OSU deserves to play for the title - they really, really do

[husker_99]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

With what i bolded you just lost all credibility. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to some of the best college football teams ever.

Knapp agrees with me on that subject. Does that mean Knapp loses all credibility too? They have played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory (majority of the big, ranked opponents being on the road) and not only won all of those games, they won decisively.

Please elaborate on why the 2011 LSU Tigers are "NOT EVEN CLOSE" to some of the best college football teams ever. I would love to hear your argument against them.

They didn't even convert 1 3rd down against Georgia in the first half and offensively shut out. If it wasn't for special teams they would've been shut out at halftime. I've watched LSU games while they have a pretty good defense their offense sputters at times. LSU got plain lucky Georiga wasn't up by more on them and the only reason why was Georgia wrs dropped catchable balls. They didn't decisively beat Alabama. Now they would have to beat down Alabama this time around to even be considered which won't happen.

 

[Hoosker]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

With what i bolded you just lost all credibility. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to some of the best college football teams ever.

Knapp agrees with me on that subject. Does that mean Knapp loses all credibility too? They have played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory (majority of the big, ranked opponents being on the road) and not only won all of those games, they won decisively.

Please elaborate on why the 2011 LSU Tigers are "NOT EVEN CLOSE" to some of the best college football teams ever. I would love to hear your argument against them.

They didn't even convert 1 3rd down against Georgia in the first half and offensively shut out. If it wasn't for special teams they would've been shut out at halftime. I've watched LSU games while they have a pretty good defense their offense sputters at times. LSU got plain lucky Georiga wasn't up by more on them and the only reason why was Georgia wrs dropped catchable balls. They didn't decisively beat Alabama. Now they would have to beat down Alabama this time around to even be considered which won't happen.

1. It's not like Georgia has the 3rd best defense in the country or anything. Did you watch the whole game? They play 4 quarters you know. LSU was imposing their will on UGA in the second half (with their 4th string RB I believe). The final was 42-10. And for them to win by 32 points with that "sputtering offense" is an even greater testament to the ability of the team as a whole.

2. If it wasn't for them having playmakers at every position on the field? Are you seriously using that as your argument?

3. No team is perfect

4. Can't argue with that. That's part of the game. It's not LSU's fault UGA dropped those passes. I'm sure the 95 Skers had some help from their opponents shooting themselves in the foot at some point too. That wasn't the reason Georgia lost. The got dominated in the final 30+ minutes.

 

[husker_99]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

With what i bolded you just lost all credibility. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to some of the best college football teams ever.

Knapp agrees with me on that subject. Does that mean Knapp loses all credibility too? They have played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory (majority of the big, ranked opponents being on the road) and not only won all of those games, they won decisively.

Please elaborate on why the 2011 LSU Tigers are "NOT EVEN CLOSE" to some of the best college football teams ever. I would love to hear your argument against them.

They didn't even convert 1 3rd down against Georgia in the first half and offensively shut out. If it wasn't for special teams they would've been shut out at halftime. I've watched LSU games while they have a pretty good defense their offense sputters at times. LSU got plain lucky Georiga wasn't up by more on them and the only reason why was Georgia wrs dropped catchable balls. They didn't decisively beat Alabama. Now they would have to beat down Alabama this time around to even be considered which won't happen.

1. It's not like Georgia has the 3rd best defense in the country or anything. Did you watch the whole game? They play 4 quarters you know. LSU was imposing their will on UGA in the second half (with their 4th string RB I believe). The final was 42-10. And for them to win by 32 points with that "sputtering offense" is an even greater testament to the ability of the team as a whole.

2. If it wasn't for them having playmakers at every position on the field? Are you seriously using that as your argument?

3. No team is perfect

4. Can't argue with that. That's part of the game. It's not LSU's fault UGA dropped those passes. I'm sure the 95 Skers had some help from their opponents shooting themselves in the foot at some point too. That wasn't the reason Georgia lost. The got dominated in the final 30+ minutes.

1. Exactly. why did they start out so poor? LSU wore down that defense. Yes i watched the whole game. But i would guarantee you if they played that way against Alabama in the first half there won't be no comeback and Alabama would've certainly been up by more.

2. where were the playmakers in the first half? that's right getting shut down.

3. no no team does but they also don't get their offense shut down for a half.

4. no Georgia got wore down and weren't that good. I knew LSU would win and never really had hope for Georgia. SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt on ranking because of the perceived notion of being the best conference. Georgia never really deserved a #14 ranking. Hell they were barely beating the sh**ty teams in the SEC to begin with.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Man, if I were a college AD and you told me I could only play 3 BCS teams with a + .500 record and still make the national championship, I'd be licking my chops. The fact that Oklahoma State didn't make the national championship, after playing 7 BCS teams with a + .500 record and defeating numerous ranked teams, some of them by more than 17+ points [including number 10 Oklahoma by 34] is a sham.

