end. No one in their right mind can call beating Florida in 2011 a top 25 win. I know
that there is a note somehwere on paper that says it is, but it's not. OKSt has 4 top 25 FINAL STANDINGS wins,
Bama has two. It's True, it's just irrelevant. Person says "I have a dog"...no, you have a Chihuahua. Sure, the
DNA says it's a dog, but you and I know it's a rat in a collar. ;)
So yeah, it sounds funny to say that I KNOW LSU would roll right over OK St and not roll right over Bama, but
knowing that does not mean that it is fair to OK St as it stands now. Are the two best teams in the country
poised to play for it all. Yes. But what happens if Bama wins? Is the argument over? For me, yes, I will do as
I promised and congratulate the fans of the winner. But for many people who follow football, it's 1-1.
If OK state is in that game and LSU wins, game over. If OK state wins, game over, same deal. No one can
say $hi+, the best team won. So there are subtelties that tell me the wrong team is in the game against us,
but nothing tells me that the 1 and 2 aren't playing each other.
Here are my thoughts, and they're pretty simple, really. When we lost the LSU game, I said we're out of it. Done. Like dinner. Game over. Nobody's fault but ours. And if everyone else would have held up their end of the bargain there would be no arguing over it, we wouldn't even be in the conversation. But they didn't. Stanford loses. Oregon loses. Oklahoma State went out and lost to a 6-6 team and then their crowning achievement was beating an Oklahoma team that finished with three losses? Why is that impressive? All those teams had to do was win and you wouldn't hear a peep from me because it was our fault that we lost.
And really, to try and put this "tragedy" into the equation is cheap and a sickening attempt by the media to try and garner manufactrured sympathy. What about the tornadoes that came through Alabama and damn near demolished Tuscaloosa, killed hundreds of people, including a football player's girlfriend, or the death of one our starters right before the season started? I don't recall hearing any of the pundits mentioning those "tragedies" when it came time to cast votes. That's just classless, IMO, andthose people should be ashamed of themselves.
Now, let's say OK State had won out, or Stanford. My "bias" would tell me that I think we're still a better team, but we wouldn't have a chance to prove it. So we'd probably head to the Sugar Bowl wondering about what might have been. And hoping that we get a chance to get back there again someday. :)
That really skirted the real question, but again, I feel you are so biased, I thought it would be difficult at best. No big deal....
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:48 AM
Rizzle, I have finally worn you to a nub, post No. 62 is absolutely perfect in it's reasoning and result.
See my post in No. 66 to prove that I also get it...sort of.
Actually, Brad, if you paid attention, that's what I said all along. I just added to it that I still thought we should have won the game and took exception to your "superior depth and balance" statement. And I provided facts to back up that argument--something you seem to appreciate. All you would have ever had to have said, and I would totally agree with, is that our kicking game sucks and cost us the game. And it may cost us the next one.
So no, you haven't worn me to a nub. You just weren't paying attention to what I was saying because you were hell bent on trying to yank my chain and somehow paint me, and any other Bama fan, as a bunch of lunatics. which we may very well be, but that's another story all together.:)
There's no reason to get personal about it--but garbage in, garbage out.
:2
I agree with what you say here, Greg, but another Bama fan was making a case in the SEC thread
that said basically, "look, here are the teams that bama and OKST played, and here is their ranking
AT THAT TIME, blablabla..." and my first thought was, wait, you would put early season rankings up
as (partial) proof of the solidity of a team? It's A WAY of doing it, but it's not a GOOD way. Everyone knows
pre-season rankings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and anything prior to week 4-5 is
nearly useless. So I found that particular argument weak, but it might certainly help this person
make a point, just not what I would call a good point.
.
I read that argument, but it was so ridiculous….as were previous comments, I considered the source, as well as my being ask to leave by said person and figured there was no reason to punch holes in it.
As of Monday December 5, 2011 - Alabama > Oklahoma State
Because they have not played, your saying that is purely assumption. Again, it is why we play the games....
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:51 AM
That really skirted the real question, but again, I feel you are so biased, I thought it would be difficult at best. No big deal....
Sorry, EJ, I thought Ianswered the question directly. I felt we were out of it. Period. If we were on the outside looking in, I would blame us for our shortcomings, not try to discredit someone else for theirs.
I don't know how to answer it any other way.
I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad? :)
Greg, the point isn't if people "think" they could play with LSU....it is giving them the chance to show they can. Alabama had that chance at home and lost.
There are MANY, MANY games every year that teams win, that NOBODY thought they could... It isn't as if Oklahoma State is some also ran Pitt team that people are saying should get a shot....
To me in the end it's a freak of scheduling. Bama is nearly stuck in that they are playing the teams the conference
SAYS they are going to play. And it is a fluke that suddenly UF is shite and Auburn is coming off a NC season and
is basically stripped and Ole Miss's coach is floating in the bowl and UT can't catch a break. It is also a fluke
that Baylor has a magician playing QB and suddenly Baylor is a good win. But make no mistake, either team's schedule
is tough given full participation by their opponents. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bama rolled
through weak opposition, so did OK St. Bama did it with what I consider to be superior coaching and players and likely
by bigger numbers, and EASILY more media hype and darling treatment. So what seems clear-cut to the bama fan is not
clear to people on the outside of that bubble.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 08:56 AM
Because they have not played, your saying that is purely assumption. Again, it is why we play the games....
Then get it scheduled. I would love to wipe the field with T Boone's boys. :r
I've got a really good article I'll post in a few after I find it. You guys know that the SEC proposed a +1 system already and that the ACC was the only conference to agree, right? We already tried to remedy this. Problem is, nobody screams foul about it until they're directly affected.
It'll all change after the contract runs out in 2013. God can only hope they somehow get it right. But for the next two years we're stuck with it.
Sorry, EJ, I thought Ianswered the question directly. I felt we were out of it. Period. If we were on the outside looking in, I would blame us for our shortcomings, not try to discredit someone else for theirs.
I don't know how to answer it any other way.
The question is/was....if we were talking about Alabama being held out by 2 PAC12 teams, one that didn't win their conference, a rematch, better strength of schedule by Alabama ect....would you have the same argument, yea....the pollsters think they are better, so even though we played a tougher schedule, beat more ranked teams and won our conference.....they should get the rematch....
I find it hard to believe that you would think it was "fair".... Like everyone else, you would be forced to live with it....but I have a sneaking feeling you would be making these same arguments....
Who knows, maybe not....:sh
Then get it scheduled. I would love to wipe the field with T Boone's boys. :r
I've got a really good article I'll post in a few after I find it. You guys know that the SEC proposed a +1 system already and that the ACC was the only conference to agree, right? We already tried to remedy this. Problem is, nobody screams foul about it until they're directly affected.
It'll all change after the contract runs out in 2013. God can only hope they somehow get it right. But for the next two years we're stuck with it.
