Musings on New Years Day Bowls
by Poseur on Jan 3, 2012 1:40 PM CST
in Football
Email
Print
I spent the New Years holiday holed up at Poseur HQ, watching lots of football. The question is, did I learn anything? Well, I learned that Cheetos are delicious, but only in small quantities. Other than that, I tried to glean some meaning from the games themselves. Here are my takeaways.
OKLAHOMA ST GOT SCREWED
The Cowpokes can't play defense, but they can play offense. As college football fans, we're being robbed of two contrasting styles, not to mention a Mo Claiborne v. Justin Blackmon matchup. Two of the best players at their position going head to head? Who wants to see that?
But worse than that, Okie St. now has five wins against teams that finished in the top 25 in the BCS final standings, and two in the top ten. Only LSU has as many wins over top 25 teams as OSU. Additionally, Okie St won the Big 12, which you might have noticed, has had a superb bowl season. OSU has a great resume, and they lost a spot in the title game to team that has beaten two teams in the final top 25 of the BCS poll. And one of those was Penn St, who looked downright awful against Houston. It's one thing to get passed over by a team with a slightly worse resume, but the resumes were not close. Oklahama State's accomplishments tower over Alabama's this season, and the only reason they don't get a shot is because, well, they are Okie St and Bama is Bama.
The stunning injustice of it just struck me last night. I've been against Bama in the title game, as they already lost to LSU at home, but I've also taken the attitude of we'll play whoever they tell us to play. I still do. I'm not afraid of Alabama. But it is not right they are playing in this game without having to prove their worth over the course of the season. OSU lost in the polls due to recency of their loss and historical reputation. Which are both awful factors. LSU should be playing OSU, not because I think they are the "easier" opponent, but because they are the right opponent who actually earned it on the field. Alabama getting a chance to win the BCS title by beating only three top 25 teams, and failing to win its conference or division, is an affront to the concept of fairness.
But life's not fair. It is what it is. Some teams get to take the easy road, and some teams take the hard road and still don't get rewarded. And it's not like Alabama is a bad team, they clearly have the ability to win the title game, considering the last game was tied after 60 minutes. It's just a shame they have been given the opportunity when they don't have the resume to back it up.
PLAYING FOR A FIELD GOAL IS STUPID
Every person who has ever criticized Les Miles for the 2007 Auburn game should be locked in a room and forced to watch the Outback and Fiesta Bowls, Clockwork Orange style. Both coaches decided to play for a long field goal instead of trying to win the game with a touchdown, and both got predictably burnt by these decisions designed to reduce criticism but not actually win the game.
Richt's decision was, by far, the worst of the two. Playing for a field goal from the 20-yard line when the clock isn't even a factor is just a terrible decision. Richt, by choice, put the game on the leg of a kicker who had missed seven field goal attempts this season. Additionally, he extended the kick to 42 yards by giving the five yards back by running to the middle of the field. Get this: college kickers are unreliable. Especially from 35 yards and beyond.
But that doesn't let Stanford off the hook. Oklahoma St called timeout with 52 seconds left, and the ball on the 25. Stanford would only run two more offensive plays, both runs, and one not even designed to gain yards. I hate to point out that Andrew Luck plays for Stanford, and was carving up the Cowboys "defense" at will all game. Stanford decided that it was better to rely on a freshman kicker than a senior quarterback who is going to be the #1 pick in the draft. It was a mind-boggingly terrible decision, but of course, the blame today is not on the coach, but the kicker. Well, the blame lies on David Shaw's shoulders.
TIME TO GET NEW BOWL TIE INS
The traditional slugfest between the SEC and the Big Ten on New Years is a lot of fun, but it has become rather one-sided. It's not even as much fun to chant SEC! SEC! at the Big Ten homers. The reason for this is that we're no longer playing for conference supremacy. I hate to say it, but the Big 12 has stepped up its game and taken the role as the challenger for best conference.
Sure, we will have the Cotton Bowl, but another Big 12-SEC game wouldn't be a bad idea. Don't get rid of the Big Ten matchups, but let's include the Big 12 in this battle for supremacy. They have earned it, and their absence on New Years was keenly felt.
THE ROSE BOWL IS STILL COOL
I find the Rose Bowl's general arrogance to be a bit off putting, but there's something right about the Big Ten and Pac-10, er, Pac-12 playing in the Grandaddy of Them All. It was a fun game between two really good teams, which is exactly what a BCS bowl should be. Just a fun game to watch.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS RUN BY MORONS
However, I spent the first half of the Rose Bowl watching the Winter Classic. I actually was flipping to the game during the Outback Bowl's many overtimes as well. I got to see a cool venue, snow, someone mocking Jaomir Jagr, a better musical act between periods than the Super Bowl has for its halftime, some genuine hate, and a game that came down to a penalty shot in the final minute. In short, it was an awesome game and even better TV.
And it only exists because college football ceded New Years Day. New Years should be college football's showcase day, belonging solely to them. But by moving so many of the best games off of the day itself, and playing all of the bowls early in the day to give no competition to the games airing, college football's powers that be allowed hockey to move in on its big day. College football is so incompetently led, it was just outsmarted by Gary Bettman.
JANUARY NINTH IS A LONG WAY OFF
We still have a week until LSU and Alabama play. That's a long wait, and completely removed from the New Years holiday. Given that many of the ESPN crews spent their time bad mouthing the game after the promos, I'm curious how many people are going to watch outside of our own fanatical fanbases. But it does seem like they are trying to squeeze all possible juice from the game, which is a shame.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Like the article
but disagree on the Rose Bowl – that game was as bad as the Baylor game. Its painful for me to watch two teams play with an “NFL Play Action Football!” defense. People call defensive games boring while to me watching that stuff is like watching practice against air – what’s the point?
