College Football In Season Thread
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Zack
99% hot gas
Not to mention we discovered Craig James killed five hookers while at SMU.
When did this happen!
Zack
99% hot gas
Where were you when we were discussing how Craig James killed five hookers while at SMU? How could you not know Craig James killed five hookers while at SMU? Craig James killing five hookers at SMU was a huge news story.
pacesplace
Prince
If sex scandals ruin a season, then I suppose there is no point for me to watch college basketball anymore since a coach at #1 Syracuse was uncovered to be molesting kids, as well. We only found out this year about Penn State and Joe Pa's role in everything, but it is not going on there now.
The NCAA regularly puts sanctions on schools, and this year was no different. The Miami scandal occured before the season, and I think their performance this year was quite admirable considering all the kids left and Al Golden were not involved. USC was barred from postseason play last year, as well. The only recent major school to get penalized was Ohio State, who last year started multiple players who clearly should've been suspended in the bowl game. I feel bad for all the players getting penalized because of a coach and a few players that have left the school, but the NCAA only giving out a one year bowl ban after their last two bowls seemed lucky for OSU to me.
Alabama started the year #2 in both polls. LSU started #4. Oklahoma State was #8 in one and #9 in the other. Preseason rankings hurt Oklahoma State like they did Auburn in 2004. Oklahoma State had the chance to cruise into the championship game since voter sentiment was biased against a rematch, but they lost to Iowa State in their second-to-last game of the season. Other one-loss teams like Oregon and Oklahoma had the chance, too, but lost. Alabama and Stanford were the only two schools in the case for #2 not to choke, and Oklahoma State even remained above Stanford.
The NCAA regularly puts sanctions on schools, and this year was no different. The Miami scandal occured before the season, and I think their performance this year was quite admirable considering all the kids left and Al Golden were not involved. USC was barred from postseason play last year, as well. The only recent major school to get penalized was Ohio State, who last year started multiple players who clearly should've been suspended in the bowl game. I feel bad for all the players getting penalized because of a coach and a few players that have left the school, but the NCAA only giving out a one year bowl ban after their last two bowls seemed lucky for OSU to me.
Alabama started the year #2 in both polls. LSU started #4. Oklahoma State was #8 in one and #9 in the other. Preseason rankings hurt Oklahoma State like they did Auburn in 2004. Oklahoma State had the chance to cruise into the championship game since voter sentiment was biased against a rematch, but they lost to Iowa State in their second-to-last game of the season. Other one-loss teams like Oregon and Oklahoma had the chance, too, but lost. Alabama and Stanford were the only two schools in the case for #2 not to choke, and Oklahoma State even remained above Stanford.
Zack
99% hot gas
Getting blown out by Oregon wasn't choking? At all?
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I'm very happy and pleased to see so many of you didn't abandon the thread just because the season's over . . .
But this bit that I've bolded really bothers me. And it's not personal, because I heard it a lot from a lot of places after Nov 5th (about both teams that time, not just LSU) and I heard it a lot from a lot of places today about LSU. And here's the thing that bothers me about it: IT ISN'T TRUE. Even after being shut out last night, LSU has the 17th best scoring offense in the country, with 35.7 pts/g. That's one tenth of a point worse than USC, and 1.1 points worse than Arkansas.
The whole reason that I come to the internet is because I like to get a lot of different perspectives from around the country (which is why I'll never retreat to an Alabama board). But when I see or hear something like this, it really does make me think that the person saying it just doesn't understand football very well, or at least doesn't understand what all those people without the ball are doing with all the time they spend on that other side of the field over there. . .
EDIT: I'm watching the replay again and I remember why I started thinking about this. All night, Herbstreit and Musburger kept talking about two themes: 1) Alabama was 'breaking tendencies' by throwing on 1st down, and 2) Alabama kept taking Richardson out in 'favor' of Lacy. Of course, Alabama has favored throwing on 1st down all season because teams have lined up to stop Richardson and tried to make our 1st year starter at QB beat them, and we've subbed Lacy for Richardson all season long just as we subbed Richardson for Ingram all year last year, and just as we'll sub someone for Lacy all year next year. I think if you're getting paid to call a game, you should make some effort to become at least casually familiar with the teams in the game you'll be calling . . .
