Gameday coming to you live today from Baton Rouge. Here's hoping for a Mad Hatter sighting.
Good old crusty Les Miles. Not one to miss an opportunity to compliment his program and backhandedly slap another - he got in some digs at a Tiger Tour Stop in Texas. While touting the high number of LSU draft picks, he let out this quip:
"Some schools in this state didn't have any,"
Gotta love it. Too bad LSU doesn't play Texas!
Just read http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page/LSU-Bama-Fans/last-time-met (this was about the Alabama fan that violated a passed out LSU fan after the National Championship game last year) and have to say that while the act was sophmoric, this doesn't seem out of the realm of many younger fans. I know most of us on here are die hard fans and just thought this story showed how much a "bad decision" could alter a family's life.
Given its Friday and I am getting depressed over the fact that Denard's last home game is tomorrow, I was hoping to incite some comments on stupid sports related things people on the board have done or have had done onto them. I have never ventured south to Ohio for a game based off of some prior stories I have read on here and am interested on hearing from others.
Just a breaking news alert at the moment, no details.
I'm sure you're all as excited as I am about the Sugar Bowl. But I'm sure you've all been pestered by friend/family/co-workers about how M is only there because it's all about the money. Or they have various other gripes. I've decided to classify these gripes, and share my unsolicited opinion with you on the internet. I'll approach this as a conversation with each of the various butthurt partisans.
(Since we are the lowest ranked BCS team in, I'll compare everyone's resume to ours)
QUIT YOUR WHINING
Sparty - I'd almost feel bad for you if you were passed over for a BCS game by us. But you weren't - you were outside of the top 14 and therefore ineligible. Why were you outside the top 14, when we both had the same number of losses and you won the head-to-head? And won the division over us? No, not the polls - we were ranked within a spot of each other in all of them. It was the computers. Why? You see, while you beat us by 14, you lost to Nebraska by 21, who lost to us by 28. Triangle of doom. Shall we look at the other loss? Ours was an ugly one in the division to Iowa - by 8 points. Which gave you the edge in the B1G West. Yours was an even uglier thumping at the hands of Notre Dame. Yes, yes, you beat Wiscy on a Hail Mary at home. And then lost to them by 3 at a neutral site. Want to count it as a tie against a top ten team? Doesn't change the fact that If you had shown up at all in that ND game, you may have had a legitimate gripe. You didn't, so you don't. Enjoy Florida. I hear it's nice this time of year.
Oklahoma - Yes, your TT loss doesn't look that much worse than our Iowa loss. And your Baylor loss looks better than our Sparty loss. But the way you got absolutely stomped in the biggest game of your season is way uglier than anything that happened to us. Also, you're 9-3 after that one. You don't deserve anything more than the Copper Bowl.
South Carolina and Arkansas - Nobody wants to hear it. No, the limit on only two teams from a conference isn't holding you back - it keeps you from playing each other. Look, even in your good years nobody wants to see two teams from the same conference play in a bowl game against each other. And the SEC didn't have a good year - Arkansas, your best win is against the Cocks, and your escape against A&M is not as pretty as our escape against Notre Dame. And you got throttled in your two losses - you got beat worse by Bama than Penn State did. Gamecocks, your best win was against Clemson - and your losses against Arkansas and Auburn are comparable to our losses against Sparty and Iowa. But we pretty much thumped everyone else on our schedule except our rivals. Your wins were...uninspiring. The system isn't holding you back at all - your own failures on the field are keeping you out of the party. And no SEC partisans are ever allowed to complain about the BCS again, unless it's talking about how biased pollsters are towards their own.
Boise State - I usually defend you guys, but I'm not going to this time. Yes, you've got only 1 loss, and it was a close one to TCU - better looking than either of our losses alone, and certainly prettier than both put together. And your win over Georgia is comparable to our win over Nebraska. But here's the thing - your next best win was either Tulsa, Wyoming, or SDSU. SDSU was at the bottom of our resume for wins. In fact, it's so far down there we don't even think about where it is. Your second best win is our 7th or 8th best? I've got to go with our resume on this, even with the uglier losses.
Southern Miss - When both of your losses are to teams without winning records, then you have not proven you belong in the BCS. That interview gave me a good laugh though.
YOU MAYBE HAVE A POINT
TCU - I love how you guys do what you do, and you had an amazing season. Beating Boise on the blue turf and winning the Mountain West is nothing to smirk at. And while your win @Boise may be better than ours against Nebraska, and your losses are comparable to ours, I've got to go with the same argument I had against Boise - the meat of your schedule is the dregs of ours. What's that you say? Why is West Virginia ahead of you? That's a good point, but you guys know how it is in the Mountain West. That's why you're leaving next year. Good luck in the B12.
Baylor - I've had a lot of fun watching you guys, and I'm rooting for RG3 for the Heisman. And your resume isn't bad - beating three ranked teams is far better than us, and getting blown out by OK St is not so bad. Losing to K St by one isn't bad at all either. Getting blown out by A&M is way worse than anything that happened to us though. So yea, your resume is close to ours. But there's a couple of other guys in your conference who belong more, so I don't feel so bad that we're in over you.
I FEEL FOR YOU GUYS BUT YOUR CONSOLATION ISN'T SO BAD
Kansas State - You guys should be in a BCS game. Yes, your blowout at home by OU is bad, but your second loss was by seven @the #2 team in the country. You totally have an argument that "it's all about the money." But hey now, don't look at US like that - we weren't the last ones in. That would be the Hokies you have beef with - and truth be told, I think you'd probably travel to NOLA better than them anyway.