I read that article, it was pretty good....and you're right, nobody came to the table to support the idea...:td
rizzle
12-06-2011, 09:04 AM
The question is/was....if we were talking about Alabama being held out by 2 PAC12 teams, one that didn't win their conference, a rematch, better strength of schedule by Alabama ect....would you have the same argument, yea....the pollsters think they are better, so even though we played a tougher schedule, beat more ranked teams and won our conference.....they should get the rematch....
I find it hard to believe that you would think it was "fair".... Like everyone else, you would be forced to live with it....but I have a sneaking feeling you would be making these same arguments....
Who knows, maybe not....:sh
Understand your point completely. It may not be "fair", but it is what we have. Life isn't fair. And if we're trying to discredit teams based on the whole strenght of schedule, etc, argument, you can't. Because all the rankings are subjective anyway. It's all somebody's opinion.
However, I can tell you this -- you'll never get me, or any other SEC fans, to agree that BIG 12 is a stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. That dog ain't hunting with us. :r:r So, nyah... ;)
Understand your point completely. It may not be "fair", but it is what we have. Life isn't fair. And if we're trying to discredit teams based on the whole strenght of schedule, etc, argument, you can't. Because all the rankings are subjective anyway. It's all somebody's opinion.
However, I can tell you this -- you'll never get me, or any other SEC fans, to agree that BIG 12 is a stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. That dog ain't hunting with us. :r:r So, nyah... ;)
Again, you skirted the question....
Not asking you to say it is fair or agree that the BIG12 is better ect....?
I am asking that if the shoe was on the other foot, would you think Alabama was getting the shaft....?
Would you, but on a more personal level, feel like I do....that the wrong team is playing in the BCS Championship game....?
You just weren't paying attention to what I was saying because you were hell bent on trying to yank my chain and somehow paint me, and any other Bama fan, as a bunch of lunatics. which we may very well be, but that's another story all together.:)
:2
Now that is a real mischaracterization. Where you and I battled most is that I define balance as
offense-defense-special teams, the same definition as the football commentating world. You're
comeback comment was about running and passing, TRUE, one definition of balance, but not where
I was headed EDIT (and certainly not something you could gauge superiority on.)
When you said that my statement was a crock, naturally, I differed, because I feel like special teams
is a gigantic part of the game and is an integral portion of good balance. When I said we were superior
to you in balance, it was easy for anyone to see. IN THAT GAME, We severely out-kicked you
guys in place-kicking and punting. To a smaller degree in that game, but a huge degree over the season,
we also have a Heisman candidate that changed the complexion of games IN SPECIAL TEAMS as well as
on defense. To me that means superior special teams, i.e. superior balance. We both have monumental
running backs, (we have more, but...), we both have superior defenses, and LSU has superior special teams
play IN 2011 at least. What was so difficult to understand about that?
Your respons in the end was basically "whatever". So no I was not trying to paint you all as lunatics.
I was making the valid point that you didn't want to hear anything about you being inferior to LSU in
any way. The loss was still too painful for you to see not just why you lost the game but why you guys
are actually number two in the polls by an admittedly tiny margin. I like Alabama, but the fans of Alabama
REALLY made a poor showing in that thread, because all of you basically reacted the same way. YES I pick
at scabs, Yes I pour salt in the wounds, yes It takes me 40 words to say one word, but I am the nicest guy
in the world on a level field. I give due where it is due and I respect people who can do the same. Me and
Michael (Powers) bet on LSU-UF for years with jabs and pokes for whole seasons and in the end I don't think
he and I are on all that bad of terms. In the end I have no ill thoughts of you at all. I just figured you were
so offended by the presentation that you ignored the facts. I would have to go back and check on what facts
you presented for your argument. I am guessing they were Richardson and Saban based.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 09:18 AM
Found it. Pretty good read.
ATLANTA – There’s a sizeable portion of college football lamenting that the BCS championship game will feature a rematch of two teams from the same league – LSU and Alabama of the Southeastern Conference.
Go ahead and be frustrated.
Just don’t blame the SEC...
...If it were up to the SEC, though, it never would’ve happened. At least not without giving teams from two other leagues a chance to prove themselves on the field.
Don't blame us... (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sec_reaps_reward_rejection_120311)
rizzle
12-06-2011, 09:21 AM
Again, you skirted the question....
Not asking you to say it is fair or agree that the BIG12 is better ect....?
I am asking that if the shoe was on the other foot, would you think Alabama was getting the shaft....?
Would you, but on a more personal level, feel like I do....that the wrong team is playing in the BCS Championship game....?
I've felt many times we "should have" gotten/done something. But I don't feel anyone getting shafted. I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I wouldn't feel we were shafted, I would feel like it was our fault we lost when it mattered.
Powers
12-06-2011, 09:24 AM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I can tell you this -- you'll never get me, or any other SEC fans, to agree that BIG 12 is a stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. That dog ain't hunting with us. :r:r So, nyah... ;)
This ain't the SEC thread any more 'gents, gotta make sure the Yankee boys understand us :r -(P
I've felt many times we "should have" gotten/done something. But I don't feel anyone getting shafted. I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I wouldn't feel we were shafted, I would feel like it was our fault we lost when it mattered.
If that is your honest assessment and you feel like if the tables were turned & even with a tougher schedule, conference championship ect, you were being held out of a chance at the BCS Championship, by a team that aready played(at home) and lost to the eventual opponent, you'd feel it was on your team, you didn't do what you needed to do, great attitude. Fair enough.
^^^ I'll add....that is what we'll agree to disagree on, because I really believe that you would feel shafted....
Again, you skirted the question....
Not asking you to say it is fair or agree that the BIG12 is better ect....?
I am asking that if the shoe was on the other foot, would you think Alabama was getting the shaft....?
Would you, but on a more personal level, feel like I do....that the wrong team is playing in the BCS Championship game....?
I think you are right in that Rizzle and 'the others' cound NOT step outside themselves and see
that OK state is getting the shaft. Especially now that this rematch is not only looking more
possible with every loss by others, but actually set in stone. But that is the nature of things.
I am not sure I could either. I again bargain from a position of concensus, LSU is in. But in
another thread, it goes on still. People counting rankings from August and September when no one
knew WHAT was going to happen. That is the luxury of people who are IN and the bane of people
who are OUT. Always will be.
But that is why I laughed when Rizzle asked you "Who do YOU think is the best team, Alabama or LSU?"
He wanted to know where you were coming from so he could categorize 'the outlander', lol. It's just a
natural thing to do when your team is under attack, "who are my allies?' But all that said, I like this
thread more than the other one that is just unbearable right now, and yes, I started a lot of it.
----Edit---- I think one of the main reasons why they will not feel like OK state is getting the shaft
is that argument I made earlier, that bama has "4 top 25 wins". This is something that I think most
of them will adhere to over the long haul. You can chart OKstate's 4 top 25 wins right now, in the final
standings. In order to do it for bama, you have to start using what they call in Washington "fuzzy math".