What's more surprising is that the Birmingham rating was down from 67 last year to 61 this year. So basically, Auburn fans are a lot more reluctant to watch Alabama win a national title than Alabama fans are to watch Auburn do the same. You probably have to live here to understand why that's so funny, but trust me, it's great . . .
Happily, Bill Hancock seems to understand this: "I think the larger the playoff field, the more damage to the regular season . . "
Criticizing QB play in the SEC is a little bit circular. We prefer old fashioned, 'establish the run & stop the run' football for the most part, so it's no surprise that premier QB recruits rarely come here or that they aren't permitted to showcase their talents when they do arrive . . .
EDIT: Barring two teams from the same conference in the title game would solve the tv problem, but it would also eliminate the pure 1v2 status of the title game, which was the whole point of the BCS to start with . . .
He got a bad rep early in his career because LSU started him before he was ready and he got eaten alive ('Pick 6' is not a good nickname for a QB to earn). To his great credit, he stuck with the team and worked through both his own early failures and being jerked around in the depth chart during his whole time at LSU.
But even in his last game, vs. Alabama on Nov 5th, he proved that he just never 'got it' well enough to make decisions with the kind of speed a QB needs vs. a quality defense.
Coupled with the fact that he isn't mobile and that LSU wasn't providing great pocket protection meant that Lee would have been a step down, if that was even really possible . . .
It's easy to forgive a lot when people are dealing six years of dominance by another conference, so yeah, okay, sure, Okie State would have been much more effective against LSU's rushing offense than they were against Stanford's, and Alabama didn't have any business playing in that game last night and it's all a grand conspiracy. Whatever.
But this bit that I've bolded really bothers me. And it's not personal, because I heard it a lot from a lot of places after Nov 5th (about both teams that time, not just LSU) and I heard it a lot from a lot of places today about LSU. And here's the thing that bothers me about it: IT ISN'T TRUE. Even after being shut out last night, LSU has the 17th best scoring offense in the country, with 35.7 pts/g. That's one tenth of a point worse than USC, and 1.1 points worse than Arkansas.
The whole reason that I come to the internet is because I like to get a lot of different perspectives from around the country (which is why I'll never retreat to an Alabama board). But when I see or hear something like this, it really does make me think that the person saying it just doesn't understand football very well, or at least doesn't understand what all those people without the ball are doing with all the time they spend on that other side of the field over there. . .
EDIT: I'm watching the replay again and I remember why I started thinking about this. All night, Herbstreit and Musburger kept talking about two themes: 1) Alabama was 'breaking tendencies' by throwing on 1st down, and 2) Alabama kept taking Richardson out in 'favor' of Lacy. Of course, Alabama has favored throwing on 1st down all season because teams have lined up to stop Richardson and tried to make our 1st year starter at QB beat them, and we've subbed Lacy for Richardson all season long just as we subbed Richardson for Ingram all year last year, and just as we'll sub someone for Lacy all year next year. I think if you're getting paid to call a game, you should make some effort to become at least casually familiar with the teams in the game you'll be calling . . .
It would have been better if they'd listened in '08, but if we had to beat them into submission first, we're happy to oblige. You're welcome
Unsurprising with both teams coming from the same region for the first time.
What's more surprising is that the Birmingham rating was down from 67 last year to 61 this year. So basically, Auburn fans are a lot more reluctant to watch Alabama win a national title than Alabama fans are to watch Auburn do the same. You probably have to live here to understand why that's so funny, but trust me, it's great . . .
