Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although I don't like it one bit, it is very difficult to argue that LSU/Alabama should not be playing one another again from the sheer fact that they are, or at least they have showed thus far, they are best prepared teams week in and week out.
I think the BCS is a farce until all conferences get a conference championship (I absolutely cannot stand that the Big 12 does not have a conf. championship now because of conference expansion). You don't win the conference championship you can't go to the dance (and yes, the Sooners should not have played USC over Auburn because they lost in the Big 12 Championship. I would have much rather watched Auburn get rolled by USC than my Sooners).
There are some major issues that the BCS needs to shore up....hopefully we'll get closer to a balanced system as the conferences expand and solidify more homogeneity across the board in the regular season, and thereby allow the the best teams from each conference to meet after conference championships.
Yeah, I don't really disagree. My rants, if you can forgive the obnoxious tone, are not to defend the BCS. I think it's a crime that we can't settle these debates with a 4 or 8-team playoff. I hate the BCS pageant show...which is what this really amounts to. Teams don't just win, but they have to win with style. Why not just have a bunch of crusty old men and ladies hold up cards after each big game like they do in figure skating if that's the case, right? I could see Tim Brando calling it right now: Well, folks, OSU won today but they got penalized by the judges for a bad dismount on the pommel horse. I mean, that's basically what we're blithering about right now, and I agree that it's sad.
But nevertheless, this is what we have. And like you, I agree that Alabama, like 'em or loathe 'em, is the team that dismounted most cleanly in defeat. Yes, the game was boring - I get that. And to tell the truth, I'm somewhat surprised that there wasn't some inside conspiracy by ABC/ESPN network executives to have Alabama mysteriously bounced from the BCS game for that reason alone: LSU vs. OSU or Stanford would be a more intriguing match-up for sure. But, this is what we have, and I accept it. And as much as I hate to admit it, LSU's gonna have its hands full next Monday night.
I really think that the BCS, in its current form, is losing some ground. I would imagine that the ratings are probably down again, as they have been the last two years since they went to ESPN exclusively. I think the BCS coup is great for ESPN and their parent network ABC, because it boosts the viewership of ESPN and it frees up space for ABC to show more of its crap programs for a general audience. But college football must be gripping right now, and I think they're regretting that deal with ESPN already.
I suspect that once this TV contract runs out in 2014, that's when you'll see changes. ESPN may still get the rights, but I suspect part of this whole realignment movement might be what gets the momentum for a new-and-improved BCS. Not being too optimistic here, I bet it starts with BCS bowls 'plus one'. If we should be so lucky, my guess is that'll probably be the format for the four years that follow this current contract cycle, which would be from 2015 to 2018 or 2019. It would be interesting to see whether ESPN takes it or if NCAA goes back to a more general TV network.
Although I don't like it one bit, it is very difficult to argue that LSU/Alabama should not be playing one another again from the sheer fact that they are, or at least they have showed thus far, they are best prepared teams week in and week out.
I think the BCS is a farce until all conferences get a conference championship (I absolutely cannot stand that the Big 12 does not have a conf. championship now because of conference expansion). You don't win the conference championship you can't go to the dance (and yes, the Sooners should not have played USC over Auburn because they lost in the Big 12 Championship. I would have much rather watched Auburn get rolled by USC than my Sooners).
Wrong season....OU went unbeaten into that USC game.
You're thinking of the Sugar Bowl where OU lost to K-State but still got to play LSU.
Wrong season....OU went unbeaten into that USC game.
You're thinking of the Sugar Bowl where OU lost to K-State but still got to play LSU.
Yeh, I realized the flub afterwords. The OU/LSU matchup was much more balanced. OU still shouldn't have been there, however. USC should have gotten the nod.....weren't they beat in overtime in the regular season by Cal (I think that was when Cal still had Aaron Rodgers)?
The OU/USC game? Not so much. While both OU/Auburn were undefeated I have mulled it over many times and thought that Auburn actually had a tougher all-around schedule that year.....hence, I would have much rather them play that USC (or was it an NFL team posing as a college program?) team.
