re: gundy interview on van pelt...

Weeden and Wilson share a common opponent, Texas A&M.




Weeden: 47-60, 438 yards, 2 TD
Wilson: 30-51, 510 yards, 3 TD

quote:

---

LSU lost to unranked Arkansas and Kentucky! But what saved LSU's case? It was a series of wins against ranked teams, something USC did not have. The logic that got LSU into the NC Game in 2007 was not applied in 2011. A team with an inferior case was given the pass to the NC Game last night, and college football will forever be the worse for it.

---

This year the voters had Bama in the top 2. The humans and the BCS agreed this year. Harris, AP, and coaches all had Bama number 2. It's amazing that not one human poll agrees with you.

frick Gundy.

I can see graciously promoting a team one week and then turning around and stumping for your team when it matters.

But when you do so by taking a shot at the team you were just hyping, you deserve to be fricking humiliated. I guess you can't expect more from a guy who seems to be perpetually choking on a million cocks, though.

quote:

---

From the person that created this Einstein moment:

roll tide...#14 is on the way! The meltdown in the sewer state of la will be epic.

Yeah, you seem like a highly qualified judge in that department

---

The guy is an idiot. Just ignore him.

quote:

---

Quality of wins and conference championships also differentiated the two teams. Never before has "quality of loss" carried so much weight.

---

Wow, this is the second thread I've seen you being hardcore bitter in. You are not happy about this, are you?

quote:

---

Called out the espn bias

---

They told him:

quote:

---

TulaneLSU

---

This just in: you can go ahead and change your favorite team back to LSU. Word is Oklahoma State won't be going to New Orleans.

I do not like LSU and I have been banned from TigerDroppings many times for stating negative things about LSU. I love justice, and this year, college football proved to be an unjust institution. Favoritism, based on expected financial profit, ruled the day, and that is very bad for college football's future.

To whomever I was responding earlier: Voters have what is essentially absolute power to decide who is in the NC Game. Voters can and have manipulated their votes to ensure the team they wanted gets in the NC Game (see 2006). Alabama's case throughout it all was built on "the eye ball" tests, a.k.a., I cannot fathom an argument to convince you, so I will hope no one questions my assertion, and the loss to LSU. TV analysts at ESPN deliberately avoided, until the BCS had already been decided, talking about whom OK State and Alabama had beaten. Why? Because such conversation would lead viewers to conclude that OK State deserved the #2.

quote:

---

If the BCS continues in a similar format, all the computer algorithms must be made public. The BCS would also benefit from returning to the 1998-2003 format where computers accounted for 50% of the BCS formula and there were bonuses for quality wins. The 2003 media campaign for USC is partly to blame for the absurdity that became this year's travesty.

---

Computers should decide the champion? I think it was proven that was terrible. I don't think computers should be part of it at all. The sample size of OOC games in the early season isn't enough to be accurate. The computers allowed OU to get blown out in their championship game and still play for the game. The computers think ISU is a top 30 team. Human voters may be flawed but the computers are a joke because the sample size of OOC games isn't big enough.

Computers need to have a more influential role in determining the top two teams. Computers saved the 2003 season. Without the computers a very unworthy USC team would have received a free pass, much like media-hyped Alabama this year, into the NC Game. Why would that have been a travesty? 2003 USC played only one ranked team all season. Meanwhile, LSU and OU, each with better records than USC, played five and six, respectively.