It was fun
I liked the Baylor-UW game as well. If a game is not going to matter, and bowl games are just exhibitions, they might as well be fun. I like both defensive battles and offensive slugfests (though my favorite is the “contrasting styles” game). Watching the Ducks and Badgers trade blows was a blast, and also, the defenses stiffened in the second half. It was 28-28 at the break.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
Completely agree
I love watching offenses dual other offenses, and Defenses dual other defenses.
Obviously strength vs strength is usually the best matchup, and my favorite as well, but watching the Rose bowl, Fiesta bowl and alamo bowl were all awesome.
Alabama fans, ask yourself this question: Is this who you want representing your University and your fanbase?
"Been saying it for six f**king years now...That g**damn hurricane just wasn’t big enough." - Outsidethesidelines, Manager, RollBamaRoll.com
http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2011/12/3/2607240/sec-championship-game-open-thread#
outsidethesidelines@gmail.com
I am definitely sick
of the notion that there is only one correct or entertaining way to play football. This goes for old school purists who hate high scoring games and the younger crowd that dismisses low scoring games. Any close, competitive game between good teams is fine in my book. Different games have different personalities. I think there is definitely some anti-SEC backlash in the LSU/Bama game was boring crowd, but the guys (like every Alabama fan) who poopoo Okie State cause all their games are high scoring are making the same mistake.
I always keep a supply of alcohol handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy.
I agree entirely
But I think that games at both ends of the spectrum — 9-6 and 67-56 — leave something to be desired.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Jan 4, 2012 3:17 PM CST up reply actions
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course
but it seems I wasn’t alone on this one! :P Short version – this could have been the lowest rated Rose Bowl ever ( 9.9 overnight, projected 9.1-9.8 finish, with previous low being a 10.8 in 1989 ).
Personally speaking, I want good football. Nothing about a track meet looks like good football to me.
Good article, but no more amount of data or talking points is going to make you more right.
Bama doesn’t deserve to be in the game. Period. Everyone with a brain knows this.
Are they the second best team? Maybe.
But Okie State might be the best. And we will never know.
Alabama fans, ask yourself this question: Is this who you want representing your University and your fanbase?
"Been saying it for six f**king years now...That g**damn hurricane just wasn’t big enough." - Outsidethesidelines, Manager, RollBamaRoll.com
http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2011/12/3/2607240/sec-championship-game-open-thread#
outsidethesidelines@gmail.com
I have to disagree
I do not like bama. I believe either bamo or LSU would absolutely roll Okie State. OSU’s lack of run game combined w/ their poor D would get them killed against a team like bama or LSU that could just run the ball all day and play defense.
I actually thought Stanford was the better team in that game, but OSU got lucky throughout the game. I call it luck, b/c it was not typical for Stanford to not score on that last drive.
PLAYING FOR A FIELD GOAL IS STUPID
Yes, yes, and yes. That’s exactly what I was thinking when Richt was running to the middle. Please, can someone on ESPN give Miles some credit? And maybe, just maybe, notice that Saban made the same mistake against LSU in the regular season.
Very disappointed in you, Bama is #2 and should be
Big fan of the blog, so I’m very disappointed in your bizarrely off-base (and factually incorrect) bashing of Bama’s spot.
First of all, Bama beat Arkansas, Penn State and Auburn, all of whom finished in the final BCS Top 25. That’s 3 teams, not the 2 you claimed.
Second of all, citing the “top 25 teams beaten” rather than the more telling “top 25 teams played” is an embarrassing spin of the facts. The bottom line is this: Bama played 4 top 25 teams, Ok. St. played 4 top 25 teams; Bama played 2 top 6 teams, OSU played zero teams in the top 7; Bama finished with 1 loss, OSU finished with 1 loss. Harping on the “top 25 teams beaten” is merely a convenient way of covering up the fact that the Cowboys’ 1 loss was to a horrible Iowa State team while Bama’s 1 loss was to a team 7 spots higher than anyone OSU faced all year. There are 7 teams in te country that (by ranking) should beat Kansas State (OSU’s beat win). One of those is Arkansas, who Bama destroyed by 24.
I don’t believe the BCS should be about compelling matchups or entertaining football or (as you seem to think) beating up on lesser teams (except for the one that beat you). But it doesn’t matter what you or I think it should be about, because what it is about is the two best teams. And over the course of the season, Bama put together a better resume for that than OSU did. It was close, but Bama’s was better. At least when you look at it objectively and consider the real facts.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
by King Joey on Jan 3, 2012 3:24 PM CST via iPhone app reply actions
Sorry...
I looked at the wrong top 25. Auburn was not in the Coaches final top 25, nor the AP, nor the Harris. You’re right, I used the wrong poll. They are #25 in the BCS despite not being in any of the top 25 human polls. PSU is #22. So, Bama’s #2 and #3 wins are borderline top 25 teams, and only one is likely to be ranked after the bowls. PSU will not be ranked.
The point is this: Bama has one top tier win and one or two more good wins. Okie St has now beaten #4, 8, 12, 14, and 18. Many of those teams won their bowl game (KSU’s is pending). OSU’s fifth best win is better than Alabama’s second best win. The resumes are not comparable. Sorry, they just aren’t.
