OT - I feel as if the SEC owes us an apology

[sinkhole]

A "pretty good" SC team smoked Clemson and Nebraska once the SEC blood bath was over.

 

[nomar]

That's what everyone said about the Florida-OSU game. We should just see Michigan-OSU play again because they each would have wrecked Florida. Didn't work out that way.

OSU lost to Iowa State in 2OT. But they won the most difficult conference in the country this past year. Alabama is impressive. What's sad is that my criticisms of the system will inevitably be taken as a slight against them. They were great. But given what we knew, the only argument for an LSU-Alabama re-match was the ESPN-fueled SEC lovefest.

This year, the SEC had 3 very good teams (LSU, Alabama, Arkansas), 2 pretty good teams (Georgia, SC), and a bunch of crap. In the regular season round robin among the best teams, LSU went 2-0 (1 home, 1 road). Alabama went 1-1 (2 home). Arkansas went 2-0 (2 road). Those are the facts. Alabama lost to LSU. You can't tell me that every game matters if they then play again for the title, and when they go 1-1 against LSU they are somehow the consensus champions.

LSU should have played OSU. Maybe they would have won; maybe they would have lost. But in the system that claims every game counts, OSU should have gotten a shot. Both LSU and OSU had earned it by winning their conference.

My response to that is that Oklahoma State shouldn't have lost to a crap team, and that Alabama's loss to LSU was a million times more impressive than OSU's loss to ISU. Alabama outplayed LSU twice this season. They're the rightful national champs.

The regular season does count. Alabama's loss would have doomed them had everyone else not spit the bit. And you know what, if they hadn't made the BCS title game, it would have been a travesty, since in my view they were the best team in football.

I don't like the BCS because you just never do know who's the best, and everyone's got an argument. I think the plus-1 format would really put that to bed.

 

[jfuchs91]

Not to take anything away from Alabama, because they played great and very well may be the best team in college football. But, in a sport that stresses the regular season so much, I don't think it's right that a team that didn't even win its own division within its conference should have the right to play for the national title.

The BCS may have picked the best teams to play for the title. But given the situation around the two teams playing in the game, it just adds to the joke that is the BCS system.

I do not follow college football very closely and refuse to do so until they make the common sense move and switch to some sort of playoff system. Simple as that.

 

[Walker11]

I would have liked to have seen OK St. or Stanford because it would have been a much better game even though they likely would have lost. OTOH, Bama clearly showed they are #1. They did dominate a lot of the first game as well but their kicking was putrid.

The one point I'd like to make is that it is no sure thing LSU would have manhandled Stanford or Ok. St. like everyone is saying. Oregons loss is the main evidence that a non-SEC team would get crushed but Oregon played like absolute , losing 3 fumbles, including 2 crucial ones by DeAnthony Thomas, who was playing in his first game in college. It was more about Oregon shooting themselves in the foot than LSU imposing their will.

 

[Fishy]

Bama gave up 9 TDs this whole year, Clemson gave up 9 in their bowl game. If you can not enjoy watching defense like that last night you do not like football.

You win the Captain Cliche hat for today. Yay, you!

That wasn't good football by any stretch of imagination.

Styles make fights and over eight quarters, it's very clear that these two teams will not play anything like an entertaining football game. The first game was interesting and a defensive clinic - last night was just a cluster duck*.

LSU certainly did not play great defense, not by any stretch of the imagination. They gave up nearly four hundred yards and if not for Alabama being both sloppy and overly conservative, they might have hung three or four more touchdowns on LSU. They only punted once all night, but they had to settle for seven field goals attempts.

And Jordan Jefferson... what was Miles thinking. It was a dominant defensive performance by Bama, but for the supposed top-rated team in the country to tally five first downs and to seem perfectly happy to stick with a game plan that didn't work for even a single drive, egad. Saban just freaking owned Miles last night.

Bad coaching, bad football, bad game.

 

[champs99and04]

Of all the fan bases to complain, ours should be the last one.

And I don't get the complaints about the matchup. Alabama was the best team in the nation. And they just beat the team ranked #1, who'd beat them earlier. I'm sorry it wasn't an exciting matchup, but that's what had to happen.

I'm no BCS defender. I think the BCS is atrocious. I'm definitely in favor of the plus-one matchup or an 8-team playoff. But this year it got it right.

Alabama would have destroyed Oregon, Oklahoma State, Stanford, USC, or any other team it could have faced. Not a question in my mind.

