It should be fairly simple- Alabama has already had an opportunity to play against LSU and they lost to them on their own home field. The argument is over, it's someone else's turn.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Eyeball test
- Thread starter Trojan Husker
- Start date
- Status
Sure, I get that. Which is why I didn't specify Oklahoma State necessarily. But for Alabama to get another shot at LSU is asinine. The first game is thereby completely meaningless.
Your looking at 2 teams that have 1 loss.
Team 1 losses in OT to the #1 team in the nation.
Team 2 losses to Iowa State , unranked team, hmmmm.
And you say Team 2 is in?? SOOOO makes no sense at all.
You want to choose a team entirely by its quality of loss. Who has Alabama beaten? Their supposedly amazing defense has only faced one top 60 offense.
True. MNC game will be LSU vs Alabama
That's a dumb prediction to make, but not surprising coming from you. EDIT: (based on your well-documented disdain for ISU, that is)
NOBODY predicted them to win more than 3 games this year and he doubled that and got a bowl bid for the second time in 3 years after arriving to a completely empty cupboard and a program that had its guts ripped out by a mercenary. Oh, and he beat Iowa this year. Oh, and knocked off the #2 team in the country who were suppose to cruise to an easy win and a BCS championship game. Dude can coach.
Rhoads isn't going anywhere, bub. He's a god in Ames at this point.
Last edited:
Any chance he gets an offer from another school?
Eyeball test = gut feeling = I'm too lazy to make an informed argument
Alabama can certainly make an argument for #2 but so can several other teams including Okie State. Alabama had the "least offensive loss" but Okie State played a tougher schedule. Depends on what criteria is more important to you.
Personally I fall into the "Alabama already had a shot" camp.
Alabama can certainly make an argument for #2 but so can several other teams including Okie State. Alabama had the "least offensive loss" but Okie State played a tougher schedule. Depends on what criteria is more important to you.
Personally I fall into the "Alabama already had a shot" camp.
My eyeballs see that both LSU and Bama have solid defense and "eh" offenses. Bama does have a nice back who can run pretty well against weaker teams. And LSU plays pretty good on special teams. Neither are the complete package that we are being told. Funny LSU beat Bama and still had to play to get into the BCS game. Now when Bama wins 2 to 0 they can be champs even though they lost the first game.
Bama should be happy they lost the first game. It gave them the easier path to the MNC and the pressure is all on LSU, who is being touted (even on this board) as one of the best college teams ever.
I really love college football, not so much this year.
Bama should be happy they lost the first game. It gave them the easier path to the MNC and the pressure is all on LSU, who is being touted (even on this board) as one of the best college teams ever.
I really love college football, not so much this year.
Last edited:
I'll bet he gets offers but it will have to be one sweet deal to get him away from home.
ShortSideOption
Guest
As much as I don't like the idea of a rematch, the previous meeting between the 2 teams, and how Alabama lost by only 3 when they should have won is what is solidifying them as the second best team in the country. So I wouldn't call the first game meaningless.
That being said, is the only argument that there shouldn't be a rematch for Alabama not playing in the championship game? I thought the whole point of the BCS was to make sure the 2 best teams at the end of the year were playing each other, and that is happening.
Oversigning recruits, like they make a living from in the SEC, should count at major points deductions in the process.
That's what ESPN and the SEC don't want to talk about. How many kids did they throw aside during the process of creating this type of domination? It's borderline criminal what they have gotten away with and all ESPN can do is dry hump the leg of the SEC in order to profit from it.
I would love nothing more than to see teams playing against SEC teams in bowls stomp a muhole in their a$$es. It won't matter because 1 vs 2 is playing for the title.
I would also love to see the TV rating for that turd of a game take a nose dive.
That's what ESPN and the SEC don't want to talk about. How many kids did they throw aside during the process of creating this type of domination? It's borderline criminal what they have gotten away with and all ESPN can do is dry hump the leg of the SEC in order to profit from it.
I would love nothing more than to see teams playing against SEC teams in bowls stomp a muhole in their a$$es. It won't matter because 1 vs 2 is playing for the title.
I would also love to see the TV rating for that turd of a game take a nose dive.
We have been told (for many years now) that a one loss SEC team deserves to be looked at for the BCS title game when there are two teams who are undefeated and are headed for that game.
What now has become of this is that a one loss SEC team is the defacto best team over all others no matter what the argument. I was always a resonable, post season bowl kinda guy. Until now. Time for playoffs.
Eyeball test isn't passing the smell test.
What now has become of this is that a one loss SEC team is the defacto best team over all others no matter what the argument. I was always a resonable, post season bowl kinda guy. Until now. Time for playoffs.
Eyeball test isn't passing the smell test.
- Status