And before I become the butthole again, let me state for the record that this is completely natural.
bama fans are fervent supporters of their team with an agenda to go with it, just like LSU would
be were OUR situations reversed. It is basically saying "the season is over for me now" or NOT saying
that. I remember I called my BIL who is a Duke fan a few years ago to ask him if he was watching
Memphis in the finals. He was sleeping. he told me "no, I quit caring about all that the night Duke
got bounced out."
But all that said, I like this
thread more than the other one that is just unbearable right now, and yes, I started a lot of it.
That other thread was quite amusing.... It would have been interesting to have watched it develop from day one. I made it about 2.5 pages and was in not so many words, told my presence there was not welcome by some....:r
My comments were no different than here, which I do not think appear to be argumentative or arguing just to argue.... I guess being that it was a SEC football thread and I was not chanting SEC...SEC....SEC, I probably shouldn't get involved anyway....what did I expect....:sh
Who knows, to each their own...
rizzle
12-06-2011, 09:48 AM
Now that is a real mischaracterization. Where you and I battled most is that I define balance as
offense-defense-special teams, the same definition as the football commentating world. You're
comeback comment was about running and passing, TRUE, one definition of balance, but not where
I was headed and certainly not somehting you could gauge superiority on.
When you said that my statement was a crock, naturally, I differed, because I feel like special teams
is a gigantic part of the game and is an integral portion of good balance. When I said we were superior
to you in balance, it was easy for anyone to see. IN THAT GAME, We severely out-kicked you
guys in place-kicking and punting. To a smaller degree in that game, but a huge degree over the season,
we also have a Heisman candidate that changed the complexion of games IN SPECIAL TEAMS as well as
on defense. To me that means superior special teams, i.e. superior balance. We both have monumental
running backs, (we have more, but...), we both have superior defenses, and LSU has superior special teams
play IN 2011 at least. What was so difficult to understand about that?
Your respons in the end was basically "whatever". So no I was not trying to paint you all as lunatics.
I was making the valid point that you didn't want to hear anything about you being inferior to LSU in
any way. The loss was still too painful for you to see not just why you lost the game but why you guys
are actually number two in the polls by an admittedly tiny margin. I like Alabama, but the fans of Alabama
REALLY made a poor showing in that thread, because all of you basically reacted the same way. YES I pick
at scabs, Yes I pour salt in the wounds, yes It takes me 40 words to say one word, but I am the nicest guy
in the world on a level field. I give due where it is due and I respect people who can do the same. Me and
Michael (Powers) bet on LSU-UF for years with jabs and pokes for whole seasons and in the end I don't think
he and I are on all that bad of terms. In the end I have no ill thoughts of you at all. I just figured you were
so offended by the presentation that you ignored the facts.
That kind of sums it all up, doesn't it?
Brad, I have yet to ignore a fact. I presented you with facts. Having better special teams, of which I clearly agree LSU is superior, doesn't make you a more "balanced" team. Obviously it does in your mind. We will obviosuly never agree on that. I would say it makes you a more complete team. Hell, that even sounds better. LSU is clearly better in one of the three phases of the game than Alabama. If that is balance, then so be it. Balance it is. You don't have superior depth, which was a statement you boldy made and bakced up with absolutley nothing.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 09:51 AM
If that is your honest assessment and you feel like if the tables were turned & even with a tougher schedule, conference championship ect, you were being held out of a chance at the BCS Championship, by a team that aready played(at home) and lost to the eventual opponent, you'd feel it was on your team, you didn't do what you needed to do, great attitude. Fair enough.
That's the way I would feel. But again, tougher schedule--totally subjective.
Just as a side thought, who is the Big Ten champion?
rizzle
12-06-2011, 09:53 AM
I think you are right in that Rizzle and 'the others' cound NOT step outside themselves and see
that OK state is getting the shaft. Especially now that this rematch is not only looking more
possible with every loss by others, but actually set in stone. But that is the nature of things.
I am not sure I could either. I again bargain from a position of concensus, LSU is in. But in
another thread, it goes on still. People counting rankings from August and September when no one
knew WHAT was going to happen. That is the luxury of people who are IN and the bane of people
who are OUT. Always will be.
But that is why I laughed when Rizzle asked you "Who do YOU think is the best team, Alabama or LSU?"
He wanted to know where you were coming from so he could categorize 'the outlander', lol. It's just a
natural thing to do when your team is under attack, "who are my allies?' But all that said, I like this
thread more than the other one that is just unbearable right now, and yes, I started a lot of it.
----Edit---- I think one of the main reasons why they will not feel like OK state is getting the shaft
is that argument I made earlier, that bama has "4 top 25 wins". This is something that I think most
of them will adhere to over the long haul. You can chart OKstate's 4 top 25 wins right now, in the final
standings. In order to do it for bama, you have to start using what they call in Washington "fuzzy math".
And before I become the butthole again, let me state for the record that this is completely natural.
bama fans are fervent supporters of their team with an agenda to go with it, just like LSU would
be were OUR situations reversed. It is basically saying "the season is over for me now" or NOT saying
that. I remember I called my BIL who is a Duke fan a few years ago to ask him if he was watching
Memphis in the finals. He was sleeping. he told me "no, I quit caring about all that the night Duke
got bounced out."
Go back and re-read, Brad. Never, ever did I ask that question.
That's the way I would feel. But again, tougher schedule--totally subjective.
Just as a side thought, who is the Big Ten champion?
See...you keep justifying(the schedule thing), if you had the tougher schedule, you wouldn't be doing that...IMO, you'd be bringing it up to back your side. See, that is how I feel like you have an inability to look at this objectively.... That said, I am not saying I have to be right.... Just discussing...
Wisconsin Badgers I believe
That kind of sums it all up, doesn't it?
Brad, I have yet to ignore a fact. I presented you with facts. Having better special teams, of which I clearly agree LSU is superior, doesn't make you a more "balanced" team. Obviously it does in your mind. We will obviosuly never agree on that. I would say it makes you a more complete team. Hell, that even sounds better. LSU is clearly better in one of the three phases of the game than Alabama. If that is balance, then so be it. Balance it is. You don't have superior depth, which was a statement you boldy made and bakced up with absolutley nothing.
Yes I do recall you saying that, sorry, I did not want to paraphrase where I needed to quote.
You saved me the trouble, that IS indeed what you said. Also right in that we will never agree
on it. But what I still can't see is how can you say Complete and adamantly oppose Balanced?
I know that next year you guys have a top kicker inbound, & will be more 'balanced' and a much closer
match to us in that regard, but what does semantics have to do with it if you will admit the idea?
Here is where I do not want you to get offended, but if you were beaten basically by your own weakness in
your "completeness", the kicking game, how could you deny that you were at least semantically "inferior"?
That, then, to me was arguing a point and covering your ears on my points, which is likely where
you got the idea I thought you guys were lunatics..
rizzle
12-06-2011, 10:18 AM
See...you keep justifying(the schedule thing), if you had the tougher schedule, you wouldn't be doing that...IMO, you'd be bringing it up to back your side. See, that is how I feel like you have an inability to look at this objectively.... That said, I am not saying I have to be right.... Just discussing...
