College Football In Season Thread

Watching the replay now. Nick Saban in the pregame interview:

Q: How will tonight be different from Nov. 5?

A: I'm not sure it will be different . . .

:lol:

EDIT:

Love seeing Brad Wing run all the way down the field to talk horsehockye to Maze after the 1st punt, knowing the second return will go for 49 yards :snicker:
 
Final AP top 5:

Alabama
LSU
Okie State
Oregon
Arkansas

Nice to see Arkansas claw their way back in to the top 5. Well deserved . . .
 
BTW, other things did happen in college football today . . :

Auburn's Ted Roof lands at Penn State. Good luck there, PSU . . .

Auburn's dismissed RB Dyer lands at Arky State, with Malzhan . . .

Jim Mora, Jr. begins to exert control at UCLA. But I feel like I've seen this movie before . . .

A&M grabs USF DC . . .
 
Sorry, they proved it out on the field. Andrew Luck gave them a good run, but it's pretty obvious the Cowboys were a superior team.

Actually, I would disagree with that and say Stanford should have won that game just like Alabama should have won the first meeting with LSU.

And the overall consensus in the nation that will say the Okies are in any way better than 'bama after that game tonight.....that was simply too convincing a win by Alabama.

The Okies win over Stanford? Not so much.
 
So, in summary:

the eye test matters more than a team's actual resume
it matters so much more than you don't need to win your own conference
what oklahoma state did in it's bowl game has actual relevance as to whether they belong in the championship
upsets never happen in sports so oklahoma state would've been rolled
alabama scoring 21 the hard way and lsu's incredibly pitiful offense only underscore how unstoppable the sec is


Welcome to Obama's America
 
Rumblings that higher ups in the BCS are really going to overhaul the system, at the very least a +1 and possibly more.
 
So, in summary:

the eye test matters more than a team's actual resume
it matters so much more than you don't need to win your own conference
what oklahoma state did in it's bowl game has actual relevance as to whether they belong in the championship
upsets never happen in sports so oklahoma state would've been rolled
alabama scoring 21 the hard way and lsu's incredibly pitiful offense only underscore how unstoppable the sec is

Welcome to Obama's America

The 'eye test' matters to anyone who actually 'watches' the games.

And no, under uncommon circumstance, you dont need to win your conference to be the #1 team in the nation.

I think what OK State did its entire season has relevance. Including its being beat by an unranked team.

Sure upsets happen, but what are the odds?

As a conference, the SEC does currently stand apart from the rest of the nation in its performance. Are they unstoppable? No. Better as a whole? Absolutely.

And Obama has nothing to do with it.

IMHO it would be incorrect to consider any team other than Alabama as the national champion. This article pretty much sums it up: http://espn.go.com/college-football...lsu-tigers-allstate-bcs-national-championship

NEW ORLEANS -- To those LSU followers who think they got short-sheeted by the BCS …

To those Oklahoma State honks who insist their team belonged here Monday night …

To those Associated Press voters who said they would keep LSU atop their ballots even if the Tigers lost to Alabama …

To all of them I say, "Are you nuts?"

Alabama removed LSU (and OSU) from the national title equation and also removed all doubt about who's No. 1. The Crimson Tide's 21-0 victory Monday night was so complete, so overpowering and so convincing that it left Bama's players in a state of postgame delirium.

Anybody who thinks the best team in the country isn't located in Tuscaloosa, Ala., needs to have their football membership cards revoked. There can be no argument, no debate, no splitting of hairs. Bama is No. 1.

In fact, in this mornings polls, OK State couldnt even pull off a 2nd place rating over LSU. Sorry, there just isnt any way they can be considered the 'National Champs'. At all.
 
Yeah, this was one of the worst football seasons that I can remember, and not just because of the turd sammich that was Ohio State. Almost nobody was fun to watch, and we dont have a real national champ.
 
ESPN's BCS title game Monday drew a 13.8 overnight rating -- the lowest rating in the BCS system's 14-year history.

That 13.8 translates to 13.8% of households in the 56 urban markets measured for overnights. The previous record low was a 14.3 for Miami-Nebraska at the 2002 Rose Bowl. Last night's game was down 14% from last year's Auburn-Oregon title game on ESPN and down 24% from Alabama-Texas on Fox in 2010.

lowest ratings ever
 
I'm not going to argue the ending wasn't disappointing, but to blanket statement the season as a whole as one of the worst ever...? 2011 was again the year of the upset. There were so many games with crazy endings and new teams rose to national prominence. Because of the bowl structure, not everyone worth anything has to end the season on a loss. This year's BCS bowl games alone were easily the most exciting I can think of. There's more to a season than just who won the championship.
 