Yeah, it was a pretty great season. Wisconsin/Michigan State, USC/Stanford, Okie State/ISU, Alabama/LSU I, Alabama/LSU II, even SDSU/La-Lafayette was brilliant. And you make a great point about the bowl system. College football is the only sport I'm aware of where more than one team ends on an up note.
Happily, Bill Hancock seems to understand this: "I think the larger the playoff field, the more damage to the regular season . . "
Well, no, they didn't. I think we discussed this a fair bit during the regular season. Okie State had marginally better wins and a much worse loss, making their resume pretty comparable to Alabama's.
That's a little bit of rhetoric there. Winning the division was the same thing as winning the conference this year, and when the division contains three of the nation's top five teams, is it really so surprising that it would contain both of the top two?
And the resume test ignores the fact that college football games will not yield consistent results in repeated trials. You need to consider a lot of different factors . . .
I still think the Big XII was the best conference top to bottom, even after getting to see all the bowl results. But the West was certainly the best division in football.
Criticizing QB play in the SEC is a little bit circular. We prefer old fashioned, 'establish the run & stop the run' football for the most part, so it's no surprise that premier QB recruits rarely come here or that they aren't permitted to showcase their talents when they do arrive . . .
See, now I think you're pouting again. I'd like to see LSU get a little recognition because I'm old fashioned and I don't think we needed a title game to determine a champion this year, but if I wanted to believe that LSU was the champion, I'd have to pretend. Alabama is the 'legitimate' champion because they are recognized as the champion by the bodies that award the championship in our sport. That's what 'legitimate' means. I might not be 100% happy about it, but it is what it is . . .
The media loves selling ads for as much as they can, and that's the only thing they love. The media does not love the SEC's current dominance, I assure you.
Completely true, except for the part about 'no rematches'. Remember, the issues of rematches and teams that didn't win there own conferences have come up before, and they were not outlawed. I'm not sure why they weren't outlawed the first time, so I can't be confident that they would be outlawed now. Even your own point about tv revenue doesn't speak to a 'no rematch' policy. It's not hard to imagine a rematch that people would be excited to see . . .
EDIT: Barring two teams from the same conference in the title game would solve the tv problem, but it would also eliminate the pure 1v2 status of the title game, which was the whole point of the BCS to start with . . .
It's a fair question given Jefferson's ineffectiveness, but Lee would have been even more ineffective.Why in the world didn't LSU give their other QB (senior) a chance to change the momentum a bit?Didn't make sense to me
.
He got a bad rep early in his career because LSU started him before he was ready and he got eaten alive ('Pick 6' is not a good nickname for a QB to earn). To his great credit, he stuck with the team and worked through both his own early failures and being jerked around in the depth chart during his whole time at LSU.
But even in his last game, vs. Alabama on Nov 5th, he proved that he just never 'got it' well enough to make decisions with the kind of speed a QB needs vs. a quality defense.
Coupled with the fact that he isn't mobile and that LSU wasn't providing great pocket protection meant that Lee would have been a step down, if that was even really possible . . .
pacesplace
Prince
Good point. I don't know how to compare a close loss to a mediocre team to a big loss to an elite team. Oklahoma State also obviously had the better resume. The only thing Stanford had going for them was that they were undefeated against teams a #2 team should always beat.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I understood that. It was your failure to understand the reason for their pitiful performance that I was addressing . . .
Oh, see, I stopped reading your response when you insinuated I don't actually watch football
I know you're a Bama fan, but you need to stop channeling your inner Saban if you know what I mean.@ummmmm
The is very little chance Lee would/could have been worse than Jefferson... still the dude was the only QB during what? 6 or 7 WINS. In my eyes slinging it around (quickly) was the only chance LSU had against that swarming D.
