Nightmare Scenario for the BCSNCG
- Thread starter mhiggy45
- Start date
B1GTide you just get better and better mateYou could have put Brando in the thread title and saved me a click.
Still though, if it's those two teams, one of them will be the Champ.For the rest of the college football world Alabama is the nightmare scenario. Nick Saban is Freddie Krueger.
Just in case anyone forgot, his preseason top ten (which according to him is where he says the teams will be at the end of the season not at the beginning of the season like the rest of preseason polls) is (drum roll...) 1. Louisville, 2. Ohio State, 3. Texas A&M, 4. Stanford, 5. Clemson, 6. Georgia, 7. Alabama, 8. Oklahoma State, 9. Oregon, and 10. Oklahoma. How's that top ten looking halfway through the season?
This, my friend, may be the funniest post I have read all year...I laughed for 2 straight minutes when I read this. Just to clarify, I listen to channel 91, college sports, when I'm at work. I would never actually tune my cable network to his show in particular. Just happened to over hear this tidbit and thought I would share it with my tidefriends. Thanks for some of the funniest responses in quite a while.....I needed to laugh today,thanks again.
I know this won't happen, but it would be hilarious and a fitting end for this selection process. If after all the CCG's, Bama was the only undefeated team and Mizzou was the only 1-loss team. The execs at the BCS and ESPN would be all tweed up. They would either have to re-match Bama-Mizzou or justify putting a 2-loss team ahead of 12-1 Mizzou whose lone loss was to #1 Bama. Next year the "committee" could use the ole "Alabama rule", you know the "didn't win your conference" excuse to keep 'em out. But this year?
Yeah, but you're a Mom :biggrin2:I like you.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Thar's your problem right yonder.
Gotta give this Brando 'fly in the ointment' a fail on the scale of Colombian artillery training...
Last edited:
The tough road game for Baylor will be Okie Lite. With Tech at Cowboy Stadium and Texas and Oklahoma at home, the chance is there. As Alabama has shown, it is hard for any team to run the table. But Baylor has a ten game winning streak that started with number one K St and launched Bama into the title hunt. With an offense that's way more than flashy and a vastly improved defense, anything could happen. The real fun is watching it all play out. It sure seems to work out in the end.
They should pipe Brando 24/7 into all the cells at Guantanamo . The prisoners would be tripping all over each other giving information in exchange for shutting him up !
I was in a "Firehouse Subs" shop in Orlando yesterday and they had Brando on the tube. For some reason, having to listen to him made my entire lunch somewhat unappetizing.You could have put Brando in the thread title and saved me a click.
That's saying something when you're talking about my second-favorite sub shop..
Yup, agree with that.:tongue:You could have put Brando in the thread title and saved me a click.
RTR:biga2:
The only nightmare for me is us not in it.
My worst case scenario was a rematch with Texas A&M, until last week. The opponent I fear the most is Oregon, but that is the match-up I want to see. The lamest of lame match-ups would be us against Texas Tech.
My worst case scenario was a rematch with Texas A&M, until last week. The opponent I fear the most is Oregon, but that is the match-up I want to see. The lamest of lame match-ups would be us against Texas Tech.
Forgetting Brando and his loathsome personality for a few minutes, the thing that really sticks in my craw is the way the media members seem to relish chaos for chaos sake. I don’t have nearly the problem with media members that a lot of folks around here do, but this has always bothered me. It’s one thing to think that a team has been treated unfairly or that the system is perhaps messed up or to even long for a national championship game that pits to opposing but successful styles of football against one another. But the approach taken by men like Brando and Danny Kannell is bordering on toxic.
What is in particular a problem is that so many of these figures are holding “objective” positions as hosts and play by play men on one hand, and then doing analyst work during the day. You can’t do both, or at least you shouldn’t. The consistent thing with lightning rods like Finebaum, Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, etc. is that they are very upfront about what they do – a little reporting but mostly analysis and argument. We may all disagree with them, but those men have clearly defined roles - they’ve gone from beat reporter to columnists to talking head. Everyone gets that and knows how to deal with it. Brando thinks he can be a smiling host on Saturday and then spew venom on Twitter on Sunday. Doesn’t work that way – you need to be pretty much all or nothing, and be honest about what you’re doing.
But back to the BCS, I’m convinced that many media members want change out of some misguided notion of justice or boredom. On the latter, they know playoffs potentially give them a new and exciting story each year. Covering Alabama and LSU each year gets old, it seems. I can actually understand that, but it’s no reason to change the system. On the former, these guys graduated from j-school and they see their peers covering stories about the poor and downtrodden in Rwanda and Baltimore and figure if they can’t write a story about Bubbles and Cutty, then they can at least be advocates for Boise State or Louisville.