Focusing on the loss is way to obfuscate people from who a team actually beat. And Alabama hasn’t really beaten anyone, save Arkansas. I hate ranking teams by their loss. It’s idiotic. We should rank teams by their WINS. And Okie St’s wins dwarf Alabama’s.
The BCS’ mission statement clearly states interesting match ups are the point for the other BCS bowls. I’m not saying the contrasting styles should be the reason for choosing Okie St, just that it would be a wonderful bonus:
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game showcase of college football. It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games.
(bolding is mine)
And it’s not about the two “best” teams. That’s ephemeral and impossible to tell. OSU and Bama didn’t play and the only way to determine who is the best is who has the best resume. And Okie St’s resume is better. Not barely better, it’s a lot better. It’s about matching the two “top rated” teams — and the reason Bama is rated higher is its name recognition.
Over the course of the season, I don’t see how one can objectively claim Bama has the better resume.Using the “top 7” was such an arbitrary cutoff designed to exclude KSU that it shows you aren’t trying to make a fair case at all. I honestly don’t have a dog in the hunt – we’ll play whoever. I just think the team we are playing, even if they win, will have an inferior resume to both us and OSU. And that’s not fair. But as my mom says, life isn’t fair. Alabama will be the champs if they win, even if they will only have three wins over top 25 teams.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
Guess I just look at football differently
The top 7 wasn’t arbitrary. It was specifically delineating between the level of
competition of OSU’s toughest opponent (#8) and Alabama’s TWO toughest opponents
(#1 & #6). I was always taught that a team’s resume was based on their schedule
and their record. Bama was 11-1 with 4 top 25 teams, 2 top 10 teams, and 1 #1
team. OSU was 11-1 with 4 top 25 teams, 1 top 10 team, and no top 5 teams.
When the schedules and records are comparable (as these obviously are), then
other factors like quality of win and quality of loss come into play. Bama’s
best win was by 24 over #6 Arkansas. OSU’s best win was by 7 over #8 Kansas State. OSU’s loss was to unranked Iowa State. Bama’s loss was to #1 LSU.
So by the way I was taught teams earn their way — playing tough opponents and putting up impressive records against them — it shakes out this way:
1) schedules — slight edge Bama, at worst a wash
2) records — tie
3) most impressive win — Bama
4) most unimpressive loss — OSU
The only analysis that can come out favoring OSU is to look at wins vs. top 25 teams, and ignore the number of top 10, top 5, (and every subset therein, including top 1) opponents played, and ignoring unranked opponents lost to. That seems a peculiar set of factors to utilize to the exclusion of all others, and oddly suited to achieve a particular result in this specific circumstance.
I would also point this out: your analysis is weighing heavily on OSU’s better record vs. top 25 teams, a record that was attained while not playing as high caliber competition as Bama did. I don’t think I have to remind you how often LSU fans have argued in favor of the Tigers in comparisons to teams with better records against worse competition. Bama was 3-1 vs. top 25 teams, 1-1 vs. top 10 teams, 0-1 vs. top 5 teams. OSU was 4-0 vs. top 25 teams, 1-0 vs. top 10 teams, and DID NOT COMPETE against any top 5 teams. And, yes, Bama was also 8-0 vs. unranked teams, while OSU was 7-1 vs. unranked teams. And, yes, that should be a factor.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
Scheudles a wash?
I don’t see how anyone could believe that. Okie St’s schedule is clearly stronger. Alabama has the better win, but not by leaps and bounds. Arkansas is ranked #6, KSU is ranked #8. Big deal. Those wins are roughly equivalent as I don’t view the BCS as a precise rating tool.
Once again, Bama has wins over #6, 22, and 25.
OSU has wins over #8, 12, 14, and 18 (and now has beaten #4).
I don’t see how anyone could objectively look at those quality wins and rate Bama’s as better. OSU has more of them, and they are all better save one. And Bama’s win over #6 isn’t much better than #8. Since the bowls started, #22 lost badly and #12, 14, and 18 all won.
OSU also has a conference title, which matters. So OSU has a far better resume. Yes, Bama has a better loss. It’s Bama’s best win, and what they hang their hat on. I’d use loss if I thought it was a tie or even close, but I don’t think it is.Also, we’re forgetting OSU lost on a disputed call. That FG might have been good. OSU’s resume blows Bama’s away (especially if we are given the ability to look at what has happened since the selection). OSU got hosed.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
Schedule is who you played
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Bama’s schedule included #1? Losing to
one of their top 25 opponents does not lessen the strength of their schedule.
OSU played #8, #12, #14 & #24 (NOT #18). Bama played #1, #6, #22 & #25. For illustration, let’s look at all the ranked opponents faced between them:
- LSU — Bama
- ARK — Bama
- KSU — OSU
- Baylor — OSU
- OU — OSU
- PSU — Bama
- Texas — OSU
- Auburn — Bama
I just don’t see how anyone can say Bama’s isn’t even close. They are AT WORST comparable. And, as I said before, Bama has a better win (by 24 over #6) than anything OSU has (by 7 over #8, by 34 over #14, by 25 over #12, or by 8 over #24) and a MUCH less embarassing loss.
