Championship Game Boycotters
While I am not a fan of the BCS system, given the current format, I hope we can all agree that the BCS got it right...in spite of the national bore that is two teams from the same division in the same conference playing each other. Those two teams were in another league of talent, and as it turned out, the team given another shot obviously deserved it. After watching Stanford and Oklahoma State, the level of athlete Alabama had on defense did not even compare to those on the teams that felt as though they deserved another shot. In addition to their defense, given how talented Richardson, and as it turns out, McCarron is, they were a far superior team to Oklahoma State and Stanford.
Regarding those bitter about Michigan not getting another shot in 2006/2007, I drink a lot of Michigan Koolaid, but as it turned out, Michigan and Ohio weren't the top two teams that year. They went on to get handedly beaten in their respective bowl games, showing that neither of them belonged in the top 2. Make whatever excuses you want for those games, but they did not deserve to play in the championship game that year, whether or not the other teams were clean.
Finally, I am not liking our chances in that opener next year. While Alabama loses a lot, I just don't think that the RR era size / talent of recruit will be able to hang. Let's face it, the guys we ran out there this year, while full of heart and who I respect immensely, were not on the same talent level of those playing for Alabama. Once Hoke gets in some big AND athletic DEs / LBs / WRs, I think it will be another story, but they'll only be true freshmen next season. Given our struggles moving the ball against MSU and Va Tech, I cringe at the thought of playing Alabama right now. Then again, Hoke is magical, so we'll see.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^
Anybody still wishing Michigan would have hired Miles. I guess only those that like boring football.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:43 AM ^
I don't disagree with anything in the OP. While the game was boring, those two defenses are in an entirely different stratosphere than the rest of college football.
If OK State plays either of those teams, Brandon Weeden spends the majority of the game on his ass.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:51 AM ^
Maybe. West Virginia and Oregon seemed to put up a lot of yards against LSU. LSU had a very solid and opportunistic defense this year, but they didn't dominate like Alabama's. I think Oklahoma State's offense would have made a decent showing against LSU.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
I disagree. Considering Bama moved the ball pretty well the entire game, its hard to think OSU's offense wouldn't have been at least as successful.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:34 AM ^
You're overlooking the most important factor, though: OK State doesn't have ESS EEE SEE speed.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:00 AM ^
...or a defense.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
Maybe not. We'll never know.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:46 AM ^
January 10th, 2012 at 9:47 AM ^
but I didn't watch it either. It was more out of boredom than principal. I am a little worried about the prospect of denard facing that Alabama defense but that is mostly because of what I saw with Al against teams with agressive dominant defenses. Still optomistic though. Can't help but to think this team is trending up despite losing some of my favorite all time wolverines in Junior, Martin and RVB.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^
sorry double post
January 10th, 2012 at 9:47 AM ^
I watched the game I'm not a big grudge guy but no, they did not get it right.
The precedent set in 06 was that there should be no rematches. 2nd best team or not.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:35 AM ^
you guys need to go to law school before you use the word precedent
January 10th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^
Attorney here...
Precedent was set in 2006.
But I have noticed you trolling regarding this game heavily so I will chalk it up to that.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:48 AM ^
According to this, ratings were down 11%. Which is about the only good thing (anti-BCS statement) that came out of last night's game. I don't know if I trust the number as it isn't sourced, but there it is, FWIW.
