The Glade 4.0

OkSU has over 2000 yards rushing. They are not incapable of running the ball.

And you are kind of missing the point. There is no real way to know who would win in a game between OkSU. People say that LSU is the absolute best team, but that is all guesswork. Some educated guesses, based on stats and opponent comparisons and evaluating matchups. Some completely uneducated guesses from people who've never seen one of the teams play. There are several teams that everyone knew was the best team ever. I'm drawn to OU in '03. People were not just saying that they were the best team that year, they were saying that OU was the best team in the history of college football. KState was given absolutely no shot by anyone. KState won 35-7. Then there is also Michigan and tOSU in '06. Everyone was saying how they were the best two teams and should get a rematch in the championship game. Instead Florida blew out tOSU in the title game, and USC blew out Michigan in the Rose bowl.

Half the fun of the title game is seeing how the best team from one conference does against the best team from another conference. Instead we have a matchup between two teams, where we know the answer of how they match up. We've got tons of same opponent comparisons, and they've actually played each other. That makes this game boring and irrelevant. Are they the best two teams? We'll never know.

Bama 12-0 3rd Q.

OKstU barely beat Stanford.

I'd say this was the correct matchup after all......

Why do we need a National Championship game anyway????

_________________
Raell Kromwell

Mo' money?

Unless things change, I almost expect one day we'll see 1-11 Fla Atl vs 1-11 Indiana in a bowl game. Perhaps it will be the Alpo Bowl, played in a lovely setting of Federal Way, Washington! The trophey would look sorta like.....

Yeah, whatever you say. Stanford's a very good team. OkSU did in fact beat them. OkSU vs LSU would have been an interesting game. Unlike Dullapalooza II game that took place tonight. With the system that we currently have, there is NO way two teams from the same conference should play each other in the national championship. If there were a playoff system, and both teams made it to the final game, I'd have absolutely no issue with it.

But go ahead and dodge the argument and call me dense again *******.

I didn't dodge an argument, nor did I resort to childish name calling, unlike you.

I think the winner of the BCS should have to play the team with the worst record in the NFL. That would be worth watching I think

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The pros would beat 'em handily.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Ummm...you do know the posts are still there right? You called me dense because I thought current BCS rankings were more important for determining how good an opponent was, than the rankings at the time of the game, especially for early season games. Preseason rankings are notoriously unreliable.

And Alabama dominated LSU last night and Oklahoma State barely beat Stanford in OT.

_________________

Yep. And one was a great game. The other was a boring rematch of a boring game.

Ratings for the game were terrible...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/alabama-lsu_produces_lowest_tv.html

Alabama-LSU produces third-lowest TV rating for national championship in BCS era
Published: Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 9:50 AM Updated: Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 7:11 PM
By Jon Solomon -- The Birmingham News
Follow

205


Share
Email
Print

NEW ORLEANS -- Alabama loved a rematch. Not so much of the rest of the country.
It turns out most television viewers didn't want to see Alabama-LSU again, at least not an uncompetitive rematch.
Final ratings for Alabama's 21-0 victory over LSU were the third lowest for a national championship in the 14-year history of the BCS. The All-SEC affair, the first championship pairing teams from the same conference, drew a 14.0 rating on ESPN. The lowest ratings were a 13.7 for USC-Oklahoma in 2005 and a 13.8 for Miami-Nebraska. [Note: Updated with final ratings after initial overnight ratings.]
To put last night's rating in perspective, Alabama-LSU on Nov. 5 drew an 11.5 on CBS. Last night's game was down 8 percent from Auburn's three-point victory over Oregon last year. It was also down from Alabama's last national championship when the Crimson Tide defeated Texas in 2010.
Alabama-LSU capped a disappointing ratings year for the BCS on ESPN. The five BCS games averaged 8.4% of all TV households, down 12 percent from last year.
The Rose, Orange, Sugar and BCS Championship all took ratings hits this season. West Virginia's 70-33 rout of Clemson at the Orange Bowl drew just a 4.5 rating, making it the lowest-rated game in BCS history.
The overnight rating for Alabama-LSU drew the lowest rated for a BCS Championship Game. But last night's game escaped that distinction after all of the markets were reported.
Interestingly, the three lowest overnight ratings for the BCS Championship Game occurred in a year when there was some controversy over the participating teams. The previous low (14.3), in 2002, featured Nebraska, which didn't win its conference. LSU's win over Oklahoma in 2004 featured a Sooners team that didn't win its conference.
Last night, Alabama became the first school since Minnesota in 1936 to win a national title without winning its conference. Alabama fans are understandably rejoicing.
Much of the rest of the country apparently tuned out.

Yeah, I know the posts are still there. Perhaps you should hone up on your reading comprehension and read them again?

I never said you were dense, I asked were you dense. One of two options in that particular argument: 1) You are dense and don't understand why you are wrong, or 2) You are obtuse and refuse to admit you are wrong. I'm leaning for number 2, but I can't be sure.

I never stooped low as you and called you an *******, which is quite telling of your maturity.

Anyways, have at your SEC hate and join the SEC haters of the world. You seem to rejoice in it.

TV ratings are a funny thing. I really miss having all the bowl games on New Years day. I will not understand how they can air the games on a week night when most folks have to work the next day. That is the best way to insure that only the fans of those two schools would watch the game.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

Cute...semantics play? What are you? A retarded butt monkey? Hey, I didn't call you anything, I just asked if you were one.

