NCAA Football 2011 Season Catch-All

I'm staying. I will continue my sec and general misanthropy here .

Jeff-66 wrote:
Alabama & LSU have already played.
LSU won
there weren't any TD's scored
it was boring
Bama missed 4 FG's
it was a snooze-fest
Bama already had their chance
LSU won in Tuscaloosa
Bama did not win the SEC or the SEC west
been there done that
it was an 'ugly game'
OSU can really score some TD's and LSU/OSU would have been more 'exciting'
the BCS sucks
it's not fair :cry:

Chris?

Grumpicus wrote:

Chris? ;)

Hehe, well note that his post was made after mine

I was just echoing (and predicting) what's been said here numerous times. Apparently that stepped on some toes, and for that I apologize. There is no need to create a new thread (I say that since that move was clearly directed at me). I would rather bow out of this thread than to cause division.

I've tried to be clear in that I also agree that the BCS system stinks (I wasn't sure where the "BCS supporters" comment was coming from, it sure isn't me) and that I would be perfectly happy to see a split championship if Alabama were to win. I really don't care that much about a "national champion" title anyway. I just enjoy my team having a great season and hopefully winning their conference and/or their bowl game.

So anyway, I apologize if I offended anyone. Carry on. Btw, there are lots of other bowl games to talk about.

One last thing: I think this ruckus the BCS is causing is deserved, but I think it will end up being moot -- I think LSU's special teams are far too superior to Alabama's and in what will likely be a close game, that should give them the edge.

A look at the Harris poll ballots

Chris Low wrote:
Several people have asked about the Harris poll and how the 115 participants on that panel voted in Sunday's Top 25 poll.

You can go here to see how everybody voted. The Harris poll is made up of former players, former coaches, former college administrators as well as current and former members of the media, and is one of three components used in the BCS standings.

A couple of the voters voted Oklahoma State as low as No. 6. Also, there were some who ranked Alabama as low as No. 4.

Grumpicus wrote:

Chris? ;)

If we had a playoff, we’d probably get to find out. Of course, if we had a playoff, something tells me we’d also see Alabama vs. LSU again somewhere along the way, probably in the championship game.

Nope, no SEC kool aid at all... for f*ck's sake, that's why we need a playoff, to prove it on the field. 3 other conferences had better winning records in bowl games last year than the SEC. And 3 other conferences had the same .500 record they did. Bowl games are where conferences play teams from other conferences (except in the this year's BCS of course)... so it's usually a nice measuring stick. And yet the SEC-SEC-SEC cheering just keeps on rolling.

Grumpicus wrote:
A look at the Harris poll ballots

Chris Low wrote:
Several people have asked about the Harris poll and how the 115 participants on that panel voted in Sunday's Top 25 poll.

You can go here to see how everybody voted. The Harris poll is made up of former players, former coaches, former college administrators as well as current and former members of the media, and is one of three components used in the BCS standings.

A couple of the voters voted Oklahoma State as low as No. 6. Also, there were some who ranked Alabama as low as No. 4.

Thanks, Grumpicus. It's weird that something like that is even part of the discussion about NCAA football. It bums me out.

I really did prefer it when they just voted by paper at the end of the year. At least there was no confusion that this was all just a matter of opinion with little decided on the field.

DSGamer wrote:
Stele wrote:
I never bothered to look at the actual standings earlier.

So OkSt. actually won the computer ranking? But the Harris Poll and USA Today had Alabama at 2. So the whole point of putting a human element in so that the computers wouldn't screw it up has backfired? The computers are right, the people are stupid.

This sh*t can not blow up soon enough.

Saban voted OSU #4. The human element was a complete failure.

In the interest of putting all the cards on the table...

From Chris Low (yes, I'm catching up on his blog):

Saban wasn’t the only coach nationally who didn’t have Oklahoma State No. 3. In fact, Air Force’s Troy Calhoun had the Cowboys No. 5 behind No. 3 Stanford and No. 4 Arkansas.

Other coaches who had Oklahoma State No. 4 were Duke’s David Cutcliffe, Syracuse’s Doug Marrone, Missouri’s Gary Pinkel, Rutgers’ Greg Schiano and Stanford’s David Shaw, who ranked his Cardinal No. 3.

Also...

Looking at the flip side, Texas Tech’s Tommy Tuberville, formerly the Auburn coach, was among those coaches ranking Oklahoma State No. 2 and Alabama No. 3.

