| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kirbah wrote: | Let me start off by congradulating Alabama on the title. You guys were deserving and certainly proved it. My qualm is not with Alabama, but rather with the BCS itself.
Here’s the thing. For a sports league to work, it has to fulfill two purposes. It has to be fair, and it has to be fun. Most of the time, when we talk about this stuff — especially, for whatever reason, in football — we emphasize fairness over everything. As in: Who cares if the first LSU-Bama game was a grim swamp-trek through mass collective boredom? They’re the two most deserving teams!
But isn’t fun why we watch sports in the first place? One of the reasons I thought Oklahoma State should have played in the title game was that it just would have been 5,000 times more awesome as a matchup. Offense vs. defense! Big 12 insurrectionists vs. SEC riot police! Major questions of the season actually answered! We’re never supposed to decide this stuff based on irresponsible considerations like awesomeness. But this is a spectator entertainment, not the Potsdam Conference. Why shouldn’t “In your heart, which game would you rather watch?” be a relevant question?
Anyway, as things stand, that’s a moot point, because — and here’s the heart of the problem with the BCS — the current system is neither fun nor fair. It coughs up games like Monday night’s, which managed to be painful to watch and also not settle anything. Had the voting gone differently, and Oklahoma State been picked to play LSU, it would have been horribly unfair to Alabama, which clearly deserved to play for the national championship. (I’m basing that on the fact that it just won the national championship.) As things happened, it was horribly unfair to Oklahoma State and Stanford. Right now, the day after the title game, there’s still a legitimate chance that Oregon is the best team in the country. Does anyone even remember Oregon exists?
Again, it’s not new to point out that the system is 16 kinds of wrecked. But it’s worth spending an angry minute mourning the completely delightful slate of games we might now be watching if it weren’t. (You wouldn’t drop everything to watch OSU-Alabama next weekend? Really?). Regardless, the BCS is still all about $ so I'm sure we're a long way from a playoff, but I had to get this off my chest. |
Thank you sir, for your unbiased opinion on this  . I actually agree with you on pretty much all of this. It's well time for a change, but I want the change to continue to allow the regular season to mean something in football. I don't want this to be the NFL where you can bench starters in the last game if you've already locked up your spots and advantages in the playoffs.
As far as the "our game didn't matter," are you serious? What the hell do you people not understand? LSU, or Iowa State? Which team is better? If you want to play in the National Championship, don't fucking lose to IOWA STATE.
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fUNC
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 3439
Location: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| directshot999 wrote: | | Kirbah wrote: | Let me start off by congradulating Alabama on the title. You guys were deserving and certainly proved it. My qualm is not with Alabama, but rather with the BCS itself.
Here’s the thing. For a sports league to work, it has to fulfill two purposes. It has to be fair, and it has to be fun. Most of the time, when we talk about this stuff — especially, for whatever reason, in football — we emphasize fairness over everything. As in: Who cares if the first LSU-Bama game was a grim swamp-trek through mass collective boredom? They’re the two most deserving teams!
But isn’t fun why we watch sports in the first place? One of the reasons I thought Oklahoma State should have played in the title game was that it just would have been 5,000 times more awesome as a matchup. Offense vs. defense! Big 12 insurrectionists vs. SEC riot police! Major questions of the season actually answered! We’re never supposed to decide this stuff based on irresponsible considerations like awesomeness. But this is a spectator entertainment, not the Potsdam Conference. Why shouldn’t “In your heart, which game would you rather watch?” be a relevant question?
Anyway, as things stand, that’s a moot point, because — and here’s the heart of the problem with the BCS — the current system is neither fun nor fair. It coughs up games like Monday night’s, which managed to be painful to watch and also not settle anything. Had the voting gone differently, and Oklahoma State been picked to play LSU, it would have been horribly unfair to Alabama, which clearly deserved to play for the national championship. (I’m basing that on the fact that it just won the national championship.) As things happened, it was horribly unfair to Oklahoma State and Stanford. Right now, the day after the title game, there’s still a legitimate chance that Oregon is the best team in the country. Does anyone even remember Oregon exists?