You keep slipping on the numbers (like Texas at #18 instead of #24), which seems odd to me. But looking at everything, the way it actually was on selection day, I could even see someone thinking they were very close or possibly even. But to suggest that OSU was somehow clearly better is just crazy. Bama’s schedule was very comparable, their record was identical, they had the best win and OSU had by far the worse loss. I don’t think a team with an equal record should somehow magically be rewarded because their loss was to a team that wasn’t ranked while the other team’s loss was to the best team either of them played.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
a team with an equal record
WHO ALSO WON THEIR CONFERENCE. Deal with it. You didn’t win your aq conference, they did. Your records are comparable but they can hang their hat on that and you can’t. This argument is tired. Yeah, you beat some top 25 teams. Even a top 10! You didn’t win your conference. You didn’t even come second in your conference. Go home.
by ORtigerfan on Jan 4, 2012 12:42 AM CST via Android app up reply actions
What the he'll are you talking about?
We’re 13-0, SEC Champs and #1 in the country. This is the kind if delusional, making-shit-up blustering I’ve come to expect from the naysayers making up any bullshit they can to try and discredit our National Championship.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
by King Joey on Jan 4, 2012 7:58 AM CST via iPhone app up reply actions
sorry joey!
I mistook your comments and thought you were a visitor from tRollBamatRoll. I had also been drinking by that point. My bad.
I do still believe that OSU has the credentials to be in the title game while Bama is lacking them by comparison based on their schedules and records and accomplishments. given the current system, Bama is very lucky to be in this game and this is also about the only system that the FBS would allow (good luck with a true playoff) that would let Bama into a rematch
by ORtigerfan on Jan 4, 2012 6:39 PM CST via Android app up reply actions
Some of us are getting a bit overboard...
I’m a tiger fan. So, by the way, if you haven’t yet realized, is King Joey – read his other posts. I hate the fact that we have to beat Alabama again to win the NC, but the rules are clear on this. The NCG is between the top 2 ranked teams in the country. Poseur makes a correct distinction between “top ranked” (which is what the rules say) and “best”, but because “best” is totally subjective and the BCS needs semi-objective rules to determine who gets in, “top-ranked” is a semi-objective test which isn’t a bad substitute for “best”. Yes, it enables the voters to be influenced by their prejudices, but if you want the two best teams to play in the NCG there really is no other way to determine it. As others here have noted, even a playoff (not a practical proposition in college football) doesn’t necessarily get you the best. So, the rules are clear. Under the current rules, the NCG is between the two best teams (determined via highest rankings).
Some of us tiger fans actually believe that the two best teams in the country are playing next Monday night. I hate the fact that it comes down to this, but if I’m being rigorous and honest, these are the 2 best teams. That view hasn’t been changed by recent matches; if anything it has been reinforced.
If we don’t like the fact that this involves a rematch, against a team which didn’t even win its division, then we need to agitate to change the rules. But we have to recognize that the outcome of that would be the possibility that the NCG is not between the 2 best teams in the country. And as much as I hate the fact that we have to play Alabama again, I’m not sure I would support that alternative.
Do people really want the situation where the NCG involves a team which is clearly inferior to another team which isn’t chosen?
if you are going to just pick seven as a delimeter
Then Poseur could just as easily pick 19 and say that bama has one win over a top 19 team and OSU has 4 (or 5).
I always keep a supply of alcohol handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy.
by Yail Bloor on Jan 3, 2012 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't pick it
The rankings did. It’s really there, not just in my head; OSU’s highest ranked opponent was #8. They did not even face anyone — much less beat anyone — ranked higher than that. Bama played two teams ranked higher than that, and beat one of them by 24 points.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
Also, they only had 3 over top 19 teams (Texas was #24, not #18)
.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
One more thing . . .
You say
I looked at the wrong top 25. Auburn was not in the Coaches final top 25, nor the AP, nor the Harris. You’re right, I used the wrong poll. They are #25 in the BCS despite not being in any of the top 25 human polls.
and yet, you claim 5 wins (now) for OSU over ranked teams, and that is only true in the BCS rankings. Texas is #24 in the BCS but not ranked in any human poll. Stanford, Kansas State, Baylor and OU are the only OSU opponents ranked in any human poll.
So exactly which poll were you looking at, again?
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
Disagree whole-heartedly
The Cowboys’ one loss was to an Iowa State team. Alabama’s was to an LSU team. On paper, Bama’s was a “better loss”. BUT, you are completely ignoring the circumstances of the losses. Alabama’s loss was in single overtime. Oklahoma St.’s? Triple overtime after discovering horrible news that can be a major distraction to any team. Oklahoma State gets a pass on that one.
Not to mention, rematches don’t belong in college football. The great thing about college football is that the season determines the postseason. This is most of the time. some of the time. and should be all the time. Alabama had the chance at the championship with the Nov 5 matchup. I’m sorry, but if a team doesn’t win a must-win game, they shouldn’t be in the conversation for a national title appearance. Each and every week, you are given the opportunity to prove that you can beat the opposing team. Bama failed at that against LSU. LSU proved they are the better team by their play on the field. That has been determined already.
With that said, a team that hasn’t been proven inferior to Alabama deserves a chance to beat the team Alabama could not.
You say it is about the two best teams. If that were truly the case, we would have had a playoff by now. Guess what. We don’t have a playoff. It’s all about who deserves the top 2 spots in the BCS. LSU is the consensus number 1. Unless you want to state a case against that. So, who deserves the 2 spot? A so-called “better team” that hasn’t proven its superiority the entire season or a team that did everything it needed to do barring a triple overtime loss with a big distraction.
I can go on and on about this, but Poseur had a lot of evidence to support an Oklahoma State appearance. So, when you look at it objectively ;) Oklahoma State should be playing LSU next week.
