Like many others, I am appalled that the national championship game is hosting two teams from, not only the same conference, but the same division. After the BCS bypassed UM from a rematch with Ohio in 2006; 2007 bowl season, I will not be watching the game. Just wanted to get the opinions of the MgoBlog community.
Boycotting the National Championship game?
I'm going to watch of course but I agree with you in a sense...the hypocrisy here stinks.
I'm not watching. If Michigan didn't get a rematch Alabama certainly doesn't deserve one. The only way to guarantee we don't get another is for this one to have lousy ratings. If you watch you say to the BCS it's ok.
Yes ratings are the only way we can vote against this. If you mist watch, consider grabbing a bootleg stream and not contribute to the ratings.
influences ratings. The Nielsen ratings are based on a small sample of viewers, so unless an MGOUser is a Nielsen guy, it doesn't matter.
You are correct. The average joe has no influence in TV ratings.
Just want people to know that watching or boycotting means nothing, unless you are on eof the 5,000 homes with a set top box from Nielsen.
Neilsen is how the papers report ratings, but not how cable networks sell ads. These days when you set your cable box to ESPN, FSN, BTN, etc the fact you watched that channel is recorded. When you open up a ESPN3 stream, ESPN records that. That is how conference specific networks or niche networks can survive and thrive. It's how ESPN3 got off the ground. They have minimal Neilsen prescense, but they can tell how many people turned their channel on during a specific event or requested a stream from their server.
Neilsen remains useful for broadcast since a TV antenna doesn't phone home when you tune in to the channel. Cable boxes and online streams though tell the network you're watching. So refusing to pull up the pregame show or the game on ESPN3 will be noticed if enough people do it.
still supports me splitting the cable and connecting TVs without converter boxes. The provider, and thus, ESPN, will have no way of knowing if I'm watching ESPN or MeTV reruns of Andy Griffith. I'm still undecided which path I'll choose, though. Even with 30 points on this game, I'm still out of contention, but perhaps Les will go back to his bizarre time management ways or something strange.
And there's always the scouting angle for our next game, albeit with an updated roster.
I'm not watching. The game is meaningless.
This game has at least some implications for the nature of our game vs. Bama to start next season. Knocking off the reigning champ would be the perfect start for team 133.
I will never root for Nick Saban. Sorry I'm not sorry.
And I will be watching and expecting a low-scoring, boring game.
meh. It is what it is. I am watching. Roll Tide.
I just believe boycotts are whiney and dumb.
edit: How the eff is this flamebait? God forbid, I hold a differing opinion.
I don't get the flamebait, either; I agree with everything you said except the roll tide. I guess it'd be nice to beat the defending MNC champs next year, but other than that I don't have a dog in this fight.
When is the last time a defending national champion lost its season opener?
Though I think someone else finally did it.
If Alabama wins, they will join the list next year.
Should've been Auburn this year.
It's because you said "Roll Tide"
Obviously your opinion is being skewed due to the team that you're rooting for
NO it isn't. I have no dog in the fight. I would prefer Bama to win over LSU just to dig the Saban knife deeper into MSU's fans hearts.
I am boycotting the entire SEC not just the BCS.
It is almost unbearable down here.
Imagine how it feels here.
Then you'd have to boycott ESPN. They are the SEC Network.
...you're not already boycotting ESPN?
Is to go back to exactly how it was before the BCS. Everybody plays their bowl games and whoever is number 1 in the end is the Champ. If the Coaches pick someone else, they can be the coaches champ, like Nebraska was, and the champs will still be the champs, like we were. There are way too many teams to pick the two best to play in one game without a playoff, and I for one am not in favor of a playoff. The whole thing is WAY OVER-THOUGHT.
but I think the major bowls move back to New Years Day (and screw the NFL if it is a Sunday too, New Year's day was ruined this year), and the two best teams (determined by the current BCS method or whatever) play a plus one game for the National Championship.
This would then require a team to win its Conference to make the major bowl, and then win the bowl. Meaning of regular season stays intact (unlike for Alabama this year). Meaning of Division and Conference title remains intact. Meaning of the Rose Bowl remains intact. Ability to choose between teams (like Clemson if they had beat WVU) that appear less deserving over teams that appear more deserving on January 2nd remains intact.
