NCAA Bowl Season 2011

[SoonerMatt]

Sorry, Eublet, beat ya to it

So where did your team end up? What other bowls are you looking at? Let's get the post season started!

SCHEDULE: 2011-12 bowl schedule - ESPN

[Eublet]

I'm in. Glad you did this!

There are several games I'm looking forward to.
OSU-Stanford
Penn St - Houston
Mich St - Georgia
Nebraska - South Carolina

[mrpackerguy]

I'm rosebowling

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

I'm rosebowling

Me, too! That's the bowl that counts. Should be a great game, and it's the PAC-12 vs. the Big 10, so it's just right!

Here's an interesting question that Mike Ditka asked today on the Mike & Mike show: what happens if Alabama beats LSU in their bowl?

As far as I'm concerned, that would be proof that the BCS is completely useless.

So - I'm officially rooting for the Tide in that game...just to confuse the BCS.

[FretlessMainly]

My wife's from 'Bama but is an Auburn fan. But, when they're out of it, she'll support the Tide. And I agree, the BCS should drop the C in their acronym and they'd have it spot on.

If 'Bama wins, it's clearly a split national title, right? Clear as mud.

[king_biscuit]

Prediction, Stanford clobbers OSU out of spite for being so disrespected

Prediction, Bama does the same to LSU for the same reason.

[MJ5150]

Originally Posted by FretlessMainly

If 'Bama wins, it's clearly a split national title, right? Clear as mud.

Why? It's more about when you win than who. The winner of the Bama/LSU is the champ, end of story.

All Oklahoma State had to do was win out to be in that game, they controlled their own destiny. So for as much as guys like me who don't like the rematch like to complain about it, we wouldn't be having this conversation had they taken care of business. OSU has no one to be mad at but themselves.

-Mike

[Pilgrim]

I can cheerfully disagree with friend Mike in one regard: IMO if Bama beats LSU, what we would have in a realistic sense are two one-loss teams who are tied.

Of course, technically they would win the title. Functionally they would have only proven that they're as good as LSU. From a win/loss standpoint, there would also be a couple of other D1 teams with records just as worthy. (Stanford and Oklahoma State come to mind.)

Of course, it's all just talk. The BCS does what it does.

[jp58]

If LSU loses, ESPN will be airing a documentary about this season calling it "The Year Without a Champion."

OSU and Stanford make better cases (especially Stanford IMO) to play in the title game than Bama can. OSU's only loss came on the road in the wake of a tragedy, and they beat some of the best teams and players around. Bama, not so much. I love the SEC as much as the next guy, but this year was a down year for us, and Bama didn't win their division, much less their conference. That can be a knock against Stanford too, but then again, Stanford hasn't lost to LSU yet.

We already know LSU is better than Bama, but we will never get to know whether the same can be said for OSU and Stanford, and that's the real tragedy here. I feel ripped off. I would much rather watch those awesome defenses try and stop 2 of the best offenses in the country instead of slug it out again.

[briand]

ugh.

vs. Notre Dame?? :shrug: well, at least we're in a bowl, I guess!

[MonetBass]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

Prediction, Stanford clobbers OSU out of spite for being so disrespected

Prediction, Bama does the same to LSU for the same reason.

And Oklahoma State wasn't disrespected?

Seriously, the Fiesta Bowl is going to be a great game and should be fun to watch two of the best QBs in the country in Weeden and Luck. Much more entertaining than the LSU-'Bama rematch.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by jp58

If LSU loses, ESPN will be airing a documentary about this season calling it "The Year Without a Champion."

OSU and Stanford make better cases (especially Stanford IMO) to play in the title game than Bama can. OSU's only loss came on the road in the wake of a tragedy, and they beat some of the best teams and players around. Bama, not so much. I love the SEC as much as the next guy, but this year was a down year for us, and Bama didn't win their division, much less their conference. That can be a knock against Stanford too, but then again, Stanford hasn't lost to LSU yet.

We already know LSU is better than Bama, but we will never get to know whether the same can be said for OSU and Stanford, and that's the real tragedy here. I feel ripped off. I would much rather watch those awesome defenses try and stop 2 of the best offenses in the country instead of slug it out again.

The BCS is designed to pick the best teams to play in the NCG game and that is what we have. Nobody who understands football and is objective believes that Stanford or OSU are as good as Bama and LSU. Whoever wins the NCS game will be the national champion for the year, and eventually all of this other business will be forgotten. No amount of talkbass yelling is going to change any of this

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by MonetBass

And Oklahoma State wasn't disrespected?

