Les Miles fired according to Sunday reports

B1GTide said:

Fair enough. As long as we agree that under that system, Alabama was the most deserving team. And I had no problem with Ohio State being left out of the playoff last year. Winning your conference championship is a huge part of the new system. I like the new system. It helped us win a championship 2 years ago. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about that same system putting another team in last year.

Click to expand...

Completely agree about the system helping Ohio State vs. working against them last year. At least it's consistent.

With the BCS the criteria (polls and computer rankings) were what they were, so every team ever selected was the "right" one under the criteria. Can't argue with that -- I like the human element on the playoff committee but that has it's weaknesses too.

UntouchableCrew said:

You're right, I forgot Stanford didn't win the Pac-12 that year.

Click to expand...

I didn't.

UntouchableCrew said:

They did not get screwed, they were undeserving.

Click to expand...

How were they any more undeserving than Alabama?

UntouchableCrew said:

OSU still has a very strong case though -- one loss conference champion, with their one loss being a road game against a team they were clearly better than and as you pointed out where beating 24-7 in the third quarter.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Oklahoma State, the games last four quarters - only then do we get to count up the points and a tie means we play extra. Oklahoma State may have lost on the road (as opposed to Alabama at home) but they lost to a TERRIBLE team, plain and simple. Some losses disqualify any further discussion.

UntouchableCrew said:

It's easy to imagine why OSU fans would be outraged -- they didn't get a chance to prove they were better than LSU, while Alabama got two.

Click to expand...

All Oklahoma State had to do was beat Iowa State - they failed. If Oklahoma State had gone UNDEFEATED and been bypassed by Alabama, they would have a legitimate beef. Problem is that what you're ignoring is that not only did Okie State have to lose but so did Oklahoma (to Baylor) AND Boise State (to TCU) AND Oregon (to USC). That's the problem a lot of us have with it. They're complaining about Alabama's loss but THEY ALSO LOST - and none of them lost to a team the caliber of LSU.

The better argument in favor of Okie State is their WINS were of a higher quality than Alabama's wins were in the sense they played a MUCH tougher schedule. But Alabama only trailed for 27 minutes all season long to only three opponents, and never trailed after the first quarter in ANY game the entire season except for the final play of the LSU game. How many teams were dominant enough that they trailed less than a half over the course of an entire season?

I know off the top of my head that the 1991 Washington Huskies trailed for more than 27 minutes in the Nebraska game that year. Consider that the 1995 Nebraska team actually trailed at the end of the first quarter against Washington State and Florida in the Fiesta Bowl. Yes, they won those games, and I don't think they trailed for the 27 minutes Alabama did for the entire year - but that just tells you the elite level of company that 2011 team ranks among.

Everyone who saw the game knew full well which team was better. LSU got three field goals. The first was on a hurry drive right before halftime that constituted 1/3 of their offense for the ENTIRE game. Their second field goal came on an interception where they began with first and goal at the eight and kicked. And the last field goal came when they started at the 25 in overtime after Alabama whiffed the kick.

UntouchableCrew said:

But again, I think we all agree Alabama was the best team... But I'd certainly argue that point if i was an OSU fan.

Click to expand...

OSU can argue all they want. They alone are responsible for leaving it in the hands of the voters. It's very difficult to make the argument that you should get to play LSU when you couldn't even beat Iowa State. Besides - there was a certain poetic justice in the idea that the Big 12 that had already had TWO teams (2001 Nebraska and 2003 OU) go play in the BCS title game after not winning the conference. And both of those teams had losses that should have disqualified them from consideration (Nebraska's 62-36 drubbing from Colorado and OU's 35-7 el foldo against Kansas State). I'll spot Nebraska because they only made it because of a game from 9/11 being cancelled - but OU had no business in that game.

Oh and btw - time has fully vindicated the selection of Alabama and not only because we won. The SEC went 6-3 (and one of the losses was in the SEC-SEC match-up, so 5-2). The third-best team in the SEC (Arkansas) had lost to both teams by 24 points - and they killed Kansas State, the second-best team in the Big 12, a team that Okie State only beat by seven.

UntouchableCrew said:

Eh, I disagree because this entire argument is based on the presumption that the SEC is the best conference and is "clearly" superior. While we would all agree that is the case, it is inherently an assumption.

Click to expand...

It isn't an assumption when you look at the fact that the SEC that year beat the Pac 12 champs (Oregon), had a 5-2 bowl record not including the BCSNCG, the third-best SEC team beat the second-best Big 12 team pretty handily (not to mention beat ATM in the regular season), and the SEC's out of conference record against the Power Five (a term we didn't use back then but anyway) was 12-4, the ACC champs, the Big 12 runner-up, both teams with the best overall record in the Big East...all by double digits.

UntouchableCrew said:

The argument for OSU is a very compelling one -- Alabama and LSU have already decided who is better between them.