Some of the others included Illinois’ Ron Zook, Wisconsin’s Bret Bielema, Southern Miss’ Larry Fedora, Baylor’s Art Briles, Louisiana Tech’s Sonny Dykes, Cal’s Jeff Tedford, Iowa State’s Paul Rhoads and Oklahoma’s Bob Stoops.

None of the 59 coaches on the panel had Alabama lower than No. 3 on their ballots.

Finally...

Fans can go here to see how all of the coaches voted.

So maybe Saban didn't sink OSU's chances all by himself. Maybe. For the record, as I believe I mentioned up-thread, I also ranked Stanford ahead of OSU based on the "strength" of their losses.

Stele wrote:
Nope, no SEC kool aid at all... for f*ck's sake, that's why we need a playoff, to prove it on the field. 3 other conferences had better winning records in bowl games last year than the SEC. And 3 other conferences had the same .500 record they did. Bowl games are where conferences play teams from other conferences (except in the this year's BCS of course)... so it's usually a nice measuring stick. And yet the SEC-SEC-SEC cheering just keeps on rolling. :?

Just to be clear, Chris is ESPN's SEC blogger. As far as conferences go, there's little doubt where his loyalties lie.

Bio:

Low joined ESPN.com in 2007 after 10 years with The (Nashville) Tennessean covering the University of Tennessee and SEC. The Rock Hill, S.C., native lives with his wife in Knoxville and has three sons.

I wasn't presenting him as an unbiased source, especially in the article you quoted.

Jeff-66 wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

Chris? ;)

I was just echoing (and predicting) what's been said here numerous times. Apparently that stepped on some toes, and for that I apologize. There is no need to create a new thread (I say that since that move was clearly directed at me). I would rather bow out of this thread than to cause division.

No need to bow out. You just have to understand this. SEC fans are... um... passionate. I love the team I love and I prefer West Coast teams, but I have no illusions. After the way Auburn stomped Oregon last year especially. The SEC is on fire right now. The SEC is the best conference in football right now.

But it hasn't always been that way. If the BCS existed in the 80s and early 90s you'd have had Florida State, Miami and Notre Dame playing for the national title constantly against some combination of each other or random teams like Washington or Michigan. More importantly, does that mean the two best teams in the country are in the SEC? Does that mean that no team from another conference should get a shot at LSU? I think it should be okay to debate these things. Or even just complain. Tossing out a list of everyone's complaints as a pre-emptive strike was... well... it kinda sucked. Were we all supposed to just shut up until next season after that? Our opinions don't matter because you already called out all the arguments and you consider them tired? That's why I created the other thread. Because it appeared that it wasn't going to be copacetic to complain about the state of the BCS without hearing that.

And, once again, it's about more than the championship. It's about Michigan in the BCS despite losing their conference. It's about Boise State being sent to the Maaco Bowl to play a 6-6 PAC-12 team. The PAC-12, btw, a conference so bad that the title game included a team whose coach was fired and finished under .500. The SEC isn't the problem. The BCS is. Top to bottom. And I think it should be okay to say that without being pre-emptively called out by SEC fans.

As Jeff-66 alluded, I really don't think anyone on here is a BCS supporter. In fact, I don't believe I've ever met a BCS supporter. I've never even heard of a BCS supporter sighting.

One last point to make sure I'm clear, and I'm giving it its own post to make sure it doesn't get lost.

Do I recognize that the stated goal of the BCS is to match the top two teams in the country? Yes.
Do I personally think Alabama is the second-best team in the country this year? Yes.
Am I, as an University of Alabama alumnus, excited that our team gets a shot at the National Championship? Yes.

Would I, as a fan of college football, rather see LSU vs. OSU (or Stanford) on January 9th? Yes.

[size=4]Do I think OSU would win that game? No... but no one thought Iowa State would win, either.[/size]

Edit: Am I, as a native New Orleanian, also excited that LSU is in the National Championship, too? Yes... but I'm still cheering for Alabama.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
As Jeff-66 alluded, I really don't think anyone on here is a BCS supporter. In fact, I don't believe I've ever met a BCS supporter. I've never even heard of a BCS supporter sighting.

;)

Maybe BCS apologist would be better. I would like to think if the PAC-12 was in the BCS championship every year while Auburn was getting shut out that I'd have sympathy for them.

Grumpicus wrote:

Do I personally think Alabama is the second-best team in the country this year? Yes.