The is very little chance Lee would/could have been worse than Jefferson... still the dude was the only QB during what? 6 or 7 WINS. In my eyes slinging it around (quickly) was the only chance LSU had against that swarming D.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Flattery will get you nowhere. But I warned you not to take it personally, I heard many in the media making the same mistake:Oh, see, I stopped reading your response when you insinuated I don't actually watch football
LSU in 12 games vs. teams other than Alabama: 491 points
LSU in 2 games vs. Alabama: 9 points
The only reason I can see for anyone to attribute these stats to poor offensive play by LSU is a failure to understand football
EDIT: I suppose there is also the possibility that those making the 'poor offense' claim only watched LSU twice this year, that would explain it maybe . . .
In game 1 vs. Alabama, Lee was 3 of 7 for 24 yards and 2 INTs. I can see the 'Hey, he couldn't be any worse' argument, but I don't think there's any reason to believe he would have provided a spark . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Well, remember they were both seniors and Jefferson had been the starter since the tail end of the '08 season, and he was 23-7 as a starter over that span, so he didn't exactly suck. The only reason Lee (15-4) got to start this year is because Jefferson was suspended after that preseason bar fight, and the coaching staff brought him back in slowly over the course of the year.
If you're saying that Lee 'deserved' a chance to play in the title game because of his commitment to the team and the way he overcame and perservered during his time at LSU then okay, yes, I see your point, he did deserve to get in (this was the only game he didn't play in all year). But putting Lee in would have basically been an act of surrender from the LSU coaching staff, saying "Hey, we know we don't have a chance, so we're going to put Lee in so he can go out fighting in his last game with us . . "
If you're saying that Lee 'deserved' a chance to play in the title game because of his commitment to the team and the way he overcame and perservered during his time at LSU then okay, yes, I see your point, he did deserve to get in (this was the only game he didn't play in all year). But putting Lee in would have basically been an act of surrender from the LSU coaching staff, saying "Hey, we know we don't have a chance, so we're going to put Lee in so he can go out fighting in his last game with us . . "
madviking
north american scum
Kraznaya
Princeps
Flattery will get you nowhere. But I warned you not to take it personally, I heard many in the media making the same mistake:
LSU in 12 games vs. teams other than Alabama: 491 points
LSU in 2 games vs. Alabama: 9 points
The only reason I can see for anyone to attribute these stats to poor offensive play by LSU is a failure to understand football
EDIT: I suppose there is also the possibility that those making the 'poor offense' claim only watched LSU twice this year, that would explain it maybe . . .
yeah okay nobody's buying that one. lsu scores a ton of points off defense and special teams by forcing turnovers and winning field position battles. for example, in the oregon game, lsu gained less than 300 yards and was outgained by the ducks. that's scarcely forty more yards than what they gained against alabama in their first outing against the tide (the tide also outgained lsu in that game, btw). in the sec championship, lsu also gained less than 250 yards against georgia, a team which gave up almost 400 yards to michigan state, which is hardly an offensive juggernaut. georgia also outgained lsu in that game, but unraveled because of turnovers and special team miscues. the way you beat lsu is consistent offense which prevents their defense from capitalizing on your mistakes. lsu's offense is pretty garbage and while fielding a good defense against it is obviously better, no one's shaking in their boots opposite jordan jefferson or jarrett lee.
Yea, I really thought that was obvious. I mean, LSU did not have a first down until the third quarter of the SEC Championship Game. Georgia's defense is good, but it's not that good as we saw in the Capital One Bowl.
Another point Kraz is hinting at is that not that many teams in the SEC have a consistent offense, with a QB who can smartly manage a game. I don't think this is a necessary byproduct of emphasis on defense or anything, there have been plenty of great SEC QB's from the last decade, it's just a fact that should be acknowledged. It's a caveat to current SEC dominance.
Another point Kraz is hinting at is that not that many teams in the SEC have a consistent offense, with a QB who can smartly manage a game. I don't think this is a necessary byproduct of emphasis on defense or anything, there have been plenty of great SEC QB's from the last decade, it's just a fact that should be acknowledged. It's a caveat to current SEC dominance.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Yeah, I see your point. LSU was a pretty terrible team that just got lucky a lot . . .
Similar threads
- Sticky