This is like when Ohio State annihilated Duke last month and some clown here argued that the win wasn't impressive because Duke apparently wasn't good. LSU was the undisputed #1 team in the country and they were made to look absolutely incompetent by Alabama's defense. That means Alabama is really great!

I've got no dog in this fight. I just think it's really amazing how UConn fans could fail to give credit to an incredible defensive performance.

Great defenses they were, but the two offenses (especially LSU's) were incompetent at best. LSU's offense was good most of the season, but when you play a defense like Alabama, your offense better have some semblance of a forward passing game. A team like Oklahoma State or Stanford could have at least put a couple touchdowns on the board IMO. These two teams may have been the best, and probably were, but Alabama did not earn their way to the title game IMO. Hell, they didn't even win their own conference.

We watch sports for great matchups, and Oklahoma State's offense against one of those defenses would have been a great matchup. Watching an extremely limited offense go up against that D was like watching paint dry though.

Also, it has always been my belief that a championship game featuring the top two teams should usually end up combining between 25-50 points. When the total points exceeds or does not reach either of those totals, it is obvious that one of the units is overmatched, which last night, happened to be LSU's offense. To have a unit that is overmatched on either side of the ball tells me you don't have a great team. If a great defense completely shuts a great offense down, then that offense isn't so great IMO, with the point being, that any great offense is capable of moving the ball on anybody. Even when the Ravens and Steelers get together (probably the two best defenses in the NFL for the last two years) the score is usually around 16-13 or 20-17. Why? Because those two teams have pros on the offensive side of the ball. Last night it was clear, with the exception of Richardson, that neither team had a playmaker who could threaten the defense, and that makes for boring football.

 

[seanmc94]

Great defenses they were, but the two offenses (especially LSU's) were incompetent at best. LSU's offense was good most of the season, but when you play a defense like Alabama, your offense better have some semblance of a forward passing game. A team like Oklahoma State or Stanford could have at least put a couple touchdowns on the board IMO. These two teams may have been the best, and probably were, but Alabama did not earn their way to the title game IMO. Hell, they didn't even win their own conference.

We watch sports for great matchups, and Oklahoma State's offense against one of those defenses would have been a great matchup. Watching an extremely limited offense go up against that D was like watching paint dry though.

Also, it has always been my belief that a championship game featuring the top two teams should usually end up combining between 25-50 points. When the total points exceeds or does not reach either of those totals, it is obvious that one of the units is overmatched, which last night, happened to be LSU's offense. To have a unit that is overmatched on either side of the ball tells me you don't have a great team. If a great defense completely shuts a great offense down, then that offense isn't so great IMO, with the point being, that any great offense is capable of moving the ball on anybody. Even when the Ravens and Steelers get together (probably the two best defenses in the NFL for the last two years) the score is usually around 16-13 or 20-17. Why? Because those two teams have pros on the offensive side of the ball. Last night it was clear, with the exception of Richardson, that neither team had a playmaker who could threaten the defense, and that makes for boring football.

OSU had a chance to make their case on the field. Run Stanford and make an argument. Instead, they got all they wanted and should have lost the game. OSU played NOBODY. Paper conference. Computers dont know jack. Watch the SEC and look at history. Best athletes play in the SEC. Scary talent.

 

[alexrgct]

OSU had a chance to make their case on the field. Run Stanford and make an argument. Instead, they got all they wanted and should have lost the game. OSU played NOBODY. Paper conference. Computers dont know jack. Watch the SEC and look at history. Best athletes play in the SEC. Scary talent.

The Big XII is hardly a paper conference. Computers know a hell of a lot more than human voters because they're systematic about taking all data inputs and doing something with them. Human voters are subject to all sorts of biases: coaching tree/good ol' boy networks, regional affiliations, and plain old laziness. I think Billingsley sucks, but I'd take the other five computer polls over the human pollsters any day of the week.

As far as Bama goes, they actually played a pretty soft schedule. Penn State turned out to be a dud, as did Florida. They didn't have to play Georgia or USCe in interdivisional play.

I hope one day that we'll see a playoff. Last night's ratings were relatively poor, which is a good first step.

 

[nomar]

Great defenses they were, but the two offenses (especially LSU's) were incompetent at best. LSU's offense was good most of the season, but when you play a defense like Alabama, your offense better have some semblance of a forward passing game. A team like Oklahoma State or Stanford could have at least put a couple touchdowns on the board IMO. These two teams may have been the best, and probably were, but Alabama did not earn their way to the title game IMO. Hell, they didn't even win their own conference.