Wisconsin Badgers I believe
Sorry, I only bring up the schedule because you do. And of course I can't look at it completely objectively because I have a stake in it. Now couple years back, I thought it should have been us throttling Oklahoma instead of Florida, but objectively, they beat us striaght up. Interestingly enough, we were ranked 1 coming into the SECCG, Florida was ranked 2, and Oklahome got in with it's only loss coming to Texas earlier in the year. I didn't feel we got shafted, we lost when it mattered.
Yep. Wisconsin. Beat Michigan State in the title game. After Michigan State already beat them earlier this year. Not that it matters, I'm just making a point.
Yes I do recall you saying that, sorry, I did not want to paraphrase where I needed to quote.
You saved me the trouble, that IS indeed what you said. Also right in that we will never agree
on it. But what I still can't see is how can you say Complete and adamantly oppose Balanced?
I know that next year you guys have a top kicker inbound, & will be more 'balanced' and a much closer
match to us in that regard, but what does semantics have to do with it if you will admit the idea?
Here is where I do not want you to get offended, but if you were beaten basically by your own weakness in
your "completeness", the kicking game, how could you deny that you were at least semantically "inferior"?
That, then, to me was arguing a point and covering your ears on my points, which is likely where
you got the idea I thought you guys were lunatics..
Oh, I still think we have the better team. Don't you? -(P
Powers
12-06-2011, 10:20 AM
See...you keep justifying(the schedule thing), if you had the tougher schedule, you wouldn't be doing that...IMO, you'd be bringing it up to back your side. See, that is how I feel like you have an inability to look at this objectively.... That said, I am not saying I have to be right.... Just discussing...
Wisconsin Badgers I believe
I don't know if you quite understand how much football in the SEC and the team you root for means. It goes beyond "I like this team/they're my alma mater".
Example: my grandfather starting working collecting tickets and selling Coke at Florida field in the late 1940s, got season tickets in the '60s and still does. My mother had a poster of Steve Spurrier in her room growing up. I grew up idolizing Danny Wuerffel and my little cousin was trained at the age of 2 to respond when asked "What do Gators eat for breakfast?" "Bulldogs!"
What I'm trying to say is that, for a substantial number of us, your SEC football team is a part of your identity. And that makes it difficult for objectivity
:2
Go back and re-read, Brad. Never, ever did I ask that question.
Damnit, I knew I needed to go and get that acutal quote....yep, you got me, I read thorough it incorrectly.
The question should have been taken in context, and instead I took it as you asking the kind of question
I wanted you to be asking. I KNOW we never got a straight answer out of EJ on that one. I am also
curious on that from anyone, I THINK that OS got the shaft, but I cannot come up with a team I think is
either better than Bama OR capable of beating the Tigers.
Impossible. In the BCS championship game, 1 plays 2. Always. Michigan went and got thumped by USC and then Ohio State got thumped by Florida anyways.
First, it's not impossible. See below. Plus, the end results doesn't matter. The debate is who should play who, not who won in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_BCS_National_Championship_Game
Pre-game buildup
The Ohio State Buckeyes were the No. 1 ranked team for the entire 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season, anchored by Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Troy Smith. The Buckeyes were 12–0 with several wins over ranked opponents: the defending national champions, then No. 2 Texas Longhorns, then No. 24 Penn State Nittany Lions, then No. 13 Iowa Hawkeyes, and their then undefeated Big Ten Conference rival, then No. 2 Michigan. The win over Michigan to finish the regular season essentially guaranteed the Buckeyes a spot in the National Championship game. Who they would play remained a highly-debated question. Despite the loss to Ohio State, Michigan remained No. 2 in the polls, followed by No. 3 Southern California (USC), No. 4 Florida, and No. 5 Notre Dame.
The next week, with both No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Michigan's regular season complete, No. 3 USC defeated then No. 5 Notre Dame. Fourth-ranked Florida defeated unranked in-state rival Florida State. With the victory over Notre Dame, USC passed Michigan in the polls, taking over the BCS No. 2 spot. Michigan fell to No. 3 with Florida remaining No. 4 and Notre Dame falling to No. 10.
The last week of the regular season was dynamic for the national championship race. Third-ranked Michigan remained idle. Fourth-ranked Florida faced No. 9 Arkansas in the SEC Championship, while No. 2 USC faced unranked, in-city rival UCLA. Both Florida and Michigan cheered as USC fell to UCLA 13–9. Florida defeated Arkansas to claim the 2006 SEC Championship Title. USC's loss knocked them out of contention, leaving No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 Florida as the most likely teams to earn the No. 2 ranking and face Ohio State for the BCS National Championship. The final BCS poll passed Florida over Michigan to take the No. 2 spot while Michigan remained unchanged at No. 3, with .0101 points separating the two teams. This small difference was a result of the human polls (the Coaches Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second.
Controversy over No. 2: Rematch or new opponent?
There were many theories how Florida jumped Michigan in the final poll. Some sportswriters theorized that it was not a matter of which was the better team, claiming Florida had an advantage in the polls because they had played the last two weeks while Michigan had not, or that voters were swayed due to Florida coach Urban Meyer's "campaign"[citation needed] to get Florida into the BCS National Championship Game.[4][5][6] The fact that the difference in the final BCS Poll was due to human voters, not computer rankings, gives some credence to these theories. Other theories suggest that since Michigan did not win their conference title, they did not deserve to play for the BCS National Championship, or that a rematch between Michigan and Ohio State was not favored by the poll voters.[7] The controversy was largely resolved when USC defeated Michigan 32–18 in the 2007 Rose Bowl, and Florida beat top-ranked Ohio State 41–14 in the BCS Championship Game.
Clearly the theory that "voters" feel that a team who failed to win their own conference should be excluded from playing in a national title game is BUNK. They forgot to exclude non-conference winning 1-loss SEC teams. :rolleyes:
My point is a rematch reeks of an SEC bias. The Big-10 didn't get that chance in 2006. Why should the SEC get it now? Overall my point is pretty well summed up by E.J.
Greg, the point isn't if people "think" they could play with LSU....it is giving them the chance to show they can. Alabama had that chance at home and lost.
There are MANY, MANY games every year that teams win, that NOBODY thought they could.
And LSU would win both those matchups. Big. ;)
Nobody in their right mind thought Boise State could be Oklahoma in 2007 but it happened. Alabama had their chance to beat LSU. Time for someone else to get a chance. LSU-Alabama was settled on the field. NEXT!
I agree a lot with Powers on that one, it is a lot deeper ingrained than most realize, but it is also a LOT like SEC
fans to not be able to see that that is COLLEGE FOOTBALL, not just SEC football. Not for all teams obviously,
some can barely fill a stadium. But in the main, fans are rabid homers everywhere.
