The thing is, it really makes no difference which team wins.
Yeah it's just one of the best rivalries in college football, with the top 2 quarterbacks in the country. Don't know what in the hell ya'll do up that way, but bragging rights are a serious matter down here.
It is a MUST win for Alabama. If they beat LSU, they could loose to Auburn and still go, because head to head, they beat LSU unless they are ranked lower than LSU after loosing to Auburn.
If they loose to LSU, LSU has no more hard games and so they go to the championship.
If LSU looses, and Alabama looses to Auburn, LSU could still go if they end up being ranked higher than Alabama.
If Auburn beats Georgia and Alabama, LSU would probably go.
LSU has more ways to go to the championship than Alabama.
Technically it does make a difference. The winner goes to the SEC championship.
But they both go to the play-off.
If either one is a one loss team, they might make the playoffs...... Penn State has not lost yet, but they are behind Mn. in the second half..... and Clemson hasn't lost. So, the loser could be out of the playoffs.
I dont think so.... if Clemson, Penn St, and Ohio go undefeated, I think the winner of the SEC will go, but not 2 SEC teams. If either Clemson, Penn St, or Ohio have a loss, then there might be 2 SEC teams. Minnesota is undefeated and leading Penn St, but even undefeated I dont see them in the BCS playoffs.
I dont think so.... if Clemson, Penn St, and Ohio go undefeated, I think the winner of the SEC will go, but not 2 SEC teams. If either Clemson, Penn St, or Ohio have a loss, then there might be 2 SEC teams. Minnesota is undefeated and leading Penn St, but even undefeated I dont see them in the BCS playoffs.
Penn State is getting beat right now by # 17 Minnesota. Minnesota is up 31 to 19 at the start of the 4th qtr
What I found particularly satisfying about that touchdown was that it came about as a result of the defense looking over at the sideline to be told what to do as the ball was snapped. I hate that crap of everything being sent in. There was a (better) time when signaling from the sideline was illegal (it game the coaches another opportunity to circumvent the rules). Of course in that (better) time, there was also limited substitution and the goal posts were still where God intended them to be.
They damn sure made up for it on that goal line catch by LSU. Horrible call by the Refs. Moss was clearly out of bounds before the catch. Can’t be the first to touch the ball after that. 😡
They damn sure made up for it on that goal line catch by LSU. Horrible call by the Refs. Moss was clearly out of bounds before the catch. Can’t be the first to touch the ball after that. 😡
I would have to agree. Did they just concern themselves with whether or not he got his foot down after the catch and teauxtally forget about the step out and back in?
They damn sure made up for it on that goal line catch by LSU. Horrible call by the Refs. Moss was clearly out of bounds before the catch. Can’t be the first to touch the ball after that. 😡
I would have to agree. Did they just concern themselves with whether or not he got his foot down after the catch and teauxtally forget about the step out and back in?
Did the defensive player tip the ball? I thought he did and if he did, the offensive player was not the first to touch the ball
They damn sure made up for it on that goal line catch by LSU. Horrible call by the Refs. Moss was clearly out of bounds before the catch. Can’t be the first to touch the ball after that. 😡
I would have to agree. Did they just concern themselves with whether or not he got his foot down after the catch and teauxtally forget about the step out and back in?
They damn sure made up for it on that goal line catch by LSU. Horrible call by the Refs. Moss was clearly out of bounds before the catch. Can’t be the first to touch the ball after that. 😡
I would have to agree. Did they just concern themselves with whether or not he got his foot down after the catch and teauxtally forget about the step out and back in?
Did the defensive player tip the ball? I thought he did and if he did, the offensive player was not the first to touch the ball
It's been a good game so far, but still a long way to go. I think the difference so far has been that Alabama hasn't played anyone, while LSU has played 3 teams that were ranked in the top ten. Gonna be interesting to see what Alabama does now that they aren't leading by 20 or more at halftime.
Bama is just playing awful. Killing themselves. Tua fumbles on air, interception nullified because of 12 players, Tua slides short of the first down......LSU is a GREAT team, Bama is lucky they're only down 20.
Travelingman1: Turned the #2 LSU vs. #3 Tide game off a long time ago - watching the much more exciting #13 Wisconsin vs. #18 Iowa game. Who is ranked #1 by the way? I hope your "Tide" team can come back but the crawler on the bottom of my screen shows the score NOT looking good for your Tidesters. Better luck next time. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
Travelingman1: Turned the #2 LSU vs. #3 Tide game off a long time ago - watching the much more exciting #13 Wisconsin vs. #18 Iowa game. Who is ranked #1 by the way? I hope your "Tide" team can come back but the crawler on the bottom of my screen shows the score NOT looking good for your Tidesters. Better luck next time. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
OSU. Who, like bama, has not played a top 10. Won’t be after today.