What is in particular a problem is that so many of these figures are holding “objective” positions as hosts and play by play men on one hand, and then doing analyst work during the day. You can’t do both, or at least you shouldn’t. The consistent thing with lightning rods like Finebaum, Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, etc. is that they are very upfront about what they do – a little reporting but mostly analysis and argument. We may all disagree with them, but those men have clearly defined roles - they’ve gone from beat reporter to columnists to talking head. Everyone gets that and knows how to deal with it. Brando thinks he can be a smiling host on Saturday and then spew venom on Twitter on Sunday. Doesn’t work that way – you need to be pretty much all or nothing, and be honest about what you’re doing.
But back to the BCS, I’m convinced that many media members want change out of some misguided notion of justice or boredom. On the latter, they know playoffs potentially give them a new and exciting story each year. Covering Alabama and LSU each year gets old, it seems. I can actually understand that, but it’s no reason to change the system. On the former, these guys graduated from j-school and they see their peers covering stories about the poor and downtrodden in Rwanda and Baltimore and figure if they can’t write a story about Bubbles and Cutty, then they can at least be advocates for Boise State or Louisville.
The amusing thing is that you could go to ANY October since, say, 1973 when the bowls began to attain some ranking significance and propose a "nightmare scenario" for almost any year in existence. Many times it has come to pass (1977 Notre Dame leap frogging the pack and winning it all) but the game has only gotten more popular.
In 1998, the BCS nearly imploded the first year when they would have had a BCS title game without the season-long number one, K-State. Only a couple of upsets (Miami over UCLA and aTm over K-State) saved the day. In 1999, if Brian Stallworth does not complete a pass to give La Tech a win, Alabama plays FSU for number one despite a loss and Va Tech is left to scream hysterical. In 2000, 2001, and 2003 (and an argument can be made for 2004), the BCS didn't even match the right opponents in the game. In fact, this mess made the AP secede AND resulted in a change to the BCS formula.
In 2006, Florida only got in because UCLA somehow beat UCLA. In 2007, LSU only got in the game because of a sequence of upsets that ended the hopes of Kansas, Missouri, and West Virginia. In 2008, Oklahoma got into the game despite losing to Texas.
I could go on and on - and pretty much any nightmare scenario you propose has already happened. (For Pete's sake, there was actually a suggestion in 1990 how 10-1 Louisville, who was ranked something like 18, could win the national title).
Brando and his stooges have to throw garbage out like this. It's what draws viewers.
If Baylor and Ohio State were unbeaten (and the only ones) then NOBODY here or anywhere could complain about it. Period. End of discussion.
Oh they WOULD complain but those complaints would have zero merit.
Besides, this is what ticks me off about the media. If OKLAHOMA was unbeaten, to you REALLY think this suggestion would even be made? They play the EXACT SAME CONFERENCE schedule as Baylor (except obviously each other). Baylor played Wofford, Buffalo, and ULM while OU played ULM, Tulsa, and Notre Dame. Except for Notre Dame, these are virtually the same schedule - and NOBODY would suggest that OU might be undeserving.
And you won't get much bad ink on Ohio State, either. The Big Ten educated media (all those Northwestern grads at ESPN like Wilbon and Greenberg) will circle the wagons and overnight declare their superiority anyway.
So this is not even a controversial point. If a one-loss SEC team does not make it but the others are from so-called power conferences......so what?
In 1998, the BCS nearly imploded the first year when they would have had a BCS title game without the season-long number one, K-State. Only a couple of upsets (Miami over UCLA and aTm over K-State) saved the day. In 1999, if Brian Stallworth does not complete a pass to give La Tech a win, Alabama plays FSU for number one despite a loss and Va Tech is left to scream hysterical. In 2000, 2001, and 2003 (and an argument can be made for 2004), the BCS didn't even match the right opponents in the game. In fact, this mess made the AP secede AND resulted in a change to the BCS formula.
In 2006, Florida only got in because UCLA somehow beat UCLA. In 2007, LSU only got in the game because of a sequence of upsets that ended the hopes of Kansas, Missouri, and West Virginia. In 2008, Oklahoma got into the game despite losing to Texas.
I could go on and on - and pretty much any nightmare scenario you propose has already happened. (For Pete's sake, there was actually a suggestion in 1990 how 10-1 Louisville, who was ranked something like 18, could win the national title).