Again, it’s not new to point out that the system is 16 kinds of wrecked. But it’s worth spending an angry minute mourning the completely delightful slate of games we might now be watching if it weren’t. (You wouldn’t drop everything to watch OSU-Alabama next weekend? Really?). Regardless, the BCS is still all about $ so I'm sure we're a long way from a playoff, but I had to get this off my chest. |
Thank you sir, for your unbiased opinion on this . I actually agree with you on pretty much all of this.
As far as the "our game didn't matter," are you serious? What the hell do you people not understand? LSU, or Iowa State? Which team is better? If you want to play in the National Championship, don't fucking lose to IOWA STATE. |
I love how SEC homers love to point this out yet forget the whole plane crash thing from the night before. The team was a little preoccupied.
_________________
~Kyle~
Scorehero's #1 Chiefs fan and L4D2 player |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fUNC wrote: |
I love how SEC homers love to point this out yet forget the whole plane crash thing from the night before. The team was a little preoccupied. |
We had a tornado that blew through the city of Tuscaloosa, killing 53 people, if you want to bring up horrible accidents. Half of the city is still in ruin in the wake of the F5 tornado that narrowly missed the campus, and numerous University of Alabama students (many of whom were friends, or girlfriends, of football players) were part of those 53 that lost their lives that day. More than 7,000 structures were damaged or destroyed,
You don't think that wasn't on the mind of the Alabama players every day? Here's a quote from a Senior WR:
"I still drive by the destruction every day and it still gives me a sickening feeling," said wide receiver Brandon Gibson. "You still remember that the gas station that used to be there is gone, that the Krispy Kreme that used to be there is gone. It (the feeling) doesn't go away. But we've played hard this season for the people of Tuscaloosa. Hopefully we can win it all for them."
(the above quote was published yesterday)
Trent Richardson said “We want to bring joy back to the town.”
Here's Mark Barron's thoughts: “That situation, it was devastating. Lots of people lost everything, They lost material things, but they also lost hope. When the season starts, they follow Alabama. So if we go out and have a great season for them, we can give them a little something back.”
Nick Saban also threw his input in with this one: “We can’t just be a team on Saturday. We have to be a team in the worst of times. I was really pleased at how our players did a lot to support and help the community.”
Dont'a Hightower: “To have something to look forward to, the season, to heal even a little bit, for some people that’s all they have. We’re working hard to give them back some of that.”
Don't give me the tragedy excuse. Not after what Alabama went through in their season.
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like the fact that people are using the deaths of others as scapegoats for the losses anyways. When the tornados were brought up again after the LSU loss by some journalists, I cringed. Whenever somebody brings up the plane crash, I cringe as well. There's no asterisk in the BCS for random accidents like these, so each team has to take them their own way.
Alabama decided to respond with 12 blowouts and 1 close loss. Oklahoma State responded by dropping an easy win.
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide
Last edited by directshot999 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisdaschwab912
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 6567
Location: UW-Eau Claire
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are we seriously having THIS discussion AGAIN? Let's see if the most unlikely of SH posters can play neutral arbitrator.
Anti-SEC/Bama: You agree that Oklahoma State's loss to Iowa State, while in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy to the university, was still awful.
Pro-SEC/Bama: In the grand scheme of things, what did the first game between LSU and Bama really prove in the end? You agree that it was a 9-6 borefest in which the losing host team won a quasi-road game rematch 21-0, and Stanford and Oklahoma State deserved just as much of a chance to play for the title as Bama did, but got fucked by the current system.
_________________
krisdaschwab912's dream six-pack undergoing revision.
| PiemanLK, on krisdaschwab912's legendary dating skills wrote: | | I'd listen to him, he knows his way around with the ladies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krisdaschwab912 wrote: | Are we seriously having THIS discussion AGAIN? Let's see if the most unlikely of SH posters can play neutral arbitrator.
Anti-SEC/Bama: You agree that Oklahoma State's loss to Iowa State, while in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy to the university, was still awful.
Pro-SEC/Bama: In the grand scheme of things, what did the first game between LSU and Bama really prove in the end? You agree that it was a 9-6 borefest in which the losing host team won a quasi-road game rematch 21-0, and Stanford and Oklahoma State deserved just as much of a chance to play for the title as Bama did, but got fucked by the current system. |
Agree with the bold, don't agree with the other. How the blue fuck does Stanford deserve a shot? Their schedule was worse than the MWC, and they lost big time against the only elite team they played.
