ALA-LSU vs UM-Ohio in 2006. The hypocrisy of Gary Danielson.

Submitted by michelin on

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.

 

http://www.soonerfans.com/archive/index.php/t-85310.html?s=b038b80f8f4d2c3ac4598ca1b768cb1f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTBb8Elr0E4

bigmc6000

November 27th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

Is all the difference there needs to be.  'Bama lost at home after having choked away the game three different times in an ugly, ugly turnover fest.  Turnover fest, IMO, does not equal a good game. It equals a sloppy game where the offenses really suck.  I don't care how good your defense is - if you're playing against a top level offense you aren't going to be getting interception after interception.  LSU deserves to be in it because they might have the best resume of any team since the BCS started - 'bama doesn't because they lost at home after having every chance in the world at winning and choked it away time and again.

PurpleStuff

November 27th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

Who are these supposedly great SEC defenses actually having success against?  LSU slowed down Oregon a little bit (in a season opener when they were probably at their worst from a rythm standpoint), but it was turnovers that did them in.  They still moved the ball and put up 27 points.

Other than that who have Bama or LSU beaten that has a legit offense?  I find it hard to believe that these teams would be able to shut down a guy like Luck or Matt Barkley and the weapons those guys have.  And at that point, how much success do the one dimensional offenses of Bama and LSU have against those teams? 

I get that teams like SC and Stanford (or even Michigan for that matter) don't have a case to get into the title game, but I can't see LSU and/or Bama being much better than .500 against those kinds of teams.  At that point, how can you pretend like these teams are so superior that they deserve a rematch to the exclusion of the rest of college football.

Yeoman

November 27th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^

LSU's opponents averaged 31 points per game this season against other teams, 10 points per game against LSU.

I don't know how you can spin their season into anything other than a dominant defensive performance. Every computer I can find ranks them #1 on defense.

Kris go blue

November 27th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^

How can there be a rematch if Georgia wins? Georgia would get the auto bid and that's one SEC team. I thought BCS rules states only two teams from one conference can play in the BCS. LSU or Bama would have to be left out wouldn't they?

In reply to by Kris go blue

bigmc6000

November 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

BCS only requires that the league champ gets in and the championship is, no matter what, #1 vs #2 so if somehow Georgia wins and LSU and 'Bama are still ranked #1 and #2 then the BCS will have 3 SEC teams.

 

Also, although no one will care about this, if that would happen I wouldn't be surpised if the SEC wins all of 1 game this post season and that only because we would have an SEC - SEC matchup.

Chunks the Hobo

November 27th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^

I didn't want to start a thread on this, but since you did... hobo will vent!

Danielson may be leading the charge of the hypocrites, but he's not alone. I don't have chapter and verse, but it seems like damn near every media talking head in 2006 kept talking about how "controversial" a Michigan-Ohio State rematch would be, and how undesirable.

Fast forward to 2011 and I have yet to hear any one of them even raise that angle about an LSU-Alabama rematch. Where'd the "controversy" go? So far as I can tell, the only difference looks like this:

1. Play regular season conference game of #1 and #2 in mid-November with potential rematch in January == ZOMG CONTROVERSY ON EVERY CHANNEL

2. Play regular season conference game of #1 and #2 in early November with potential rematch in January == not even a peep from a single talking head

The same arguments used to shut Michigan out in 2006 (which I disagreed with then, obvs, and actually still disagree with) would seem to apply here:

1. "They had their shot" -- not really an argument in my mind, but was repeated over and over by the likes of Danielson and Urban Meyer while plugging their ears and going "lalalalala" to every logical objection.

2. "No one who doesn't win their conference should play in the championship." Another weak-ass argument IMO but obviously applies here again.

As suggested, this hobo is actually fine with a rematch if that's what the numbers dictate. The BCS title game is, after all, a playoff of sorts with the #1 and #2 teams going at it. It should not matter if those two teams happen to hail from the same conference and play during the regular season as a matter of course. If they still end up being #1 and #2, they should play in the title game, right?

Apparently the answer to that question is "Only if you play the conference game a couple weeks earlier in November and only if it's the SEC."

I know the past is the past but this hypocritical bullshit really pisses me off. I'm going to go chug a bottle of MD 20/20 to calm down.

michelin

November 27th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

Suppose that Ala is judged to be in a better position than UM was in 2006 because UM lost late and Ala earlier.   But it would be unfailr to just consider one game.  If we consider earlier games less important we should weigh ALL early season games less and late season ones more.  Thus, the computers would have to use some kind of (eg exponentially) weighted average of the successive game results--with stronger weight given to games the later they occur.  However, that would mean that nonconference games--which almost always are earlier--will be judged relatively unimportant.  As a result, there should be little importance given to the relative strength of different conferences, as judged by the earlier inter-conference games.  The argument that the SEC is a better conference based on those games should be invalid.