The 'eye test' matters to anyone who actually 'watches' the games.

It's not supposed to. That favors flashy teams, it favors stat whores and coaches who don't watch the games but see a few highlights and go with their preconceived notions. The computers and the idea of checking the resume is supposed to safeguard from the pure idiocy of the "eye test."

And no, under uncommon circumstance, you dont need to win your conference to be the #1 team in the nation.

Clearly, and in this case it is absolutely moronic. If OkieSt had another loss, then fine. Point is, there were other teams with a legitimate case, so Alabama should have been shut out. The only reason they weren't was because of the ridiculous eye test.

I think what OK State did its entire season has relevance. Including its being beat by an unranked team.

Yea, they were beat by Iowa State and STILL had a better resume. That's the amazing thing. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again.

Because of the fact that Alabama did not win it's own division, much less it's own conference, if there was another school with a similar resume (not even to speak of a superior one) they should have received the nod.

Sure upsets happen, but what are the odds?

Now you're just trolling. Ask 2002 Miami, 2004 Oklahoma, 2005 USC, 2006 Ohio State, 2007 Oklahoma...and that's just a few major upsets from the last decade alone.

This is why resumes trump the eye test. The eye test is stupid, unreliable, completely subjective, not an actual metric approved by the BCS formula, etc etc etc.

As a conference, the SEC does currently stand apart from the rest of the nation in its performance. Are they unstoppable? No. Better as a whole? Absolutely.

The SEC is the best conference, but it was not completely dominant this year. Arkansas and Georgia are basically big 12 teams. It was not especially deep. Florida, Mississippi State, Tennessee, South Carolina all were disappointments. Quarterback play was especially weak.

IMHO it would be incorrect to consider any team other than Alabama as the national champion. This article pretty much sums it up: http://espn.go.com/college-football...lsu-tigers-allstate-bcs-national-championship

IMHO you can pretend whatever you want from this season. I choose to pretend the Cowboys are the national champs. Just as legit as Alabama or LSU.
 
It's not supposed to. That favors flashy teams, it favors stat whores and coaches who don't watch the games but see a few highlights and go with their preconceived notions. The computers and the idea of checking the resume is supposed to safeguard from the pure idiocy of the "eye test."

Computer rankings are only 1 small part of the process. You know that. When you win a game that you shouldnt, computers cant account for that, but humans certainly can. And do.

Clearly, and in this case it is absolutely moronic. If OkieSt had another loss, then fine. Point is, there were other teams with a legitimate case, so Alabama should have been shut out. The only reason they weren't was because of the ridiculous eye test.

It seems you are arguing that all 1 loss teams are essentially equal. They arent. Not by a long shot. Alabama lost a very close game to the number one team in the nation at the time. Okie state lost to who again?

Yea, they were beat by Iowa State and STILL had a better resume. That's the amazing thing. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again.

I think them having a 'better resume' is simply wishful thinking on your part. It would appear the AP/USA today and all the rest of the experts on the issue disagree.

Because of the fact that Alabama did not win it's own division, much less it's own conference, if there was another school with a similar resume (not even to speak of a superior one) they should have received the nod.

I thought you argued earlier that the 'eye test' was a bad thing, and certainly a divisional/conference title is nothing more than 'eye test' in comparison to a teams actual schedule and performance. What weight do you think a computer gives a team for winning its conference/division in light of its actual performance and schedule? I would be surprised if it matter in that formula at all.

Now you're just trolling. Ask 2002 Miami, 2004 Oklahoma, 2005 USC, 2006 Ohio State, 2007 Oklahoma...and that's just a few major upsets from the last decade alone.

That wasnt a troll and giving a handful of past upsets doesnt disprove the point. I never said upsets dont happen...of course they do, but thats why they are called 'upsets' to begin with....no one expected it to happen.

Could Okie State upset Alabama? Sure. So could any other college team potentially. Would it be likely? Hell no.

This is why resumes trump the eye test. The eye test is stupid, unreliable, completely subjective, not an actual metric approved by the BCS formula, etc etc etc.