Side note. Arkansas is not a great team. They don’t deserve this entitlement :
There are 7 teams in te country that (by ranking) should beat Kansas State (OSU’s beat win). One of those is Arkansas, who Bama destroyed by 24.
Alabama proved it. LSU proved it. Even Texas A&M proved it. I’d take Kansas State in a single game against any team outside of the top 3
LSU is an 800 lb gorilla. With a chainsaw as a penis.
Not even close
I’d take Arkansas by 3 tds if I had to.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
And for the record
OSU’s loss to Iowa State was in double overtime, not triple overtime. The consistency with which y’all are “mistaken” on details, and the consistency with which those mistakes “happen” to favor OSU’s case, is rather odd. I can’t imagine why LSU fans would go to such lengths to try and diminish our National Championship by attacking Bama’s legitimacy.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
Which is why we need a playoff
So we can quit having these beauty contest (why win is prettier than yours!) & figure skating like degree of difficulty (well, this win was on the road in Septembere when the weather was completely different blah blah blah) arguments and actually have teams face each other instead of continually getting into scholastic pissing arguments that prove nothing in reality since the teams never play each other.
A good assumption is still an assumption.
"The 2011 Tigers, on the field at least, are boring. See target, swing war club, rinse the brains and skull fragments off and repeat." - Billy Gomila
by Curtis Bleaux on Jan 3, 2012 6:59 PM CST up reply actions
Meh, playoffs aren't necessarily better, just more conclusive
A good assumption is still an assumption.
Equally true of the assumption that winning a playoff makes a team “the best”. If that’s how we choose to define it, then that’s the way it is. But that is just as arbitrary a way of declaring that the 13-7 ’07 Giants were “better” than the 18-1 ’07 Patriots as the BCS is of declaring that 11-1 Bama is “better” than 11-1 OSU.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
this is both true and a good summary of my position
with regard to “best,” but I think Curtis point is that it removes the subjectivity by defining all the rules objectively (even though some of the NFL tie breakers are dumb as shit), which many (myself included) would prefer.
I always keep a supply of alcohol handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy.
Agreed
Thus, the playoff question is truly naught but a referendum; would we rather have debates regarding worthy champions, or no debates regarding occassionally unworthy champions?
Personally, I prefer a two (possibly four) team playoff with the selections (and seeding, if four teams) by a standardized formula of wins/losses indexed with SoS. There are lots of decent SoS formulae, and as long as everyone knows it going in and it doesn’t change (without at least a couple years notice for scheduling adjustments), I don’t really care what the details are. The important point is that everyone knows before the first game kicks off what the system will be and how it will work, and nothing impacts the outcome from that point on except the results of the games on the field; no votes, not polls, no nothing. Just games and outcomes.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
Yeah conclusiveness is such a dumb concept.
I don’t care about this idyllic who is “best” concept. That’s you. It has absolutely nothing to do with being a champion. I suggest you look up the definition of champion and unlike last time I suggested it to you, this I time suggest you actually do it and not rely on King Joey’s Standard Idyllic Dictionary, Edition 2 Revised version of one.
Since you won’t do it again, I’ll state that it being a champion simply means you are the winner of a tournament. Shocking concept, I know, but that’s what you get for overthinking things & pining for these bow-wrapped “best” teams EVAR.
"The 2011 Tigers, on the field at least, are boring. See target, swing war club, rinse the brains and skull fragments off and repeat." - Billy Gomila
by Curtis Bleaux on Jan 4, 2012 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
Buy a new dictionary
Whatever dictionary you are using that lists but one definition of the word “champion” and limits that definition specifically to tournaments, that dictionary should be burned and never again referenced because it makes you sound ignorant.
Real dictionaries (for example and convenience, m-w.com’s online dictionary) list several definitions, ranging from “warrior; fighter” to “one that does battle for another’s rights or honor.” The more relevant definition to our conversation is, “a winner of first prize or first place in competition.” Since “tournament” refers only to specific types of competitions, “champion” clearly applies to more than just the winner of a tournament.
There are many forms, styles and formats for competition. There are various formats within the sport of football. The point of the debate is not whether the team that comes in first place is the “champion”, but rather whether the format used more consistently produces a champion that we feel is worthy of being accorded distinction above all others competing. We could decide it all by coin tosses and the winner would still be the “champion”, but such a championship would be hollow indeed.
In my opinion, winning first place in a competition between dozens of competitors over the course of dozens (if not hundreds) of games is an accomplishment more deserving of distinction than winning first place in a competition between 4 or 8 competitors over the course of 2 or 3 weeks of games. One demonstrates an ability to perform at a consistently higher level, time after time after time, over several weeks, than dozens of others attempting to demonstrate the same ability. The other just shows you were better than 2 or 3 teams on 2 or 3 days.
Either way produces a champion, but one has proven much more worthy of admiration than the other, in my opinion.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
by King Joey on Jan 5, 2012 1:27 PM CST via iPhone app up reply actions
If I may
I think the rub here may be less about the definition of “champion” and more about the definition of “winning” (DUH!) No one “wins” anything under the current system in the purest sense of the word; they simply play the best they can and hope the beauty pageant judges give them the highest score. This year LSU clearly had the best season because they stayed undefeated against a great schedule, but they still had to be awarded that spot by the judges. Many years we aren’t so lucky to have an easy decision for even one of the spots. See: 2004, 2007 et al.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
this Joey.
Curtis keeps repeating the same thing – for a couple of months now…but defining “champion” as “winner of an end of the year tournament” is not always necessary or the best way.