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think this matters when the teams have already played. Alabama may very well be the 2nd best team in the country. But in NCAA FBS Football the regular season is essentially an extended playoff at the end of which two teams are selected for the championship. And in that playoff that is the regular season Alabama has a worse body of work than OSU and lost to LSU already. It doesn't matter whether I think they're better. It doesn't matter whether you think they're better. It should matter that they already lost to LSU. That game was played. We know how is better.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
As Jeff-66 alluded, I really don't think anyone on here is a BCS supporter. In fact, I don't believe I've ever met a BCS supporter. I've never even heard of a BCS supporter sighting.

;)

John Saunders, host of ESPN's Sports Reporters, and also an announcer for lots of stuff. He claims that the BCS makes every game of the season count, that every game is a playoff.

It's a ludicrous argument. Every game matters in basketball too. It's important to your seeding, or your at-large chances if you don't get the automatic bid to the playoffs. And then you get one-and-done tournament, which is hugely popular, even for non-fans of the sport.

LSU-Alabama would have been just as exciting (or boring) this year if there was a playoff because it was going to determine who had a shot at the SEC championship. Then the other team would have had to hope for an at-large playoff bid. And then we could see on the field if OkSt or Stanford or whoever was better.

Maybe in a couple years. No way the BCS gets renewed again after this.

DSGamer, you're right, of course. My post was in poor judgment, and again I apologize. But for the record, I didn't make that post as an SEC fan, and certainly not as an SEC fan attempting to silence fans of other conferences. I was merely doing the same thing, venting a bit about stuff I keep reading over and over on various forums and in the media and so forth. (I'm just trying to explain my motivation a bit)

In no way do I expect people to shut up or stop complaining. I guess I was just complaining about the complaining. Typical forum stuff, I suppose.

And I'm very familiar with the past 40 years of college football. I understand the failure of the BCS system and how the SEC wasn't always king.

I'm not a fan of a conference, I'm a fan of my team. (Alabama fans aren't particularly fond of Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, etc ;)) My reaction was in part feeling that Alabama was about to get endlessly bashed for the crime of playing the best football they could, and impressing voters enough to make them #2. But as you said, and I agree, the BCS is the problem.

I totally agree that Boise State, once again, got completely shafted. Their coach spoke out today, and I agreed with every word he said. The system is broken. He believes changes are coming soon, and I hope he's right.

edit:

DSGamer wrote:
I really did prefer it when they just voted by paper at the end of the year. At least there was no confusion that this was all just a matter of opinion with little decided on the field.

I wanted to comment on this a bit too. First, I agree, it was a better system. Hardly playoffs, but it made more sense than the crap the BCS system is capable of generating. There were definitely arguments and debates and people 'denying' the stated champions back then too, but they generally got it right, and guess what ... every team was eligible to be the champion. I believe it was 1983 when BYU won the NC.

Now, the system simply isn't fair. You have 120 NCAA schools, and a large chunk of them have no shot. The game (and definitely the BCS) revolves around money now. /captain obvious

Jeff-66 wrote:
DSGamer, you're right, of course. My post was in poor judgment, and again I apologize. But for the record, I didn't make that post as an SEC fan, and certainly not as an SEC fan attempting to silence fans of other conferences. I was merely doing the same thing, venting a bit about stuff I keep reading over and over on various forums and in the media and so forth. (I'm just trying to explain my motivation a bit)

Fair enough. No hard feelings. Just understand that as much as it sucks hearing about SEC bias it sucks hearing that your conferences and teams and the games you play that aren't in the SEC don't matter.

Jeff-66 wrote:

*** good stuff snipped ***

I totally agree that Boise State, once again, got completely shafted. Their coach spoke out today, and I agreed with every word he said. The system is broken. He believes changes are coming soon, and I hope he's right.

Actually, as I said in the safe thread, this is why Boise State was shafted, in my opinion. If that's the case they deserve it. Those unis are fugly.

IMAGE(http://www.chron.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1858171)

Also, this started out as a joke..

http://www.boiseweekly.com/Cobweb/archives/2011/12/05/boise-state-vs-usc-two-teams-one-cup

...but it's actually picking up steam. Why should Boise State bother with the Maaco bowl? Might as well play a more lucrative exhibition.

DSGamer, I appreciate your passion, but it is misplaced. Your hate should be directed elsewhere. Don't blame the SEC for the BCS mess.

Badferret wrote:
DSGamer, I appreciate your passion, but it is misplaced. Your hate should be directed elsewhere. Don't blame the SEC for the BCS mess.

