Boycotting the National Championship game?
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.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^
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.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^
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.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:12 PM ^
Well both us and OHio lost out bowl games that year, so it was obviously a good choice to not have a rematch.
As far as this year National Championship, don't you think Bama and LSU are the two best teams in the nation???
January 8th, 2012 at 9:19 PM ^
With your point. Everyone thought Michigan was still the number two team. Had it not been for Meyer we would have had a rematch. Honestly, I think if we payed Florida and Ohio played USC, we both would have win our bowl games.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^
Really??? That's a bold statement
And obviously EVERYONE didn't think they were the #2 team, because we weren't #2 in any polls.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:17 PM ^
Michigan stayed number 2 after The Game. It was the week after that Michigan fell to 3 after Meyer's campaigning.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:03 AM ^
January 9th, 2012 at 7:36 AM ^
While on the one hand, at the time I conceded that it was fair for Florida to play instead of Michigan because a) we had our direct shot and lost (on turf not stuck to the ground the day after Bo passed), and b) we were not our Conference's Champion. I also firmly believe USC entered that Rose Bowl with something to prove, and our guys entered feeling slighted (and our coaches emotionally stressed after losing Bo. For serious, they had nothing in the tank in the second half.)
However, I did feel that this was yet another case where Lloyd should have spoken up for his team. Perhaps that foreshadowed what eventually happened in the Rodriguez years.
Michigan was better than OSU that year. They had a huge home turf advantage and won. That my friends is college football. LSU - Alabama ... that is BCS crap.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:09 PM ^
Based on the OSU game alone (losing by 3 on the road to the #1 team, we probably deserved to stay at #2, but when the end of season maneuvering for the NC game spots starts, the voters start to look at the whole season, and we had way too many unimpressive wins in 2006, (including an 8 point squeaker against Ball State and 5 Big Ten wins by 14 points or less) and no really impressive wins against strong teams. That's what let Florida leapfrog us.
If Carr hadn't taken his foot off the gas in so many games, we might have gotten our own rematch.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:38 PM ^
How about Florida's unimpressive wins in 2006? They squeaked out a 6 point win over an 8 loss Vanderbilt team (the same Vandy team we beat by 20 doing nothing but running up the middle all day). They had a 1 point win over so/so Tennessee. They had a 1 point win over a 5 loss South Carolina team. They had a 7 point win over a 6 loss Florida State that never showed up in big games. They had a 7 point win over 8-4 Georgia...not a bad team, not a good team. And the Arkansas team they beat in the SEC championship game had just 2 wins over teams with winning records all season and lost at home to USC 50-14.
Trust me, I hated it when Lloyd would take his foot off the gas. That attitude cost us some extremely painful losses. But taking the foot off the gas had nothing to do with why Florida passed us in 2006. There was outcry from the Gators and basically the whole SEC conference before the bowl selection. They all pounded it in our heads endlessly, mind numbingly, constantly, that if you lose to the #1 team, you're done. You had your chance. You didn't win your conference, you don't deserve a rematch.
That rule applied to Michigan in 2006. But it didn't apply to Alabama in 2011. That logic pisses me off despite the final score in the 07 Fiesta Bowl.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^
Maybe Lloyd should have taken his foot off the pedal more, like Meyer did...
<br>
<br>/s
January 8th, 2012 at 11:19 PM ^
well said
January 9th, 2012 at 2:07 AM ^
You said "SEC conference". Ha.
<br>
<br>That is frowned upon in CFB world.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:38 AM ^
I am not watching this game, and anyone who is not an SEC fan should not be watching it as well.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:13 PM ^
January 9th, 2012 at 7:42 AM ^
We would not have know that if OSU played Michigan in the National Championship Game.
This year we will never know if Alabama is second best or Oklahoma State, because Alabama gets a do-over, and Oklahoma State doesn't get their shot.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:51 AM ^
My point is, national championship and Rose Bowl aside, Michigan didn't belong in the NCG.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:12 AM ^
LSU could lose to Oklahoma State and Alabama could also lose to (whomever your #4 team was). That doesn't mean anything. If Michigan played Ohio, one team would have won, and there would have been no arguement. It's just because Alabama and LSU are playing each other that one team has to win.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:13 PM ^
Not sure why I'd do so again.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:13 PM ^
I've been saying ever since they announced the rematch that I won't watch... but I'll probably cave and watch.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:14 PM ^
i might watch only cuz i wanna see our next opponent. how many starters they lose, their qb, etc.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:15 PM ^
Even though I believe they are the two best teams - a rematch is bull**t.
I probably wont watch the whole thing. If I do, it will be on mute. Fans of either school or SEC people would probably say we're whining... but I guarantee the ratings are lower than last year.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:11 PM ^
January 8th, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^
thank you.....
January 9th, 2012 at 12:26 AM ^
I disagree. Even if you believe that LSU and Alabama are the number 1 and number 2 teams in the nation, what happens if Alabama wins? Shouldn't the point of the system (to the extent possible) be to set up a clear-cut winner at the end of it all? If Alabama wins, all we're left with is a 13-1 team (LSU) and a 12-1 team (Alabama). LSU would have more wins, certainly more quality wins, and would have a split record against the "national champion." In addition, the national champion would have a WORSE record than the runner-up. How is this any better than the possibility of a repeat of the situation in '97? The BCS was designed to avoid those problems, but this year might be the embodiment of why the BCS system is just as flawed, if not more so.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:57 AM ^
All the BCS is designed to do is pair #1 against #2. If they paired #1 and #2, the BCS did its job. Its irrelevant of the records and if they played each other, IF the teams are #1 and #2.
