Started By
Message
re: Was the '96 FSU/Florida national title rematch as controversial as '11 Bama/LSU?
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:38 am to Monticello
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:38 am to Monticello
Actually I think Michigan might've been #1 in both polls in 97, but after Osborne announced his retirement and they beat up UT in the Orange Bowl, they were bumped up to #1 in the Coaches.
0
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:39 am to Monticello
Here is a short, concise history from 1992 till present. BCS short history
The same rumblings the Rose is making now isn't new but they know the end of it and ultimately I doubt they get any special consideration, regarding 4 team playoff.
The same rumblings the Rose is making now isn't new but they know the end of it and ultimately I doubt they get any special consideration, regarding 4 team playoff.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:44 am to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
All of the BCS bowls are realizing the playoff train is about to go full speed and they can either hop on and get any seat available without complaining or they can be left at the station.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:47 am to Monticello
the circumstances were pretty different.
Florida lost on the road at FSU, not at home.
Florida won its conference as well.
Alabama should have been there because everyone else lost, but UF had a much better claim to a tittle game IMO
Florida lost on the road at FSU, not at home.
Florida won its conference as well.
Alabama should have been there because everyone else lost, but UF had a much better claim to a tittle game IMO
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:49 am to Monticello
quote:
All of the BCS bowls are realizing the playoff train is about to go full speed
No doubt. Been a lot of complaints about not enough inclusion but it has already been stated, implicitly and explicitly, that the powers that be are wanting to see the logistics of 4 teams. This includes sites, how fans travel for more than one game, scheduling taking into consideration Winter finals, etc. Once ironed out 6-8 teams is a sure bet. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years or so (around 2020?).
Posted on 6/26/12 at 1:59 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
Florida lost on the road at FSU, not at home.
Florida won its conference as well.
Alabama should have been there because everyone else lost, but UF had a much better claim to a tittle game IMO
All of this. How Oklahoma State losing translates to Alabama being the 2nd best team in the nation is beyond me. If they were truly top 2 all season, they should of been ranked in the top 2 all season.
But they were always #1/#2 all year obviously. But it shouldn't of taken an OSU lost to prove that. That's why the whole eyeball test is dumb as shite.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:01 am to Monticello
quote:No.
Was the '96 FSU/Florida national title rematch as controversial as '11 Bama/LSU?
That match up was directed by bowl ties.
There was no way to have a different game.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:06 am to Monticello
Did a little digging
LSU predecessor.
OSU predecessor
Pickings kind of slim man. An FSU site with older posters is your best bet.
quote:
NY Times'We Seminoles are not enamored of a rematch,'' said Martin Fleet, a psychologist in Marietta, Ga., who grew up in Tallahassee and is as much a Seminole as a man can be. ''I was at that first game. It was an emotionally draining experience. Now we have to do this all over again. We didn't want that.'
LSU predecessor.
quote:
Chicago Tribune"I'm obviously disappointed," Brigham Young Athletic Director Rondo Fehlberg said. BYU will play Kansas State in the Cotton Bowl.
OSU predecessor
Pickings kind of slim man. An FSU site with older posters is your best bet.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:07 am to GCTiger11
quote:
All of this. How Oklahoma State losing translates to Alabama being the 2nd best team in the nation is beyond me. If they were truly top 2 all season, they should of been ranked in the top 2 all season.
I'm really trying to understand this but I don't get this at all. Are you saying that how many losses a team has should not affect the rankings? So in 2007, LSU should have gone to the national title game with 2 losses even if WVU does not lose to Pitt?
OSU is a shoo in for the title game if they are undefeated. But when they lost to a really shitty ISU team, that opened up the contest again because you had 4 one loss teams wanting that spot (Bama, Stanford, Oregon, and OSU). The voters felt that Bama was the best of those 4.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:10 am to GCTiger11
quote:
That's why the whole eyeball test is dumb as shite.
I don't know, depends on the eyeball. OSU lost because their D wasn't average nor mediocre...it was horrible, that's the only way an ISU had a chance to begin with. Were they really a top 5 caliber team to begin with? I'm more and more starting to like the mini-playoff format they are working out.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:14 am to Monticello
Probably already pointed out but no one expected Florida to come away with a championship - because it took an upset of Arizona in the Rose (as well as beating FSU) for Florida to win the NC
FSU definitely was not enthused about playing a rematch tho - it was a tough game and they were not as up for the rematch as Florida was.
FSU definitely was not enthused about playing a rematch tho - it was a tough game and they were not as up for the rematch as Florida was.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:18 am to Monticello
quote:
So in 2007, LSU should have gone to the national title game with 2 losses even if WVU does not lose to Pitt?
Sure, I did. LSU hosed up against Hogs and UK and left in pollsters hands. I was just hoping for an ATL win and Sugar invite then boom...Pitt beat WVU..
