StPaulHusker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed. You're right, they should have had their head in the game the night of the plane crash. Also, the B1G and Big 12 rejected the playoff that Slive contrived because he wanted to use the BCS polls which we all know are biased. how was the bcs biased? it was imperfect, just as any system will be. i do not even know what to say to the plane crash comment other than how would you factor it in to determining the best teams? no matter what there was going to be controversy and bias, it is just not the bias we, as non-SEC, fans prefer. With regards to the plane crash comments, I mean that OSU lost in triple overtime on the road the same day a tragedy happened to their athletic department. And oh, by the way, they were conference champions. Alabama wasn't even division champions. And as far as the BCS being biased, http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_hostage_illegitimate_bcs_112911 1 Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 At the end of the day this is a pretty large glass house situation. If Bo truly has a problem with the sec feeding homer stories to Espn, he can lead by example and quit feeding them to Sipple. And yes I understand the scale. But if it's the action he's truly mad at...... Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 At the end of the day this is a pretty large glass house situation. If Bo truly has a problem with the sec feeding homer stories to Espn, he can lead by example and quit feeding them to Sipple. And yes I understand the scale. But if it's the action he's truly mad at...... Boy, you must be really running out of material if you're trying to make this argument work. 2 Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 At the end of the day this is a pretty large glass house situation. If Bo truly has a problem with the sec feeding homer stories to Espn, he can lead by example and quit feeding them to Sipple. And yes I understand the scale. But if it's the action he's truly mad at...... Boy, you must be really running out of material if you're trying to make this argument work. This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it. Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 With regards to the plane crash comments, I mean that OSU lost in triple overtime on the road the same day a tragedy happened to their athletic department. And oh, by the way, they were conference champions. Alabama wasn't even division champions. And as far as the BCS being biased, http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_hostage_illegitimate_bcs_112911 yeah, but how do you consider tragedy when picking the two best teams? seems like there were three deserving teams that year to face lsu, and 'bama made the strongest case. then won in impressive fashion. so, i mean. was it bias? maybe. but no matter what it will be controversial. seems like the argument is that there were other teams just as deserving and you do not like who ultimately was picked. which is fine, but that was the way it was. and you did not prove how the bcs was biased as much as it was just a bad system. maybe biased to make a lot of money, avoid a playoff using the conceit of a fair system. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Also, the forgotten team that REALLY got screwed in 2011 was LSU. They had already beaten Bama, AT TUSCALOOSA, to win THE DIVISION, and then went on and rolled Georgia in the CCG. They shouldnt've had to play Bama again, in a sport where a rematch of a game, much less a close one, is usually a turnaround. I mean, LSU was more screwed over than Nebraska in '78 (OU) or 2010 (Washington) because LSU did everything that was layed in front of them. 2 Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Also, the forgotten team that REALLY got screwed in 2011 was LSU. They had already beaten Bama, AT TUSCALOOSA, to win THE DIVISION, and then went on and rolled Georgia in the CCG. They shouldnt've had to play Bama again, in a sport where a rematch of a game, much less a close one, is usually a turnaround. I mean, LSU was more screwed over than Nebraska in '78 (OU) or 2010 (Washington) because LSU did everything that was layed in front of them. Nuff said 1 Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 At the end of the day this is a pretty large glass house situation. If Bo truly has a problem with the sec feeding homer stories to Espn, he can lead by example and quit feeding them to Sipple. And yes I understand the scale. But if it's the action he's truly mad at...... That's not what Bo is saying and you know it. 1 Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Also, the forgotten team that REALLY got screwed in 2011 was LSU. They had already beaten Bama, AT TUSCALOOSA, to win THE DIVISION, and then went on and rolled Georgia in the CCG. They shouldnt've had to play Bama again, in a sport where a rematch of a game, much less a close one, is usually a turnaround. I mean, LSU was more screwed over than Nebraska in '78 (OU) or 2010 (Washington) because LSU did everything that was layed in front of them. Nuff said now the argument is that the sec bias is *so* bad that it even hurts the sec? because that is just preposterous. this is an argument for what i have been saying. it was a stupid system that often allowed many teams to have equal claim to the number 2 spot. or 3 teams to the number 1 spot in 04-05. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 At the end of the day this is a pretty large glass house situation. If Bo truly has a problem with the sec feeding homer stories to Espn, he can lead by example and quit feeding them to Sipple. And yes I understand the scale. But if it's the action he's truly mad at...... Boy, you must be really running out of material if you're trying to make this argument work. This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it. As well as guys on the other side of the spectrum (dirk. Barfneck.) 1 Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it. We're not equating one small-town-paper columnist to a TV network with eight channels and 7,000 employees worldwide, are we? Because I think we can all agree that ESPN's market share/reach is a little bit higher than Steve Sipple's. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it.We're not equating one small-town-paper columnist to a TV network with eight channels and 7,000 employees worldwide, are we?Because I think we can all agree that ESPN's market share/reach is a little bit higher than Steve Sipple's. What is Bo mad at? The act of neutrality being compromised or that they do it better? Honest question. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Ignoring the mischaracterization of Bo being "mad" about this, he's saying (rightly) that a sports reporting organization shouldn't have a vested interest in one of the conferences they cover. Not really sure how we're arguing against that. 1 Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it.We're not equating one small-town-paper columnist to a TV network with eight channels and 7,000 employees worldwide, are we?Because I think we can all agree that ESPN's market share/reach is a little bit higher than Steve Sipple's. What is Bo mad at? The act of neutrality being compromised or that they do it better? Honest question. He's not mad. Like the clap issue. He was asked a question and answered. I swear. Do you people even listen to these statements? 6 Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Ignoring the mischaracterization of Bo being "mad" about this, he's saying (rightly) that a sports reporting organization shouldn't have a vested interest in one of the conferences they cover.Not really sure how we're arguing against that. Which he would gladly take if the shoe were on the other foot. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.