Two comments about your thoughts
The Rose was a decent watch, but no mention of the way it ended? Bret Bielema will never be crucified in the media the way Miles was, but I’m surprised you didn’t comment on Wisconsin trying to spike the ball with 2 seconds on the clock. That was awful. The fans knew it, the network commentators knew it, and I knew it. That was a bad way to end a football game, and an example of poor clock management. I’m surprised I don’t see more about it on the InterWebz.
I’m in favor of dropping one of the many SEC/B1G bowl ties, but not for the Big 12. We’ve at least got one of those in the Cotton. The SEC has no tie-ins to the PAC, and I think that would be a fun thing to have annually. Two different styles of ball, two different mentalities amongst the fanbases, and featuring teams that don’t go out of their way to schedule each other very often out of conference (LSU notwithstanding).
by MikeDeTiger on Jan 3, 2012 4:05 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I thought about killing him
But what other option does he have? If he just runs a play, it’s doomed to fail and people kill him for not clocking it. He wasted his timeouts — those things matter, people. But you’re right, I should’ve included it in the “Look! Other good coaches mess up clock management!” bucket. I honestly think once he wasted the timeout earlier, he was hosed in that situation. The TD was so unlikely that it’s hard to get too upset with him (three plays in, what was it, 13 seconds? Wow.)
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
Good question
My best guess is a an intentional penalty. As soon the linesman sets the ball to start the clock, the entire line of scrimmage should start break-dancing to ensure a false start. With 2 seconds, spiking is guaranteed failure. At least a hail mary has a prayer (it’s worked against Wisconsin this year, might as well work FOR them). Incur a pre-snap penalty and even though you lose 5 yards, you at least get to run another play. I saw Tennessee (I think?) a few years ago lose a game like that, when the opposing team was actually rewarded for a penalty (that one was not intentional, however). The opponent was trying to kick the winning FG with time expiring, but they missed. However, there was a false start, and the down was re-tried, 5 yards back. The kick was good that time, and I remember thinking how dumb it is that the defense couldn’t decline the penalty in that situation. It just got me thinking, maybe the way to go in that situation is to line up wrong or false start, both of which can be done very quickly, and pre-snap so the down gets replayed. Then you have the 30 seconds or so to try and get a play in from the sidelines.
I’m certainly not a coaching genius, but it seems coaches would have a plan in place for that situation. Especially after the way Les was hung out to dry for it a few years ago.
Wouldn't work with the new rule
The “Dooley” rule automatically gives a 5 second runoff (maybe even 10 second) on an offensive penalty with a live game clock in the last 2 minutes (at least I think it’s only in the last two minutes).
It was because of the way Tennessee lost to UNC in the bowl game last year, where UNC got a first down and was tackled inbounds with only 1 or 2 seconds left on the clock, and they just ran up and snapped the ball immediately without waiting for the official to signal it live. It got them a false start or illegal participation or something, and they had time to run the fieldgoal team on the field and tie the game (they won it in OT).
The details may be a bit off, but that’s the gist of it. I always thought the way you said, and always wondered why more coaches didn’t do it on purpose until that bowl game.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
The details are way off
UNC was trying to run a field goal with PLENTY of time actually, more than enough to line up, spike it and THEN kick it. But they tried to hustle and it wasn’t going to work, but TJ Yates thought fast and just snapped it with like 13-14 guys running on and off.
But the gist is right, they changed the rule to prevent offenses trying to take an intentional penalty and stop the clock.
Writer (and a handsome one at that),
And the Valley Shook
You are probably correct
but the Tennessee game I’m thinking of is from a few years ago, not last year’s UNC game. And it was a missed FG that would have won them the game, but a false start by the offense gave the opposing kicker a second chance with an untimed down, and he made it. I assume that was before the rule was changed, but I definitely remember the circumstances, just not who the other team was.
Just yell "Go deep!" and do your best to get into the end zone
Hell, you’ve got Russell Wilson. Are your odds great? No, but when you’re losing with 2 seconds left there are no “good” options, and running a low-percentage play is better than trying a zero-percentage spike.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Jan 4, 2012 3:20 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, and to add...
… Good call on the Pac. We could even go out west coast to show our teams are willing to going out of region. How about the Holiday Bowl? San Diego is a nice place to visit. But three games against the Big Ten is overkill. Let’s ditch the Cap One, which every SEC team seems to hate.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
About the spiking attempt
If I understand correctly (and someone with better knowledge, please let me know if I’m wrong), the game clock in that situation should not start until the ref blows the whistle signaling that the ball is live for play. That being the case (if it is), should every team have a practiced routine for a spike where the center just snaps it on the whistle? It seems like every time I see that play tried in a similar situation there is a surprisingly long delay between the ball being blown live and the snap.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
Yep.
That was all on the center not getting the snap off. Reminds of the LSU center saving the game in the Tennessee debacle by snapping the ball before JJ was ready for it.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Point of fact
T-Bob didn’t save us – he almost cost us the game with that snap. Clock shows there were 3 seconds left when he decide to just snap the ball and JJ was fairly far into his cadence already. If not for Tennessee trying out their new 5-4-4 defense, we would have lost because T-Bob didn’t wait 1-2 seconds longer to give JJ a chance to call for the ball.
Interesting.
I thought he had snapped it with one tick left. You folks would certainly remember it better than me.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Nice blog you have here.
