Les Miles fired according to Sunday reports

UntouchableCrew said:

Right but he was responding to someone referring to LSU getting the short end of the stick by having to play them again, so in context it didn't make much sense. Regardless, I think we'd all agree the best team won the title anyway so there's it's not that big of a deal.

Click to expand...

2011. And how you have to have some luck. Oklahoma State was #2 up til 2nd to last game, overtime loss by 7 Iowa State, then beat #10 Oklahoma 44-10 to win the Big 12 and finally #4 Stanford in the Fiesta. They believe is their greatest team ever.

Although I believed Bama would remain #2, it was close after they beat Oklahoma. This ushered in the 4 team playoff. Many Oky fans believed they could have beaten Lsu too.

Their argument. They won their conference, both of us had same record, LSU had already beaten us.

Edit: Bama creates its own luck by being in position to make their move. Same with the incredible Arkansas miracle to beat Ole Miss. We lie in waiting.

BamainBoston said:

That's all we needed--one more opportunity for Oklahoma to play in a big game and lose it.

Click to expand...

Oklahoma State.

UntouchableCrew said:

LOL how did Alabama get the "short end of the stick?" Bama lost at home to LSU, didn't win their conference and were given a makeup game for the NC. Was Bama the best team in 2011? Yes, but they were extremely lucky to be given the chance to prove it.

Click to expand...

I think it was poor verbiage on Bhams part. I think he chose the wrong cliche to say, "We lost but everyone including LSU knew we were better."

RTR91 said:

If Bama makes those kicks in regulation, I'm not sure LSU gets a rematch. If Bama wins 15-6, I don't think LSU gets the love Alabama got for losing 9-6 in OT.

Another thing to consider, LSU's offense would have changed some if Alabama makes those field goals. In both games, LSU threw 17 passes but ran the ball 14 more times in the first meeting (41 attempts) than in the second (27 attempts)

The first meeting could have easily looked like the second if those kicks were made.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you here but only because LSU played a VERY tough schedule that year. In fact, the buzz before the game was that if LSU lost a close one, they might get a rematch but Alabama had to win.

Your other points are correct.


For those who didn't pay attention or don't recall: in the first sixteen minutes of the game, Alabama missed THREE field goals and LSU had an eight play drive and threw an interception. The game is MUCH different if they're down 9-0 and then 12-0 halfway through the second quarter. I mean, that's basically what DID happen the second time. Plus, if they're trailing say 12-3 in the second half, AJ isn't even trying to throw the ball that gets picked so deep.

UntouchableCrew said:

That's not the argument. Superior teams lose to inferior teams every Saturday, that's part of football -- Bama may have been (were) better but they didn't make the key plays when it mattered to win the ballgame.

He's just making the bizarre claim that Alabama "got the short end of the stick" which I think is crazy, since Alabama clearly got the benefit of the doubt and had things work in their favor. Oklahoma State and Stanford clearly are the teams that got screwed, and LSU would have certainly preferred to play OSU than Bama. Bama got the long end of the stick.

Click to expand...

How did Oklahoma State and Stanford get screwed?

Stanford lost to Oregon and didn't win the Pac 12. They lost by 23 points to a team that LSU beat much easier than the final score suggested. In the case of Stanford, you couldn't 'really' move them ahead of Oregon in any way. Oregon won the conference, beat Stanford head-to-head, and only had a worse record because they had lost to - LSU.

Oklahoma State has a somewhat stronger argument, but it has a major problem: it's not like Okie State lost to the second best team in the Big 12 or to a powerhouse. They lost to a .500 ball club in a game where they blew a 24-7 third quarter lead. I will confess to being a bit surprised that Okie State didn't make it, but the eyeball test went with Alabama because other than the LSU game, NONE of our games were even remotely close.

Amazingly enough, had there been a four-team playoff to solve the BCS controversy, there still would have been a controversy - because how do you take Stanford over Oregon, who beat them and only had more losses because they played LSU? But once you take Stanford - who didn't win the conference - you cannot NOT take Alabama. Even with four teams there's still a major controversy.

As for who's next for LSWho...Put the name Sean Payton on the list. Think about it.

The recent posts in this thread are fascinating. First, let me just get this out there, Alabama has the crystal ball from the 2011 season, I'm not trying to take that away, but those two teams were equally matched with on field talent. Coaching was the difference. LSU was completely unprepared to play in the NC game, a fault of the coach. If, and this is a huge if, Miles had the guts to play the best, Zach Mettenberger would have started that year. Y'all can disagree, but I believe that season would have finished undefeated for LSU with Zach going the whole way. Miles wasn't going to play a RS sophomore over two seniors, he is loyal to a fault (see cam Cameron)

The 2012 regular season loss to Alabama stung almost as much. Now with ZM at the helm, LSU had a legitimate passing game with Odell Beckham Jr and Jarvis Landry at WR. Up 17-14 and with the ball at their own 18, and 7 min left, Miles played not to lose. The first 8 plays of that drive were an equal mix of run and pass. In 4 pass attempts, ZM completed 3 including a 22 yard pass to OBJ to the Alabama 32. Then Miles shut it down. Run, run, run - missed FG and you know the rest.

