Started By
Message
re: Do LSU fans really think the game was fixed?
Posted on 1/12/12 at 9:10 pm to Bryant91092
Posted on 1/12/12 at 9:10 pm to Bryant91092
quote:
Do you disagree with the sentiment that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the nation? If you don't disagree with that statement then there shouldn't be a problem with Alabama making the game.
I do not disagree with LSU and Bama being the best 2 teams in the nation and yes the goal of the BCS is to match the best two teams up in the CG, BUT what about the notion that "every game matters." The rematch rendered Nov 5th meaningless.
Nov 5th was about the SEC West, the SEC Championship
and birth in the BSC title, winner take all. Bama had their shot at home, they lost, so "next conference champ up"
Your reply might be that I would think differently had LSU lost on Nov 5th or you might say what about 07? Well, when the schedule came out this year, I had Nov 5th down as our only "L" and we would be playing in the Sugar Bowl so the win was a bonus. And 07 we didn't "back in" we were a 2 loss SEC Champion not a 1 loss third place team in the SEC.
ESPN manufactured the game based on the ratings CBS garnered on Nov 5th and it blew up in their face.
2
Posted on 1/12/12 at 9:10 pm to alabamabuckeye
I think the odds are 14-2
Posted on 1/12/12 at 9:11 pm to Teague
quote:
Truer words were never spoken. It takes HUNDREDS of idiots to = The SEC Rant.
Posted on 1/12/12 at 9:38 pm to alabamabuckeye
I seriously think jj was paid off. There is no way a qb can play that bad. That was the worst performance I have ever seen by a qb in a championship game.
Posted on 1/12/12 at 9:41 pm to alabamabuckeye
"Serious question.
The Rant is convinced."
Serious answer. There are maybe 5 moronic posters on the rant that think this. They have been called out. I have seen more idiotic posts on the SEC Rant over the past two months by LSU, Bama and Ark fans than on the Tiger Rant.
This is one of them that would take one or two threads with 5 or 6 posters that support the idea and say it is a serious question because the Rant is convinced.
We would all appreciate if you would please work harder next time.
The Rant is convinced."
Serious answer. There are maybe 5 moronic posters on the rant that think this. They have been called out. I have seen more idiotic posts on the SEC Rant over the past two months by LSU, Bama and Ark fans than on the Tiger Rant.
This is one of them that would take one or two threads with 5 or 6 posters that support the idea and say it is a serious question because the Rant is convinced.
We would all appreciate if you would please work harder next time.
Posted on 1/12/12 at 11:41 pm to Tigerinasia
To everyone claiming the title is engineered to match the two best teams in the country, I challenge you to look back at previous BCS title games and ask yourselves what criteria were used to match the teams. I've followed college football since the inception of the BCS and never in my life have I heard the "eye" test being used as a justification to vote a team in the top 2, yet if you remember correctly, that was the test everyone embraced to place Bama at 2.
Bama beat two teams in the top 25 when everyone was determining who would play LSU. OSU had beaten 5. I'm not sure I heard one ESPN announcer mention this nugget. Add to that, Stanford was fricking railroaded IMO. Of the teams in contention, their loss was to Oregon, a top 5 team, and they had the best win of the teams in contention, @USC.
Stanford was never mentioned as a serious contender to be placed in the game for some reason.
Bama won. Congrats. I bet on Bama. In sports, the revenge angle is the single largest motivator.
Like I've told everyone about the game, the outcome of a third game would be far different IMO. Bama is not that much better than LSU. They had a far different perspective on the game than LSU had, which was mostly formulated from their loss on 11-5. The revenge factor would be equalized in a third game.
It's like we won a hard fought first set in tennis in a tiebreaker. In the second set, Bama blasted us. Yet, the match was called after the second set and Bama declared the winner of the match. Add to that, we had to play one more match than bama even though we were ranked higher. That's what's so disappointing about the entire situation.
Im not sure I would have agreed with the conclusion, but I would have had less of a problem with the rematch if I felt ESPN did not steer this ship in one direction. It became about the eye test and the quality of losses, both of which had been only part of the equation in the past. ESPN saw the ratings the first game generated. They wanted those ratings. Period. It was a business decision, and in retrospect, they made the wrong call.