Actually, I never said the SEC was to blame. Never.

Me on this page wrote:
The SEC isn't the problem. The BCS is. Top to bottom. And I think it should be okay to say that without being pre-emptively called out by SEC fans.

My position is simply that a voting system that bases its rankings on quality opponents in inherently flawed when teams from the same conference get ranked higher year over year.

Stele has done this better justice than me, but let me try again. This is what happens.

- SEC finishes a gaggle of schools with 1 or 2 losses
- SEC school wins championship
- SEC teams ranked in top 20 next season
- Based on strength of schedule (i.e. playing against top 20 SEC teams), an SEC team makes the national title game

This is essentially a loop, to use programming parlance. It will never end until another conference becomes dominate. Then it will be that conference being given the benefit of the doubt. Notre Dame was in this boat for so long they got their own TV contract.

DSGamer wrote:
Badferret wrote:
DSGamer, I appreciate your passion, but it is misplaced. Your hate should be directed elsewhere. Don't blame the SEC for the BCS mess.

Actually, I never said the SEC was to blame. Never.

Huh, I could have sworn I saw a thread titled: NCAA Football 2011 (Safe to criticize the BCS and SEC) Catch-All

With the first post being: The whole nation is not the SEC. Not all NCAA football fans think the BCS is fine. This is a safe thread in which we can discuss football without being blasted by SEC and BCS partisans.

It sure seemed to me that in that imaginary thread someone was at least strongly implying that SEC fans were BCS partisans or apologist.

I don't get where you're going with that. I think SEC partisans can be very defensive and a little unfair to the rest of the nation regarding the quality of football they play, but I said nothing about the SEC being the cause of the BCS mess. I really have no clue what you're going on about. I guess I should have stayed in the other thread because *this* is why I started the other thread.

I don't think anyone in this thread is a BCS apologist, supporter, sympathizer, pinko, etc. In fact I think that literally everyone is a BCS detractor and/or hater.

Now, as to SEC partisans, some can be obnoxious in a very un-Goodjerly manner. Even many of the other SEC partisans think so. Don't paint all SEC partisans with the same brush!

The Heismann finalists have been named. They are in alphabetical order:

Montee Ball
Robert Griffin III
Andrew Luck
Tyrann Mathieu
Trent Richardson

Very very tough to pick a winner this year. In an ESPN poll with over 230,000 respondents, the crowd pick was ...

Spoiler:
Robert Griffin III, with 34% of the vote, Luck was 2nd with 24%

I hope you're right. Robert Griffin III had one of the more mind-boggling seasons I've seen.

He's getting at least one first place vote. bernie Miklasz tweeted this yesterday.

Not that anyone gives a damn, but RG3 got the top line on my Heisman ballot.

My #2 would be Montee Ball, if not #1 over RG3.

Jayhawker wrote:
He's getting at least one first place vote. bernie Miklasz tweeted this yesterday.

Not that anyone gives a damn, but RG3 got the top line on my Heisman ballot.

My #2 would be Montee Ball, if not #1 over RG3.

Yeah, Ball deserves serious consideration. What he did this year was amazing. But it's hard to undervalue what all 5 of those guys did for their team. Mathieu is crazy talented, but should not be a serious candidate. Not because he's defense/special teams, but because a) he was suspended for drug use, and b) his dangerous, and utterly unnecessary cheap shot against Dre Kirkpatrick (which knocked him out, and gave him a concussion). The CBS announcers even called that play "incredibly selfish". Russell Wilson or Matt Barkley should have been selected over him anyway.

In other bowl news... WKU gets snubbed after 7-5 season.

Pretty sad, a program that went 0-12 a couple years ago has turned it around and gets passed over for 13 6-6 teams out there, and of course the one 6-7 one.

So, the Big East is supposedly going to add Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, Houston and UCF.

I repeat. The Big East is adding San Diego State.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
So, the Big East is supposedly going to add Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, Houston and UCF.

I repeat. The Big East is adding San Diego State.

The Big East just went full retard.

That's a huge disappointment for players. I thought there were enough Beef O Brady Bowls and Humanitarian bowls to keep everyone playing until January. Are they the only team with more than 6 wins not playing in a bowl?

Wow, the Big East BCS bid might actually mean something now.

Jayhawker wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
So, the Big East is supposedly going to add Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, Houston and UCF.

I repeat. The Big East is adding San Diego State.

The Big East just went full retard.

I laughed out loud. Good reference.