I REALLY liked the way Wisconsin looked the other night, that Heisman kid looked like a man among boys
the way he picked his way downfield on what seemed like every down was for 10+ yards. But I would
counsel against people thinking that that kind of business plays down south. I know it sounds homery,
but you get Wisconsin down in the superdome and they get spanked. I have NO IDEA why it plays out the
same everytime, I hate it that we are viewed as so arrogant and so hated because of these annual collapses,
but it happens over and over again. That said, I'd like to see em come in and take a crack, more than a team
I have already beaten in their own place. Beaten is relative in overtime, but come on...at HOME?
And I DO know why it seems we win all the time. I think it is conditioning. When Wisconsin comes in for
spring or fall practice, it is not cold, but it sure ain't HOT. These guys down south dance on the line
between life and death at every practice, and by midseason, they are so well-conditioned to 60 brutal
minutes that I think they just wear down the competition come bowl time.
I don't know if you quite understand how much football in the SEC and the team you root for means. It goes beyond "I like this team/they're my alma mater".
Example: my grandfather starting working collecting tickets and selling Coke at Florida field in the late 1940s, got season tickets in the '60s and still does. My mother had a poster of Steve Spurrier in her room growing up. I grew up idolizing Danny Wuerffel and my little cousin was trained at the age of 2 to respond when asked "What do Gators eat for breakfast?" "Bulldogs!"
What I'm trying to say is that, for a substantial number of us, your SEC football team is a part of your identity. And that makes it difficult for objectivity
:2
I think I understand, I am just having discussion, attempting to show another side. People don't have to agree, but there is no doubt that it has to have them think. It is why I have qualified many times that I really feel there are many here that have an inability to look at this objectivly.
Yep. Wisconsin. Beat Michigan State in the title game. After Michigan State already beat them earlier this year. Not that it matters, I'm just making a point.
So who goes to the Rose Bowl, the conference champion? Not that it matters, just making a point...:r:r:r
rizzle
12-06-2011, 10:31 AM
First, it's not impossible. See below. Plus, the end results doesn't matter. The debate is who should play who, not who won in the end.
Mike, I hate to point it out to you, but you just proved my point. See below as a cut and past of what you posted.
The last week of the regular season was dynamic for the national championship race. Third-ranked Michigan remained idle. Fourth-ranked Florida faced No. 9 Arkansas in the SEC Championship, while No. 2 USC faced unranked, in-city rival UCLA. Both Florida and Michigan cheered as USC fell to UCLA 13–9. Florida defeated Arkansas to claim the 2006 SEC Championship Title. USC's loss knocked them out of contention, leaving No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 Florida as the most likely teams to earn the No. 2 ranking and face Ohio State for the BCS National Championship. The final BCS poll passed Florida over Michigan to take the No. 2 spot while Michigan remained unchanged at No. 3, with .0101 points separating the two teams. This small difference was a result of the human polls (the Coaches Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second.
1 played 2 for the championship game. Always.
Clearly the theory that "voters" feel that a team who failed to win their own conference should be excluded from playing in a national title game is BUNK. They forgot to exclude non-conference winning 1-loss SEC teams. :rolleyes:
My point is a rematch reeks of an SEC bias. The Big-10 didn't get that chance in 2006. Why should the SEC get it now? Overall my point is pretty well summed up by E.J.
Nobody in their right mind thought Boise State could be Oklahoma in 2007 but it happened. Alabama had their chance to beat LSU. Time for someone else to get a chance. LSU-Alabama was settled on the field. NEXT!
And that's what makes college ball so great, ain't it? We still owe y'all for the 2000 Orange Bowl, by the way. See you in Dallas next September. :tu
^^^...and the loser of that BIG10 Championship game....what BCS game are they going to?
Oh, I still think we have the better team. Don't you? -(P
I realize this is bravado mixed with sarcasm, but no, not a bit. Until you can come into my house and
make a field goal to win a game, and not have your misses be just blind bad luck, but consistent failure,
there is no way bama is better. Saban is not the only person in the football world who knew going in
it was likely he was going to have to make a lot of field goals. LSU is not sisters of the poor.
And yet he consistently forced his kicker to take these wildly out-of-range shots at the uprights.
So maybe we even have a better COACH than you guys. You guys had THE Trent Richardson, you should
have GONE FOR IT on 4th down.
-(P you are deluded, hoss, lol.
longknocker
12-06-2011, 11:24 AM
I Think Most People Think Saban Has Been A Better Coach Than Miles Over Their Lifetimes, Brad.:) I Will Admit You Have Better Special Teams, But I Feel We Have A Better Offense & Defense. We'll See How It Plays Out Jan.9th In The "Neutral" (What A Joke! :r) Site Of New Orleans!:tu
I Think Most People Think Saban Has Been A Better Coach Than Miles Over Their Lifetimes, Brad.:) I Will Admit You Have Better Special Teams, But I Feel We Have A Better Offense & Defense. We'll See How It Plays Out Jan.9th In The "Neutral" (What A Joke! :r) Site Of New Orleans!:tu
AND there it is..., lol. I was WAITING so long for someone to say that. haha
A.) We can't control the venue for the NCG. We have coincidentally been crowned champ in every year we
played in the dome for all the marbles. That is true.
B.) You ain't Boise St.....you are only driving to New Orleans. You will have access to as many tickets
as we do. I don't need to remind you the argument I got into over the pitiful tickets we got for the
Bama-LSU matchup in T-town. I was schooled on that one, though.
C.) New Orleans is not Baton Rouge by a long shot, in any way, except the state it's in and the fact
that there are some cajuns there. There are cajuns in Tuscaloosa. 90-minutes for us, about double
that for you.
haha, OK, got that out of my system. On to Saban - Miles. I think without researching that Miles has a
much better winning percentage over his tenure at LSU than Nickie did, and I think it is also better than
Nickie's at Bama. THINK. But what an excellent point....RESEARCH, here I go, lol.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 11:40 AM
I think I understand, I am just having discussion, attempting to show another side. People don't have to agree, but there is no doubt that it has to have them think. It is why I have qualified many times that I really feel there are many here that have an inability to look at this objectivly.
So who goes to the Rose Bowl, the conference champion? Not that it matters, just making a point...:r:r:
:tu
Who cares for $100, Alex? :r:r
longknocker
12-06-2011, 11:41 AM
AND there it is..., lol. I was WAITING so long for someone to say that. haha
A.) We can't control the venue for the NCG. We have coincidentally been crowned champ in every year we
played in the dome for all the marbles. That is true.
B.) You ain't Boise St.....you are only driving to New Orleans. You will have access to as many tickets
as we do. I don't need to remind you the argument I got into over the pitiful tickets we got for the
Bama-LSU matchup in T-town. I was schooled on that one, though.
C.) New Orleans is not Baton Rouge by a long shot, in any way, except the state it's in and the fact
that there are some cajuns there. There are cajuns in Tuscaloosa. 90-minutes for us, about double
that for you.
haha, OK, got that out of my system. On to Saban - Miles. I think without researching that Miles has a
much better winning percentage over his tenure at LSU than Nickie did, and I think it is also better than
Nickie's at Bama. THINK. But what an excellent point....RESEARCH, here I go, lol.