Your whole argument boiled down to perception is reality. That all fine an dandy. Alabama beat the #12 team in the nation Florida. Bully for them. Sure, Florida ended the regular season 6-6, but that should play no part whatsoever in determining how good Alabama's opponents were. They played an elite, top-15 team.

I'm all for taking into account injuries and outside events, such that a tea that was an elite team when you play them ends up with a poor record because they lost half their team for some reason or other. At the end of the season you evaluate the season of each opponent as a whole. Then you can determine if a team was vastly overranked in the preseason, or if other factors came into play. With Florida the answer is pretty obvious.

Horrible thread. Stop being terrible, all of you.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think this was one of the most boring football games I've ever seen, and have no idea how I sat through three quarters of it.

Their defenses may be good, but neither of their offenses are. Imo the reason they were both able to score so many points is because of their defenses. When your offense spends so much time on the field, you better score a lot of points.

LSU's defense looked fairly crappy until Alabama would push past the 50. Against a really good balanced offense I think they would have been torn to shreds. There's probably a dozen teams that would have put 30 points on the board against that defense.

Alabama's defense looked really good, but I think it was more due to absolutely terrible play calling on LSU's side, as well as Jefferson looking like a lost 12 year old all night. He shouldn't have played in the second half at all. There were also some pretty massive holes in Alabama's secondary that a good passing quarter back would have been able to take advantage of. I think a good passing offense would have put 30+ points up on them.

But that's sort of what happens after eight weeks off or whatever it was. Everyone gets a little rusty and out of sorts when you have that long off. My biggest problem with bowl season (besides the terrible BCS crap) is that it's ridiculously long. January 1st should be the championship game, just like it used to be, no later.



The problem with college football is that it matters when you beat a team (or lose) instead of how good they actually turned out to be. Yeah Florida turned out to be not so great, and Alabama shouldn't get as many points for beating them. Florida obviously didn't deserve that #12 ranking. Unfortunately at the time they had it, and that's really all that matters. This also goes the other way though, beating a team early in the year that turns out to be awesome is forgotten as well.

It's the same thing with loses. If you're going to lose a game, you have to lose it in the first few games of the year. Heaven help you if it's in the last few, you just blew a chance at anything.

A simple 12 (or 16 if you'd prefer) team tourney would clean this up all nicely. Have the first round the week after conference championships, and it'll all be over by the time the bowl games are over now, easily.

You know ...

My brother is a Division 1 NCAA Offensive Coordinator; so, I'm just going to point out that I have this fight every year about pretty much every football game that gets played in the NCAA, Aegnor. My brother is a huge proponent of powerhouse offenses and pass-heavy football. Well, to quote Don Shula, "Defense wins championships." Yes, Alabama beat LSU; yes, that was actually what probably should have happened the first time; no, it wasn't boring. LSU and Alabama had the two best defenses in the NCAA this year. They both lost once game; they traded with each other.

But, eh, you're just mad because the SEC continues to dominate the BCS. Oklahoma State couldn't beat either team that showed up Monday night, because all of this "LSU and Alabama have bad offenses" crap is nonsense. They have competent offenses; they have amazing defenses. And guess who won the championship?

_________________

Tell this to the Steelers after they were clobbered by the Broncos. And yes, I say clobbered, because the only reason it was a game is because of Denver's inability to not turn the ball over.

I've always disliked this saying, because it's just not true. It's really only part of the story. When there's parity between teams, the better team usually wins, not the better defense. Division 1 sports just has too many teams for that parity to exist for the most part, and that is why defenses are so important in college.

The SEC is a defensive conference, which is why there always seems to be a couple great defenses. They don't often play good to great offenses, because frankly, those are in short supply in their conference. Was there a single great offense in the SEC this year? I don't know of one.

Defense wins championships depends on the sport and league. The NFL has slanted the rules so far to the passing game that defenses in their current iteration are irrelevant. The Packers and Patriots could care less if they give up 31 points a game so long as they score 32 or more.

_________________

In Pittsburgh's defense ... the injury report had 4 or 5 starting defensive backs out on Sunday. It was a bad, bad week for the Steelers before practice was over.

_________________

So it's ok to claim that Bama's win over Florida (who was ranked #12 at the time, and who also lost several starters, including the quarterback, to injuries that game, AND who played Bama & LSU back to back, followed by Auburn and Gerogia) was irrelevant. But somehow, OSU's loss to Iowa State (who also went 6-6) is okay. Yes, I can see the argument about the plane crash, but you then go on to defend Iowa State, and say how they have a history of knocking off teams. Well, I hate to break it to you, but Florida has a very recent history of winning national championships, yet you want to discredit Bama for having to play them, and say that Bama's schedule is soft. WTF??

Also, how the hell do you figure ISU would destroy Vandy? The only common opponent they had was UConn, which they both beat. Vandy beat them by 3 and ISU beat them by 4. How does that translate into ISU 'destroying' Vandy? I mean, I agree, Vandy's not a very good team, but I seriously don't see how both teams beating the same opponent by almost the exact same amount of points translates into one team being capable of destroying the other. That is some seriously flawed logic.

And BTW, how did Kansas State do against the SEC and Arkansas? Oh that's right, they lost by 13 to an SEC team that obviously had no business being ranked so high because of SEC media bias.

_________________
"I Live, I Love, I Slay, and I Am Content."
- Conan the Barbarian

You seem to have some sort of anger problems......

Your statements were incorrect, as pointed out by others as well. It isn't perception. You stated a fact that was incorrect. You fail to admit that, so you are either dense or obtuse. Your choice.

If that is an insult, sorry. I wouldn't however stoop to calling you an *******, which is childish and serves no purpose.