2014 ladies lounge entry:ariel meredith
LSU averages 41 points per game against teams not named Alabama.
Alabama averages 39 points per game against teams not named LSU.
This is stellar defense being played, not terrible offense. It's hard to look good on offense when there's nearly 30 NFL prospects, and anywhere from 10-14 that are going in the first 2 rounds of the NFL draft anytime these two defenses are on the field.
Alabama and LSU make a living on making offenses look bad. I guarantee you there's several 'special' offenses around the country that will vouch.
Morons who think OSU vs. either or these teams was a better game. Yea, because watching LSU beat OSU or any of those other **** teams 47-23 wouldve been just great to watch. Get ****ing real. Just because some other team wouldve scored some points dosent make it a better game. Its a ****ing blowout.
And you nailed it. Watching LSU vs. OSU is the same game as LSU vs Oregon or WVU. ****ty teams who score points with gimmick HS offenses on a college level. I personally hate watching that spread offense bull****. The SEC is REAL football. Actual defense is good to watch ya know.
I think there's a very good reason this "Championship***" thread only has 4 pages, mostly covered by 4 or 5 posters, and the networks are declaring record lows in viewing.
This was NOT a "Championship" game. I don't care how much anybody points to whatever.
And finally, we will get change. The billionaires that are running this dog and pony show lost billions Monday night. That is going to change things.
when talking about how the pats beat the giants in the regular season, the nfl has a playoff system, which is the right system. their will be plenty of times where you can get teams meeting that already played eachother in the regular season, if it happens, it happens. both teams wont just be given the right to replay eachother, both teams had to earn the right to get their by winning 3 playoff games ( 2 for the pats due to the bye).
as far as the bcs, none of these teams have to face another team to get their, they are just voted in. that is retarded. people who like to defend the bcs saying it just makes college football so much more important week to week, well their argument is out the window now, because a team like alabama who played by far their biggest game of the season vs lsu and alabama was home for that game, yet they still lost, and even though they lost the biggest game on their home turf, and they didnt even have to play in a conference title game, they still were given a spot to play in the bcs championship game. that my friend is absurd. i don't care if they are the 2nd best team really, they lost at home to lsu who was 1 at the time, they shouldn't be allowed to play in the championship game, especially if the decision is made by a voters committee, so they can choose the teams. if it was a playoff system and thats what happened, no argument here, it would have been what it was.
the one good thing to come out of that game can be that maybe now, we will finally see a playoff of some sort, and eventually a full fledged playoff which it should be.
imagine if in the NFL they just voted the top 2 teams in each year to the superbowl, 1 from each conference without a playoff.
2010- superbowl- packers- steelers- bcs championship game in nfl terms- pats- falcons
2009- a rarity, both 1's made it
2008- superbowl- cards- steelers- bcs championship game in nfl terms- giants-titans
2007- superbowl- pats- giants- bcs championship game in nfl terms- cowboys -pats
u get the point, aside from the 2009 season where the colts and saints both number 1's played in the Superbowl, the other seasons, most 1 seeds didnt make it, and the time they did they didnt win, aka 07 pats.
im sure their were other super bowls that had 2 1's playing, but for the most part, it usually does not end like that due to the playoff system, which is the best system. not this dumb bcs ****. no excitement whatsoever.
Your argument against the BCS is full of holes and contradictions here.
The Packers won the superbowl last year and didn't even win their division. Furthermore, being a conference champion has nothing to do with who the best 2 teams in the country are. The best 2 teams in the country this season both resided inside the same division, in the same conference.... and there's a pretty good case to be made that the 3 best teams in the country were all in the SEC West. Arkansas could still claim they're the 3rd best team in the country. They only lost to #1 and #2.
The point is, only one can be the the SEC West champion. Anybody that watched the first matchup between LSU and Bama knew that Bama was the better team and should've won that game. But they didn't, LSU gets to go play in the SEC title game as a result.
Stanford didn't win their conference. The Big-12 (Oklahoma St.) didn't even play a conference championship game this year because they don't even have enough teams to host one. You have to have 12 teams in order to have a conference championship game. Using your own logic, those two are both eliminated from playing in the national championship game.
That leaves Oregon with 2 losses, Clemson with 4 losses, Wisconsin with 3 losses, and West Virginia with 3 losses as the teams to choose from to play LSU in the national championship since these 4 teams "won their conference".
The Pac-12 champ Oregon doesn't even belong on the same field with LSU, that was proven on the field. The ACC champ Clemson, got beat 34-13 by the 5th best team in the SEC (South Carolina), lost 37-13 to unranked N.C. State, lost 31-17 to Georgia Tech, and gave up more TD's in one night in the Orange Bowl than Alabama has given up all season when they lost 70-33 to West Virginia.
Wisconsin lost 37-31 to Michigan St., lost 33-29 to unranked Ohio St., and lost 45-38 to Oregon in the Rose Bowl.
West Virginia doen't belong on the field with LSU, and that was also proven on the field when LSU beat them 47-21 in Morgantown. They also lost to unranked Syracuse 49-23, and lost to unranked Louisville 38-35.
So which of those 4 "conference champions" deserved to be playing for the national title, and which one wasn't going to be down by double digits to LSU at halftime? None.
The SEC started playing a conference championship game first in 1992. Teams from the Big-10, Pac-10, old Big-East, etc. have all been playing in national championship games without having to play a conference championship game for decades.
All conferences aren't equal, and until all conferences are playing a conference championship game, the argument is completely bogus.
The NFL playoff system is flawed when you can get into the playoffs with a losing record, just because a team won a bad division..... while a team with a 10-6 record from a much tougher division gets left out. Yet nobody complains about it because if the NFL does it.... it must be right.
You're not guaranteed to get the 2 best teams in the superbowl either. The only thing you're guaranteed to get is the two teams who got the hottest in the playoffs.
An 'NFL style' playoff simply isn't practical in college football. Millions of fans would literally have to sell their houses in order to afford being able to follow their team around the country playing in playoff games should they keep advancing. The 4 major bowls have to stay intact no matter what system you use.
Furthermore, the SEC already proposed a +1 playoff system back in '08 to avoid this very scenario where two SEC teams play for the national title... because they knew it was going to happen. None of the other conferences (aside from the ACC) wanted any part of it. Therefore, the complaints fall on deaf ears.