Not like Stanford. All we've heard for the past two days is how OSU should be playing LSU -- nobody is even talking about Stanford. I think that is going to be a powerful motivator.

[Eublet]

I'd just like to add that it was the SEC and Commissioner Mike Slive who put forward the proposition of a Plus 1 system 3 years ago, and we lobbied very hard for it. It was rejected by a few of the other conferences, INCLUDING the Big 12 and Pac 10, who didn't even want to have the discussion at all. When Gundy said his school "bought into this system several years ago" during the BCS show Sunday night, he conveniently ommitted the fact that the "buying in" also included REJECTING this Plus 1 option which would have given his team, along with Stanford an opportunity to play for a title this year.

So please, spare us the whining and sniveling.

[finalrequiem]

I spent an entire day on that argument so I'll leave it alone lol

Stanford vs. OSU-

This will be a good chance to see if Mike Gundy was right about the fact that State's defense is much better than the numbers look or if their performance against OU was a fluke. They have forced turnovers in EVERY single game and pressured Landry Jones more than any other quarterback this season, against a GREAT pass blocking team (whether you think the defenses in the big 12 stink or not, they only gave up one sack against Florida State) that had only allowed 7 sacks all year coming into Bedlam.

Traditional defensive benchmarks don't really factor in all the variables that come with an offense that puts the game several possessions out of reach before halftime- Teams basically spend 2+ quarters getting an extra down because they're forced to go for it, every 4th down. There IS no 3 and out, and 4 downs allows teams to average under 4 yards per play and still get first downs. Give teams with really good skill players that extra down and then let them do it against 2nd and 3rd team guys? I think people would find that against a great defense, where OSU wasn't up by 50 points in 20 minutes, the game would look differently from a defensive statistic standpoint. On the other side of that, there have been plenty of times where they have just been completely unable to stop the other team, for whatever reason. They have guys on the defensive side of the ball that are flat out players, though. Martin and Gilbert will both play on Sundays and they probably won't be the only ones. Shaun Lewis may end up being really REALLY good.

This should be a great game. Stanford looks to have a better defense than anyone OSU has played except for MAYBE OU and statistically, Texas (Pfffft. Texas sucks, am I right?). The only thing is that when Stanford played against the two best offences in their conference (besides their own), they gave up 48 and 53 points.

This should be a great game. I wonder what excuses people will make (a la OU's injuries) to discount OSU's defense if they end up winning, especially if they hold Stanford under 24 points or so.

[finalrequiem]

Originally Posted by Eublet

I'd just like to add that it was the SEC and Commissioner Mike Slive who put forward the proposition of a Plus 1 system 3 years ago, and we lobbied very hard for it. It was rejected by a few of the other conferences, INCLUDING the Big 12 and Pac 10, who didn't even want to have the discussion at all. When Gundy said his school "bought into this system several years ago" during the BCS show Sunday night, he conveniently ommitted the fact that the "buying in" also included REJECTING this Plus 1 option which would have given his team, along with Stanford an opportunity to play for a title this year.

So please, spare us the whining and sniveling.

Actually, Gundy has been very, VERY graceful about the fact that it's the system that everyone agreed to and bought in to and that he would also prefer the +1 but that it's much more difficult than anyone realizes to figure out how to make it all work. He also said, in his press conference that Alabama was the 2nd best team in the country. All he has said was that he feels like OSU deserved a shot at LSU. Almost everybody outside the state of Alabama at least acknowledges the fact that it isn't ridiculous for them to at least deserve a shot. Feeling like you've earned a chance to try and beat the best team in the country is a far cry for declaring that you are better than everyone else w/ the same record and crying that the system is broken.

[MonetBass]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

Not like Stanford. All we've heard for the past two days is how OSU should be playing LSU -- nobody is even talking about Stanford. I think that is going to be a powerful motivator.

That's because OSU has beateen five teams currently ranked in the top 25 (OU, K-State, Baylor, Missouri, and Texas). How many victories does Stanford have in comparison? Zero. OK, how about Alabama? Two. Body of work shows that Oklahoma State has more quality wins, plain and simple.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by finalrequiem

Actually, Gundy has been very, VERY graceful about the fact that it's the system that everyone agreed to and bought in to and that he would also prefer the +1 but that it's much more difficult than anyone realizes to figure out how to make it all work. He also said, in his press conference that Alabama was the 2nd best team in the country. All he has said was that he feels like OSU deserved a shot at LSU. Almost everybody outside the state of Alabama at least acknowledges the fact that it isn't ridiculous for them to at least deserve a shot. Feeling like you've earned a chance to try and beat the best team in the country is a far cry for declaring that you are better than everyone else w/ the same record and crying that the system is broken.