We watch sports for great matchups, and Oklahoma State's offense against one of those defenses would have been a great matchup. Watching an extremely limited offense go up against that D was like watching paint dry though.

Also, it has always been my belief that a championship game featuring the top two teams should usually end up combining between 25-50 points. When the total points exceeds or does not reach either of those totals, it is obvious that one of the units is overmatched, which last night, happened to be LSU's offense. To have a unit that is overmatched on either side of the ball tells me you don't have a great team. If a great defense completely shuts a great offense down, then that offense isn't so great IMO, with the point being, that any great offense is capable of moving the ball on anybody. Even when the Ravens and Steelers get together (probably the two best defenses in the NFL for the last two years) the score is usually around 16-13 or 20-17. Why? Because those two teams have pros on the offensive side of the ball. Last night it was clear, with the exception of Richardson, that neither team had a playmaker who could threaten the defense, and that makes for boring football.

It was not a "good game" by any stretch. Alabama dominated them. They marched up and down the field on offense (but were incompetent in terms of scoring TDs) and held LSU to NINETY TWO yards. Not a good game.

But Alabama WAS good. And they were the team that "shouldn't" have made it, according to some.

I just think people here are pissed that they wasted 3 hours on an incredibly boring and one-sided game. I guess my point is that just because it would have been more fun to watch LSU/Okie St, that doesn't mean it's what should have happened. If OSU didn't crap the bed versus Iowa State, we would have seen that. But they did.

The plus-1 format would really help. The UConn/Butler game was ugly, but nobody said those teams didn't deserve to be there, because they had beaten everyone in their path. If LSU had knocked off one great team and Bama had knocked off another, nobody (or very few people) would have said that the title game shouldn't have involved those two teams.

 

[Fishy]

I have to admit to being uncomfortable with the thought of two SEC teams playing for the national championship.

But what are you gonna do?

Alabama lost a game at the right time to the right team and Boise, Okie State and Stanford didn't.

 

[Hoophound]

The Uconn/Butler game is unfairly criticized. The rims were shockingly tight. We played good d but the rims are what ruined the game. Any talking head (see Bill Walton) that couldn't see that and comment on it during the game is unqualified for the job.

 

[WillB4]

Blazing Saddles is on AMC and you'r watching re-runs on ESPN.

You deserve what you get.

And Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad World was on TMC.

 

[seanmc94]

tight rims? now i've heard everything.

 

[Hoophound]

Watch the game again. If you have played bball it's obvious the way the ball reacts to the rim all game long. Players commented on it too.

 

[Hoophound]

Actually, google it. I just did and it yields more results than expected. At least some people noticed it. There was about one "shooter's bounce" in that whole game.

 

[champs99and04]

It was not a "good game" by any stretch. Alabama dominated them. They marched up and down the field on offense (but were incompetent in terms of scoring TDs) and held LSU to NINETY TWO yards. Not a good game.

But Alabama WAS good. And they were the team that "shouldn't" have made it, according to some.

I just think people here are pissed that they wasted 3 hours on an incredibly boring and one-sided game. I guess my point is that just because it would have been more fun to watch LSU/Okie St, that doesn't mean it's what should have happened. If OSU didn't crap the bed versus Iowa State, we would have seen that. But they did.

The plus-1 format would really help. The UConn/Butler game was ugly, but nobody said those teams didn't deserve to be there, because they had beaten everyone in their path. If LSU had knocked off one great team and Bama had knocked off another, nobody (or very few people) would have said that the title game shouldn't have involved those two teams.

Yeah, it was pretty clear watching last night just how good Alabama is. Their defense has to be considered one of the best of all-time at this point, and on a neutral field, they probably beat anybody in the country. But I still do not think they deserved to be in the title game. The question isn't best team, but most deserving team, and I think Oklahoma State had the better resume. The loss to Iowa State looks pretty ugly, but Alabama beat one team in the regular season that ended up finishing in the top 25. Facts are, their schedule wasn't all that impressive, and although they dominated each one of those games, Oklahoma State had to win against Baylor (by 40), @ Texas, Texas A&M, @ Missouri, Kansas State, and Oklahoma (in the most convincing way possible, while Alabama was sitting out the SEC championship game).

Oklahoma State's loss was obviously worse than Alabama's, but I do think it should matter a little bit that such a tragedy occured on the day of the game. How much it effected them, we will never know, but those were not usual circumstances by any means. Top to bottom, the Big 12 was better than the SEC. The SEC had more great teams, but from start to finish, I have to give the nod to Oklahoma State, not to mention, they won their own *king conference.