...I still can't believe it. Then , if I remember right, WVU loses RichRod then pummels OU in bowl.Posted on 6/26/12 at 2:36 am to Monticello
I was talking about Alabama being #2 in the nation, not OSU. Leading up to the OSU/ISU game, OSU was the #2 ranked team but if Alabama was really the #2 team all along, then they should of remained #2 but I can see why they weren't. OSU was undefeated, Alabama was not.
But let's say OSU wins that game and finished undefeated and Oregon and Stanford lose. Well it's no doubt they would of been in the NCG but how would that be fair to the actual team who the 2nd best in the nation, Alabama?
An undefeated OSU team < A 1 loss Alabama team but that undefeated OSU team would of gotten the nod and played on 1/9.
ETA: FWIW, I'm not complaining about the rematch. The right 2 teams played.
But let's say OSU wins that game and finished undefeated and Oregon and Stanford lose. Well it's no doubt they would of been in the NCG but how would that be fair to the actual team who the 2nd best in the nation, Alabama?
An undefeated OSU team < A 1 loss Alabama team but that undefeated OSU team would of gotten the nod and played on 1/9.
ETA: FWIW, I'm not complaining about the rematch. The right 2 teams played.
This post was edited on 6/26/12 at 3:04 am
Posted on 6/26/12 at 3:35 am to GCTiger11
quote:
I'm asking if anyone knows whether FSU fans were in an uproar over the rematch or not?
I was in Tallahassee during that time. I never sensed that the fans had a problem with the game. Most of my friends there just felt that it was another opportunity to play and beat their biggest rival while winning a title. Fans around during that time were still accustomed to weird/terrible bowl matchups, so a 1vs3 game was actually a good thing, albeit a rematch. Now fans have gotten spoiled by the BCS title game system and they expect absolute perfection.
quote:
but if Alabama was really the #2 team all along
Why do you keep posting this. Where has it been stated that Bama was the #2 team all along, and why would it matter it they were or were not?
quote:
But let's say OSU wins that game and finished undefeated and Oregon and Stanford lose. Well it's no doubt they would of been in the NCG but how would that be fair to the actual team who the 2nd best in the nation, Alabama?
Again, why would Bama be no.2 in your scenario? OSU would be the clear no.2 team and playing in the title game.
quote:
An undefeated OSU team < A 1 loss Alabama team but that undefeated OSU team would of gotten the nod and played on 1/9.
True, and that happens almost every year in CFB, nothing new. Lucky or unlucky bounce here and there or a bad call/untimely injury changes the CFB season every year. All that can be done is put a system in place and follow that system.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 5:27 am to Monticello
In response to the OP, no it wasn't near as controversial. Mainly because the interweb message boards werent around as we know them. Any controversy was played out in the sports pages and ESPN talk shows, and that wasn't near the degree of Bama- LSU which was fueled largely by fan reaction on the web
Plus you didn't hear one clear "loser" in the situation a la OSU.
Plus you didn't hear one clear "loser" in the situation a la OSU.
This post was edited on 6/26/12 at 5:31 am
Posted on 6/26/12 at 5:40 am to Stonehog
quote:
Controversial? The only people bitching were LSU and Okie State fans, everyone else knew Bama was top 2.
Wrong. It only spawned a change to the bcs and you think it was because 2 colleges were mad. Brilliant
Posted on 6/26/12 at 6:11 am to Monticello
While the scenarios were similar, there are significant differences that people have pointed out in the thread.
I think most of the controversy regarding the rematch was lessened because it was a different time. Most households didn't have, or were just starting to get internet. Bloggers and message boards were pretty sparse and ESPN.com was still in its infancy.
You didn't see the 24/7 over-kill analyzing of every single thing and from what I can remember (I was in HS at the time) you didn't have nearly the number of professional trolls. People like Bayless and Finebaum weren't national brands.
I think most of the controversy regarding the rematch was lessened because it was a different time. Most households didn't have, or were just starting to get internet. Bloggers and message boards were pretty sparse and ESPN.com was still in its infancy.
You didn't see the 24/7 over-kill analyzing of every single thing and from what I can remember (I was in HS at the time) you didn't have nearly the number of professional trolls. People like Bayless and Finebaum weren't national brands.
This post was edited on 6/26/12 at 6:13 am
Posted on 6/26/12 at 6:23 am to Monticello
quote:
Was the '96 FSU/Florida national title rematch as controversial as '11 Bama/LSU?
No, because LSU fans say that it wasn't.
We all need to forget that the BCS is supposed to pit the two best teams in the country against each other. Especially if they're in the same conference or division. Then, this rule supercedes the mission statement of the BCS. Rule 23(c) then goes into effect: the best Big XII team with an awful late season loss to a .500 team is deemed a worthy #2 opponent.
Posted on 6/26/12 at 6:45 am to bamascott2
Boom
Posted on 6/26/12 at 6:59 am to Monticello
quote:
A 1/9 LSU-Alabama pissing match thread was definitely needed again
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News