Click to expand...

But that's not even the argument OR the purpose of the BCS. The purpose is to match up the two best teams in the country REGARDLESS.

And if you apply that argument consistently then Iowa State already decided who was better between they and Okie State, and even mentioning Iowa State in the same breath as LSU and Alabama in FOOTBALL in laughably absurd.

UntouchableCrew said:

They played, at Alabama, and LSU defeated them. LSU went undefeated and won the SEC.

Click to expand...

No argument here, but this doesn't make any compelling argument in favor of Okie State, either.

UntouchableCrew said:

Why should any SEC team, no matter how talented, be the team most deserving of a shot at the NC when teams from every other conference aren't?

Click to expand...

That question is loaded and ASSUMES facts not in evidence.

Quick - how many teams can you name where a team known for its DEFENSE had an offense so dominant that they never trailed after the first quarter at any point in the entire season save one night where every break went against them?

Oklahoma State was given just as much a shot as Alabama was. And just like Alabama - when they lost - they fell in the poll. Sounds fair to me.

UntouchableCrew said:

The answer is that Alabama and LSU were the two best teams,... and since everyone accepts that it works out fine.

Click to expand...

So you're writing this post complaining that the 'two best teams' played in the game....and you have a problem with it all these years later?

You might want to go back and look at the scores that year in the defense-dominating SEC. LSU only had ONE opponent all season long closer than 13 points at the final gun - Alabama in the first game. Alabama only had ONE opponent all season long closer than 17 points - LSU. Okie State beat ATM by one point (the same ATM that Arkansas beat by four), Texas by eight, K-State by seven, and lost by SIX to Iowa State.

In other words, they had a bunch of close games (and I'm not including Stanford in that count, either).

UntouchableCrew said:

But clearly Alabama was not the most deserving team.

Click to expand...

This - to me - is football political language designed to allow the proponent to claim some sort of mystical ability to determine what should happen. "Well, Alabama already had its chance." You know what some of us longtime Alabama fans recall along these same lines? In 1992, all we heard for an entire season after Florida State lost to Miami on Wide Right II was that "the two best teams are Miami and FSU." There was even a push after Alabama beat Florida to argue that since we barely beat Florida and FSU killed them, there should be a Miami-FSU rematch. They were talking about an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in 2006 for a month before the game was played and two weeks afterward.

All of a sudden it's Alabama and everyone is reluctant for a rematch.

UntouchableCrew said:

The inherent logic of a team who has already lost to the #1 team being most deserving at getting a shot at them just isn't there.

Click to expand...

But you're simultaneously arguing the logic that a team that lost to an unranked foe is more deserving than a team that lost to a good team. The BCS was designed to match up the two best teams. And despite all the criticisms - MANY of them legitimate - raised against the BCS, they almost infallibly did so.

Les Miles to USC Trojans, he'll have a field day in the Pac 12.

BAMAfan777 said:

Les Miles to USC Trojans, he'll have a field day in the Pac 12.

Click to expand...

USC could go 1-11 this year so i could see them firing their coach at an airport again.

DzynKingRTR said:

USC could go 1-11 this year so i could see them firing their coach at an airport again.

Click to expand...

Insert Billy Crystal monologue ("Harry Met Sally") about never taking your date to an airport

BAMAfan777 said:

Les Miles to USC Trojans, he'll have a field day in the Pac 12.

Click to expand...

ISWYDT

In terms of Oklahoma St. and Alabama that year, it took some luck for Alabama to get the rematch with LSU, just like it took some luck for LSU to beat Alabama... but anyone who really thinks Oklahoma. St. was one of the top two teams that year obviously didn't watch Alabama, LSU and Oklahoma St. play that year.

That was the best Oklahoma State team of all-time, they were not better than either of the championship participants. The BCS got it right but it finally made the rest of the nation come to grips with the problems of a one-off championship game. Nobody cared when an undefeated SEC was sidelined in favor of Big-12 and Pac-12 undefeated teams. The rest of the nation lost their dang minds when everyone else was left out when the two best teams were from the SEC.

People seem to conveniently forget the FSU/Florida rematch title game.

selmaborntidefan said:

It isn't an assumption when you look at the fact that the SEC that year beat the Pac 12 champs (Oregon), had a 5-2 bowl record not including the BCSNCG, the third-best SEC team beat the second-best Big 12 team pretty handily (not to mention beat ATM in the regular season), and the SEC's out of conference record against the Power Five (a term we didn't use back then but anyway) was 12-4, the ACC champs, the Big 12 runner-up, both teams with the best overall record in the Big East...all by double digits.




But that's not even the argument OR the purpose of the BCS. The purpose is to match up the two best teams in the country REGARDLESS.

