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.
How can a conference be fake? That doesn't even make sense. Is this more crazy SEC logic?
My point is that the BCS title game is not fake; it's real. One team will hoist the BCS glass trophy up high and will be remembered forever as the national champions of college football. By this time next year, all people will remember is that either LSU or Alabama won the BCS title. In 5 years time, they'll even forget that there was a controversy at all. I know that's not what people want to hear, but that's the reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclone8570
The national championship game is fake because most of America thinks of it as a conference game, not a national championship game.
It is a conference game -- and it's a national championship game at the same time. The SEC's elite teams have already demonstrated their superiority to other conferences, again and again. Why have another 'championship' game just to watch another SEC team dominate another hapless Big 12 or Pac 12 team? I get that more of the U.S. would watch, but that aside, LSU and Alabama are 1 and 1 1/2.
My point is that the BCS title game is not fake; it's real. One team will hoist the BCS glass trophy up high and will be remembered forever as the national champions of college football. By this time next year, all people will remember is that either LSU or Alabama won the BCS title. In 5 years time, they'll even forget that there was a controversy at all. I know that's not what people want to hear, but that's the reality.
Don't be so sure about that.
It is ridiculous to call this a "fake" championship game, but the fact that teams are PICKED to go to the game is what people hate. And what you really don't seem to get.... do you?
Quote:
It is a conference game -- and it's a national championship game at the same time. The SEC's elite teams have already demonstrated their superiority to other conferences, again and again. Why have another 'championship' game just to watch another SEC team dominate another hapless Big 12 or Pac 12 team? I get that more of the U.S. would watch, but that aside, LSU and Alabama are 1 and 1 1/2.
This is ANOTHER reason why people hate this. Homering. Because there's so much bias on the SEC, teams from other conferences didn't even get the chance to prove anyone of em wrong. And like I said earlier, I STILL wouldn't watch even if it were between two B1G schools or two Big X(II) schools, or any other two of the same conference. It's just not attractive to me at least, not in this current system anyway. That and the fact that these two teams ALREADY PLAYED. The way the BCS is set up, this really isn't supposed to happen, is it? But it did, and because of it, I will not watch.
I wont say this will be the lowest rated in viewership for the BCS National Title game, but if it is, it wouldn't surprise me.
My point is that the BCS title game is not fake; it's real. One team will hoist the BCS glass trophy up high and will be remembered forever as the national champions of college football. By this time next year, all people will remember is that either LSU or Alabama won the BCS title. In 5 years time, they'll even forget that there was a controversy at all. I know that's not what people want to hear, but that's the reality.
It is a conference game -- and it's a national championship game at the same time. The SEC's elite teams have already demonstrated their superiority to other conferences, again and again. Why have another 'championship' game just to watch another SEC team dominate another hapless Big 12 or Pac 12 team? I get that more of the U.S. would watch, but that aside, LSU and Alabama are 1 and 1 1/2.
No way. The truth is that in 5 years time nobody will remember who won the so-called national championship game of 2011. Nobody except for Bama or LSU fans or real sports geeks. Everybody else won't care.
Did the SEC "dominate" over Oregon last year ? I think not.
LSU beat Oregon this year, but there were a lot of fluky things that happened in that game.
The bottom line is that you can call this the national championship as much as you want, but until there is a playoff it's bogus BCS.
I doubt it. Oregon has the best case. Their loss to LSU should not have hurt them any more than Alabama's loss to LSU.
Let's compare those two losses.
Oregon played a solid first half, but they were dominated in the 3rd and 4th quarters. The Ducks were down 30-13 by the end of the 3rd. They were down 40-20 until scoring on a largely uncontested drive in the closing moments of that game, which bumped the score to 40-27. Moreover, LSU was missing 4 of its starting players, including wide-out Russell Shepard and QB Jordan Jefferson. A shaky starter in Jarret Lee went 10 for 22 and fumbled a snap, and still led the Tigers to a relatively safe margin of victory.
Against Alabama, however, Lee got stuffed by the stifling defense of the Tide. They picked him off twice in less than two full quarters. He was so ineffective that LSU had no choice but to bring Jefferson off the bench, an option they didn't have in the first game. Alabama controlled the line of scrimmage for much of the game. Were it not for the bad kicking of Alabama, the Tide would be number one and everyone would be wondering what to make of LSU's season. In short, yes, they both lost, but to say that Oregon and Alabama's losses are similar is kinda missing the point. Everyone who saw the Oregon game against LSU and who can compare it to the Alabama game knows that Oregon, while good, is not as good as Alabama.
And anyone who's seen OSU knows the same thing. OSU is a good team for sure, but they're not as good as Alabama.
Oregon played a solid first half, but they were dominated in the 3rd and 4th quarters. The Ducks were down 30-13 by the end of the 3rd. They were down 40-20 until scoring on a largely uncontested drive in the closing moments of that game, which bumped the score to 40-27. Moreover, LSU was missing 4 of its starting players, including wide-out Russell Shepard and QB Jordan Jefferson. A shaky starter in Jarret Lee went 10 for 22 and fumbled a snap, and still led the Tigers to a relatively safe margin of victory.
Against Alabama, however, Lee got stuffed by the stifling defense of the Tide. They picked him off twice in less than two full quarters. He was so ineffective that LSU had no choice but to bring Jefferson off the bench, an option they didn't have in the first game. Alabama controlled the line of scrimmage for much of the game. Were it not for the bad kicking of Alabama, the Tide would be number one and everyone would be wondering what to make of LSU's season. In short, yes, they both lost, but to say that Oregon and Alabama's losses are similar is kinda missing the point. Everyone who saw the Oregon game against LSU and who can compare it to the Alabama game knows that Oregon, while good, is not as good as Alabama.
