Championship Game Boycotters

Submitted by cigol on January 10th, 2012 at 9:16 AM

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.

Comments

Roachgoblue

January 10th, 2012 at 9:22 AM ^

Ok state or Oregon could have beat Alabama. Alabama has a terrible offense. I think Oregon D holds them down just like LSU pretty much did. This game was bullshit! I think Michigan had a good year, but I agree Alabama will be tough to beat in the South. I wish or bowl games were at home like the SEC and USC.

TexanGOBLUE

January 10th, 2012 at 9:25 AM ^

That's the great thing about college football, you may never know. No one thought we would go 11-2 and we did. Although, I do agree it will be a very difficult game to win, we do have a shot. We all know Hoke will have Team 133 ready. I will be there with bells on and all my Texas buddies will be doubting us. We WILL be ready to go.

big10football

January 10th, 2012 at 9:26 AM ^

Can we not begin talking about how badly Michigan is going to get beat by Alabama next year.  It's still a ways away. If all of the NFL-ready Juniors leave from Alabama, who knows what can happen. Lets enjoy spring and fall practice and then start speculating about the game. Next year's Alabama is not going to be the team that played last night.

Maize and Blue…

January 10th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^

Can Borges learn how to combat teams that bring pressure.  He obviously had no clue this year despite his vast experience.  Alabama will bring pressure as MSU and VT did this year.  Can Borges come up with something to offset the pressure is the big question?

Trolling seriously?  This is a major concern. Look at lack of offense in both games and to say it's not a concern is a joke.

ChopBlock

January 10th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^

First, we will have to live with the fact that despite our very good offense, elite defenses (I'm thinking in particular of Lil' Bro this season) can and will diminish any offense's productivity. I'm not sure it's fair to expect us to hang 35 on the #2 scoring defense in the country (or whatever they were at the time).

Second, though, you're right. When defenses bring pressure, it takes Denard's arm out of the equation and makes us one-dimensional. Borges has to scheme more blitz-beating plays to keep the opposing defense from stacking the box with eight or nin guys. Yes, the imfamous bubble screen is a good option. But I'm thinking more of the "long handoff" quick slants that were used during the Carr era, as well as the "play that always works", the throw-back screen. I also really like the denard play-action to himself, if that's what you want to call it, where he takes the snap in the shotgun, takes two steps toward the line to get the entire defense to bit on the QB keeper, and then zings out a quick 7-8 yard pass to his receiver.

It'll be interesting to see if Borges adopts a bubble for next year.

wolverine1987

January 10th, 2012 at 9:37 AM ^

I like that Bama won because next year in their first game they will have to overcome the usual over-confidence and potential letdown that comes from winning it all the prior year. It's really beyond dispute that they have more talent than us, but that doesn't always translate to victory. We have a shot but with three new starters on our d-line in their first game, and Bama returning four starters on their o-line, I'm not feeling too sanguine about our chances.

Lionsfan

January 10th, 2012 at 9:27 AM ^

Why is TCU ranked 14? They barely beat LA Tech, clearly they are not as good as people thought they were.
How can you say Okie State or Stanford wouldn't have beaten either Bama or LSU? The difference between '06 and now, is that in '06 despite everyone saying Michigan and Ohio State were the best, we split up the former No. 1 and 2 against other teams. This year it was, "well we know their the best so they should play each other". We can talk about how great Bama's D was, but honestly LSU doesn't have a great offense to begin with. How do we know the passing attacks of Stanford or Okie State wouldn't have shredded them?

Jon06

January 10th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

the only thing that made that game anything but irrelevant is (a) the BCS requirement that the winner gets the BCS & coaches' poll crowns and (b) the writers lacking the guts to stick to their guns and make LSU #1.

i checked in occasionally but didn't watch, and frankly i regret having checked in at all. fuck the SEC and fuck ESPN.

bdneely4

January 10th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

is the fact that I like to watch paint dry.  It is very exciting.

Seriously, it is hard for me to get excited watching a 40 yard field goal over and over.  I hope we kill Alabama next year and get to see Saban cry.

GO BLUE!

MI Expat NY

January 10th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

On TCU, that was your typical disinterested "why are we here, playing La. Tech?" performance.  Not an ounce of celebration when they won.  It's hardly fair to say they shouldn't be ranked high for playing a close game in that one.  In bowl season you have strange results like that.

Moleskyn

January 10th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^

Wait, so what does this have to do with championship game boycotters?

Also, regarding the talent level: you give every other school in the country what amounts to an extra recruiting class over a 5-year period, and you'll see a smaller gap in the talent level between SEC teams and everyone else.

profitgoblue

January 10th, 2012 at 9:32 AM ^

I came here to sympathize with all the colleagues that skipped watching the championship game due to the hate of both schools.  I watched the first quarter hoping that a sinkhole would open up and swallow both coaches but, alas, no such luck.  So I went to the DVR and watched Manchester United vs. Manchester City instead.  F- the championship game and F- defensive struggles.

 

cm2010

January 10th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

but I watched the whole game and thought it was entertaining. I think it's sad that people need tds in order to enjoy a game. Other than the LSU offense (which played scared), both sides played well and there was a LOT of hittin going on out there.