Alabama had their chance, and they blew it.

Oklahoma State [and one could argue Stanford] should be playing against LSU.

 

[Hoosker]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

With what i bolded you just lost all credibility. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to some of the best college football teams ever.

Knapp agrees with me on that subject. Does that mean Knapp loses all credibility too? They have played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory (majority of the big, ranked opponents being on the road) and not only won all of those games, they won decisively.

Please elaborate on why the 2011 LSU Tigers are "NOT EVEN CLOSE" to some of the best college football teams ever. I would love to hear your argument against them.

They didn't even convert 1 3rd down against Georgia in the first half and offensively shut out. If it wasn't for special teams they would've been shut out at halftime. I've watched LSU games while they have a pretty good defense their offense sputters at times. LSU got plain lucky Georiga wasn't up by more on them and the only reason why was Georgia wrs dropped catchable balls. They didn't decisively beat Alabama. Now they would have to beat down Alabama this time around to even be considered which won't happen.

1. It's not like Georgia has the 3rd best defense in the country or anything. Did you watch the whole game? They play 4 quarters you know. LSU was imposing their will on UGA in the second half (with their 4th string RB I believe). The final was 42-10. And for them to win by 32 points with that "sputtering offense" is an even greater testament to the ability of the team as a whole.

2. If it wasn't for them having playmakers at every position on the field? Are you seriously using that as your argument?

3. No team is perfect

4. Can't argue with that. That's part of the game. It's not LSU's fault UGA dropped those passes. I'm sure the 95 Skers had some help from their opponents shooting themselves in the foot at some point too. That wasn't the reason Georgia lost. The got dominated in the final 30+ minutes.

1. Exactly. why did they start out so poor? LSU wore down that defense. Yes i watched the whole game. But i would guarantee you if they played that way against Alabama in the first half there won't be no comeback and Alabama would've certainly been up by more.

2. where were the playmakers in the first half? that's right getting shut down.

3. no no team does but they also don't get their offense shut down for a half.

4. no Georgia got wore down and weren't that good. I knew LSU would win and never really had hope for Georgia. SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt on ranking because of the perceived notion of being the best conference. Georgia never really deserved a #14 ranking. Hell they were barely beating the sh**ty teams in the SEC to begin with.

Well 95% of that response was pure opinion, so I don't really know how else to respond. It comes down to what you perceive as greatness. You obviously have a different idea of what that means than I do.

 

[klacc]

I agree. I'm not excited about this years championship game. Maybe this will bring the desire to have a play off system though.

 

[husker B-rent]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

With what i bolded you just lost all credibility. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to some of the best college football teams ever.

Knapp agrees with me on that subject. Does that mean Knapp loses all credibility too? They have played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory (majority of the big, ranked opponents being on the road) and not only won all of those games, they won decisively.

Please elaborate on why the 2011 LSU Tigers are "NOT EVEN CLOSE" to some of the best college football teams ever. I would love to hear your argument against them.

you sound like a little kid..."well mommy agrees with me so im right or do you think mommy is wrong too?"

p.s. you are wrong.

 

[Spartness]

I agree that OSU deserves a shot against LSU based on that OU game. Still the two best teams are playing against each other. While OSU had perhaps their best defensive effort against OU, they didn't look that dominant overall to me -- yes, I know they made some big plays -- and may not hold up against those two giants. And those two defenses have been smothering and would likely slow down OSU. But that's not the point ... the Tide had their chance and didn't get it done. It's not always about who the best team is. Clearly that is the case here.

While a final-four BCS structure would not be totally satisfactory, it would be an improvement with what we have now and would have given OSU a shot. This could be the next step perhaps.

 

[Hoosker]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

With what i bolded you just lost all credibility. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to some of the best college football teams ever.

Knapp agrees with me on that subject. Does that mean Knapp loses all credibility too? They have played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory (majority of the big, ranked opponents being on the road) and not only won all of those games, they won decisively.

Please elaborate on why the 2011 LSU Tigers are "NOT EVEN CLOSE" to some of the best college football teams ever. I would love to hear your argument against them.

you sound like a little kid..."well mommy agrees with me so im right or do you think mommy is wrong too?"

p.s. you are wrong.

It did sound pretty childish, but when you call out someone's credibility you try and defend it in a way that is easy to understand. Knapp is very highly regarded and i'm assuming has seen more college football games than either of us have. It just sounded bizarre to me that he immediately said I lost all credibility because I claimed that this LSU team could possibly end up being a legendary group of players.