And once again, Iowa State < LSU. That's all that can be said there. Iowa State is on par with VANDERBILT in our conference. That kind of loss, if you want to be a National Championship contender, is completely inexcusable. That would be like me whining in 2007 if Alabama's only loss was to UL Monroe. If you want to be an elite team, you cannot be the win that allows a team to become bowl eligible.
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisdaschwab912
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 6567
Location: UW-Eau Claire
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| directshot999 wrote: | | krisdaschwab912 wrote: | Are we seriously having THIS discussion AGAIN? Let's see if the most unlikely of SH posters can play neutral arbitrator.
Anti-SEC/Bama: You agree that Oklahoma State's loss to Iowa State, while in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy to the university, was still awful.
Pro-SEC/Bama: In the grand scheme of things, what did the first game between LSU and Bama really prove in the end? You agree that it was a 9-6 borefest in which the losing host team won a quasi-road game rematch 21-0, and Stanford and Oklahoma State deserved just as much of a chance to play for the title as Bama did, but got fucked by the current system. |
Agree with the bold, don't agree with the other. How the blue fuck does Stanford deserve a shot? Their schedule was worse than the MWC, and they lost big time against the only elite team they played.
And once again, Iowa State < LSU. That's all that can be said there. Iowa State is on par with VANDERBILT in our conference. That kind of loss, if you want to be a National Championship contender, is completely inexcusable. That would be like me whining in 2007 if Alabama's only loss was to UL Monroe. If you want to be an elite team, you cannot be the win that allows a team to become bowl eligible. |
Well, I tried. Let's strike this down point by point.
1: If Oklahoma State deserved a shot, then Stanford would have gotten in the +1 format by default, being the #4 team in the BCS. Also, they beat USC on the road, which has to count for something. They also beat Notre Dame at home. And they obviously played Oklahoma State pretty damn close in the Fiesta Bowl (if games that occured in the bowl season can be used in these arguments, as was the case earlier, then this applies here as well).
2: Unlike Vandy, Iowa State actually beat good teams (Iowa at home and, to a lesser extent, UConn on the road). All of their losses were to elite/good teams. Vandy lost to Tennessee. Stacked up side by side, Iowa State looks more like Florida.
3: 2007 has nothing to do with anything.
Also, I don't know what you're smoking, but if you think that 9-6 game was anything other than the football version of the 36-33 Wisconsin/Penn State game from last year's Big Ten Basketball Tournament, then I'd like to buy some of it from you. It was just fucking boring.
_________________
krisdaschwab912's dream six-pack undergoing revision.
| PiemanLK, on krisdaschwab912's legendary dating skills wrote: | | I'd listen to him, he knows his way around with the ladies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slfan68
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 656
Location: Pink Hill, NC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At this point I'd just be happy with two damn national championship games. One between two SEC teams that I don't have to watch, and one between two teams that wouldn't normally have a shot due to the SEC that I'd actually care about watching.
_________________
Doin it for the lulz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krisdaschwab912 wrote: |
Well, I tried. Let's strike this down point by point.
1: If Oklahoma State deserved a shot, then Stanford would have gotten in the +1 format by default, being the #4 team in the BCS. Also, they beat USC on the road, which has to count for something. They also beat Notre Dame at home. And they obviously played Oklahoma State pretty damn close in the Fiesta Bowl (if games that occured in the bowl season can be used in these arguments, as was the case earlier, then this applies here as well).
2: Unlike Vandy, Iowa State actually beat good teams (Iowa at home and, to a lesser extent, UConn on the road). All of their losses were to elite/good teams. Vandy lost to Tennessee. Stacked up side by side, Iowa State looks more like Florida.
3: 2007 has nothing to do with anything.
Also, I don't know what you're smoking, but if you think that 9-6 game was anything other than the football version of the 36-33 Wisconsin/Penn State game from last year's Big Ten Basketball Tournament, then I'd like to buy some of it from you. It was just fucking boring. |
1. Is Stanford more deserving than Alabama? LSU? Even Oklahoma State??
2. Uhh, ok... Iowa State barely beat Kansas and scraped by NORTHERN IOWA by one point. They aren't good. Neither is Florida. If you lose to a 6-6 team, be it Alabama, Florida, or the New England Patriots, you don't deserve to be in the National Championship.