This is why we got so frustrated with Les.

LSUgrad2BamaDad said:

........ he is loyal to a fault (see cam Cameron)
This is why we got so frustrated with Les.

Click to expand...

I especially dislike to see a coach rise or fall with one quarterback, then an OC. For instance Texas is a good example this year for Charlie Strong. And the rise, fall and rise of Texas A&M depending on quarterback issues. Les is guilty of being too fat and happy to make changes when needed. His firing is justified. Kind of sad going out believing you win the game and mouth probably with some grass only to spit out. But........I like Miles and I would love to see him replace Holtz. I would never flip a channel that Les was breaking down a game.

Sumlin showed no loyalty to guys who were not getting it done. I'm worried I'll get stung again but I truly think TAMU is a legit team this season. They've got two veteran coordinators, an experienced QB, good skill talent, solid OL, great DL, getting better back seven play on defense than in past years.


Sumlin saw his defense was not cutting it in the SEC, he hired the best career DC in the game in my opinion in 2015. His air raid offense had come apart over the 2014 and 2015 seasons, he abandoned it for a more pro-style spread offense.

B1GTide said:

I think that he meant in that game, not that season.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, that "time and chance" continuously play a part in most endeavors, especially sports.

Another example: "Bama was fortunate to win the SEC West, needing the bizarre Ark play". My response to that is that Bama would have never needed that without the almost as bizarre pick six that turned into a 66 yard TD. Not to mention the illegal 73 yd TD with the OL 5 yards down field, directly affecting the play. I won't even bring up the OM's +5 in TO's . So, yea, there is fortune throughout every team's season.

Even the 2012 argument that Ok State or Stanford deserved to be in the playoff. Says who ? They all had the same record. Bama was obviously the better team, they lost in OT to the num 1 team, the had the "bad fortune" of being in the same division as LSU. Also, even today a conf or division champioship is not the sole factor when the competing candidate is clearly superior. And at that time it never was even brought up until Delaney seemed to casually bring it up after the reg season, IIRC. So, who would have gotten the short end of the stick if Bama had been left out. No Bama fan needs to feel the least bit guilty for making that playoff. It would have been an injustice if they had not made it. Neither Ok State or Stanford got the short end of the stick. They had an argument, but no injustice was done.

rgw said:

Sumlin showed no loyalty to guys who were not getting it done. I'm worried I'll get stung again but I truly think TAMU is a legit team this season. They've got two veteran coordinators, an experienced QB, good skill talent, solid OL, great DL, getting better back seven play on defense than in past years.


Sumlin saw his defense was not cutting it in the SEC, he hired the best career DC in the game in my opinion in 2015. His air raid offense had come apart over the 2014 and 2015 seasons, he abandoned it for a more pro-style spread offense.

Click to expand...

I agree with your opinion of the aggies. If I had to pick what I thought would be a loss on our schedule right now, it would be when they come to Tuscaloosa. Other than Ole Miss, they scare me more than any other SEC team right now and Trevor Knight has beaten us before.

rgw said:

Sumlin showed no loyalty to guys who were not getting it done. I'm worried I'll get stung again but I truly think TAMU is a legit team this season. They've got two veteran coordinators, an experienced QB, good skill talent, solid OL, great DL, getting better back seven play on defense than in past years.


Sumlin saw his defense was not cutting it in the SEC, he hired the best career DC in the game in my opinion in 2015. His air raid offense had come apart over the 2014 and 2015 seasons, he abandoned it for a more pro-style spread offense.

Click to expand...

I think the Aggies are better than last year, but that's not saying much. I think until they play Tennessee we won't know how good they really are, and maybe not even then. The two decent defenses they played they struggled, and Arkansas is not a decent defense.

I think they catch us at an opportune time, but I see us winning. Chances are they will get killed by ole miss, but we might be too beat up to kill them like we would before the two game road trip.

selmaborntidefan said:

How did Oklahoma State and Stanford get screwed?

Stanford lost to Oregon and didn't win the Pac 12. They lost by 23 points to a team that LSU beat much easier than the final score suggested. In the case of Stanford, you couldn't 'really' move them ahead of Oregon in any way. Oregon won the conference, beat Stanford head-to-head, and only had a worse record because they had lost to - LSU.