Brando and his stooges have to throw garbage out like this. It's what draws viewers.
If Baylor and Ohio State were unbeaten (and the only ones) then NOBODY here or anywhere could complain about it. Period. End of discussion.
Oh they WOULD complain but those complaints would have zero merit.
Besides, this is what ticks me off about the media. If OKLAHOMA was unbeaten, to you REALLY think this suggestion would even be made? They play the EXACT SAME CONFERENCE schedule as Baylor (except obviously each other). Baylor played Wofford, Buffalo, and ULM while OU played ULM, Tulsa, and Notre Dame. Except for Notre Dame, these are virtually the same schedule - and NOBODY would suggest that OU might be undeserving.
And you won't get much bad ink on Ohio State, either. The Big Ten educated media (all those Northwestern grads at ESPN like Wilbon and Greenberg) will circle the wagons and overnight declare their superiority anyway.
So this is not even a controversial point. If a one-loss SEC team does not make it but the others are from so-called power conferences......so what?
This entire saga is what makes me sick. The media are self-appointed arbiters of who "should" play in the big game, and it's what my problem is with the BCS as a whole (and the bowl system before it). CERTAIN teams win national championships and other teams are simply not allowed the opportunity. And I don't care who one is, that is not right.
I've pointed this example out before just as an example:
In 1993, the media began telling us even before Alabama drilled Miami that Florida State was "really" the best team. They began the year at number one. By the time they played Notre Dame in a 1 vs 2 - and the Irish beat them in South Bend - they justified dropping the Noles only to number two, using the insane logic that "well, the Irish were number two so the Noles couldn't drop any lower. The media began touting the "big rematch" with Notre Dame. When anyone pointed out that Nebraska , Ohio State, Auburn, and West Virginia were undefeated, there was a script: Auburn couldn't win because of the probation (fair enough), Ohio State had a tie (also fair enough).
But then they'd ridicule Nebraska, repeatedly saying, "Florida State has already drilled Nebraska three times in the past seven years in bowl games" and "nobody wants to see this game again." West Virginia would be dismissed as "they played a soft schedule" (never mind that they played in the same conference as Miami, whose schedule was never questioned).
Then the unthinkable happened - Notre Dame lost. Florida State went right back to number one, Nebraska number two - and all of a sudden we were NOW being told how "Nebraska and FSU are the two best teams." Amazing. One loss and the very same pundits were incredibly versatile, doing a 180 on their previous claims.
Oh and should I point out that unbeaten West Virginia then beat the same team (BC) that knocked off Notre Dame?
Fact is this: the 1993 national championship SHOULD have been WVA and Nebraska. Period. It wasn't because the media had already determined that WVA was "undeserving" of a shot at it and "played a soft schedule."
This is what sets me off with the Brandos of the world - because it's the same damn thing all over again.
I've pointed this example out before just as an example:
In 1993, the media began telling us even before Alabama drilled Miami that Florida State was "really" the best team. They began the year at number one. By the time they played Notre Dame in a 1 vs 2 - and the Irish beat them in South Bend - they justified dropping the Noles only to number two, using the insane logic that "well, the Irish were number two so the Noles couldn't drop any lower. The media began touting the "big rematch" with Notre Dame. When anyone pointed out that Nebraska , Ohio State, Auburn, and West Virginia were undefeated, there was a script: Auburn couldn't win because of the probation (fair enough), Ohio State had a tie (also fair enough).
But then they'd ridicule Nebraska, repeatedly saying, "Florida State has already drilled Nebraska three times in the past seven years in bowl games" and "nobody wants to see this game again." West Virginia would be dismissed as "they played a soft schedule" (never mind that they played in the same conference as Miami, whose schedule was never questioned).
Then the unthinkable happened - Notre Dame lost. Florida State went right back to number one, Nebraska number two - and all of a sudden we were NOW being told how "Nebraska and FSU are the two best teams." Amazing. One loss and the very same pundits were incredibly versatile, doing a 180 on their previous claims.
Oh and should I point out that unbeaten West Virginia then beat the same team (BC) that knocked off Notre Dame?
Fact is this: the 1993 national championship SHOULD have been WVA and Nebraska. Period. It wasn't because the media had already determined that WVA was "undeserving" of a shot at it and "played a soft schedule."
This is what sets me off with the Brandos of the world - because it's the same damn thing all over again.
Latest threads
-
-
Political Meme - Cartoon/Joke Thread...Part XX- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 9
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 33