3. It was an extreme example 
And I'm not smoking anything. I like old school offenses and defensive football. Say what you want about the 9-6 and the 21-0 games, but the 21-0 game was the best defensive performance by any team I've seen this year. We like different kinds of games... I hate watching the scoreboard get lit up repeatedly. I much prefer the kind of games where you are always just one play away from going behind, and the stakes are much higher because you never know if you will go up again.
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaph 
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 653
Location: Bremerton, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It really depends on what criteria you want to use to judge the second best team from the regular season, and since none of the experts have a set of rules from which to make that decision they can kind of choose at will. Some would pick to avoid the rematch, some would pick based on quality of loss. And some would probably pick based on geographical region or personal bias (I might've selected Oregon if I had known they'd wear those badass helmets from the Rose Bowl, for instance ).
At the end of the day we all would select either OK St., Bama, or someone else to play LSU. And that's where the issue really arises: the system screws someone in seasons like this. It screwed Auburn's 13-0 season in 2004 solely because USC and Oklahoma were preseason #1 and #2 and couldn't be jumped since they went undefeated in the regular season. It screwed Colorado in 2001 when they beat Nebraska and won the Big 12 yet watched Nebraska get selected for the BCS title game over them. You could argue Michigan in 2006 got royally screwed based on this year's selection: they had a better looking loss, didn't win their conference, but unlike Bama this year they were kept out of the title game.
Stuff like this is why I hate the BCS system. With the money being thrown around, battling for TV exposure, etc. you'd think they come up with something better than what they have now, or at least have a more consistent method of selecting the two BCS title contenders. If I could stomach basketball officiating I'd probably be more of a college basketball fan than college football: their playoffs are exciting and while a couple of teams complain each year about being snubbed, at least the #3 and #4 ranked teams can still have a chance to claim the national championship.
Because this year both Bama and OK St. had legitimate arguments to compete for the title. Let's not forget that there would be legitimate criticism had OK St. been selected over Bama, and this debate would still be there. The flaws exist not because Bama was selected over OK St. but because there had to be this choice in the first place.
_________________
I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
This will never be the only landscape we create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaph wrote: | It really depends on what criteria you want to use to judge the second best team from the regular season, and since none of the experts have a set of rules from which to make that decision they can kind of choose at will. Some would pick to avoid the rematch, some would pick based on quality of loss. And some would probably pick based on geographical region or personal bias (I might've selected Oregon if I had known they'd wear those badass helmets from the Rose Bowl, for instance ).
At the end of the day we all would select either OK St., Bama, or someone else to play LSU. And that's where the issue really arises: the system screws someone in seasons like this. It screwed Auburn's 13-0 season in 2004 solely because USC and Oklahoma were preseason #1 and #2 and couldn't be jumped since they went undefeated in the regular season. It screwed Colorado in 2001 when they beat Nebraska and won the Big 12 yet watched Nebraska get selected for the BCS title game over them. You could argue Michigan in 2006 got royally screwed based on this year's selection: they had a better looking loss, didn't win their conference, but unlike Bama this year they were kept out of the title game.
Stuff like this is why I hate the BCS system. With the money being thrown around, battling for TV exposure, etc. you'd think they come up with something better than what they have now, or at least have a more consistent method of selecting the two BCS title contenders. If I could stomach basketball officiating I'd probably be more of a college basketball fan than college football: their playoffs are exciting and while a couple of teams complain each year about being snubbed, at least the #3 and #4 ranked teams can still have a chance to claim the national championship.
Because this year both Bama and OK St. had legitimate arguments to compete for the title. Let's not forget that there would be legitimate criticism had OK St. been selected over Bama, and this debate would still be there. The flaws exist not because Bama was selected over OK St. but because there had to be this choice in the first place. |
THANK YOU. That's what I've been trying to say all along
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laupow17
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 591
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaph wrote: | | Everything Shaph said. |
Yep.
As I said previously, Alabama wasn't necessarily the obvious choice. Alabama was (barely) evaluated to be the lesser of two evils. I guess that's why I never understood the bitterness against Alabama -- and there was a lot of it -- as if it's somehow Alabama's fault. The situation could have been flipped and a lot of people would still be mad. (And not just SEC fans, mind you. It would have pissed off a lot of people who thought Alabama was the better team, which was definitely a majority of college football fans).