Go For It!:r Look At Coaching Records Over Their Entire Careers, Brad!:tu
Mike, I hate to point it out to you, but you just proved my point. See below as a cut and past of what you posted.
1 played 2 for the championship game. Always.
And that's what makes college ball so great, ain't it? We still owe y'all for the 2000 Orange Bowl, by the way. See you in Dallas next September. :tu
Problem is the system is garbage so they had to "massage" the final rankings to avoid a rematch in the final. Strangely this time they won't message the rankings and are willing to let the SEC have a rematch. No rematch for the Big10, but the SEC gets one. Hmmmm.
The system is flawed, but they made the right move last time by tweaking the rankings to avoid a rematch. This year their SEC bias is preventing them from doing what is right.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 11:47 AM
I realize this is bravado mixed with sarcasm, but no, not a bit. Until you can come into my house and
make a field goal to win a game, and not have your misses be just blind bad luck, but consistent failure,
there is no way bama is better. Saban is not the only person in the football world who knew going in
it was likely he was going to have to make a lot of field goals. LSU is not sisters of the poor.
And yet he consistently forced his kicker to take these wildly out-of-range shots at the uprights.
So maybe we even have a better COACH than you guys. You guys had THE Trent Richardson, you should
have GONE FOR IT on 4th down.
-(P you are deluded, hoss, lol.
But, but, but...Les Miles wears a dumb looking hat and eats grass, hoss. We'll be in your house shortly and we'll see what happens. Should be another good game.
"Miles goes into the 2011 season with a record at LSU of 62-17, including a 33-15 mark in SEC regular season games.
Miles is the fastest coach in LSU history to reach milestone victories of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 games. "
That quote alone precludes Saban from having been that record-holder, so even though I think it is currently
a small diffrential, I believe that Miles is better all around in LSU records and likely had a better record than Saban for
what, "first 4 years at the school" type records. Of course, Saban got to bama in somewhat of a disarray and
Saban left miles a full cupboard. That affected their first year's totals a good bit. But the statement Les can only
win with Saban's recruits has been roundly proven illegitimate as you can very well see. He is about to win his
second Nat. Champ. if you don't mind me saying so. But I have to state for the record in this thread what I have
ALWAYS said, I am not someone who blames Saban for leaving. his average "years at school" is a measly 2.5
over his career. There were some doofus fans that had to throw up a sign that denigrated him on his
return to BR some years back, but Miles is and has been a fan favorite that never gives us any reason to look
back at Saban and think, "if only we had nick saban..."
One at a time, lol. YES we anxiously await you guys at the Dome. No doubt gonna be must-see TV for at least
two fan bases....
TWO, what across all TWO teams of his career?? 90-38. Not as good as Saban, but only time will tell.
He has Saban beat %-wise so far over Saban at LSU and certainly at Bama. Where can he go from here?
See?? again with the waiting. i can't believe I have ALL through SHOPPING season, Christmas, NEW YEARS
and being too fat from all of it before I even see a PROMO for this game. RE-tarded.
Wait, if you're counting Saban wins don't forget you have to vacate a few for NCAA violations...
:tf
Stephen
12-06-2011, 12:06 PM
"Miles goes into the 2011 season with a record at LSU of 62-17, including a 33-15 mark in SEC regular season games.
Miles is the fastest coach in LSU history to reach milestone victories of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 games. "
That quote alone precludes Saban from having been that record-holder, so even though I think it is currently
a small diffrential, I believe that Miles is better all around in LSU records and likely had a better record than Saban for
what, "first 4 years at the school" type records. Of course, Saban got to bama in somewhat of a disarray and
Saban left miles a full cupboard. That affected their first year's totals a good bit. But the statement Les can only
win with Saban's recruits has been roundly proven illegitimate as you can very well see. He is about to win his
second Nat. Champ. if you don't mind me saying so. But I have to state for the record in this thread what I have
ALWAYS said, I am not someone who blames Saban for leaving. his average "years at school" is a measly 2.5
over his career. There were some doofus fans that had to throw up a sign that denigrated him on his
return to BR some years back, but Miles is and has been a fan favorite that never gives us any reason to look
back at Saban and think, "if only we had nick saban..."
And yet there were many a public outry to can him after 2009. Go figure.:sh
We'll See How It Plays Out Jan.9th In The "Neutral" (What A Joke! :r) Site Of New Orleans!:tu
Sorry, the Hoover-Met was plumb booked up that weekend. Tractor pull and all.
Haha, get over it, If I polled 100% of likely Bama bowl attendees, 95% of them would rather ride to
New Orleans to see the game than any venue in the state of Alabama...come on, it's NEW ORLEANS!
My God, can you IMAGINE what that joint is gonna be like. VERY neutral site. Sure, if we were playing
Wisconsin, it might be a little slanted towards Purple and gold in the seats, but you guys are gonna travel
well. I hope they restrict it to sides so there is a stark LINE of red and purple. ANd I hope even more
that they slant the split to give eatch team an entire endzone, or even half it perpendicular to the field.
rizzle
12-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Wait, if you're counting Saban wins don't forget you have to vacate a few for NCAA violations...
:tf
Y'all be cheating smack. Love it. :tu
And yet there were many a public outry to can him after 2009. Go figure.:sh
Hold on a cotton picking minute...that's just revisionist history. Go ask any level headed LSU fan. They all loved him from day one. Especially his time management skills :noon
You know, I laugh at him all the time, but he's obviously a good coach. The SEC is better for having him. Just another character to add to the mix. He's like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.
More fun for you SEC fanboys...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15304779/infractions-scoreboard-nearly-everybody-gets-in-on-the-fun
No football conference has been more successful than the Southeastern Conference -- or as dirty.
While the SEC's run of five consecutive BCS titles and seven national championships in the past 13 seasons is unprecedented in college football, so is the number of major NCAA infractions the league has accumulated.
Since the league expanded to 12 schools for the 1992 season, the SEC's football programs have committed more major infractions than any other conference.
S-E-C! S-E-C!
As part of this five-part CBSSports.com series on cheating in college football, we look at which conferences and schools have cheated the most. Beginning in 1987 -- to coincide with SMU receiving the Death Penalty -- the SEC leads all conferences in major infractions with 13.
Since 1987, 10 of the SEC's 12 football programs have committed major infractions, according to the NCAA. The league's only football programs without a major infraction since 1987 are LSU (its last major infraction came in 1986) and Vanderbilt (which has never had a major infraction).
Alabama and Texas Tech, a former Southwest Conference school and current Big 12 member, have committed the most major infractions since 1987 with three each.
...
I guess they really do believe that if you're not cheating your not trying.
Should I bring up the academic standards (or lack thereof)?
:tf
Powers
12-06-2011, 01:55 PM
You know, I laugh at him all the time, but he's obviously a good coach. The SEC is better for having him. Just another character to add to the mix. He's like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.
My sentiments exactly. I admitted I initially thought he was a lucky SOB whose luck would eventually win out, which ironically is what a lot of people thought about Tebow in the NFL. Turns out we're both wrong. Miles, like Tebow, is a winner and no matter how sloppy sometimes.