 

Bill in Birmingham

November 27th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

I started to write a post saying basically the same thing yesterday, but didn't want to be a downer on a great day. But this is just making my blood boil. I absolutely believe that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in college football in 2011. In 2006, most people believed that Ohio State and Michigan were the two best teams in college football. But USC lost and Florida jumped MIchigan in the final polls. That was because:

1. Urban Meyer is a cheap politician.

2. Gary Danielson pimped Florida.

3. "Michigan is probably the second best team in the country, but they had their shot."

4. "Michigan is probably the second best team in the country, but they didn't win their conference."

I better stop venting, or I'm going to get put on TWIS on my happiest football day in years. I wouldn't piss on Gary Danielson if he was on fire. Bastard.

 

 

Red is Blue

November 27th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^

In general I agree, Danielson is an SEC whore.  If OK St wins, they ought to get a shot.  Alabama is probably better, but has already had their shot and lost at home.  The timing is a legitimate issue in making the Alabama and Michigan comparison, but does not explain why LSU should get a shot even if they lose.

While technically true, your statement "Urban Whiner’s team twas losing until Ginn was injured."  is very misleading.  As I recall, Ginn injured himself returning the opening kickoff for a TD.  It is not like he got hurt in the 4th quarter and Fla mounted a big comeback after that.

gobluebilly

November 27th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

Danielson publicly stated that there should not be a rematch in the BCS championship game before Alabama-LSU game. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/story/2011-11-01/gary-danielson-cbs-lsu-alabama/51031512/1

I did not see anything Danielson said yesterday, but the statement quoted by the OP doesn’t indicate that that Danielson has changed his opinion that only conference champions should be allowed to play for national championships; but rather he is recognizing that the rematch is permitted by the present system. I would be surprised if he now is calling for the rematch. Are there any links/stories indicating that he favors a rematch?

Of note, I called WXYT during that segment in 2006. I asked Danielson if he thought Michigan was a better team than Florida and would win a game between the two teams. He thought Michigan would beat Florida, but that only conference champions should play for the national championship.

michelin

November 27th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^

My quotes of Danielson come directly from the video link I posted (it's on you tube).  Clealrly, he how suggests that an intra-conference rematch in the NC game is fair--and in fact should occur with Ala and LSU.  The CBS sports website and a google search also link danielson to the statement that an LSU ala rematch is inevitable.

mackbru

November 27th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^

I'm sure LSU and Bama are the two best teams. But given the vagaries of scheduling -- most of the top ten teams haven't played one another -- I just think rematches aren't appropriate. Why should one team get two bites at the apple if the others don't even get one?

gobluebilly

November 27th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^

He stated that irrespective of what some think, the rules permit the rematch. Acknowledging that these are likely the two best teams and that the rematch will happen does not mean that he is advocating a rematch or that he believes that the rules should allow it. He did not say that there should be a rematch and he certainly had the forum and opportunity to do so.

michelin

November 27th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^

In the case of Ala LSU, he said the rules and the rules and a rematch is fair.

 In the case of UM OSU 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.”

Unless you are Bill Clinton's lawyer arguing about the meaning of having sex, it would be hard to argue that there is not an implicit if not explicit contradiction.

Mr. Yost

November 27th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^

Apologies...I didn't read one post in this thread. But after seeing the topic, I think it's BULLSHIT that ANYONE call that rugby scrum early this year "The Game of the Century."

That goes to the '06 game between Michigan and Ohio.

BlueHills

November 27th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^

Danielson has long expressed the opinion that the SEC is the best conference by far. I've heard him say it several times over the last few seasons. And that's fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion.

This is emblematic of the problem with the BCS concept - it's so inherently flawed that it simply doesn't make sense.

There are presumptions about league strength, presumptions resulting from preseason rankings, and presumptions about oppnents' strengths that don't really hold up in the real world. A good example is the Big 12. Why are OK and OK State ranked so high? Their conference isn't all that tough. K State's ranking is also way too high. Nebraska's entry into our league, and the results of games played this year, show that the conferences are highly comparable.

The problem is that presumptions are going to factor in any situation, even if you have a playoff system (something I think would be even worse than the BCS).

The BCS also marginalizes some significant bowls. What's the point? The BCS title game is no better, and no more satisfying, than any other bowl.

This is why I believe firmly that the old bowl system was a more satisfactory system, and one that made the game of college football a better fan experience.

gobluebilly

November 27th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

The BCS is designed to match the two top teams to play a national championship game. While not as satisfying as a playoff, it is a lot better than the previous system -- one that frequently resulted in split national championships because of conference affiliations. I am glad that Auburn and Oregon got to decide the championship on the field last year.

kakusei

December 4th, 2011 at 2:10 AM ^

can someone put together two nice concise quotes from danielson from 2006 and from today's game clearly pointing out his hipocracy on this issue?