Like I have been saying all day, when it comes down to it, the committee will ignore all of their supposed criteria and "do what they know in their hearts is right".
They are a GREAT team and played a GREAT game. Bama really beat themselves with the Tua air fumble, fumbled punt snap, interception being nullified by 12 players, and Tua sliding short of the first....none of those were forced, they were Bama playing poorly.
They are a GREAT team and played a GREAT game. Bama really beat themselves with the Tua air fumble, fumbled punt snap, interception being nullified by 12 players, and Tua sliding short of the first....none of those were forced, they were Bama playing poorly.
I find it ironic that Ohio State is ranked #1. The top ranked team they played was Wisconsin at #13. LSU played #10 Texas, #7 Florida, #6 Auburn, and now #3 Alabama.
I believe LSU has proven itself. Cant say that for Ohio State, although Ohio State did put a whooping on the #96 team in the country today. Congratulations Ohio State on winning the game.
Like I have been saying all day, when it comes down to it, the committee will ignore all of their supposed criteria and "do what they know in their hearts is right".
Yep, once again, AL will be one of the 4 teams in the playoffs.
OSU, LSU, AL & one more YTBD.......................
Like I have been saying all day, when it comes down to it, the committee will ignore all of their supposed criteria and "do what they know in their hearts is right".
Yep, once again, AL will be one of the 4 teams in the playoffs.
OSU, LSU, AL & one more YTBD.......................
I'm not quite sure how this will help me sleep, but believe me, if it would I would be very grateful. It might be interesting to point out that I have been an Ole Miss fan ever since I first was first old enough to understand football (1950s). I have based their performance, either successful or (lately) not so successful on what they themselves do, not on what other teams do.
As to today's game, all that it did was to reward the team that lost (Alabama) with an extra week to rest, heal, and prepare before the play-offs, while penalizing the team that won (LSU) by forcing them to play an extra (unnecessary) game before getting ready for the play-offs.
The pre-season rankings are bullschit and basically pave the way for more bullschit.
Without rankings, how would you determine a champ?
Do (some) conferences pick who is ranked to win the conference or do they play in some organized schedule? Said another way, how are you a not a conference champ, yet you are a national one? Makes no sense, unless of course you have a vested interest in the ranking system, which a lot of people do. Traditions haven't changed, primarily being the sporting information entities that declared national champions in the past and continue the same convoluted system with rankings.
The majority of people enjoy the hype and the hoopla of the rankings almost more than the actual games and at times ignore the actual games played.
The pre-season rankings are bullschit and basically pave the way for more bullschit.
Without rankings, how would you determine a champ?
Do (some) conferences pick who is ranked to win the conference or do they play in some organized schedule? Said another way, how are you a not a conference champ, yet you are a national one? Makes no sense, unless of course you have a vested interest in the ranking system, which a lot of people do. Traditions haven't changed, primarily being the sporting information entities that declared national champions in the past and continue the same convoluted system with rankings.
The majority of people enjoy the hype and the hoopla of the rankings almost more than the actual games and at times ignore the actual games played.
I dont think rankings hurt anything, but I do agree (if I understand what you are saying) that conference champs only should be in the playoffs. But then you need some sort of rankings to determine which conference champs would make the playoffs. I readily agree that it's not a perfect system and unless you go to a bracket system with all 130 teams (you lose, your out) playoff system, it never will be perfect.
My take.......Bama has the best team, LSU has the best QB. I like Tua, but I'd take Joe Burrow over him any day of the week.
Bama has been on top of the heap so long, that they have a good portion of the best players wanting to play for them. They have the most 5 star players of any team in the country. Lying Nick Saban is a good coach and recruiter. However, like you said, I think Burrows is the better QB.
As to today's game, all that it did was to reward the team that lost (Alabama) with an extra week to rest, heal, and prepare before the play-offs, while penalizing the team that won (LSU) by forcing them to play an extra (unnecessary) game before getting ready for the play-offs.
Yes, it's entirely possible that GA could beat LSU, & if Clemson wins out, they would likely put AL in & leave LSU on the outside looking in.
AL really doesn't have to do anything but win their remaining games & they'll be in; whoever loses the SEC championship game will surely be out.
Dream on, Yankee. Year after year I have seen Ohio State wind up with a 12-0 record, be ranked in the top three, and come down South here, and get annihilated in the bowl game by the SEC team.
It is easy to figure out who will win the Big Game. The state in which the most cotton was grown in 1850 will win.