I'll have to disagree with you. I would take the top 5 of the Big 12 South (OU/Texas, OK-State, Tech, A&M) in a Round-robin tourney against any combination the SEC West's Best = Bama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Miss St. or the SEC East's = FL, TN, SC, GA, Vandy/Kentucky???
I wouldn't. I think, looking at the time period you used, it's not really clear which division has been the strongest.
Quote:
Is it not dubious to claim that the SEC is always, or has been,the best conference from top to bottom when it is a relatively recent phenomenon? This may not be your contention but it seems to be the view of the vast majority of fans of SEC teams that I know.
You should take that up with whomever said it.
Quote:
It may be hard for the SEC homers to stomach
I will try to bite my tongue, here.
Quote:
but us folks over here in the South-Central are much more concerned about our brand of football and our own tradition, which speaks for itself over several generations/decades....certainly not just in the BCS era as you and E-Cuyler seemed to misread.
I didn't misread anything -- I'm just going off what you said:
The Big 12 South was perennially the best division in college football during the BCS era until Little Brother Aggie jumped ship.
That was 1998 - 2011.
Quote:
The pendulum will swing back the other way soon enough. Programs like Michigan, USC, Nebraska, Florida St., Texas, Ohio State, (even Miami *shudder*), et al. will not stay down in the long haul. The tradition in these programs is too strong to stay down forever.
a. I never said they wouldn't
b. Those teams aren't in the Big 12.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 01-03-2012 at 12:00 PM..
I wouldn't. I think, looking at the time period you used, it's not really clear which division has been the strongest.
You should take that up with whomever said it.
I will try to bite my tongue, here.
I didn't misread anything -- I'm just going off what you said:
The Big 12 South was perennially the best division in college football during the BCS era until Little Brother Aggie jumped ship.
That was 1998 - 2011.
a. I never said they wouldn't
b. Those teams aren't in the Big 12.
1. Yeh, but I would.
2. Check the definition of perennially and get back to me. I never said that the Big 12 South was dominant from 1998 onward....just in several successive years during the BCS era. Mince words all you want; just don't misread 'em and then cast it off as another's opinion.
3. Thanks for the tip, Skippy. I wasn't aware those teams were not in the Big 12. I'll write that down so I remember for our exchange next time.
2. Check the definition of perennially and get back to me.
It says:
"continuing without interruption"
I looked it up in a second source just to be sure. the second source says:
per·en·ni·al/pəˈrenēəl/
Adjective: Lasting or existing for a long or apparently infinite time; enduring.
Quote:
I never said that the Big 12 South was dominant from 1998 onward....just in several successive years during the BCS era. Mince words all you want; just don't misread 'em and then cast it off as another's opinion.
You said: The Big 12 South was perennially the best division in college football during the BCS era until Little Brother Aggie jumped ship.
Quote:
Thanks for the tip, Skippy. I wasn't aware those teams were not in the Big 12. I'll write that down so I remember for our exchange next time.
I looked it up in a second source just to be sure. the second source says:
per·en·ni·al/pəˈrenēəl/
Adjective: Lasting or existing for a long or apparently infinite time; enduring.
You said: The Big 12 South was perennially the best division in college football during the BCS era until Little Brother Aggie jumped ship.
Glad to help a Big 12 homer.
So you prove my point for me.
You can read, just not ascertain (i.e. = the indefinite nature of "perennially"). I never specified a definite period from Point A - Point B. What I was intimating was more general/indefinite. You gave it the definite attachment.
Better luck next time, Skip. And I think you've adequately demonstrated that you're not a homer at all. Fact is, we're all homers. Some of us just exhibit better reading comprehension than others.
Cheers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 
) team.
), et al. will not stay down in the long haul. The tradition in these programs is too strong to stay down forever.
I never said that the Big 12 South was dominant from 1998 onward....just in several successive years during the BCS era. Mince words all you want; just don't misread 'em and then cast it off as another's opinion.
Fact is, we're all homers. Some of us just exhibit better reading comprehension than others.