Again, if your problem is that Alabama is not the #2 team, and Ok State/Stanford/whoever else was #2, I'm not going to argue with you. However, if your point is "I don't like rematches" or "what about the records?" or something similar, your argument will fall on deaf ears; that's not the BCS's job and you might be misunderstanding how the system works.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:56 AM ^
With all due respect, I think you're missing my point. I understand exactly how the system works, and my point is that the system itself is fatally flawed. It's a fundamental procedural issue. Simply plugging in a different team might help to mask that fact, but this year of all years may demonstrate exactly why the BCS is no better than the system it was designed to replace. In fact, it may be worse, as an Alabama win tonight might prove without any reasonable room for argument. Had OK st. made it in, the system would be just as flawed, but might be able to limp along for another few years. With an Alabama win, I'm not so sure that's true.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:57 AM ^
Even if Alabama beats LSU, LSU will still be the NC.
LSU would have a tie with Bama, will be the SEC Champs, and will have more wins > top 25 teams than Alabama. They would still be NCs.
Also, the "rankings are 2/3rds human, so that is the flaw.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:07 PM ^
"Even if Alabama beats LSU, LSU will still be the NC."
The winner of the BCS NCG is the National Champion, so whoever wins tonight is the champion; if LSU wins, they are the NC, if Alabama wins, they are the NC. Its not up for debate if Alabama wins whether LSU can be NC.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^
might disagree with you.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:39 AM ^
Yeah, that was a bit muddled.
I think Ok State belongs in the game and should be ranked #2. That's what's fair. Bama and LSU could be the top teams - they might be - but its completely subjective without a playoff. And I dont like that we didnt get a rematch in 2006 (presumably because we didnt win our conference) but Saban does.
BCS didnt do its job if OkSt gets votes, which they will if LSU loses.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:59 AM ^
I'm okay with the argument that Ok State should be #2, if you think they are the best team.
But with regards to the BCS not doing its job if OK State gets votes, I disagree. I wouldn't be surprised to see some lone ranger-type give Boise State a vote, to be honest. Its as much about teams who are deserving as it is about the media drumbeat.
Assume Ok State lost to Stanford - my guess is Ok State no longer gets votes, but would Stanford? I think you are going to have this problem, that is the voting BCS title argument, regardless, unless you pair two undefeated teams.
The rogue voters mean little - the winner of the BCS national title is the national championship. This isn't a 1997-1998 scenario where the two best teams couldn't meet because of bowl contractual issues.
January 9th, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^
"This isn't a 1997-1998 scenario where the two best teams couldn't meet because of bowl contractual issues."
No, but it's just as bad, in that it does nothing to demonstrate which of the two teams is actually superior (unless, of course, LSU bails the BCS out with a win).
January 8th, 2012 at 9:16 PM ^
i wont be watching either. not only do i despise the idea of the rematch - especially since alabama lost at home - but i dont feel like listening to three hours of an SEC slurpfest. im sick of the national media's love affair for the sec, always pointing out how good of a conference it is while completely ignoring the reason it is such a good conference - oversigning.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:17 PM ^
I'll be watching. And rooting like holy hell for a 6-3 by Alabama so the entire BCS Championship game can be exposed for the bullshit fraud it is. How could Alabama possibly be ranked ahead of LSU when they played a far weaker schedule and have already lost to them at home? There is no scenerio in which LSU should not continue to be ranked #1, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's game.
Oklahoma State did their part and beat a very strong Stanford team. Now we just need Alabama to win a low-scoring snoozefest of a game and maybe....just maybe...people will say enough is enough and burn this system to the ground.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:22 AM ^
I agree, but instead of a close game like that, wouldn't an LSU blowout of Bama prove that Bama shouldn't have been there?
<br>
<br>If it's close, that may only justify the media's opinion that this game had to happen again.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:17 PM ^
boycott? of course not, what an absurd idea. I hope if we ever have the good fortunate to make the BCS Championship game that fans of other teams will show us more respect.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:17 PM ^
I'd rather see OK St. vs LSU. I'm not getting all indignant about this matchup though. Carr and Hoke both had Alabama #2 on their ballots.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
"Carr and Hoke both had Alabama #2 on their ballots.
You're not supposed to mention that.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:31 PM ^
Well if was actually them that filed out the ballots I don't agree with them
January 8th, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^
thats fine, to disagree is absolutely fine, but to cry about the vote like so many are doing is childish. The reality is a large number of coaches and media picked Alabama, get over it.
January 9th, 2012 at 12:31 AM ^
I don't know that most people are "crying" about the vote; they're dissatisfied with an unbelievably flawed system, and that is completely legitimate.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:27 PM ^
Boycotting won't do anything unless you have a Nielsen box. I don't have one, so I will be watching since it is the last college game of the season.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:17 PM ^
to eat some of the Superdome turf.
I hope it's a 3-2 snoozefest.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^
I'm boycotting it as well
January 8th, 2012 at 9:22 PM ^
but think about all the field goals you'll mis, what are you crazy?!
January 8th, 2012 at 9:22 PM ^
I'm there with you. Two SEC teams playing for it in Louisiana. The goddamn south can have this shit trophy. Bought and paid for.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:24 PM ^
I'm not watching. I have to work at the same time, however, I still wouldn't watch if I was free. The BCS is a joke! I hope LSU wins because of Miles, and I hate Saban. I'll just look up the score.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:25 PM ^
Hmm let's see...
Last college game of the season √
Two damn good teams √
My not watching proves nothing √
No class on Tuesday √
The math seems solid. I'm watching.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:01 PM ^
I agree whole heartedly.