Do (some) conferences pick who is ranked to win the conference or do they play in some organized schedule? Said another way, how are you a not a conference champ, yet you are a national one? Makes no sense, unless of course you have a vested interest in the ranking system, which a lot of people do. Traditions haven't changed, primarily being the sporting information entities that declared national champions in the past and continue the same convoluted system with rankings.
This comes up every year, so once again:
One of the fundamental principles of the ranking system is that every game counts.
Here's the problem with conference championships: They only count conference games. In a typical Power 5 schedule there are 9 conference games and 3 non-conference games. How does ignoring a quarter of the season produce a more accurate selection?
Worse, it skews the results in weird ways. A team can lose a non-conference game and it might knock them out of the playoffs. It would no effect on the conference championship. Why shouldn't that loss count against them?
In fact, a team could lose ALL of their non-conference games in addition to their one conference loss. They could be 8-4, but they could have still be conference champions over 11-1 team whose only loss is against them. How does that makes any sense as a playoff criterion?
Let’s illustrate how this might work. There’s Team A, who’s non conference games include Vassar, Rhode Island State Tech and St. Swithen’s seminary. They also lose one conference game to the weakest team in the conference. Team B is in Team A’s division. Instead of the usual three cupcakes, Team B schedules Alabama, Clemson and Oklahoma as their non conference games and beats them all. They play Team A and lose by a field goal. So Team A is 8-4, Team B is 11-1. Who goes to the playoffs? Team B at 8-4, because their CONFERENCE record is an identical 8-1 and they have the head to head win which makes them conference champion. Team A’s weaker schedule, poorer record and Team B’s fantastic season mean nothing. How does that make any sense?
So if you want to criticize the current system and say that it should be based on conference championships, then please answer the following questions:
Why shouldn't every game count? Why should Team B be out of the conference championship (and therefore the playoffs) because their only loss was to Team A? Why should the playoff be based on a system that could put an 8-4 team in ahead of an 11-1 team?
The pre-season rankings are bullschit and basically pave the way for more bullschit.
Without rankings, how would you determine a champ?
Do (some) conferences pick who is ranked to win the conference or do they play in some organized schedule? Said another way, how are you a not a conference champ, yet you are a national one? Makes no sense, unless of course you have a vested interest in the ranking system, which a lot of people do. Traditions haven't changed, primarily being the sporting information entities that declared national champions in the past and continue the same convoluted system with rankings.
The majority of people enjoy the hype and the hoopla of the rankings almost more than the actual games and at times ignore the actual games played.
Do (some) conferences pick who is ranked to win the conference or do they play in some organized schedule? Said another way, how are you a not a conference champ, yet you are a national one? Makes no sense, unless of course you have a vested interest in the ranking system, which a lot of people do. Traditions haven't changed, primarily being the sporting information entities that declared national champions in the past and continue the same convoluted system with rankings.
This comes up every year, so once again:
One of the fundamental principles of the ranking system is that every game counts.
So if you want to criticize the current system and say that it should be based on conference championships, then please answer the following questions:
Why shouldn't every game count? Why should Team B be out of the conference championship (and therefore the playoffs) because their only loss was to Team A? Why should the playoff be based on a system that could put an 8-4 team in ahead of an 11-1 team?
Every game doesn't count now; you can go undefeated and not make the dance. You can lose one game and not make it. The "rankers" can also pick a one loss team ahead of you, not out of any equity, but because ESPN wants large market teams only. That's where the schedule strength "argument" comes in. Never mind the teams beaten could be ranked in the Top 25 and wind up 4-8. (Nebraska anyone?)
The problem isn't the conference games, it's the Power non-conference ones. There is no reason for Power 5 LSU to play Texas the third or second week of the season, other than money. There's no reason Notre Dame can't join a conference. Its all about creating the "every game counts" mantra, when in reality that idea "depends" on who you are and manipulating cash games. Like I said, tradition isn't getting canned, and that's the problem, because most people like it that way.
Pretty simple, unless you have a vested interest in two teams in the same conference playing twice. Never mind the money that conference makes of their ties to the broadcaster.... Playing the same team twice, when every game counts? Um, okay...
Because it works in every other sport. Is anyone pissed off the Yankees didn't win the World Series because they got beat by a team with fewer wins? Because they beat a good National League team during the season? I know, college football is a limited season, but that's the BS excuse for continuing manipulating things and not fixing them.
I know, no one wants Boise State to beat Oklahoma again and everyone wants a LSU/Georgia or Alabama redux.