Bama beat two teams in the top 25 when everyone was determining who would play LSU. OSU had beaten 5. I'm not sure I heard one ESPN announcer mention this nugget. Add to that, Stanford was fricking railroaded IMO. Of the teams in contention, their loss was to Oregon, a top 5 team, and they had the best win of the teams in contention, @USC.
Stanford was never mentioned as a serious contender to be placed in the game for some reason.
Bama won. Congrats. I bet on Bama. In sports, the revenge angle is the single largest motivator.
Like I've told everyone about the game, the outcome of a third game would be far different IMO. Bama is not that much better than LSU. They had a far different perspective on the game than LSU had, which was mostly formulated from their loss on 11-5. The revenge factor would be equalized in a third game.
It's like we won a hard fought first set in tennis in a tiebreaker. In the second set, Bama blasted us. Yet, the match was called after the second set and Bama declared the winner of the match. Add to that, we had to play one more match than bama even though we were ranked higher. That's what's so disappointing about the entire situation.
Im not sure I would have agreed with the conclusion, but I would have had less of a problem with the rematch if I felt ESPN did not steer this ship in one direction. It became about the eye test and the quality of losses, both of which had been only part of the equation in the past. ESPN saw the ratings the first game generated. They wanted those ratings. Period. It was a business decision, and in retrospect, they made the wrong call.
Posted on 1/12/12 at 11:46 pm to Tigerfan53
quote:
I seriously think jj was paid off. There is no way a qb can play that bad. That was the worst performance I have ever seen by a qb in a championship game.
Dont be an idiot.
Jay Barker:
4-12 for 18 yards a pick (maybe 2) and no TD's.
Of course he won though.....
Posted on 1/12/12 at 11:47 pm to alabamabuckeye
quote:
Do LSU fans really think the game was fixed?
No.
This post was edited on 1/12/12 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 1/12/12 at 11:48 pm to tuptiger
quote:
they made the wrong call.
Um only if you're a Lsu fan... I think they made the right call and clearly the best team in the ncaa this year won the championship game.
Posted on 1/12/12 at 11:50 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
I seriously think jj was paid off. There is no way a qb can play that bad. That was the worst performance I have ever seen by a qb in a championship game.
Guess Georgia forgot to pay him for the 2nd half
Posted on 1/12/12 at 11:52 pm to alabamabuckeye
quote:
Do LSU fans really think the game was fixed?
Serious question.
No
quote:
The Rant is convinced.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 12:13 am to spacewrangler
quote:
clearly the best team in the ncaa this year won the championship game.
You know this how?
Posted on 1/13/12 at 6:22 am to TigerBrewdaddy
quote:
BUT what about the notion that "every game matters."
It does, Iowa State beat an overrated Okie State and that mattered a great deal.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 6:31 am to northalabamacracker
No, we did not have a legitimate college quarterback and you exposed us.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:10 am to TigerBrewdaddy
quote:
I do not disagree with LSU and Bama being the best 2 teams in the nation and yes the goal of the BCS is to match the best two teams up in the CG, BUT what about the notion that "every game matters." The rematch rendered Nov 5th meaningless.
I see this argument a lot. And it's kind of stupid. If Nov. 5th didn't matter, Bama wouldn't have needed Okie Lite, Stanford, and Oregon to go down in flames.
Seriously, does "every game should matter" mean that a one-loss team can't get in the title game?
The season isn't a playoff, but it DOES determine who the BCS decides are 1 & 2. In a playoff, losing to team x means that you're out and don't play them again. That seems to be people's hangup. But we don't have a playoff. We have the BCS, which picks the two best teams. Once the regular season is over, the BCS starts. You can't accrue BCS losses in the regular season.
One, and even two-loss teams make it to the title game all the time (2007?). Those losses certainly hurt those teams, but they were able to overcome them and get in the game. That's what Bama did.
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:14 am to Tigerfan53
quote:
I seriously think jj was paid off. There is no way a qb can play that bad. That was the worst performance I have ever seen by a qb in a championship game.
Please kill youself
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:16 am to spacewrangler
quote:LSU beat the best team in the nation at their house.
clearly the best team in the ncaa this year
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:22 am to La Place Mike
quote:
LSU beat the best team in the nation at their house.
21-0
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:22 am to La Place Mike
quote:
LSU beat the best team in the nation at their house.
I don't think anyone is disputing this
Posted on 1/13/12 at 7:24 am to La Place Mike
quote:
LSU beat the best team in the nation at their house.
Unranked 2007 Arky says the same thing.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News