- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why was Alabama the media choice for BCS NCG?
Posted on 4/18/12 at 3:42 pm to ottothewise
Posted on 4/18/12 at 3:42 pm to ottothewise
quote:
when Okie Lite lost to Iowa State, that sunk their chances. their loss was a worse loss than Bama's. That's it. Nothing more to it. no conspiracy. the media would have rather had two teams from different geographical areas. LSU was already going to draw in the SEC crowd. the media did not need Mulligame.
Except every other year it's been who have you beaten and not who have you lost too.
0
Posted on 4/18/12 at 3:44 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
The entire point of the BCS is to match up the two best teams in football.
And those teams are chosen by their resume. Not the eyeball test because the eyeball test mean shite. The eyeball test tells you THt Bama was gonna destroy Utah.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 3:49 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
Hell, I'm still pissed about 1/9 to the point that I changed up recent family vacation spot in Orange Beach to Perdito so as to not spend a dime in that state.
nice fwiw they beat the ever living shite out of us so I can't really blame anyone
Posted on 4/18/12 at 4:11 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
What's funny is everyone said the rematch fervor would fade after Nov. 5th - just like 2006 (which faded within a week) - but it never did because the season wasn't over - Bama got to impress more unlike Michigan.
It would have faded if Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Stanford, and Oregon didn't all s### the bed in the weeks following Nov 5th.
quote:
As the season went on, voters became more convinced that Bama was the 2nd best team by far...and with their easy schedule down the stretch there was ample evidence for them to separate themselves.
Again, wouldn't have been an issue if ANY of those other teams take care of business. I also think Oklahoma State's "tough schedule" and Alabama's supposed "weak schedule" is being overplayed. Kansas State, Okie State's best win, got handled easily by Alabama's best win Arkansas. In fact, Okie State's struggles with Texas A&M were almost identical to Arkansas's struggles. In fact, you could make the case that Oklahoma State and Arkansas were basically the same teams as their seasons basically mirrored each others. The only difference is that Oklahoma State was fortunate enough not to have LSU and Alabama on their regular season schedule.
quote:
The crescendo had built so much that OSU's Big 12 title was just too damn late...if OSU whips Oklahoma a few weeks earlier - maybe we have a different outcome.
If Oklahoma hadn't lost to Baylor AND a horrible Texas Tech team at home then Okie State's win would have been taken seriously enough to overcome Alabama's building "crescendo". The fact that nobody else besides Alabama played like they even wanted a piece of LSU other than Alabama left voters with little choice.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 4:35 pm to Funky Tide 8
quote:.
It might have been "unfair"(wahhhh), but that is just the way it ended up. All of the teams that we needed to lose, lost. Simple as that. The voters had no choice but to put us at number two, thus putting us in the BCSNC.
Once again you are wrong. Yes a 1 loss conf champion with a far better resume didn't deserve it bu a team that only beat 3 teams with a winning record does. Entitled much
Posted on 4/18/12 at 4:57 pm to Rickdaddy4188
Iowa frickin State... I think it really is that simple. If they lost to almost any other team in the Big 12, Okie St would have gone to the BCSNCG.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 5:37 pm to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
Once again you are wrong. Yes a 1 loss conf champion with a far better resume didn't deserve it bu a team that only beat 3 teams with a winning record does. Entitled much
Alabama beat 6 teams with winning records btw. Oklahoma State had a "far better resume"? Sorry, but a nailbiter win against a good Kansas State team, a win over a mediocre Texas team, a win over an Oklahoma team in the middle of an implosion, a really good win against Baylor, and a come from behind nailbiter win to a team (A&M) that lost to a team (Arkansas) that Alabama destroyed wasn't a "far better resume" than Alabama's. It was marginally better only because you could argue that Okie State played one or 2 better teams but Alabama blew the doors off everyone they played (sans LSU) so the whole schedule argument is kinda watered down. That's even more of an issue when you consider Okie State struggled mightily in a couple of close wins and lost to a 6-6 team. Alabama's lone loss was the only game they were even remotely threatened in.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 5:44 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
It would have faded if Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Stanford, and Oregon didn't all s### the bed in the weeks following Nov 5th.
So what you're saying is, every team can't lose a game except Bama. Of course After Jan.9th Bama deserved to be there,but up to that point they had lost at home already to LSU,had only beaten 2 ranked teams and 3 teams with a winning record. OSU won its conf, beat 5 ranked teams and 6 with a winning record. It seems that the previous way of selecting the BCSCG participants were thrown out for just last season. Every other year it's been who have you beaten( not who have you lost to) and your resume( not the eyeball test). Had it always been about the eyeball test, USC would've played in more than 2 BCSCG
Posted on 4/18/12 at 5:46 pm to Govt Tide
Were not talking after the bowl games. Before the bowl games Bama had beaten 3 teams with a winning record
Posted on 4/20/12 at 5:35 pm to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
So what you're saying is, every team can't lose a game except Bama. Of course After Jan.9th Bama deserved to be there,but up to that point they had lost at home already to LSU,had only beaten 2 ranked teams and 3 teams with a winning record. OSU won its conf, beat 5 ranked teams and 6 with a winning record. It seems that the previous way of selecting the BCSCG participants were thrown out for just last season. Every other year it's been who have you beaten( not who have you lost to) and your resume( not the eyeball test). Had it always been about the eyeball test, USC would've played in more than 2 BCSCG
It has ALWAYS mattered when you lost for as many years as I can remember. That may not be fair but that has always been the case. Alabama fell to #3 after losing to LSU. #2 Okie State lost 2 weeks later, #4 Stanford lost one week after Alabama, #3 Oregon lost two weeks later, and Oklahoma lost twice. The team (Alabama in this case) that has grounds for being jumped usually has to do something to deserve being jumped. Beating the absolute s### out of the remaining schedule didn't give the voters a lot ammo to drop Alabama and that's why they kept them #2.
Posted on 4/20/12 at 5:37 pm to Govt Tide
Its all in the sig..
Posted on 4/20/12 at 7:57 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
It has ALWAYS mattered when you lost for as many years as I can remember. That may not be fair but that has always been the case.
In 2003, USC lost BEFORE LSU lost and weeeeeell before Oklahoma lost. Both LSU and Ok played in the bcsncg. In 2008, USC lost before Florida, Florida still went.
Those are the only two cases I'm familiar with off the top of my head and only because I'm an SC fan. So no, it has not always been the case.
This post was edited on 4/20/12 at 7:58 pm
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News