Why doesn't Delany see it my way?
Actually, a playoff would be the opposite of over thinking, since the games are decided, you know, on the field.
either. IMO LSU has already show that they are the best team in college football, and the second best team is not even close. If they lose to Bama it means nothing--they still had a WAY better season in every respect, beat Bama in Bama, and are the better team no matter what happens tonight. And if instead of tonight's game, we had say an 8 team playoff and LSU lost, that would still be the case. To use an NFL example, the Steelers are way better than Denver, and the game last night changed nothing, all it did was make their superior regular season meaningless.
I was refering to the current system as overthought, not a playoff
It was a poor decision (er, computing), and it will further harangue the BCS as a broken system. However, what's done is done. I'll watch. I'd still vote for LSU eve if they lost.
The majority of the computers had Oklahoma State 2nd. It was the human voters in the Coaches Poll and Harris Poll who voted Alabama into the championship game.
They need to just get rid of the human say in it. They were the ones that fucked it up.
I was appalled that Saban didn't have OSU 3rd. I mean, thats pretty shitty. Gundy should have put Bama 25th if he really wanted to be a dick.
I didn't know he did that. What an asshole. Further evidence he is 100% evil.
The 2004 USC Trojans demand you take that back.
That's why I think a Bama win could be the best thing to happen for those who are against the BCS. If Bama wins, how can anyone honestly say that they are the best team in the country, especially if they win by only a few points? It could be tough to say no to a plus one setup in that situation.
If Bama wins, that opens a whole messy can of worms that may bring the change.
An LSU win means that never again would we have a rematch for the MNC.
Doubt it, everyone will piss and moan for 2 weeks after the game but come next year and 2014 when the BCS contract renews we will still be stuck with a crap ass bowl "system".
Oversigning is my primary reason. They're not college football teams as far as I'm concerned, but instead some halfway position between college and pro.
....but only because I want to see how much more proof I will receive that the BCS really is a pile of steaming guano. It's also the last CFB game this year, and even if it is like a doomed network show with a forgone conclusion, I can't help wondering how it REALLY ends.
That being said, LSU in my pool for a mere 3 points, although I really would rather Alabama win so they will perhaps think about meaningful reform in the bowl system. Of course, ESPN will want to have a chat with the reformers first...
I won't be watching. Partly because of the flawed BCS system, partly because no matter what happens a team I can't stand will win.
Damn....I wanted to be the one to post this thread tomorrow.....
But no I'm not watching. I'll get an update on the score from ESPN texts, but I'm not watching. I just don't care. LSU wins - good, they deserve it (not according to that Grantland guy though). Bama wins - huge shitstorm, LSU AP champions, and a fast forwarding to the end of the BCS
I am boycotting the sec west title game. I would have liked to seen Oklahoma State vs LSU personally
I agree, if the system is flawed, and this is recondized and accepted, then by defalt they should choose a team other than Alabama in this senario. The game is meaningless in my eye also, as mentioned above.
I didn't watch the first meeting and hearing a 9-6 OT score doesn't entice me to watch another helping of it.
Im not watching because I have already watched this game and have no interest in watching it again, not because I am trying to boycott it.
ESPN bias created this mess, and ESPN is who profits/loses based on viewership of their lovechild. They can take their "SEC-speed" and shove it. Not a dime from this viewer. (And yes, I boycotted all SEC games as well... except the Georgia-MSU game.)
When I lived in Atlanta the SEC hype was unbearable but I won't boycott the game. Life comes in seasons it's the SEC's time to shine right now but this won't be forever.
I refused to watch the first game between them because of the masisve hype. When they went 9-6 I felt vindicated, but of course, when the SEC does it, it's the clash of the titans. When the Big Ten plays a defensive game, it's a snooze fest.
I understand the argument for the game, I just don't understand why it was allowed to happen. Give someone else who hasn't lost to LSU a turn. If Alabama did win, what does it prove? That they need a rubber match to decide who's actually better?
In regards to 2006, at least that was a thrilling game.
I say that I'm not watching, but I'll probably end up watching it to procrastinate from studying.
With that said, Alabama would have to win by 35+ points for me to be convinced they deserve the MNC. LSU's resume is just THAT good.