LSU is playing for the national title instead of Georgia because Tennessee had a better season than Arkansas.
Wrap that around your brain.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Thought for the Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"a man who threatens people with his own Pinkerton army"
Contact
lord [dot] douchebag [at] gmail [dot] com
Variety
Political
Sport Reference
- AJC Sports
- CBS Sportsline
- CNNsi
- ESPN
- Fox Sports
- MSNBC Sports
- Sporting News
- Cool Standings
- College Football News
- Colley Rankings
- Stassen
- GBE Schedule Ratings
- Georgia Dogs
- UGA Sports
- Pro Football Reference
- Baseball Prospectus
- Baseball Reference
- 82 Games
- Basketball Reference
- NBA Draft
- ESPN Soccernet
- Fox Soccer
- Guardian Football
- RSSSF
- Soccer America
- UEFA
- US Soccer
- Yanks Abroad
- America's Cup
- Football Stadiums
- World Stadiums
Sport - Blogs
- AOL Fanhouse
- Awful Announcing
- Braves and Birds
- Burnt Orange Nation
- College Football Resource
- Dan Shanoff
- Dawg Sports
- Deadspin
- Deep South Sports
- Dodgy at Best
- Dr. Saturday
- Eagle in Atlanta
- Every Day Should Be Saturday
- Free Darko
- Georgia Sports Blog
- Get the Picture
- Heisman Pundit
- Kissing Suzy Kolber
- Loser With Socks
- mgoblog
- Rocky Top Talk
- Roll Bama Roll
- Straight Bangin'
- The Dawg Gone Blog
- The Falcoholic
- The Offside
- The Wizard of Odds
- With Leather
- World Cup Blog
Pop/Misc
- Balboa Observer-Picayune
- Dark UFO
- Entertainment Weekly
- Film Drunk
- IMDB
- Lostpedia
- Mars Investigations
- Simpsons Archive
- SNL Transcripts
- The Internet Is Terrible
- The Onion
- The Sugar Sheet
- The Tail Section
- Thighs Wide Shut
- TVGasm
- Twitter (not me)
- Warming Glow
- Weather Underground
- What Would Tyler Durden Do?
- Wikipedia
- YouTube
Archives
- March 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (4)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (8)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (3)
- June 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (4)
- March 2008 (2)
- February 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (4)
- December 2007 (16)
- November 2007 (20)
- October 2007 (16)
- September 2007 (21)
- August 2007 (13)
- July 2007 (13)
- June 2007 (5)
- May 2007 (13)
- April 2007 (6)
- March 2007 (5)
- February 2007 (9)
- January 2007 (6)
- December 2006 (6)
- November 2006 (17)
- October 2006 (25)
- September 2006 (23)
- August 2006 (6)
- July 2006 (6)
- June 2006 (28)
- May 2006 (20)
- April 2006 (14)
- March 2006 (27)
- February 2006 (22)
- January 2006 (18)
- December 2005 (26)
- November 2005 (35)
- October 2005 (30)
- September 2005 (40)
- August 2005 (26)
- July 2005 (13)
- June 2005 (14)
- May 2005 (34)
- April 2005 (61)
- March 2005 (73)
- February 2005 (64)
8 comments:
Or because the S.C., Vandy and UK kickers combined to miss three potential game-winning or -tying FGs. Also, good points about the BCS bowls. The non-BCS bowls are suffering, too...very few compelling matchups there either outside of maybe Arizona State-Texas and Auburn-Clemson.
Not quite. LSU is playing for the national title instead of Georgia because LSU had a better season than Georgia.
College football is designed to anoint the best team over the course of the season, not the hottest team at the end. LSU has the stronger resume of the SEC contenders. UGa's losses are uglier than LSU's, and their wins less impressive.
LSU was very lackluster in their win over Tennessee. They were still a good bit more impressive than UGa's effort against the Vols.
I think UGa may have beaten LSUif they had played a de facto home game in the Dome for the SEC title, but there's no way to know. Maybe LSU would have been more focused for a more legitimate East opponent and hit on all cylinders, rendering the gnashing of teeth moot.