Oh, and to answer a question that someone had on a different thread about ESPN3 and its impact on ratings. A friend of mine works for Nielsen, he says there are a few different categories which track internet viewing, to quote him, "The sexiest is called TVandPC." So the down ratings this year are not a result of online viewing as a few here were postulating
January 10th, 2012 at 9:48 AM ^
I will agree with everybody that this was a boring ass game to watch....as expected. These offenses aren't much to write home about and I don't think LSUs offense this year will be able to hold a candle to Michigan's next year. But given Michigan's need to run to the outside in order to be successful, it's going to be really tough to move the ball.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:53 AM ^
I don't think you can really say those were the definitively best teams. There are 120 teams, and each team plays 12 of them. With how important match-ups are in football, this system cannot say anything for sure.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:03 AM ^
Lsu beat the living crap out of WVU and Oregon, two BCS bowl winners. Oregon destroyed Stanford and Alabama took care of LSU by 21 last night. You think oak state that lost to Iowa state would have a chance against Alabama ? Honestly, those teams were by far the best teams in the country.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:21 AM ^
Who cares whether OkState would've beaten Alabama or not? Alabama shouldn't have had a shot. The question is whether OkState could've beaten LSU, and nobody knows the answer to that. End of story.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^
amazing you actually believe this, you should watch a tape of last nights game
January 10th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
You should watch a video of the 2006 Michigan - Ohio game. There is no question they were far and away the best two teams in the country...oh wait...nevermind.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:31 AM ^
Whether or not Alabama was the #2 team at the time, that is a fair argument in saying that if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't get a crack at the national title. I think it goes against the principles behind having a playoff, but I respect that argument given the current system.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^
Michigan beat Notre Dame who beat Michigan State who beat Michigan. Different teams will match up differently based on varying strengths and weaknesses. To me, that leaves too many variables to say any given team is clearly the best, let alone two teams.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^
c'mon man, facts and logic? where is the blind emotion?
January 10th, 2012 at 9:57 AM ^
Until you are ready to shift to an eight game regular season that is meaningless or pay student athletes the bowl system must exist. I just don't see how students are going to play a sixteen game year which is what it would take to have a post season tournament. I don't mind the BCS. I watch as many bowl games as I can. There is still an sense of youth and fun in college football. Add another month and it becomes even more of a business.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
how is a regular season is "meaningless" when a playoff follows? this counter point to the bcs vs. playoff debate is lucid and does not hold water. regular season performance is what gets a team into a playoff.
when you refer to a 16 game year you must be refering to only two teams. cause every team plays a 12 game regular season, two teams out of every conference that has a championship game plays 13 games and both of those teams also play in a bowl game which brings the total to 14 games. so you are not able to see how 2 more games can be played? it is quite easy, teams that would make it into a playoff would not be the teams playing in the ESPN Needs More Money Bowl Presented by Depends.
January 10th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
Seeing as you're arguing for an inter-division rematch for the NC, you already think the regular season is meaningless. I don't get your point.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:03 AM ^
LSU and Jeffereson added a lot to help that D look good.
Alabama's D had nothing to do with coming out of a time out still looking confused, almost delay of game, fumbling the snap and falling down. Watch the replay the annoucers kept saying look at that coverage but if you actually looked there were plays there if JJ could throw over the top or on time on a slant. Or how about screen pass reciever drop the ball ect. ect. There was as much poor execution on offense as there was "great D". I will agree with the talent and I have seen it in other games against other teams but last night was not a good example of Great D IMO.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^
The BCS got it wrong. The BCS is wrong. The BCS is rotting the sport from the inside. The boycotters are not boycotting this game, Bama v. LSU, they are boycotting the system. They are boycotting the illusion that the BCS exists independent of its own internal devices seeking one end: profit. Bama v. LSU in and of itself is not objectionable. The winner is the winner of that game, but nothing more. The meaning of the national championship has become obsolete, it no longer has intrinsic value. The national championshiop is no longer an honor, a reward. It is a product.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:52 AM ^
The BCS pitted the unanimous #1 against the team that a significant majority of coaches and media voted #2, please explain how that is wrong other than the fact that you disagree with the vote.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^
way anybody voted. I am not angry with the outcome. I don't think the wrong teams got voted in. The BCS did not fail, the BCS did what it was supposed to do, but it is just a meaningless endeavor. People who are in charge of voting voted, and the formula spit out LSU v. Alabama. I just don't care about the BCS national champioship game any more than I care about the Outback bowl or the Sugar Bowl. I care most about the bowl that my team is in ( and even then that game means less to me than any conference game my team plays is) and all of the rest of them just kind of blend together. Some games are good, some are bad. Last night was bad, and the winner got a shiny football.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^
Because we already saw this game played in Tuscaloosa. Playing it again only generates more controversy than there was already. Having Bama face LSU given the disparity in their season strengths and the previous meeting was the perfect setup for controversy. LSU's full body of work this year still looks better than Alabama's, even after losing 21-0. But it's tough to argue that wasn't the best two teams out there last night. Hello controversy.
