I find it harder to agree with pacesplace's points and Azale was a bit funny, but I generally agree with this.
You're just mad Landry Jones is coming back
I find it harder to agree with pacesplace's points and Azale was a bit funny, but I generally agree with this.
Not to mention we discovered Craig James killed five hookers while at SMU.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.
When did this happen!Not to mention we discovered Craig James killed five hookers while at SMU.
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.. . . lsu's incredibly pitiful offense . . .
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 welcomeRumblings that higher ups in the BCS are really going to overhaul the system, at the very least a +1 and possibly more.
Unsurprising with both teams coming from the same region for the first time.
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.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.
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.Yea, they were beat by Iowa State and STILL had a better resume. That's the amazing thing.
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?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.
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 . . .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.
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.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.
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 . . .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.
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.. . . 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). . . .
. . . We all know that the media LOVES the SEC . . .
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 . . .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
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 .
Getting blown out by Oregon wasn't choking? At all?
I understood that. It was your failure to understand the reason for their pitiful performance that I was addressing . . .@umm, LSU's offense was pitiful in the national championship game. That's what I was referring to.
I understood that. It was your failure to understand the reason for their pitiful performance that I was addressing . . .
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 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.
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 . . .