OT: Oklahoma State Vs. Iowa State

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on

0-0 with 9 minutes and some change to go in the first quarter, but Iowa State threatening. This might be the first time on a weeknight this month that ESPN has not shown MAC action. 

morepete

November 19th, 2011 at 3:01 AM ^

Oregon dropped 27 on LSU. They moved the ball quite nicely, especially considering the injuries they had at the time. LSU/Bama was a close game, but I think LSU played way better in the season opener, Bama looked awful, and Oregon has gotten stronger as the season has gone on. But we will see what the coming weeks hold.

aiglick

November 19th, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^

This could be the year that playoffs really gain momentum. Especially if the voters decide to have two teams from one conference play for the championship.

bighouseinmate

November 19th, 2011 at 4:35 AM ^

...........who I'd want to see in the NC game. If it's LSU and Bama, then the push for a playoff would be huge, which could be good for college football. However, just as Urban Meyer argued in 06',  the two teams in the NC game should be conference champions.

I'd also hate to see the B12 winner in the NC game, mainly because whether it's OkSt. or Oklahoma, both would have a very bad loss on their resume. At this point, LSU and Oregon looks to be the best matchup even though they've played once already. Oregon proved they could score and move the ball on LSU but turnovers killed them in that game.

As an aside, how in the hell can OK St. go from scoring a video game numbers win last week in dominating fashion, only to lose to a team like ISU this week.

MichiganMan2424

November 19th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^

This is a huge help to Michigan's BCS chances. It's now very possible that the loser of the OU/OSU game won't make a BCS bowl, considering they'll be a 2 loss team that just lost their last game and carries a smaller brand than Michigan. If Houston ends up losing, or Oregon/Stanford loses again and Michigan wins out, I don't see how Michigan won't make a BCS game.

ixcuincle

November 19th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^

A lot of people may be angry about it, but LSU Bama NC may be a reality. I personally would not mind such a game, as it would be close and competitive (despite low scoring). 

The favorites right now in this chaotic 2nd slot for the BCS title game are Oregon and Alabama, with Oklahoma in the mix. One of those three probably gets in to play LSU. And LSU doesn't even have a cakewalk either, with 2 games remaining against Top 15 teams. 

It'll be interesting to see how this chaos plays out over the last couple of weeks. 

MaizeNBlueTexan

November 19th, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^

The voters (writers/coaches) will probably vote against a Bama LSU rematch and instead vote for oregon.  Oregot has two things going for them.  Their only loss was the first game of the year against LSU and Oregon gets to play an extra game over Bama.  Oregon gets to prove themselves tot he voters in the Pac 12 championship and Bama doesn't get to go to their championship game.  That 1 game can put Oregon at #2.  Oregon will be in the NC game if they win out IMO.

Gorgeous Borges

November 19th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^

Football is weird, man.

But no way should the national championship be a rematch. Remember the Urban Meyer rule? Assuming LSU wins, I still think that the winner of Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State should go. Or maybe Houston.

Gorgeous Borges

November 19th, 2011 at 12:20 AM ^

They and LSU are the only undefeated teams left. Is the BCS meant to pair the best teams together, or the most deserving? Because I don't think Houston could be any more deserving than they have been this season.

Swazi

November 19th, 2011 at 3:39 AM ^

Houston played one team from an automatic-bid conference, a bad team at that, and barely beat them.  Second, they need to beat SMU and Tulsa first.  Honestly, I don't see them getting past Tulsa, who have blown the same level of competition Houston has beat out of the water.  If Houston played Tulsa's schedule this year (Oklahoma Stater, Boise, and Oklahoma), Houston would have their same three loss record.

Oh and they also probably will need to beat Southern Miss as well.

HALOL

November 19th, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^

did anyone else just see that interveiw with Jay paterno on sportscenter. He was talking about how Joe isn't worried about his cancer and not to bug him about it, and Jay said "He has the tendency to minimize things" I would say so considering thats why he doesn't have a job anymore.

Wolverine Devotee

November 19th, 2011 at 12:14 AM ^

Give Houston a shot. The only problem is, LSU would playing in the Superdome in New Orleans which is where they won their past two championships (2003 & 2007). Ironic. Someday when Michigan wins #12, if it's in Pasadena I'll probably cry. That's where Michigan won 2 out of their last 3.

lhglrkwg

November 19th, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^

but I'm against Boise playing in the title game until they play a Big 6 schedule. There are lots of teams that beat one top 25 team a year. Boise plays no one and should not be rewarded with a national title for beating 2 good teams and 10 awful teams and the same goes for Houston. I bet Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Oregon, whoever easily could have gone undefeated with Boise's schedule in any of the last 5 years.

Basically the only way to ever solve any of this for sure is to have a playoff

lhglrkwg

November 19th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^

that basically, yes, Boise is a top 10-15 team for sure but since essentially 10 of their weeks are bye weeks, they miss they chances to get knocked off by decentish Big 6 teams ala TTU over OU or Iowa State over Okie State

so basically I think if Boise was in a Big 6 conference, they'd probably be like a 1-2 loss team each year looking for a bid into the BCS but not the title game, which is more or less what they do now so I'm ok with them being on the outside looking in

aiglick

November 19th, 2011 at 12:16 AM ^

I'm going to say it. Give Boise their shot if they win out. Yes they have played a terrible schedule but they are a good football team as they have proven over the last couple of years. give Moore and Petersen their shot. I do not want a rematch especially LSU-Alabama. If that happens there needs to be a playoff. If that happens it proves college basketball is the better sport since the champion is chosen through play on the floor.

 

/s

edit: /r

ixcuincle

November 19th, 2011 at 12:20 AM ^

It would be a good test for them, and it would answer a lot of questions about Boise vs SEC elites, but Boise's BCS bubble was burst with the loss to TCU. They'll play in some Humantarian Bowl or something. 

At this time, it's LSU - Bama, followed by LSU - Oregon, and LSU - Oklahoma. 

RagingBean

November 19th, 2011 at 12:23 AM ^

Is there no way for a team like Clemson to climb past Alabama and/or Oregon? Assuming they win out they would have a damn fine resume.

Also, Wisconsin must be absolutely incensed at their inability to defend desperate lobs.

WolverineHistorian

November 19th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^

I remember in 1998 when the BCS first started, I read an interview with our own Bo Schembechler in the Detroit News where he was asked his thoughts about the new system.  He said the BCS was stupid and would only cause more problems.  What happens if every team has 1 or more losses?  What happens if there are more than 2 undefeated teams come bowl season?  What happens if every team in the top 5 has 2 or more losses?  What happens if 1 team is unbeaten and the rest have 1 or more losses? 

In the 13 years since that interview, every single scenario Bo brought up ended up happening.  Some of them happened multiple times. 

phork

November 19th, 2011 at 12:36 AM ^

Well one thing is certain, if LSU wins out, there is no doubt who the NC is.  That is a pretty impressive resume against some bigtime programs + the SEC.

ForeverVoyaging

November 19th, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^

Eerie game. Oklahoma State's defense reminded me of Michigan's last year in several critical moments, and their offense was also very similar in it's ability to fail in critical moments.

Sometimes I wonder if one of the reasons the crazy-good spread offense + half-assed defense formula doesn't work on the big stage (Oregon, Oklahoma State, Michigan, etc.) is because of the psychological pressure on the offense, especially the QB, involved in absolutely needing to score every time they touch the ball. Some of Weeden's throws looked exactly like Denard's last year when Michigan was in desperation mode.