 

[huskerscott]

I agree if LSU wins, they will go down as one of the greatest teams in college football. the greatest.... no. Top 5.......... possibly. Top 10......... definitely.

The way that the defense and special team play is unreal. I love the arguments on how there offense sputters, yet puts up 42, 40, 52 type numbers in some of those games. The offense is only 1/3 of the game. They are that good if the offense sputters, then the defense and special teams carry the load. There closest game other than Alabama was Oregon and that was 2 scores.

 

[Apathy]

People wanted this match up that everybody had their minds set for an LSU/Alabama Pt. 2 a few hours after LSU beat Alabama weeks ago.

 

[TonyStalloni]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

"Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall on them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance." If you had someone you knew who died in a plane crash traveling for a university( who had a previous plane crash 10 years before which killed numerous members of the athletic staff) and you knew the next afternoon you would get on a plane (chartered or owned by that same university)headed for Iowa, do you think you would sleep well? How many hours of sleep do you think those kids got that night? The first half of that game they were running on memory and guts. The second half they ran out of gas and fear took over. Many people said that game should not have been played that weekend. Had it been postponed till after the Oklahoma game, do you think Iowa State would have won the game?

"Just because the LSU v Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two". If you can project your feelings into the outcome of the rematch game between LSU and Alabama I can also state the idea that Oklahoma State could have good things happen to them in a game vs LSU. Fumbles and interceptions happen, key players get injured (ask Texas). If LSU wins ,at least I know they beat all their competition. Unless OSU gets a chance, we won't ever know because the people at the top who stand to profit greatly from an Alabama vs LSU game have stolen that chance. Namely ESPN and their lapdogs who sit behind the desk and tell us what a good game this will be.

 

[Hoosker]

Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall upon them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance. I'm sure the players will be the first ones to tell you that.

If we picked the game purely based on what match-ups would be fun to watch, then why not Stanford? Luck vs that LSU secondary?

Just because the LSU v. Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two. Even though they already played, it was a close game that either team could have won. That's all the more reason to play it again if possible. OSU played a great schedule, but who's to say that Alabama couldn't have won more games against ranked opponents if given the chance? The argument is based off something that hasn't happened. What the BCS had to go by is what kind of resume each team turned in. Alabama played in the toughest division in the toughest conference in college football bar none. Their only slip up was by 3 points, in overtime, to potentially one of the greatest teams to ever play the game.

In contrast, OSU had a good number of impressive victories, but the significance of that loss in Ames in late November overshadows what they accomplished throughout the year, as it should. OSU has the worse loss of the two teams and Alabama played in a tougher overall conference and only lost to #1 LSU by 3 in OT.

The BCS got it right. If you want to see OSU play LSU, then complain for a playoff, not against the BCS.

"Just because OSU had a terrible tragedy fall on them the night before a game in no way excuses their performance." If you had someone you knew who died in a plane crash traveling for a university( who had a previous plane crash 10 years before which killed numerous members of the athletic staff) and you knew the next afternoon you would get on a plane (chartered or owned by that same university)headed for Iowa, do you think you would sleep well? How many hours of sleep do you think those kids got that night? The first half of that game they were running on memory and guts. The second half they ran out of gas and fear took over. Many people said that game should not have been played that weekend. Had it been postponed till after the Oklahoma game, do you think Iowa State would have won the game?

"Just because the LSU v Alabama game didn't live up to the hype doesn't mean it won't again in round two". If you can project your feelings into the outcome of the rematch game between LSU and Alabama I can also state the idea that Oklahoma State could have good things happen to them in a game vs LSU. Fumbles and interceptions happen, key players get injured (ask Texas). If LSU wins ,at least I know they beat all their competition. Unless OSU gets a chance, we won't ever know because the people at the top who stand to profit greatly from an Alabama vs LSU game have stolen that chance. Namely ESPN and their lapdogs who sit behind the desk and tell us what a good game this will be.

Wow. Honestly got a reality check after reading that. Thanks for the perspective dude. On both points.

 

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

bullsh#t. OSU lost to an unranked ISU. Bama lost to LSU. Bama is the better team. I'm hearing enough bitching about this being in Oklahoma. That "tragedy" had nothing to do with the football team.

 

[TonyStalloni]

It must be nice to have such focus that nothing in life could bother you and change your mindset. Not even death or loss of people you knew to a tragic accident knowing you have to get on a plane within 24 hours of losing said friends or acquaintances. I applaud you in your devotion to task. You are truly one in a million.