All the BCS does is try to determine who the best two teams are and pits them against each other. What it doesn't do is create a "settling" game that best answers the question of which team had the best season this year.
It's about creating the drama of a single game, not finding a true champion.
So you're having two different conversations now. One conversation is "who deserves to be in a #1 vs. #2 game after the season that was?" and the other is "Who should be playing each other to determine a national champion of college football?"
And ultimately I have little interest in championing one case or the other because neither team is worth rooting for. Miles and Saban are both great coaches and great recruiters, but they're also the two biggest Gordon Geckos of a sport that we feel has become way too Wall Street.
The whole thing just sucked. The only rooting interest for anyone who likes college football was for some kind of massive scandal that finally ends the SEC's 'permanent majority.' The reason to hope Okie State would get their shot instead of Bama was not because they had a better season, but because it's a more interesting game, and Oklahoma State at least provides a team worth rooting for if you, like most good people, hate the SEC West and dream of the day it is exposed and sundered and shamed back to obscurity. Not that the sell-outs (which OK St is, plus see Oregon last year), or the fascists (see: Ohio State), or the Hollywood elitits of USC or the self-aggrandizing Texans or the jailbird Canes or the academic joke Seminoles and Sooners were much more worth root roothing for in previous years. I don't think I liked Nebraska so much back then either.
So I guess what I'm really saying is I'm a cranky Michigan fan who doesn't really like National Championship games unless Michigan is in them. And it's my sense that despite what the TV guys would prefer, most fans of college football really go in rooting for their team and nobody else -- not the conference, not the storylines of programs hundreds of miles away. The National Championship concept for this sport itself is the flaw is what I'm saying. There's 120 teams -- they play unbalanced schedules of 12 to 14 games and the best team among that 120 will only beat the median team 3/4 times.
So really it's a regional sport and half of what makes it great is the game-day experience, not the outcome of the games. By that I mean I'd take a Blimpy Burger, a few shots of spiked cider at jamiemac's van, a half-time show by MMB, and a game of catch in the Blue Lot over watching any NC game since the BCS started. Add a few rounds at Ashley's to that and you've just beat any college football game ever played that Michigan wasn't playing in.
To draw this back to the topic, that's why it's okay not to watch this game, and to root and argue for whatever creates the most embarrassment for the participants and the system. What we're really rooting for is college football not becoming the NFL, not Okie State's deservance of a shot at the title this year or Bama's case versus LSU's. If you watched that game and it moved you to say "Alabama is the best, end of story!" well you've left out the fact that Alabama never gave anybody an excuse to visit Ann Arbor on a football Saturday this year, and that's the best part of college football.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^
Let's compare UM vs Ala vs LSU with their classes rivals ranking over the past 10 years:
| Year | Mich | Coach | Ala | Coach | LSU | Coach |
| 2002 | 16 | Carr | 30 | Franchione | 15 | Saban |
| 2003 | 17 | 49 | Shula | 1 | ||
| 2004 | 5 | 15 | 2 | |||
| 2005 | 6 | 18 | 22 | Miles | ||
| 2006 | 13 | 11 | 7 | |||
| 2007 | 12 | RR | 10 | Saban | 4 | |
| 2008 | 10 | 1 | 11 | |||
| 2009 | 8 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 2010 | 20 | 5 | 6 | |||
| 2011 | 21 | Hoke | 1 | 6 |
Say what you will about so called coaching abilities as being discussed here, but look at the rankings of Saban's classes at LSU (1 and 2 in 2003 n 2004) and at Alabama (3 #1's and 1 #5). The guy can flat out recruit, and that might be why he is a much bigger success at the college level than at the pro level.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^
- Why did the BCS get it right? LSU had 5 first downs all game. They were manhandled. How can you say that OK State wouldn’t have played better? LSU’s Offense was terrible. OK State is an offensive team and beat a good Stanford team (with Luck at QB).
- How are you qualified to judge about the level of athlete?