Good commentary, objective analysis, and a lot more classy than what I’ve been reading on RollTideRoll. As an Ok St fan I’d love to get a share of the National Title but I don’t see how that would happen in any circumstance on the heals of the snub to play for the NC. Too many people would have to admit they were wrong. I wish you guys the best of luck!
No splits
The rules is the rules. The winner of the BCSCG is the national champion, without exception or excuses. I think the pollsters chose the wrong team, but that doesn’t change the fact they chose a team. We abide by the system in place – if Bama wins, they won by the rules and they are the champion.
Okie St can join 2003 USC and 2004 Auburn as teams that got hosed (not saying either team would’ve won, but they deserved a shot — though 2004 was an odd year with three undefeateds, someone was getting hosed). Sometimes you’re lucky, and sometimes you ain’t.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
Horrible, atrocious, terrible, pathetic performance by UGA in the 2nd half and OT
Their offense shit the bed the entire second half. The running game was PATHETIC. Then they go conservative on defense and let MSU march down the field and tie it. Then they don’t even try to get a close field goal in OT. I didn’t even really care about that game and I was pissed.
I always keep a supply of alcohol handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy.
You don't understand
UGA did not attempt to get in FG range in regulation, and then missed the FG in OT. That means they actually won the game.
I thought the 2nd half of their game was eerily similar to their game against us. They either have depth or conditioning problems on the defensive side of the ball. Their D was gangbusters in the first half, but slowly looked more and more worn down through the 2nd half. I realize LSU’s O-linemen needed a splash of cold water on their face in the first half of the SECCG, and Jefferson seemed intent on proving just how wildly LSU could swing out of character for a half, but after watching the Outback bowl, I think it’s too similar to be a coincidence. I’m not saying LSU didn’t bow up and dominate the second half, but it seems equally likely to me UGA wasn’t putting up the same fight anymore. They sure weren’t against MSU.
But no, seriously, UGA deserves a rematch against MSU……
January 1st bowl games are tradishun!
Unless the powers that be move them to Jan. 2 b/c of TV! Still amazing to me how many buy this “tradition” schlock the networks peddle. Yeah tradition so hallowed they get moved around to dates that fit tv execs whims. BOWLS ARE TRADISHUN THAT MAKE FOOSBALL SPESHUL!
"The 2011 Tigers, on the field at least, are boring. See target, swing war club, rinse the brains and skull fragments off and repeat." - Billy Gomila
The games on Monday....
Sucked. I didn’t feel like the big day bowls at all but an afternoon backyard football game. The name was there, the game was good, the pagentry was all there…..but something about hearing the drone of the Soap Opera my mother was watching in the background really took the life out of the day for me.
I’m glad it will be New Years day again (albeit a Monday, but at least a damn holiday!)
I also don’t understand why the BCS insist on putting these games midweek. I understand TV viewership but wouldn’t it be awesome if they put say two games on one Saturday, two on another, and then the NC wherever they see fit? I guess the NFL playoffs would make that impossible, but it’s an neat idea.
2011 #1 LSU 13-0 SEC Champions
I feel I should clarify
The games themselves didn’t suck, all were pretty damn good. Them being on Monday sucked.
2011 #1 LSU 13-0 SEC Champions
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Remember about a month ago when this little chart was deemed the gospel ‘round these parts? Stanford was considered a fraud then, being blown out by an Oregon team that LSU blew out and barely squeaking by a bad Cal team in addition to 6 of 11 being outside the top 70. Now we’re ready to anoint them as a great win for Okie State? Interesting. Still leaving the MOV component out of it too, I see. OSU has now squeaked by TAMU, Kansas St., and Stanford in addition to losing to ISU. Bama lost to LSU in OT (who blew out the Oregon team who blew out the Stanford team who OSU barely beat- see, riding y’alls coattails all the way) and squeaked by nobody. The whole transitive thing doesn’t always work, but it’s pretty clear in this case that LSU is better than Oregon and Oregon is better than Stanford… and based on the game I watched Monday night, OSU and Stanford are dead even. If Stanford is a fraud then the Pokes are too.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Go crawl back under your rock at your own POS website
with the other frigging Bubba cocksmokers, where you can joke about hurricanes and committing acts of environmental terrorism.
It’s going to be interesting to see the excuses you come up with when we beat you by 2 touchdowns, but of course you’ll still claim your NC’s awarded by the Tuscaloosa Laundromat & Lawnmower Repair, Inc. and LuLu’s Bar-B-Que Emporium & Adult Bookstore, LPC
Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team in their usual pregame warmup song "Head, Sheauxlders, Knees, and Teauxs." -Spencer Hall
Intelligent response.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Whatever
Don’t flatter yourselves, Bammers. Y’all are the legit #2 team, but that’s only because y’all got lucky as hell that everyone else dicktripped themselves. The only thing y’all have proven is that you’re (probably) less worse than LSU than anybody else. You still got beat by the best team on your own field on your biggest day. It tickles me pink to see Bama assuming their new position in the world of bragging about being second best.
Alabama football:
Second best
Second place
Second rate
What else would you expect from our sloppy seconds?
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
by King Joey on Jan 4, 2012 10:02 AM CST via iPhone app up reply actions
Who's bragging?
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Intellijence Ain't Got Nuthin' To Do With It, PAAAWWWLLL
This is FOOTBALL PAAAWWWLLL! All that lurnin and readingmatics and math is for sissies who go to Poison Ivy schools, PAAAWWWLLL.