But I hope that out of this fiasco comes a major overhaul in the system (like some sort of a 4 team playoff system). The truth is, Alabama -- and any defense-heavy team, really -- isn't really afraid of a playoff system. I don't really know why, but strong defenses tend to fare better than strong offenses in games where they're pitted against each other (although admittedly, such match-ups have more appeal to the whole country and are arguably more interesting).
_________________
Jon's Goals:
FC 40 Expert GH3X songs [X] #40, Monsters
FC 50 Expert GH3X songs [ ] 49, Pride And Joy
FC 20 GH1X Songs [X] #20, Sharp Dressed Man
FC 25 GH1X Songs [ ] 23, The Breaking Wheel
My Accomplishment Thread
^^Please, please tell me what you think I should go for next! =)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisdaschwab912
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 6567
Location: UW-Eau Claire
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| directshot999 wrote: |
2. Uhh, ok... Iowa State barely beat Kansas and scraped by NORTHERN IOWA by one point. They aren't good. Neither is Florida. If you lose to a 6-6 team, be it Alabama, Florida, or the New England Patriots, you don't deserve to be in the National Championship. |
Oh? The Packers dropped one to fucking Kansas City. The Saints lost to ST. LOUIS. Do they not deserve to play each other in the conference title game for the right to go to the Super Bowl if both teams win this week?
And if your answer is yes, what the fuck makes Oklahoma State any different?
_________________
krisdaschwab912's dream six-pack undergoing revision.
| PiemanLK, on krisdaschwab912's legendary dating skills wrote: | | I'd listen to him, he knows his way around with the ladies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianBAM19
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 2804
Location: San Antonio, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laupow17 wrote: | | Shaph wrote: | | Everything Shaph said. |
Yep.
As I said previously, Alabama wasn't necessarily the obvious choice. Alabama was (barely) evaluated to be the lesser of two evils. I guess that's why I never understood the bitterness against Alabama -- and there was a lot of it -- as if it's somehow Alabama's fault. The situation could have been flipped and a lot of people would still be mad. (And not just SEC fans, mind you. It would have pissed off a lot of people who thought Alabama was the better team, which was definitely a majority of college football fans).
But I hope that out of this fiasco comes a major overhaul in the system (like some sort of a 4 team playoff system). The truth is, Alabama -- and any defense-heavy team, really -- isn't really afraid of a playoff system. I don't really know why, but strong defenses tend to fare better than strong offenses in games where they're pitted against each other (although admittedly, such match-ups have more appeal to the whole country and are arguably more interesting). |
It's not any one team's fault at all, and it never has been throughout the history of the BCS. Alabama had a great opportunity, took full advantage of it, and won it all. I'm not sure if people are mad at Alabama specifically, or just taking out their BCS frustration on them. It's not the Crimson Tide's fault, though.
While we all haven't agreed on the same topics going on in this thread for a while, I think we can all agree that an overhaul is needed. A lot of the time, the BCS will leave a bad taste in a lot of our mouths. Supposedly, the NCAA president is backing the idea of a plus one, so we'll see where it goes. Maybe it IS gaining more steam after all.
Shaph and Kirbah also brought up great points, and I agree with them as well.
_________________
| KoE wrote: | | <KoE> she wanted to put the BAM in brianbam. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
directshot999
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 3838
Location: Birmingham, AL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krisdaschwab912 wrote: | | directshot999 wrote: |
2. Uhh, ok... Iowa State barely beat Kansas and scraped by NORTHERN IOWA by one point. They aren't good. Neither is Florida. If you lose to a 6-6 team, be it Alabama, Florida, or the New England Patriots, you don't deserve to be in the National Championship. |
Oh? The Packers dropped one to fucking Kansas City. The Saints lost to ST. LOUIS. Do they not deserve to play each other in the conference title game for the right to go to the Super Bowl if both teams win this week?
And if your answer is yes, what the fuck makes Oklahoma State any different? |
These situations don't even apply.
The NFL system is completely different from the BCS and allows for regular season losses, which is precisely what I don't want anyways.
That, and there are much less teams vying for your spot in the NFL.
_________________
Alabama Crimson Tide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