And if you apply that argument consistently then Iowa State already decided who was better between they and Okie State, and even mentioning Iowa State in the same breath as LSU and Alabama in FOOTBALL in laughably absurd.



No argument here, but this doesn't make any compelling argument in favor of Okie State, either.



That question is loaded and ASSUMES facts not in evidence.

Quick - how many teams can you name where a team known for its DEFENSE had an offense so dominant that they never trailed after the first quarter at any point in the entire season save one night where every break went against them?

Oklahoma State was given just as much a shot as Alabama was. And just like Alabama - when they lost - they fell in the poll. Sounds fair to me.



So you're writing this post complaining that the 'two best teams' played in the game....and you have a problem with it all these years later?

You might want to go back and look at the scores that year in the defense-dominating SEC. LSU only had ONE opponent all season long closer than 13 points at the final gun - Alabama in the first game. Alabama only had ONE opponent all season long closer than 17 points - LSU. Okie State beat ATM by one point (the same ATM that Arkansas beat by four), Texas by eight, K-State by seven, and lost by SIX to Iowa State.

In other words, they had a bunch of close games (and I'm not including Stanford in that count, either).



This - to me - is football political language designed to allow the proponent to claim some sort of mystical ability to determine what should happen. "Well, Alabama already had its chance." You know what some of us longtime Alabama fans recall along these same lines? In 1992, all we heard for an entire season after Florida State lost to Miami on Wide Right II was that "the two best teams are Miami and FSU." There was even a push after Alabama beat Florida to argue that since we barely beat Florida and FSU killed them, there should be a Miami-FSU rematch. They were talking about an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in 2006 for a month before the game was played and two weeks afterward.

All of a sudden it's Alabama and everyone is reluctant for a rematch.



But you're simultaneously arguing the logic that a team that lost to an unranked foe is more deserving than a team that lost to a good team. The BCS was designed to match up the two best teams. And despite all the criticisms - MANY of them legitimate - raised against the BCS, they almost infallibly did so.

Click to expand...

This is way too long of a post to respond point by point but I'll say this -- I agree that the BCS worked as it was intended to and the two best teams played. I disagree that a one game championship played between two teams that have already played each other makes much sense and I'm very glad for the 4 team playoff format, which I absolutely love.

DzynKingRTR said:

People seem to conveniently forget the FSU/Florida rematch title game.

Click to expand...

Didn't that happen at least two times in the 1990s and one time it was a clear national title game?


Edit: Happened twice in a two year period (1994, 1996) and Florida had a backdoor shot at the 1994 title if they won and got some poll luck. The 1996 game was a clear rematch national champs game.

rgw said:

Didn't that happen at least two times in the 1990s and one time it was a clear national title game?


Edit: Happened twice in a two year period (1994, 1996) and Florida had a backdoor shot at the 1994 title if they won and got some poll luck. The 1996 game was a clear rematch national champs game.

Click to expand...

I completely forgot about 1994, but 1996 was the one I was referencing. People never talk about it. I remember being upset about it and calling it dumb.

UntouchableCrew said:

This is way too long of a post to respond point by point but I'll say this -- I agree that the BCS worked as it was intended to and the two best teams played. I disagree that a one game championship played between two teams that have already played each other makes much sense and I'm very glad for the 4 team playoff format, which I absolutely love.

Click to expand...

Even those who never cared for the BCS had to admit that it represented progress. What we had before the BCS was absolute crap.

DzynKingRTR said:

People seem to conveniently forget the FSU/Florida rematch title game.

Click to expand...

Because - with all due respect to you - it's irrelevant. It wasn't planned that way. That rematch got set up because of a unique set of circumstances. It was never intended to happen that way.

Entering the final week of the regular season, this was the ranking, the top three teams unbeaten:

1) Florida
2) FSU
3) Arizona State
4) Nebraska - one loss, 19-0, to Arizona St
5) Colorado - one loss, 20-13, to Michigan
6) Ohio State - one loss, 13-9, to Michigan
7) BYU - 12-1 (one loss, 29-17, to Washington)

Arizona St was already done winning the Pac Ten and with their whole season.

So on Thanksgiving weekend, Nebraska beat Colorado (Buffs out) and FSU beat Florida St, 24-21, so the following week's rankings looked like this:

1) Florida State - undefeated, ACC champs
2) Arizona State - undefeated, Pac 10 champs
3) Nebraska - one loss, Big 12 division champs
4) Florida - one loss, SEC East champions
5) Ohio State - one loss, Big Ten champions
6) BYU - one loss, WAC division champion

That was the first year of additional conference title games other than the SEC. It was also the time called the Bowl Alliance, a pre-BCS set-up that DID NOT INCLUDE the Rose Bowl conferences. So Arizona State was contractually obligated to go to the Rose Bowl. If this had not happened then ASU and FSU would have met on the field, probably in the Sugar Bowl (the title game rotated around three bowls - Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar, and it was the Sugar Bowl's turn to host the 1-2 game for 1996).