"The 2011 Tigers, on the field at least, are boring. See target, swing war club, rinse the brains and skull fragments off and repeat." - Billy Gomila
by Curtis Bleaux on Jan 4, 2012 6:13 PM CST up reply actions
Every bit as intelligent as the shite that comes out of the mouths (or fingers)...
…of Outsidethesidelines, NewAnachronism, Aaron.50cal, J Tadpole and a couple hundred other douchebags on your POS blog.
Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team in their usual pregame warmup song "Head, Sheauxlders, Knees, and Teauxs." -Spencer Hall
Then stay off of it.
If it makes you angry to go over there, why go? I wouldn’t come over here if I was outraged by all the comments I read. From what I can see, you have some 300 comments at SBN… many of those have been bitching about someone else for something or another not really related to sports.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
I haven't been to it since I called out your POS moderator for his Katrina comment..
…which he never was man enough to apologize for, even though I gave him an out by prefacing my comment with “I’m sure we’ve all done stupid shit when we’ve had too much to drink.” or something to that effect. Actually, let me repost the whole thing here:
I’m sure we’ve all done stupid shit when we’ve had too much to drink
but when you put it in print, and you’re the admin of a site like this, it becomes even more egregious.
You were making light of a tragedy where 1,836 people lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands other lives were changed forever. My aunt and uncle from mid-city New Orleans lost everything, but made it out alive. Another uncle in Bay St. Louis wasn’t so lucky.
The same applies to NewAnachronism and the 9-11 tragedy. I don’t care how you spin it, some things are just over the line, or maybe outside the line in this case.
An apology is in order, I hope you man up.
Yea, so take
“…many of those have been bitching about someone else for something or another not really related to sports.”
and shove it up your arse.
Once again, I don’t go to your POS blog anymore (except just now to copy and paste the post above), so that’s not what’s making me angry. What makes me angry is seeing your drivel on this site.
So, once again, kindly take your backwoods Bubba ass back to your own blog where you can joke about things “really related to sports”, such as 9-11 and Katrina and poisoning trees. Oh, and have a GREAT day.
Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team in their usual pregame warmup song "Head, Sheauxlders, Knees, and Teauxs." -Spencer Hall
Wow.
Flagged for inappropriate and just… I don’t know. You need to learn to chill out or something. Seem to get angry way too easily.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Flag away you delusional Bubba.....Wow, just wow
…you really have a distorted sense of what’s inappropriate. 9-11 and Katrina are perfectly appropriate subjects to make light of on your blog, but it’s inappropriate to call you out on it here. But then again, you’re a backwoods bammer pos, so that’s not surprising.
Remember, you can’t spell Roll Tide without 2 L’s. Come on back now with your excuses, hear?
Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team in their usual pregame warmup song "Head, Sheauxlders, Knees, and Teauxs." -Spencer Hall
Just coming here to talk football.
Flame away, I won’t be responding further.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
On a lighter note, Les Miles named the Walter Camp Coach of the Year
The Walter Camp Coach of the Year is selected by the nation’s 120 Football Bowl Subdivision head coaches and sports information directors.
http://waltercamp.org/index.php/news/lsus_les_miles_named_2011_walter_camp_coach_of_the_year/
Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team in their usual pregame warmup song "Head, Sheauxlders, Knees, and Teauxs." -Spencer Hall
Maybe I'm biased, but Shaw's decision was way, WAY worse
When you have Andrew Luck as your quarterback, one running back average 6 ypc, and another running back averaging 22 yards per touch, why in the ever living hell would you sit on the ball at your own 25 and then kick on third down with TIMEOUTS IN YOUR POCKET? I mean, buttoning up in that situation may be defensible if your QB is Jordan Jefferson and your kicker is Josh Jasper. It is not acceptable if your QB is an all-American #1 draft pick and your kicker is a redshirt freshman who’s never been put in this position before. And then making the kid kick again in OT when he was clearly emotionally wrecked was, if possible, even a worse decision.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Jan 4, 2012 3:25 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
And if you ask me the OT was worse
It REALLY looked like they played for the FG in overtime. Its one thing to do if you’re in PAT range, are in a time crunch or are trying to end the game. It’s another thing in overtime.
But there seems to be an epidemic of coaches doing it the last few days in bowls. I hope that’s a good omen for Monday night.
Writer (and a handsome one at that),
And the Valley Shook
How about that?
The best team Oklahoma State played all season — who they beat by 7 — just got beat by 13 by the second best team Bama played . . . and beat by 24.
So much for the silly notion OSU faces the same kind of elite opponents Bama did. But I guess the naysayers will still make up some excuse to discredit LSU’s National Championship again.
'58, '03, '07, '11*
*imminent
by King Joey on Jan 6, 2012 11:13 PM CST via iPhone app reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SEC Baseball Standings
Final Standings
# - SEC Tournament Seeding
Team Name = Eliminated from SEC Tournament
| West | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
 |
19 | 11 | 42 | 14 |
|
16 | 14 | 39 | 17 |
| 7 Mississippi St. Bulldogs |
16 | 14 | 34 | 21 |
|
14 | 16 | 34 | 22 |
|
13 | 17 | 30 | 26 |
| |
9 | 21 | 21 | 34 |
| East | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
18 | 11 | 39 | 15 |
| 4 Kentucky Wildcats |
18 | 12 | 41 | 15 |
| 3 Florida Gators |
18 | 12 | 40 | 16 |
| 5 Vanderbilt Commodores |
16 | 14 | 29 | 25 |
|
14 | 15 | 31 | 24 |
|
8 | 22 | 24 | 31 |