Because football is a limited season, it is completely ridiculous for any two teams to meet twice. The issue was decided the first time that they met. If the same team wins both games, it only further proves that they were the better team. If they split, the way it is now, the team that won the second game gets the glory that should be shared. The only semi-sensible thing to do if that scenario plays out is to play a third time, but that really only reverts to a one-game competition, which is what existed back at the time of the first game.
Every game doesn't count now; you can go undefeated and not make the dance. You can lose one game and not make it. The "rankers" can also pick a one loss team ahead of you, not out of any equity, but because ESPN wants large market teams only.
Every year there will be a team that does well in one of the smaller conferences and claims they should go to the playoffs because they are 12-0. Western Michigan in 2016 is a good example. Going undefeated in any conference is an accomplishment to be proud of, but Western Michigan didn't play a single ranked team all year. Their signature wins were against Northwestern and Illinois. The rest of their schedule was made up of teams like the North Carolina Central Eagles, the Akron Zips and the Kent State Golden Flashes. Should they have gone into the playoffs instead of Alabama, who lost one game to Old Miss, but beat ranked teams Wisconsin, Georgia, Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi State, and Florida? Really?
Western Michigan got a bowl game against the Big 10 runner up, Wisconsin. They lost. Alabama went on to beat Michigan State and Clemson to win the championship.
The fact is that FBS has 128 teams in it and the difference between the top teams and the lower teams is far greater than in any professional sport. Because of this some subjective evaluation is required. Comparing records made against wildly different levels of competition is foolish.
Originally Posted by HawkI
That's where the schedule strength "argument" comes in. Never mind the teams beaten could be ranked in the Top 25 and wind up 4-8. (Nebraska anyone?)
Strength of schedule is continuously changed based on an opponents CURRENT record, not what it was when you played them.
It's amazing. After squeaking into a bowl last year at 6-6, the Gophers have made an amazing improvement. They were a bit shaky early in the year, winning by thin margins over Georgia Southern and Fresno State, but they have really hit their stride lately. If they beat Iowa next week, they will have a clear shot at the Big 10 Championship. The Rose Bowl is a real possibility then. Wow!
The fact is that FBS has 128 teams in it and the difference between the top teams and the lower teams is far greater than in any professional sport. Because of this some subjective evaluation is required. Comparing records made against wildly different levels of competition is foolish.
I believe the FBS has 130 teams, but what you said about going 12-0 in a weaker conference as compared to one of the stronger conferences is correct. Just look at the Fiesta Bowl last year. UCF (USA Conference) had the longest winning streak in the country (25) and was 12-0, but they got dominated by LSU (SEC Conference) at 9-3. The score wasn't that lopsided, but anyone that saw the game knew that UCF was basically 'out of their league".
I've proposed this before. (I don't want it, but offer it as a solution to the need for a NATIONAL CHAMPION.) Make what used to be (and I will call it) Division 1A 126 teams. Divide them into 18 units of 7 teams each. (Geographically, by draw, however.) The first six games of the season will determine the standings within each unit. Then reconfigure for the last six games: all 18 of the first place teams go into one division, all 18 of the second place teams go into the next division, and so on. They then play the last six games. After all is said and done, the 7 teams in the "first division" are teams #1- #7 in the final standings, the teams in the "second division" are #8-#14, and so on down the line. Everyone had a chance to earn their way into the "first division" by winning their first six-game division. After that, play the bowls for fun. For the teams that were left out of the 126 and wished to be there, they play in 1AA. For the following season, the top two teams from 1AA replace the #125 and #126 teams from 1A, while those two go to 1AA. This of course, would have its own problems to work out, but it wouldn't be any more of a mess than what we have now, and would give everyone a shot at the TITLE as the whole season would be a play-off.
The fact is that FBS has 128 teams in it and the difference between the top teams and the lower teams is far greater than in any professional sport. Because of this some subjective evaluation is required. Comparing records made against wildly different levels of competition is foolish.
I believe the FBS has 130 teams, but what you said about going 12-0 in a weaker conference as compared to one of the stronger conferences is correct. Just look at the Fiesta Bowl last year. UCF (USA Conference) had the longest winning streak in the country (25) and was 12-0, but they got dominated by LSU (SEC Conference) at 9-3. The score wasn't that lopsided, but anyone that saw the game knew that UCF was basically 'out of their league".
An excellent example. Last year's LSU team wasn't as good as this year's and their defensive backfield was so depleted by injury that they were using a backup wide receiver in coverage. In order to keep UCF's offense off the field LSU played ball control and their offensive line thoroughly dominated UCF's defense. Time of possession was 44:31 LSU, 15:29 UCF.
If UCF had played a team like Ohio State or Alabama it would not have been pretty.