But really, getting a chance to play an overrated #6 SEC team in the Cotton Bowl - a game that was "major" back in the Bowl Coalition days - that's a major opportunity for respect, and pretty much a BCS game anyway. I mean, without the massive payout. But that would've gone to Texas as blood money anyway, right?
DEATH TO THE BCS
Oklahoma State - What can anybody say, guys. You got hosed by Alabama. They have two wins over the top 25, you have four. They lost to the #1 team at home, and you lost to an unranked team on the road - your loss is a little worse, your wins are better. No, just cause they blew out a weak schedule doesn't mean anything - you should have gotten the nod from resume alone.
What makes it ridiculous and insufferable is the obvious - this is a rematch, they didn't win their division, they're playing a team from their conference. I know you've been over it a hundred times over in your own heads. I hope you guys beat Stanford and win the Grantland Rice and the Macarthur trophies. I hope Alabama gets crushed.
But really, your gripe is way more legitimate than K-State's. It's probably the most legitimate gripe I've ever heard with regards to the BCS - yes, more legit than Oregon, Auburn, and USC have had in the past. While I've never loved the BCS, I never thought it was so broken as to screw you over for a less deserving team because they came in second in a conference that was good the last couple of years. The system is broken and you've been royally screwed by it, and will watch them play a regional scrimmage.
I'm way more excited for your matchup against Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl than I am for the event that precedes LSU's deserved coronation. Good luck, and prove to the nation that you deserve a shot.
Reasonably, one might argue that the should be a rematch in cases like ALA vs. LSU. Or one might argue that there shouldn’t. But at least one should be consistent.
However, recall what Gary Danielson said on WXYT AM Radio in Detroit, MI, December 4th about the controversy over Michigan losing out to Florida: He said:
“It wouldn't have been fair for Michigan to have to play them again..
Winning it on the field is all that matters.
There was only one team in college football that had the opportunity to play their way into that game against Ohio. Michigan had a shot.”
So, you would figure that he would be consistent and say:
it wouldn’t have been fair for Alabama to play LSU again,
that winning on the field is all that matters,
that there was only one team in college football that had their opportunity to play its way onto the field, that Alabama had its shot.
But what does he say now?
He calls for a rematch of LSU and Alabama and says that it’s inevitable
He says “fair is fair, these are the rules, there is nothing to prohibit a rematch.”
You would at least think that Danielson would recall and try to justify his apparent inconsistency. Taking his side, one might argue “look at what happened in the later bowl games in 2006—that UM lost to SC and Fla beat Ohio. But that was totally irrelevant. It was unknown at the time a decision was made about whether UM or some other team should have for the national title. In fact, we can never know what would have happened if Fla had played USC on their home turf, against USC or if MI had a rematch with OSU. If Fla played a USC team tht used players that should have been ineligible, like Reggie Bush, then FLA might have lost by 40 points. If UM played Ohio—who also had consistently cheated under Tressel’s tenure-- on a neutral field, it might have won by 40. Recall too that FLA played OSU without their only good receiver: Ginn. Urban Whiner’s team twas losing until Ginn was injured.
Indeed, one might argue that UM only lost the game in Columbus in 2006 because they didn’t have home field advantage. Tressel grew the grass to a a foot in length—called by Bo Shembechler “worst field conditions (he had) ever seen. As a result, UM defensive players like Lamarr Woodley would slip on the grass when pursuing Troy Smith (an already slippery character who had taken dirty money from a Tressel-associated booster). I don’t think Woodley would have slipped on the astro turf of a neutral field. In retrospect, we see that Woodley is far more talented. He is a multiple-time all-star on a Super Bowl winning team, while Smith is a marginal player on a USFL team in Idaho.
Moreover, consider the main difference between the head-to-head MI-OSU game in 2006 and the Ala-LSU game already played this year. The 3-point loss of Michigan in 2006 was really a tie even if you ignore Tressel’s cheating and just consider the usual advantage of a home field. The 3 point loss of Alabama to LSU was really a 6 point loss when you consider ALA’s home field advantage.
No doubt the SEC proponents—who ignore the SEC cheating and oversigning and dismissal of substandard recruits—will argue that their conference is better than the Big Ten. I suppose they are entitled to their opinion. Maybe, if the SEC is voted the by best conference, we should just have a rematch of the two top SEC teams in the title game and ignore the rest of the teams in the country. Unfortunately, most games the SEC plays are vs the SEC. Nobody really can reliably measure conference strength in such cases. Even then, nobody really knows how important conference strength should be when weighed against other factors
My point, however, is not that Alabama is unworthy. They may rightly state that their team will be the second ranked team in the BCS. But recall that UM should have been the second ranked team in 2006 according to the objective computer rankings. It also was ranked higher in one of the two human polls. And it would have been ranked higher too in the other human poll—if not for the campaign of Urban Whiner and Gary Danielson. They got voters to change their minds in the Coaches Poll, which was appointed by the SEC chairman, dominated by southern voters and other biased coaches like Tressel.
But I guess that we should take the SEC commentator, Gary Danielson, for his word when asked about whether his opinion in 2006 was influenced by his employer [CBS]. He said:
"So is everybody else's, but that's not true.”
So, Gary says “yes” but “no”.
Thanks for being so consistent, Gary.