COMaizeandBlue

January 10th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^

"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."

And this rematch prevented the possibility of any similar revelation happening this year.

BigBlue02

January 10th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^

Basically, LSU, ranked in the 70s in offense, were 2 of the top 3 offenses Saban saw all year. That is correct, Arkansas came in at 27 (I believe) and then the next best offense they saw was LSU twice. To say their defense is superior is stretching it a little. Actually, your argument about this dedense and next year is just horrible.

gbdub

January 10th, 2012 at 9:33 AM ^

Exactly. Had Michigan and OSU replayed in 2006/7, it probably would have been a hell of a game. One of the teams would have won, and we would have said, "see, that proves that they were in fact the two best teams and now X is the clear champion". It would have been equally (no more, no less) absurd than the current situation.

gbdub

January 10th, 2012 at 3:14 PM ^

I fail to see the relevance - no one is arguing that LSU should not have been in the championship, and no one is arguing that WVU or Oregon should have.

The only relevant question is whether Alabama should have been invited, and the ex post facto argument that Alabama is now 1-1 against LSU is not admissable.

gbdub

January 10th, 2012 at 9:31 AM ^

Two teams from the SEC West played each other. One of them won. This proves definitively that they were the two greatest teams in the country. QED.

aiglick

January 10th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^

Agree and to take it further we should all probably just bow down before the SEC, like ESPN does, and anoint them champions of football for the next five years.

I probably dislike the SEC more than OSU and MSU though I am originally from out of state. We need to do everything we can to try to beat Bama next year. We do that people will actually say we are back, though we think we never left.

cigol

January 10th, 2012 at 9:38 AM ^

You couldn't really prove anything, even with a full playoff....but are we all watching the same games here?  I know there are no direct comparisons, but when I see 270 pound DEs and 240 pound LBs getting to the sidelines with the same speed as the RBs, I realize that they were in another league this year.  For the love of God, the LSU team that steamrolled the entire season didn't get the ball past the 50 until the 2nd half.

Cope

January 10th, 2012 at 9:50 AM ^

exactly true against Georgia in the SEC championship. They didn't get a first down nor past the 50 in the first half. The secone half Georgia fell apart and LSU ran away with the game. But LSU's offense is at the very least not consistent and that takes some luster off Bama's defensive performance.

cm2010

January 10th, 2012 at 10:54 AM ^

I was disappointed in the lack of athleticism in the back 7 of both of those defenses. Both of those offenses are great, but it's a lot easier when both defenses have significant and obvious weaknesses. I'll take the well coached freaks any day.

Tater

January 10th, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^

If a championship is to be truly national, you don't let two teams from the same division of the same conference have a rematch.   I didn't watch the game, but I would have to think that OK State or Stanford could have stayed in the game with LSU, too.  

The only thing this discussion does is prove that there should be a playoff and that every major conference champion should get a chance.  Why bother to have a conference championship if it doesn't mean anything?  

At this point, all a conference championship does is get a team a good bowl slot.  

I don't like the "plus one" argument, but even it would be better than what we have now.  I wouldn't mind seeing OK State vs Bama next week.  I would definitely tune in for that one.  

thisisme08

January 10th, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^

The only good thing about that game:

My wife won $109  for 3rd place, if only LSU could have f*cking scored she would have had almost $200 for 2nd place.

Unfortuntely none of that money will be spent on me, most likely it will go towards shoes.... 

Dion

January 10th, 2012 at 9:38 AM ^

But as we've seen before LSU still finishes with a better seasont then Alabama one more win and a better strength of schedule. Dumb game, a blowout is just as terrible to watch as a fieldgoalfest

gbdub

January 10th, 2012 at 3:09 PM ^

Right. Based on their resume, LSU is clearly the best team in the country, and Alabama beat them soundly. That makes Alabama the best team in the country, and LSU beat them. So LSU is the best team in the country.

ESSSS EEEEEEEE SEEEEEEE!

dcmaizeandblue

January 10th, 2012 at 12:10 PM ^

LSU beat two BCS bowl champions in the nonconference while Alabama beat...Penn State?  LSU was the SEC West and SEC champions (trophy), Alabama is neither.  LSU beat Alabama once and Alabama beat LSU once.

The season as a whole was much better for LSU.

mikoyan

January 10th, 2012 at 9:39 AM ^

I was going to boycott the Championship Game but decided that since it would be the last bout of college football until next season I would watch it.  So I turned on the pre-game show and started to hear the SEC slurp fest and turned it off.  It's all well and good that the SEC has won the last 6 championships but that's kind of easy to do when the perception is that the SEC is world's better than everyone else anyway.  Like it or not, perception still helps quite a bit in getting into the Championship Game in the first place.  Now admittedly, the SEC team has to earn that victory there but they have a leg up when they are already pre-ordained to be there in the first place.

I did end up turning the game on for a bit but when I saw that it was basically a snoozefest, I turned it off.  I have no dog in this hunt.  I could have cared less who won.  If LSU would have won...great.  If Alabama would have won, what does that prove?

As for the game against Alabama next season...we'll see.  Alot can happen between now and then.