If you want to compare teams at their peak, LSU's best still eclipses UGa's best. No one ever mistook UGa for a gorilla.
chg, here's what this post means:
Had Arkansas gone 6-2 in the SEC, and had Tennessee gone 4-4 in the SEC, Georgia would've played Arkansas for the SEC title - and all the talk of LSU getting elevated because it was a conference champion wouldn't have happened. Both those things could've happened without any role played by either LSU or UGA (and with the results of the LSU-Arkansas and UT-UGA games remaining the same). The point is that actions outside the control of LSU or Georgia created the situation both were in.
Had Arkansas been better, and had Tennessee been worse (completely independent of anything LSU or Georgia did), the SEC, and the national title picture would have been completely different. And the irony is losing to a "worse" team was more beneficial than losing to a "better" team.
Dear LSU fan:
We UGA fans really want to pull for LSU on January 7th, but y'all are making it harder to do so by the hour.
Shut your mouths, enjoy your fortune, and leave everyone else alone. Good luck.
Thanks for clarifying LD. In that scenario, I'm not sure either team gets into the title game. Georgia's losses would've looked even worse (H against 6-6 Carolina, blown out by 7-5 Tennessee), and voters would have tried to get Oklahoma or someone else in there.
I see what you mean, but if losing a close game to a 6-6 team and getting beat pretty bad by an 8-4 team (which UT could've been had they gone 5-3 in the SEC and not blocked UGA's path) keeps you from the title game... well, I just described Oklahoma's two losses.
But you're right about it - the voters would have tried to do something, and we can't predict what that is. The last two years, we have seen the last weekend of voting be, if nothing else, outcome and results-driven, regardless of how they've voted in the past. And who knows what the flavor of the day would've been in any other hypothetical situation (or will be next year). Or, seen another way, we don't know what Gary Danielson or Kirk Herbstreit would say to promote a specific outcome that voters would listen to.
Did anybody else hear Brad Edwards on 790 The Zone this morning? I am honestly not griping about UGA not being in the NCG, because I can't disagree with the conference title pre-requisite. But I do have a major gripe about the process.
After #1 and #2 lost Saturday, Edwards was the first to say, emphatically mind you, that the title game would be Ohio State and LSU. Edwards is the number crunching guru, but this outcome had little to do with the computers and numbers. It had everything to do with opinions of voters. So his emphatic statement was a prediction of what those opinions would be. I have to think there was some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy here. If the "guru" was so sure it would be tOSU/LSU, why should anyone vote differently?
What burns me up is that he said things this morning that would have been relevant Saturday night, but he spoke nary a word of it then. Today, he voiced his gripe that there is no directive to the voters as to what they should base their votes on. When asked what he thought the basis should be, he said they should vote on who is the best team, NOT who has the best "body of work." And when asked who in his opinion were the "best teams," he said he would include neither tOSU nor LSU, and would have a tough time picking two out of Oklahoma, USC, and Georgia. WHERE WAS THAT SHIT SATURDAY NIGHT? I really think if he had said that 36 hours earlier, there would be a different matchup on Jan 7. Not necessarily Georgia, but I don't think LSU gets in if he says that.
The Wrangler and I were talking about how we are not that pissed that UGA was left out, but just for the criminally lame reasons. Re, your post: I can understand if voters want to reward winning an extra game in their conference championship game, but it is sooo stupid when people say "UGA isn't even the best in their division, and they are the 3rd best team in the SEC (snicker)." But, as you illustrate, the SEC East tiebreaker rules are totally irrelevant to every team in the country outside Tennessee. This is obviously too fine a point for people to understand.
Also inane is Herbie's argument that "you have to look at the whole body of work." OK, well, LSU looked great 1st 1/2 of the season, and then looked quite average. It was the inverse of UGA's season. His argument, in effect, is valuing the 1st 1/2 of the season over the latter 1/2. I understand that both halfs should be equal (arguably), but his argument makes me cringe.
The one that maybe most irks me is the one that goes (often from UGA fans): "UGA doesn't deserve it after we lost at home to So. Car." Well, not in a normal year, no. But, this year, every other team had equally bad losses. UGA didn't "blow it" any more than LSU, VT, USC, and OU blew it. As a result, UGA fans have equal room to advocate for our team.
Finally, imagine if UF had been in our position (lost a division tiebreak and hadn't played LSU). I have a hard time believing that 3 teams would jump them in the final BCS poll. Especially w/ Kevin Garnett, err, Tebow as their QB.
Post a Comment