Oklahoma State has a somewhat stronger argument, but it has a major problem: it's not like Okie State lost to the second best team in the Big 12 or to a powerhouse. They lost to a .500 ball club in a game where they blew a 24-7 third quarter lead. I will confess to being a bit surprised that Okie State didn't make it, but the eyeball test went with Alabama because other than the LSU game, NONE of our games were even remotely close.

Amazingly enough, had there been a four-team playoff to solve the BCS controversy, there still would have been a controversy - because how do you take Stanford over Oregon, who beat them and only had more losses because they played LSU? But once you take Stanford - who didn't win the conference - you cannot NOT take Alabama. Even with four teams there's still a major controversy.

Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot Stanford didn't win the Pac-12 that year. They did not get screwed, they were undeserving.

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.

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. 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.

BamaInBham said:

Even the 2012 argument that Ok State or Stanford deserved to be in the playoff. Says who ? They all had the same record. Bama was obviously the better team, they lost in OT to the num 1 team, the had the "bad fortune" of being in the same division as LSU. Also, even today a conf or division champioship is not the sole factor when the competing candidate is clearly superior. And at that time it never was even brought up until Delaney seemed to casually bring it up after the reg season, IIRC. So, who would have gotten the short end of the stick if Bama had been left out. No Bama fan needs to feel the least bit guilty for making that playoff. It would have been an injustice if they had not made it. Neither Ok State or Stanford got the short end of the stick. They had an argument, but no injustice was done.

Click to expand...

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.

The argument for OSU is a very compelling one -- Alabama and LSU have already decided who is better between them. They played, at Alabama, and LSU defeated them. LSU went undefeated and won the SEC. 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?

The answer is that Alabama and LSU were the two best teams,... and since everyone accepts that it works out fine. But clearly Alabama was not the most deserving team. 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.

UntouchableCrew said:

But clearly Alabama was not the most deserving team. 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...

Sorry, that is as clear as mud to me. I am not an Alabama guy, so I am not as biased as most on this board. If you examine every one loss team in the country that season, Alabama clearly was the most deserving of those teams to be ranked #2. And that means that Alabama was the most deserving to play the #1 team for the title. Forget that they lost to LSU already - look at resumes. The team with the best resume wins. Alabama, without question, had the best resume.

B1GTide said:

Sorry, that is as clear as mud to me. I am not an Alabama guy, so I am not as biased as most on this board. If you examine every one loss team in the country that season, Alabama clearly was the most deserving of those teams to be ranked #2. And that means that Alabama was the most deserving to play the #1 team for the title. Forget that they lost to LSU already - look at resumes. The team with the best resume wins. Alabama, without question, had the best resume.

Click to expand...

I just don't agree. In a system where the champion is picked by selecting two teams to play each other picking two teams who have already played each other just doesn't make much sense if there's another deserving team.

I'll use an example from last year that is somewhat similar -- everyone who follows college football knows your Buckeyes were the best team in the B1G last year. They were the defending National Champs, loaded with talent, etc. then they laid an egg at home against Michigan State. It cost them the conference and and a chance to repeat. But nobody legitimately thought Michigan State was better than Ohio State. Hell, they needed a miracle to beat Michigan and were probably the third best team in the conference.

Did Ohio State deserve the playoffs just because they were better? No, because they didn't prove it on the field. They were the better team but Michigan State was more deserving.

I'll drop it after this because I'm sure very few will agree with me, but I think it's obvious that in a system with 120 teams spread across 11 conferences picking two teams from the same conference who have already played to determine the champion doesn't make much sense inherently. It gets a pass in this situation because Alabama was clearly better than OSU but when it comes to "fair" or "deserving" I just don't see how anyone can rationally argue that it makes any sense.

UntouchableCrew said:

I just don't agree. In a system where the champion is picked by selecting two teams to play each other picking two teams who have already played each other just doesn't make much sense if there's another deserving team.

Click to expand...

Stop there - the BCS was about picking the two best teams. So, to deserve to be in the game, you had to be one of the two best teams. Every unbiased measure points to Alabama being one of those two best teams. That makes them more deserving. The conversation ends there. Adding more is just an attempt to make the BCS into something that it was not.

B1GTide said:

Stop there - the BCS was about picking the two best teams. So, to deserve to be in the game, you had to be one of the two best teams. Every unbiased measure points to Alabama being one of those two best teams. That makes them more deserving. The conversation ends there. Adding more is just an attempt to make the BCS into something that it was not.

Click to expand...

Who said I wasn't being critical of the BCS? That's obviously what's going on here.

UntouchableCrew said:

Who said I wasn't being critical of the BCS? That's obviously what's going on here.

Click to expand...

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.