While I now acknowledge him as an elite coach, I still like to sometimes laugh kindheartedly at his quirks and eccentricities. 'Course I think that's one of my favorite things about meeting and getting to know new people, quirky character traits are what make life fun :tu
(But I he's still the luckiest SOB on the planet for that faked field goal to beat UF in '10 @the Swamp were the holder tossed the ball NO LOOK behind his head to have it bounce PERFECTLY to the kicker in full stride. Trying do that successful again 1 time out of 100. Tiny rant over :D)
Wait, if you're counting Saban wins don't forget you have to vacate a few for NCAA violations...
:tf
nah, we all make mistakes, lol. it would seem to me that it takes the same amount of coaching to win a
game you later vacate as it does to get a regular win.
More fun for you SEC fanboys...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15304779/infractions-scoreboard-nearly-everybody-gets-in-on-the-fun
I guess they really do believe that if you're not cheating your not trying.
Should I bring up the academic standards (or lack thereof)?
:tf
OK, hold it now...I think you are in the wrong thread. If you want to bash the SEC,
I invite you to go and do it in the SEC thread. Thanks. No offense, just not here, please.
(But I he's still the luckiest SOB on the planet for that faked field goal to beat UF in '10 @the Swamp were the holder tossed the ball NO LOOK behind his head to have it bounce PERFECTLY to the kicker in full stride. Trying do that successful again 1 time out of 100. Tiny rant over :D)
AH-hahahahahahah, you kill me, Michael. Tiny rant. Priceless. I thought I was seeing things.
That was actually the second time he tried that fake, the first time was FLAWLESS in every way.
Successful both times, btw.
More fun for you SEC fanboys...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15304779/infractions-scoreboard-nearly-everybody-gets-in-on-the-fun
I guess they really do believe that if you're not cheating your not trying.
Should I bring up the academic standards (or lack thereof)?
:tf
Come on now....that's a low blow. They just really love their football down South, they're born into nurseries painted in school colors and are taught little sayings about their rivals as soon as they're old enough to talk.... They have 9 year old kids that know more about the game than people like myself. It is their culture....:r That piggy backs on the academic standards(focus is on SEC...SEC...SEC, not READING....WRITING.....ARITHMETIC....)
$EC....$EC....$EC
(All in good fun kids, if I seriously offend, it was not the intent)
longknocker
12-06-2011, 05:16 PM
Come on now....that's a low blow. They just really love their football down South, they're born into nurseries painted in school colors and are taught little sayings about their rivals as soon as they're old enough to talk.... They have 9 year old kids that know more about the game than people like myself. It is their culture....:r That piggy backs on the academic standards(focus is on SEC...SEC...SEC, not READING....WRITING.....ARITHMETIC....)
$EC....$EC....$EC
(All in good fun kids, if I seriously offend, it was not the intent)
You're Just Jealous, Brother!:D :tu
You're Just Jealous, Brother!:D :tu
I do enjoy the passion you guys have, in an admittedly odd sort of way. There is no way I'd be anywhere but the West....and no conference I'd rather be involved with, than the PAC12... As Jimmy Morrison said, "the West is the best." :tu
Wanger
12-07-2011, 06:59 AM
My head hurts!
Playoffs are needed, even before anyone got the shaft this year, plain and simple. The only way a national title becomes "real" this year is if LSU wins and OKST loses. If Bama wins, then the OKST supporters would be saying that they deserve a shot (and it's hard to argue that they don't, IMO). This is the ONLY sport that doesn't have a playoff system to determine the champion. How the hell does that work that this system is still around? I'm all for tradition, but come on...
rizzle
12-07-2011, 08:26 AM
More fun for you SEC fanboys...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15304779/infractions-scoreboard-nearly-everybody-gets-in-on-the-fun
I guess they really do believe that if you're not cheating your not trying.
Should I bring up the academic standards (or lack thereof)?
:tf
You're Just Jealous, Brother!:D :tu
Greg, would it be too early to say that we may good at cheating, but at least we don't harbor, aid, and abet child molesters in our conference? :rolleyes: Yeah, probably too early. Strike that comment. My apologies. Carry on.... ;)
the holder tossed the ball NO LOOK behind his head to have it bounce PERFECTLY to the kicker in full stride. Trying do that successful again 1 time out of 100.
By the way, folks, that's exactly how we are going to beat Alabama next "year", with just
that kind of charmed occurrence. I know going in that bama fans thought this was the year, all
the planets and recruiting had aligned for this one moment in time. But it is actually LSU that is
going to have the meant to be season. LSU wins, bank it. Remember what happened LAST time
I gave out this advice?
Ehhh, I need to stop it. Like I said, I can't DO THIS for a freaking month, lol.
longknocker
12-07-2011, 02:51 PM
Ehhh, I need to stop it. Like I said, I can't DO THIS for a freaking month, lol.
You Always Have, In The Past, Brad! :r Like I Said Before, If You Win Jan. 9th, I'll Be Glad To Congratulate You!:tu We Shall See.;)
Even for me that is an INTOLERABLE amount of time to wait. The system has built-in calendar days BEGGING
for a playoff, and still we wait a month and basically lose all the football lovers except for the two individual
fanbases. Foul.
longknocker
12-08-2011, 05:40 PM
Even for me that is an INTOLERABLE amount of time to wait. The system has built-in calendar days BEGGING
for a playoff, and still we wait a month and basically lose all the football lovers except for the two individual
fanbases. Foul.
For All The "Big 12" Fans, I Heard Danny Sheridan On The Radio, Today. He Said No Way Can The Oklahoma States & Stanfords Compete With The LSU Or Alabama Defenses This Year. He Feels That Arkansas & Its Bobby Petrino Offense Is As Good As Any In The Big 12 & Both BAMA & LSU Demolished Arkansas This Year. A Great Defense Beats A Good Offense Every Time, My Friends!:tu :)
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/bcs-national-championship-game,26851/
http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i397/EJB21/BCSChampionship.jpg
I love it E.J.
I hope bama wins. Then who will be the champ? The both will have beat each other once and will have the same record.
chippewastud79
01-05-2012, 08:13 AM
I love it E.J.
I hope bama wins. Then who will be the champ? The both will have beat each other once and will have the same record.
OSU will also finish with the same record if Alabama wins. :sh
shilala
01-05-2012, 08:14 AM
It's easy to figure out. Who's got the best marketing advantage?
Go Money!!! :tu
hammondc
01-05-2012, 08:19 AM
Well........yaaaawwwwnnnn.......I thoroughly enjoyed watching WVU ripping the "ACC Champions!!!!!!" apart last night. Clemson exposed AGAIN as the overrated team they are.
rizzle
01-05-2012, 08:32 AM
Hey, you, with the chip on your shoulder about the Southeastern Conference.
Yeah, you, the one who can't wait to see the Allstate BCS National Championship Game because, for the first time in eight appearances, an SEC team will lose. With No. 1 LSU playing No. 2 Alabama in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans on Monday, there may be less relief there than you think.