 

[Buzzyboy]

First game of the year, on a neutral site, LSU beat Oregon.

But they also beat Alabama in AL.

They never played OSU.

Sorry, but the fact that Alabama won doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have had a rematch. You make a mockery of the idea that every game counts.

 

[Buzzyboy]

First game of the year, on a neutral site, LSU beat Oregon.

But they also beat Alabama in AL.

They never played OSU.

Sorry, but the fact that Alabama won doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have had a rematch. You make a mockery of the idea that every game counts.

 

[Buzzyboy]

I find it totally amazing that people hold Oklahoma State in such high stead. They have absolutely one of the worst defenses in the history of mankind and lost to a team that ended up the season with a losing record. Mighty UConn also lost to this team but it wasn't a blowout by any means. OSU barely beat Kansas State (52-45), beat a mediocre Texas team 38-26, Kansas 30-29 and beat mighty Lousiana-Lafayette (do they have a football team) during the regular season. OSU is a really good offensive team that would never be on the field against Alabama. The game would probably be a 45-14 laugher, at best.

 

[seanmc94]

Yeah, it was pretty clear watching last night just how good Alabama is. Their defense has to be considered one of the best of all-time at this point, and on a neutral field, they probably beat anybody in the country. But I still do not think they deserved to be in the title game. The question isn't best team, but most deserving team, and I think Oklahoma State had the better resume. The loss to Iowa State looks pretty ugly, but Alabama beat one team in the regular season that ended up finishing in the top 25. Facts are, their schedule wasn't all that impressive, and although they dominated each one of those games, Oklahoma State had to win against Baylor (by 40), @ Texas, Texas A&M, @ Missouri, Kansas State, and Oklahoma (in the most convincing way possible, while Alabama was sitting out the SEC championship game).

Oklahoma State's loss was obviously worse than Alabama's, but I do think it should matter a little bit that such a tragedy occured on the day of the game. How much it effected them, we will never know, but those were not usual circumstances by any means. Top to bottom, the Big 12 was better than the SEC. The SEC had more great teams, but from start to finish, I have to give the nod to Oklahoma State, not to mention, they won their own *king conference.

Texas was horrible this year. A&M as well. Mizzou; PU. Oklahoma lost their top RB and AA WR before Bedlam. K State got waxed by Arky; who was an afterthought in the SEC.

 

[tzznandrew]

Look. The problem with college football is this: you can say "Alabama would have killed OSU on a neutral field in a laugher," but we'll never know. And considering how terrible Alabama's schedule was, and how they only really played good teams in their league (but, if we are generous and say there were five very good teams in the SEC, they only played 2 of the possible 4, both on their home field), it's all speculation.

And we've seen before that "This team would have killed that team" doesn't actually happen all the time.

Think Penn State Miami in the 80s; think USC-Texas (everyone thought USC would win); think Boise v. Oklahoma; Florida v. Ohio State. Without enough games to play sufficient OOC games, we just can't accurately assess how good a team is. And that's why having two teams from the SEC West is a joke: we can suspect these two teams were the best, but we can never know.

 

[tzznandrew]

Texas was horrible this year. A&M as well. Mizzou; PU. Oklahoma lost their top RB and AA WR before Bedlam. K State got waxed by Arky; who was an afterthought in the SEC.

Arkansas was hardly an afterthought. They finished in the top 5-6 nationally.

Alabama beat a paper-tiger Penn State; they beat Arkansas at home; they beat a bunch of nobodies in the SEC West and didn't play Georgia or South Carolina. They're schedule was a joke.

At least, with OSU, there were more conference games so there weren't as many crap teams on it. Alabama had a better loss, and a win (Arkansas) better than any of OSU, but OSU had the next 5 good wins (Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, KState, and perhaps Mizzou) before Alabama's win at Auburn registers.

Whatever, we can argue all we want--we're not going to change each other's mind. Some sort of tournament would be best. It won't happen, but I'd like to see them use the BCS and select 16 teams: every conference winner, and then the next highest ranked BCS teams. Seed by BCS ranking. Have round one at the home site of the higher ranked team.

Alabama would clearly be in, and have likely played OSU at a neutral site. If it ended up LSU-Bama in the title game: great. Most people don't begrudge the BE for getting 3 out of 4 in the Final Four--but they would have if the NCAA selected 3 of 4.

 

[champs99and04]

If the two best teams are from the SEC and earn their way to the title game, great. But under the current system it is completely unfair to have a non-conference winner in the title game, regardless of how dominant the SEC has been. The BCS is an embarassment.