Oh, I agree, he has been mostly gracious and PC with his comments. I think it's fair to say OSU deserves a shot in general, but if you put it in specifics and ask, "Does OSU deserve the shot over Alabama in the current system", I think the answer has to be no.

I'm glad everyone is coming out of the woodwork on this and demanding some BCS changes. I fully expect Slive to make another push for a Plus 1 after this. Maybe this time these other conferences won't be so arrogant as to refuse to even have the discussion. If we could have gotten traction with either the Big 12 or PAC 10 three years ago, we likely could have made the system work as the Big 10 was very open to the idea. It was obvious at the time that what the PAC 10 and Big 12 were concerned with was that the SEC had put two teams in the top 4 several times, which would have still given us unfair advantage in their minds. So be it, but it all goes back to who plays the best football, and with 120 teams in the FBS we will always need some kind of polling to help us determine where teams are ranked. At least a Plus 1 would create room for #3 and #4 to get in there. Even Boise State would have been in that picture this year if they hadn't lost to an unranked TCU team at home, but instead we have Petersen whining about the BCS this morning also. Perhaps all this public whining will encourage change simply because the BCS committee really hasn't had to endure it from the coaches themselves in the past to this degree, at least not publically.

I'm just wanting to point out that many folks are making all these ridiculous accusations against the SEC, or claiming SEC bias is the culprit for all that is wrong with college football. That's just ridiculous. In every single category the SEC has lead the way for 20 years to what could be used to create a more level playing field for determining a champion. We expanded and adopted a championship game 20 years ago. Other conferences are just trying to get there. We've pushed for the Plus 1 on two different occasions, and have gotten the silent treatment. The biggest thing we did was create our own network which showcased our teams to the country. It's no surprise that folks get to watch all our games, which is what leads to them understanding how tough our league is. Then we win 5 championships in a row, most of them in a completely dominating fashion. Then people tell us we're arrogant and prideful. From an SEC perspective, it just seems like we can't win for losing. It's not like we've been an obstacle for change. Quite the opposite. It's everyone else that has been slow to do anything. It looks like folks are finally starting to catch up though.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by MonetBass

That's because OSU has beateen five teams currently ranked in the top 25 (OU, K-State, Baylor, Missouri, and Texas). How many victories does Stanford have in comparison? Zero. OK, how about Alabama? Two. Body of work shows that Oklahoma State has more quality wins, plain and simple.

The problem is that most voters don't think those teams, even though ranked higher, are as good as many of the SEC teams that aren't ranked as high. Take Miss St, which gave LSU and Bama a run for their money for a while. Their ranking dropped significantly toward the end of the season, and they lost some VERY close games. Missouri and Texas are a joke, and would have looked like Miss St in the SEC this year. OSU does get some props for it's resume. That's the whole reason they are still #3 even though they lost to a 6-6 Iowa State. If it weren't for those other quality wins, they wouldn't even be in the top 5 with that one loss. You just can't lose to a crappy team like that and claim a better resume, not when you have an SEC West team that was utterly dominating all season long and almost knocked off the number 1 team in the country.

I honestly can't believe this is even something folks would debate. I think OSU should have a shot at a championship, but only under a different system. There's no way they deserver it in a system that's meant to put the top two teams in a championship game. Stanford deserves it over OSU IMHO just because they at least got beat by a good team who is also in the mix .

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I can cheerfully disagree with friend Mike in one regard: IMO if Bama beats LSU, what we would have in a realistic sense are two one-loss teams who are tied.

Of course, technically they would win the title. Functionally they would have only proven that they're as good as LSU. From a win/loss standpoint, there would also be a couple of other D1 teams with records just as worthy. (Stanford and Oklahoma State come to mind.)

Of course, it's all just talk. The BCS does what it does.

If you look back at the box score from the first Bama LSU game, you will notice that Bama led almost every category -- and if you watched the game you know Bama moved the ball more effectively. A loss by 3 points in overtime is not exactly a convincing win, and if Bama should happen to beat LSU convincingly in the NCG game, there would be no doubt who is the National Champion.