Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:47 am to Lordofwrath88
quote:
To be honest the SEC Championship is not the be all end all in Tuscaloosa. At Alabama our ambition is not to win the conference (that's Big10 shite), our ambition is to win the National Championship by whatever means possible. Winning the SEC just happens to be the easiest way in. If our run ended with 5 Nattys and 3 SEC titles, I really couldn't care less.
the problem with that IS specific to college football, and that's the way the NC is crowned...its a faulty method of success. The BCS sucks, ask USC, Texas, Auburn, Miami, Ohio State, etc.
The new 4 team playoff will be more legitimate
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:50 am to EvilVodka
That's the system that you agreed to.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:53 am to USMC Gators
quote:
That's the system that you agreed to.
That I agreed to?? lol
I don't remember ever agreeing to a football system
Its the system the conference commissioners and university presidents agreed to....its been a disaster in the view of most people
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:53 am to EvilVodka
quote:
The new 4 team playoff will be more legitimate
There it is. Alabama's title claims have been ragged on for so long (some more than others), that we're gonna have to keep winning outright titles until the subject is moot.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:54 am to EvilVodka
quote:
The BCS sucks, ask USC, Texas, Auburn, Miami, Ohio State, etc.
All teams that have won BCS titles. I doubt the griping is as big as you may think.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:54 am to USMC Gators
I don't see them turning in their BCS trophies. As much as they hate the BCS you would think they would throw them away or turn them in.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:56 am to BIG DADDY 73
Exactly, and this is the same fan base that largely ignores USC's claim in 03. 
If it weren't for the BCS, LSU would've had no claim that year.
If it weren't for the BCS, LSU would've had no claim that year.
This post was edited on 5/15/13 at 7:56 am
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:57 am to EvilVodka
quote:
Its the system the conference commissioners and university presidents agreed to....its been a disaster in the view of most people
Meh, I never saw it as a disaster. In the grand scheme of things, it's a stepping stone. Before the BCS or it's predecessors, the Conference Champions went to different bowls and often times we'd know very little by season's end. By forcing a #1 vs #2, the BCS will be looked back as a controversial step in the right direction. Now we're bringing in #3 and #4. And I do think #5-#8 is coming in the near future.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 7:58 am to Lordofwrath88
LSU fans hate the BCS.
Without the BCS, they don't get a title in 03.
Amazing.
Without the BCS, they don't get a title in 03.
Amazing.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:03 am to USMC Gators
Wikipedia
Damn, that would've been a hellova game
quote:
On January 9, 2004, Ted Waitt, CEO of Gateway Computers offered the NCAA $31 million for a national championship game between USC and Louisiana State. The NCAA did not consider the offer, leaving the year without an unarguable national champion.
Damn, that would've been a hellova game
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:03 am to USMC Gators
quote:
Without the BCS, they don't get a title in 03.
Amazing.
Or 2007. Not with two losses and gettting half a hunny hung on them.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:03 am to EvilVodka
Yep!
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:04 am to EvilVodka
So all this arguing is over whether Bama is in a mini-dynasty or full dynasty (a distinction I'd never heard before today)?
Alabama fan problems
Alabama fan problems
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:09 am to USMC Gators
quote:
Exactly, and this is the same fan base that largely ignores USC's claim in 03.
If it weren't for the BCS, LSU would've had no claim that year
most people consider Oklahoma to be the odd man out after losing their conference championship game...
There are few years in the BCS where there was no argument...probably last year, '05, and '99...every other year has problems
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:11 am to sarc
quote:
So all this arguing is over whether Bama is in a mini-dynasty or full dynasty (a distinction I'd never heard before today)?
Alabama fan problems
good point...I think we'd all agree that this is at least a mini-dynasty, equal to the runs Miami and USC had this last decade...
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:12 am to EvilVodka
quote:
There are few years in the BCS where there was no argument...probably last year, '05, and '99...every other year has problems
that's cause every other year had more than 2 undefeated teams... or worse, only 1 undefeated team and BCS was just created to pit #1 vs #2. Like I said, the BCS is still better than what was before it.... that said, playoffs should have been here at least 5 years ago
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:15 am to EvilVodka
Didn't read all 17 pages.
To me, there has only been one dynasty in major college sports - UCLA's remarkable run. In college football, not team has ever won three in a row (albeit we were robbed in 1966, but the facts are the facts). How can any team be a "dynasty" without winning three in a row?
I know most people use the term differently, so define it however you choose. To me, a "dynasty" doesn't mean you are good for several years, it means you are on THE TOP for several years. 3 out of 4 in the BCS era has no equal, but a dynasty means even more. It means you RULE for a sustained period of time.
To me, there has only been one dynasty in major college sports - UCLA's remarkable run. In college football, not team has ever won three in a row (albeit we were robbed in 1966, but the facts are the facts). How can any team be a "dynasty" without winning three in a row?
I know most people use the term differently, so define it however you choose. To me, a "dynasty" doesn't mean you are good for several years, it means you are on THE TOP for several years. 3 out of 4 in the BCS era has no equal, but a dynasty means even more. It means you RULE for a sustained period of time.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:16 am to NBamaAlum
quote:
Nope. Just a team that has won 3 out of 4 with no sign of slowing down. That doesn't strike me as something one would refer to as a dynasty.
100% agree.
Bryant had a dynasty. The program as a whole can justifiably be called a dynasty but this current stretch can't really be called more than a very good run.
Posted on 5/15/13 at 8:17 am to EvilVodka
quote:
most people consider Oklahoma to be the odd man out after losing their conference championship game...
USC was #1 in both polls before the bowl games. They whupped up on #4 Michigan, so I doubt they would've dropped.
quote:
There are few years in the BCS where there was no argument...probably last year, '05, and '99...every other year has problems
In 06, we had the best record out of any major team and the #1 sos.
Page 17 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News