And anyone who's seen OSU knows the same thing. OSU is a good team for sure, but they're not as good as Alabama.
Yeah, because what happened in OTHER games tells you what will happen in the National Championship game.....
No way. The truth is that in 5 years time nobody will remember who won the so-called national championship game of 2011. Nobody except for Bama or LSU fans or real sports geeks. Everybody else won't care.
Uh, dude, when people look up the 2011 season on Wikipedia, what is it going to say? Alabama or LSU = BCS Champions. They won't remember OSU or anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros
Did the SEC "dominate" over Oregon last year ? I think not.
LSU beat Oregon this year, but there were a lot of fluky things that happened in that game.
"Fluke" LOL! Duuuude, LSU had four of its starters missing. I was up in Oregon, and believe me, I can remember quite clearly everyone in all the sports bars in Oregon getting all giddy to face LSU with its supposedly ready-to-go team. And they were even saying things like "Ah, man, now LSU is gonna go out and make excuses for losing to Oregon." And to tell the truth, I kinda was ready to make excuses...but fortunately, LSU proved it was still ready to play some big boy football even with four of its best starters on the bench. This is just more excuse-making from non-SEC schools who are sick to death of SEC dominance.
Look, I get it. If I were a die-hard Oregon, OSU, Pac 12, Big 12, or Big 10 fan, or a fan of some school with a big football tradition, I'd be bent and about sick and tired of watching Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Auburn hoisting the glass trophy year after year. I get it. But the best way to deal with that is to go out and have your team beat the big boys on the field when it counts, and to prevent an all-conference match-up, make sure that these much-touted teams of these conferences can take care of business against bowl-losing, 6-7 teams like Iowa State. That's all it takes. Just win out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros
The bottom line is that you can call this the national championship as much as you want, but until there is a playoff it's bogus BCS.
Dude, we all know you wouldn't be saying that if it was Oregon or OSU or one of your beloved teams in the mix. People are just bent that they're not. Maybe next year.
Yeah, because what happened in OTHER games tells you what will happen in the National Championship game.....
/sarcasm.
Nobody is saying anything to the contrary. The point is, Alabama had the better year, and they made their case more than OSU or any other team did. And since that time, OSU and Big 12 have since only helped the case of their detractors. A very unimpressive win against Stanford, not to mention one of the better SEC teams taking care of one of the better Big 12 teams in the only head-to-head matchup.
I guess my bottom line here is, if Alabama goes out tonight and let's say they beat LSU, why wouldn't they be considered the best team in the country? They would have accomplished what no other team in the nation has?
I could sympathize with the argument a lot more if it were against the merits of the BCS system itself and for the moment leave the teams out of it -- I've never actually disagreed. I can understand that people don't agree with this shoddy system, which only invites controversy. But at the end of the day, if Alabama wins, they will arguably have the best season in football. If LSU then they absolutely would have the best season in football. Other teams had really strong years and have a lot to build on, but they haven't quite had the years that tonight's winner will have by the time its all done.
Nobody is saying anything to the contrary. The point is, Alabama had the better year, and they made their case more than OSU or any other team did. And since that time, OSU and Big 12 have since only helped the case of their detractors. A very unimpressive win against Stanford, not to mention one of the better SEC teams taking care of one of the better Big 12 teams in the only head-to-head matchup.
I guess my bottom line here is, if Alabama goes out tonight and let's say they beat LSU, why wouldn't they be considered the best team in the country? They would have accomplished what no other team in the nation has?
I could sympathize with the argument a lot more if it were against the merits of the BCS system itself and for the moment leave the teams out of it -- I've never actually disagreed. I can understand that people don't agree with this shoddy system, which only invites controversy. But at the end of the day, if Alabama wins, they will arguably have the best season in football. If LSU then they absolutely would have the best season in football. Other teams had really strong years and have a lot to build on, but they haven't quite had the years that tonight's winner will have by the time its all done.
Ok.... I can understand this entire post.
But I'm just going to be honest with you.... this entire concept of finding the "best team in the country" is, in my eyes, EXTREMELY overrated.
Seriously, just take a look at every single sport you can think of. Think of all the times we had a possible "BEST TEAM EVER" and how they were beaten in the championship game. The '07 Patriots, '05 USC, even last year's Miami Heat in the NBA finals were seen as the run-away favorites and best team that season, even after they lost the title game. Even the AP rankes a team #1 and sees them as the National Champion even if they didn't play in the BCS. This has happened several times in the past, it's happened recently (especially with a few NON-BCS schools), and ya know what? It may just happen again this year.
When you look at it that way, what's the point? You might as well not even play.
If we didn't have this (and I really don't want to turn this into another playoff thread, so I'll keep this brief) and we had a tournament, there would at least be very little reason to argue over strength of schedule. Which is more b.s. since you'd think all you have to do is win ALL your games, but because there's this restriction and importance on conference/games you play/how you play, you get punished for it. But whatever.
That's my biggest gripe. This entire thing of having the #1 and #2 in the National Title is great.... on paper. Because there's just so many variables that go into this. And who knows? The real #1 team in the country could be in the Sun Belt. And I know you're probably laughing at that, but that could be the truth. Florida International could have an all-star team, and yet, no one would see that or care since they're not in the SEC. That's why this pisses me off, that's why I chose not to watch.
Sorry.
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.