If the BCS were used one final time after all the bowl games were complete, do you think Okie State would have caught either Alabama or LSU?

I don't.

The SEC is the best conference, but it was not completely dominant this year. Arkansas and Georgia are basically big 12 teams. It was not especially deep. Florida, Mississippi State, Tennessee, South Carolina all were disappointments. Quarterback play was especially weak.

Well, it just so happens there is such a thing as conference football power rankings, and here was the final tally: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/36233/sec-finishes-atop-football-power-rankings

It is no surprise that the SEC remains atop ESPN Stats & Info’s Conference Power Rankings after winning its sixth straight BCS National Championship on Monday.

The SEC was dominant all season. The conference consistently had three teams ranked in the AP Top 10, and at one point was the first conference since 1971 to hold the top three spots in the polls. Today, three of the top five teams in the final AP Poll reside in the SEC after the conference went 6-3 in bowl season.

It would seem the experts disagree with you.

IMHO you can pretend whatever you want from this season. I choose to pretend the Cowboys are the national champs. Just as legit as Alabama or LSU.

Your're the one that has to pretend, not me. The legit National Champion this year is Alabama. Any other claim than that is simple denial of whats obvious to everyone else across the nation today.
 
I'm not going to argue the ending wasn't disappointing, but to blanket statement the season as a whole as one of the worst ever...? 2011 was again the year of the upset. There were so many games with crazy endings and new teams rose to national prominence. Because of the bowl structure, not everyone worth anything has to end the season on a loss. This year's BCS bowl games alone were easily the most exciting I can think of. There's more to a season than just who won the championship.

I would. During the past year of college football we've seen sexual molestation allegations at a major program, numerous programs charged with serious NCAA infractions, a ton of conference realignment including one team suing its own conference just to get out, and we ended the season with the lowest rated BCS bowl series ever, including the bayou debacle (which about 25% fewer people watched this year compared to last). Sure, there were two good games in the BCS, but Clemson quit in the Orange Bowl and Virginia Tech-Michigan was not a top card type of bowl game, especially with more deserving teams out there.

And honestly, why at this point should the average fan be excited about next year? We all know that the media LOVES the SEC, so much so that the standard to even get a shot at the BCS title is to be undefeated from a major BCS conference. As long as there is another SEC team out there with one loss, even if they didn't even win their division, they'll get the nod over you unless you win every one of your games, regardless of your schedule strength.

Simply put this season was an utter disaster for College Football.
 
I agree with pacesplace - you cant judge an entire season of college ball based upon the rankings of the final championship game. And as he mentioned, there were a large number of great games and nice upsets over the course of the season.

Infractions and other controversy happen to different degrees every year. Big deal. Fwiw, whatever controversy happened at a small handful of schools didnt detract for me what was a fun year in college football.

And if the media loves the SEC its because the SEC has been fairly dominant for some time now. Why shouldnt they as a conference garner such media attention? Prior to the current success of the SEC other conferences enjoyed much the same kind of attention (at various points in college football history), so I fail to see why its so bad simply because its just now the SEC enjoying it.
 
The SEC's continued dominance in the BCS is bad for the sport.

edit: don't read that as, "the SEC should sit out or slow down" -- that'd be rubbish. It's just that the continued dominance of on conference (and at that, only a few teams from that conference) is going to be met with rule changes. The BCS is, after all, about money. Poor TV ratings are going to be... addressed. I'd not be surprised to see new rule changes along the lines of "no rematches."

They'll just keep applying patchwork until the B1G/Pac12 relent on +1
 
Why in the world didn't LSU give their other QB (senior) a chance to change the momentum a bit? :scan: Didn't make sense to me :crazyeye: .
 
Yeah, this was one of the worst football seasons that I can remember, and not just because of the turd sammich that was Ohio State. Almost nobody was fun to watch, and we dont have a real national champ.

I find it harder to agree with pacesplace's points and Azale was a bit funny, but I generally agree with this. I would say that as an exception, for fans of the Big12 or maybe PAC12 some of the games and competition during the regular season were fun. It was good to see a lot of teams have historically successful seasons and being competitive which didn't happen so much in other conferences; USC being ineligible still sucked for the PAC12 though. Yet when we have the way the BCS finished and outside events/scandals/realignment being really bad this year it was still a disappointing season.
 
Top Bottom