- Michigan and Ohio losing Bowl games in 2007 means nothing. Alabama and LSU could have lost to OK State or Stanford or …, but they didn’t. Why? Because they played each other and somebody had to win.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:52 AM ^
Championship game?
January 10th, 2012 at 11:16 AM ^
The SEC Championship game that was played last night....duh
January 10th, 2012 at 11:03 AM ^
1 Ok St may have played better than LSU but the question wasn't about LSU being in the game, it was Bama and they clearly belonged. Regardless tears for Ok St are so misplaced, they lost to a crap team and almost lost to another, and they were stone lucky to get by Stanford a team that got whipped by Oregon, who got whipped by LSU. Transitive property is not the best tool, but you have to use what you have.
2 He has eyes. You don't have to be a pro scout to recognize the difference bw Desmond Morgan and Courtney Upshaw. The fact that by most accounts Bama will have at least 4 and as many as 6 defenders drafted in the first 2 rounds of the draft helps too.
3 OSU and Michigan losing in those games means everything, the Michigan nations claims to the contrary are a continuing embarrassment. I would have liked to see us get the rematch too but I can accept when I was wrong. Also LSU proved itself outside the conference against the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl champs, and Alabama dominated a PSU team on the road that came very very close to playing in the Big 10 Championship game.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^
It would have been LSU vs another team. You are not thinking clearly let go of Bama.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:01 AM ^
and the BCS got it right, but Michigan didn't deserve to rematch OSU in '07 because they lost their bowl game. Your argument is invalid. How do you know that Michigan would not have beat OSU by 21 in a rematch? Oh, wait, you don't.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
c'mon man, a little intellectual honestly please. of course we don't "know", nobody "knows" anything when it comes to sports. But the reality is that the supposed 2 best teams in the nation got their asses kicked in their bowl games. But regardless whether or not that Michigan team was better than that year's Florida team has exactly nothing to do with whether this year's Bama team was better than this years Ok St team.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^
How would have Bama played if LSU was playing OSU?
January 10th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
LSU was supposedly untouchable as the nation's best team and they got their ass kicked. Surprise! Even good teams can lose.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
This is great. Ratings = money, and money talks.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/alabama-lsu_produces_lowest_tv.html
January 10th, 2012 at 1:16 PM ^
I wonder how much of that was having the game on cable and not broadcast TV.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^
January 10th, 2012 at 11:38 AM ^
My point from part 1 of the post was to say that they selected the correct #2 team. There likely has never been such a consensus #1 as LSU going into this game...so they obviously deserved to be there. I would say that by steamrolling this #1 team, Alabama deserved to be the #2 team. Had OK state gone in and gotten beat, we would not have crowned the country's best team, since it was obvious from last night that Alabama is the better team......unless you want to argue that OK State with that pathetic defense could have handled Alabama. If so, so be it.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
LSU was #1 not Bama. People are mad about Alabama getting in. Wake the f up! This has nothing to do with Bama. Could OSU, Oregon, or Stanford have beaten LSU last night? The answer is clearly yes. Hence, the other team would have been the champ.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
You're ruling out OK State without having ever seen them match up against LSU. Where does your argument go if OK State was chosen and went in and beat LSU like Alabama did? You simply dismiss them because they have a "pathetic" defense, nevermind the fact that they went 12-1 with their only loss to an emotionally charged Iowa State team that played out of their minds.
If precedent was set by making sure Michigan didn't play Ohio again back in 2006, then it should have held this year too. The BCS caught a HUGE break in Alabama winning convincingly rather than 9-6 like the first matchup. I would have loved to see a a 9-6 Alabama win and a split championship. That would have been hilarious.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^
Ok state, Oregon or Stanford would have beat LSU last night the way they played. Mich would have beat OSU. What were the ratings? (hint I know). The game was bullshit and rating proved the disconnect. You are the minority.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^
This might be the gosh damned dumbest post I've ever read. I should cut off my bald-headed yogurt slinger and slap you with it.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^
does that mean what I think it does? If it does, cutting it off seems like an extreme reaction, but maybe you're not as attached to yours as I am to mine.