You're frustrated with the system. You're mad that the power in college football has consolidated in one place and you're looking for someone or something to blame. The answer lies below.
But before you can look at the culprit, you're going to need a mirror.
Suck it (http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls11/story/_/id/7415618/the-real-reason-sec-wins-all-bowl-games)
hammondc
01-05-2012, 08:41 AM
Suck it (http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls11/story/_/id/7415618/the-real-reason-sec-wins-all-bowl-games)
MMmmmmhmmm. Haters gonna hate.... (http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls11/story/_/id/7414179/little-love-sec-teams-college-football)
OSU will also finish with the same record if Alabama wins. :sh
Perfect. The more controversy and complaining from the schools, the more likely they replace this crap with a tourney.
Suck it (http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls11/story/_/id/7415618/the-real-reason-sec-wins-all-bowl-games)
Even with the head start of Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State ranking 1-2-4 in attendance, the SEC led the nation in 2011, as it has every season since 1998. That's because SEC schools take six positions in the top 11. The revenues generated by that attendance put the SEC at the top of athletic spending, according to a survey by the Sports Business Journal. The median budget of SEC athletic departments in fiscal year 2012 is $90.3 million. The Big Ten is second at $78.8 million. No other conference has a median budget above $62 million.
So Michigan has a smaller budget due to lower attendance than an SEC school?
http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/stadium/stadtext/mattend.htm
Michigan Stadium Attendance Records
The University of Michigan footbal team has played 230 consecutive games in front of crowds in excess of 100,000 through the 2010 season. The last time The Wolverines did not have 100,000 in attendance was Oct. 25, 1975 vs. Indiana when a crowd of 95,857 was on hand for the 55-7 Michigan victory.
Even a year old stat like that is staggering. The Big House is the largest college football stadium, and the third larest in the world, excluding NASCAR and horse racetracks. Don't give me the budget argument because it doesn't hold water. Michigan has soldout the largest stadium for 35 years, ranks 7th of all schools in merchandise sales and 4th overall in revenue/profit (with Georgia being the only SEC ahead of them).
The SEC wins because they are better at, or more willing, to cheat. The SEC signs more recruits than they are allowed to and are guilty of more NCAA violations than any other conference. Yet the NCAA is unwilling to really punish them because they bring in good TV ratings and hence lots of money.
7 of 12 SEC schools now facing sanctions in the past two years:
http://outkickthecoverage.com/south-carolina-latest-sec-school-to-face-ncaa-sanctions.php
Merch numbers link:
per this link http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/08/texas-alabama-are-top-two-schools-in-merchandise-sales/1)
Overall revenue/profit link:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/29/news/companies/college_football_dollars/index.htm
I'm not about bashing the SEC per se. Ohio State got a slap on the wrist too. The whole thing just bothers me. It's like Barry Bonds's homerun record. Sure he has the numbers, but everyone knows he cheated to get them.
Sure as a fan you get to enjoy the wins at gameday and the sanctions or vacated wins won't be official for a few years so, who cares?
I guess my beef is with the NCAA. If they want to get rid of this crap for real they'll punish all those who benefit from it. Players taking money/gifts, make them sit out 3 years before being eligible for the NFL draft. Take 20 scholarships for 3 years (60 total) from the school, and ban the coach for 3 years from taking ANY NCAA coaching position.
They'll never do it. They have no spine and they gave away their post season system to another entity (BCS), who crowns a mythical national champ every year.
Yes, but Mike, remember, when you are talking about NCAA violations, one of the teams
in the National Championship game has not had a major NCAA violation in 25 years. That's LSU,
baby, haha.
Someone here posted this link: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15304779/infractions-scoreboard-nearly-everybody-gets-in-on-the-fun
Which purports to show the SEC as this smudgy city on a hill of infractions, but all you have to do is read the part
they did not copy and past into the forum, the part that stops talking about the SEC and begins to shine the light
in all directions and how only a few schools in the entire system are clean. You are right, it is a barrel full of rotted
fruit and it needs to be upended and washed out with bleach. And as soon as you stop caring about intercollegiate
athletics, they will probably think about doing it. But for now the money is too powerful. Maybe we should
trade the BCS for our government, it might work better....oh wait, they are the same thing.
But we don't cheat better down here, we have more warm months to practice being great at football.
Or spicy food makes people run faster. But no, we don't cheat better, we all cheat the same. Yes, LSU
was busted for over-promising scholarships, but I am sure that is the same all over the country with the
schools where kids REALLY want to go, and it hurts the Vanderbilts and the Furmans and the whos-evers.
But it ain't a SEC deal, my friend. I wouldn't trust a single properly researched article that doesn't also point
out that these are just the flavor of the month mentions the SEC is getting...OH St. was properly noted by
you, Southern Cal, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. Corruption is not everywhere, but it sure
is widespread.
And as stated, NO major infractions for LSU since 1986...now this quote from the above article...Since 1987,
there have been 72 major infractions committed by 56 of the nation's current 120 FBS programs, including 44
of the current 67 automatic-qualifying BCS members -- a staggering 65.7 percent from the six power conferences.
Are there 56 SEC schools, haha.
.
I'm no fan of government Brad. Point taken on LSU. They have been above reproach for some time. Helps to have a "Michigan Man" at the helm. ;)
No, you were right for the most part....LSU got hit with trouble for over-promising scholarships,
and while it was not found to be a major infraction, it was very much in line whith what people call cheating.
But yeah, haha, we're clean as a baby's butt, and twice as smoove.
THE BCS IS BROKEN, We should have played Oklahoma State, lol........
ninjavanish
01-10-2012, 06:13 AM
So you're saying that the bcs is broken... Because clearly the #2 lsu tigers should have played the #3 osu cowboys?
Or
I dunno. Maybe you're right, maybe the bcs is broken... Maybe Stanford deserved to play instead of lsu. Or maybe Boise.
It was supposed to be a thread closing joke, Jerms.....
Since you are from Alabama, let me explain it.
After the whipping we took at the hands of Alabama, I am now saying we should have played OK St.
Get it?? :r
Oh and not for nuttin, but I DOUBT we will be #2 in the end. I would bet on and support a OK St. #2
If we had even scored a point of any KIND, hell GA Southern hung a couple TDs on the Tide.
After all, if you don't WIN IT ALL, who really cares where you shake out?
ninjavanish
01-10-2012, 08:10 AM
It was supposed to be a thread closing joke, Jerms.....
Since you are from Alabama, let me explain it.
After the whipping we took at the hands of Alabama, I am now saying we should have played OK St.
Get it?? :r
Oh and not for nuttin, but I DOUBT we will be #2 in the end. I would bet on and support a OK St. #2
If we had even scored a point of any KIND, hell GA Southern hung a couple TDs on the Tide.
After all, if you don't WIN IT ALL, who really cares where you shake out?
Hehe, ok I'll let it rest. :) had to get one jab In there.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.