The suspicion was that we would have a calamity because Nebraska was NOT expected to have much trouble beating Texas to win the inaugural Big 12 title game. That would have set up 1 vs 3 in New Orleans and a 2 vs 4 showdown in Pasadena on January 1.

But then Texas utterly shocked Nebraska, converting a fourth and inches from their own 29-yard line and winning, 37-27. Florida beat Alabama in the SECCG, and all of a sudden we had polls that looked like this:

1) Florida State
2) Arizona State
3) Florida
4) Ohio State

When the games were played, Arizona State had a chance to win the whole bowl of wax, if they could beat Ohio State and Florida could beat FSU. But the Buckeyes prevailed and then Florida made it academic by drilling Florida State in a massacre, 52-20.

What I'm saying is that that rematch doesn't even really qualify as a rematch for the title because it took a bunch of outside circumstances INCLUDING bowl results to produce the outcome. And there was no resistance to a rematch because nobody disputed - really - who the four best teams were that year. In fact, if Ohio State had not lost to Michigan while ranked number two in the final week of 1995, the outcry of injustice would have been very loud. The Bucs would have played USC in the Rose Bowl while Nebraska would have rolled over Florida in the Fiesta Bowl (which is exactly what happened). Only the fortuitous loss by Ohio State bailed out the Bowl Alliance.

Indeed, it was the Big Ten and NOT the SEC feeling hosed that led to the BCS. Consider what happened:

1994 - Nebraska and Penn State both finish undefeated but Nebraska gets the hype and the title all alone
1995 - Ohio State loses to Michigan and sets up an undisputed championship game
1996 - Ohio State, Nebraska, and Colorado all lose but Arizona State runs the risk of being another undefeated team to not win the championship
1997 - Michigan and Nebraska split the national championship

Only two losses by Ohio State to Michigan delayed the inevitable.


And btw - if you go watch the 1996 Florida-Florida St regular season game, it was a lot like the 2011 Alabama-LSU game. Florida lost by three, trailed 17-0 in the second quarter and (wait for it) missed a game-tying field goal in the second half. I think the Gators had something like six turnovers, gave up six sacks....and still only lost by three on the road.

The Gators played the toughest schedule in the country that year and undid their loss. But the rematch was a total coincidence.

UntouchableCrew said:

This is way too long of a post to respond point by point but I'll say this -- I agree that the BCS worked as it was intended to and the two best teams played. I disagree that a one game championship played between two teams that have already played each other makes much sense and I'm very glad for the 4 team playoff format, which I absolutely love.

Click to expand...

So most Super Bowls don't make much sense then??????


I love the four-team playoff, but it should have been the top four BCS teams regardless. This new way literally makes every single poll meaningless except two - the final selection poll for the playoff and the very last one of the year. As TCU found out, just because you're ranked and blow out your opponent doesn't mean diddly.

And that's the problem I have with it. But better a 'questionable' team make the field than a championship contender be denied solely because they weren't ranked high enough at the start of the year.

rgw said:

Didn't that happen at least two times in the 1990s and one time it was a clear national title game?


Edit: Happened twice in a two year period (1994, 1996) and Florida had a backdoor shot at the 1994 title if they won and got some poll luck. The 1996 game was a clear rematch national champs game.

Click to expand...

No, Florida could not have won the title because Miami only had one loss. If the Canes had beaten Nebraska and Penn State had lost to Oregon then Miami - not Florida - would have won the championship. And 1996, I addressed in the above post. It came about as a rematch solely because of a unique set of circumstances (notably the absence of the Rose Bowl participants from the Bowl Alliance).

Well lets say that Canes beat Nebraska but there was some dispute about the victory (neither team looked good, etc), Penn State loses, and Florida absolutely smokes Florida State...there was a backdoor chance, slim but it was there. It was the old poll system, anything could happen.

rgw said:

Well lets say that Canes beat Nebraska but there was some dispute about the victory (neither team looked good, etc), Penn State loses, and Florida absolutely smokes Florida State...there was a backdoor chance, slim but it was there. It was the old poll system, anything could happen.

Click to expand...

It was indeed a back door system, but the notion that the voters were going to let Florida - with a loss AND a tie - win the title over a Miami who just beat number one in the Orange Bowl (plus a Penn State loss) is far-fetched in the extreme. Remember - Miami at that time had the same pedigree as Alabama does now, and Florida had at that point never won a national championship. The one tiny possibility is that Florida beats FSU by some 40 points and the voters assume this somehow undoes the the tie they had with FSU earlier (who just happened to beat Miami).

Yeah, there was a window but it was about as small as the chance of Louisville winning it in 1990 (when they had but one loss and a tie, same as Colorado).