Most of the buzz today is about Alabama's great defensive effort against LSU in the 21-0 butt kicking that was a joke of a national title game. I can't think of a worse final game of a season that I've ever watched than the one last night, and while the Crimson Tide certainly shut down the Tigers, I found myself wondering how a team doesn't bother showing up for the biggest game of the season rather than believing they were being stymied by great defense.
The question appears to be whether Alabama showed they won, or LSU showed they didn't belong. As for me, I'm going with the latter. That and I don't feel like rewarding a coach who consistently skirts the boundaries of the rules by oversigning recruiting classes, cutting players and rewarding himself with a better roster because of it. Everyone knows that Nick Saban is a damned good coach - I guess we're going to find out how good once the new SEC regulations that limit oversigning kick in (although we'll see where they find the loopholes).
I'm willing to overlook Oklahoma State's loss at Iowa State and say without reservation that they should have been in this game instead of Alabama if for no other reason than at least it would have produced something more entertaining than what we saw last night.
Maybe a crappy final game was an apt ending to a season filled with a ton of turmoil. We were shocked when it was discovered that Jim Tressel covered up that he knew about his players violating NCAA rules, and then we were shocked again by Nevin Shapiro revealing that he'd been giving Miami players illegal benefits for years, only to discover that both of these scandals were nothing compared to that which had been happening at Penn State under Joe Paterno. (And yeah, I get the irony of calling out these scandals while talking about Nick Saban's ethics. Thing is - if you're willing to use Jerry Sandusky as a standard, the bar by which you measure, then you've got a good idea of why we can rationalize just about anything else, right?)
This season is in the can - perhaps we should be thankful for it's end. Maybe the next one be less, well, scandalous, so that we can spent the season rejoicing the players and the plays instead of the crap that sometimes surrounds them.
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys |
 1 |
| 2 | Alabama Crimson Tide |
1 |
| 3 | LSU Tigers |
 -2 |
| 4 | Oregon Ducks |
1 |
| 5 | Stanford Cardinal |
1 |
| 6 | Arkansas Razorbacks |
2 |
| 7 | South Carolina Gamecocks |
2 |
| 8 | Wisconsin Badgers |
-4 |
| 9 | Michigan St. Spartans |
14 |
| 10 | Boise St. Broncos |
-3 |
| 11 | Baylor Bears |
2 |
| 12 | Michigan Wolverines | -- |
| 13 | TCU Horned Frogs |
1 |
| 14 | Houston Cougars |
8 |
| 15 | Kansas St. Wildcats |
-4 |
| 16 | Oklahoma Sooners |
-1 |
| 17 | West Virginia Mountaineers |
3 |
| 18 | Southern Miss. Golden Eagles |
3 |
| 19 | Cincinnati Bearcats |
6 |
| 20 | Georgia Bulldogs |
-10 |
| 21 | Virginia Tech Hokies |
-4 |
| 22 | Clemson Tigers |
-6 |
| 23 | Florida St. Seminoles |
-4 |
| 24 | BYU Cougars | -- |
| 25 | Nebraska Cornhuskers |
-7 |
| Dropouts: Arkansas St. Red Wolves | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings "
0 recs | 21 comments
You're my hero.
Salt Creek and Stadium - January 10, 2012
Whether real or spite...
…I love the Blogpoll put Okie Lite #1.
I love the hypocrisy in asking us to forget Bama lost round 1 at home (1 of these 2 games was an upset) but Okie Lite is ruled out because they lost to Iowa State (a clear upset).
I don’t blame the BCS for this (they don’t directly pick the winners).
I don’t blame the computer polls (they wanted Okie Lite).
I blame the thousands of current and former sportswriters, coaches, and players who make up the voting polls, and ESPN for promoting the match up. They’ve been yelling about the faults in the BCS for years – do any of them possess the character to admit their own failure in delivering us a rematch? My guess is more hypocrisy.
ProveIt - January 10, 2012
Didn't watch the BCS title game
But, all that I really learned from it (based on various accounts) and the first matchup of those two teams, is that offense is not played in the SEC. It sure would have been neat to see Okie State’s offense against one of those defenses.
Lake_show - January 10, 2012
I didn't either.
I was also hard pressed to find anyone that did watch it other than fans of the respective schools. I wonder exactly what the ratings were and if they were any sort of change from last year?
A better question would be… Do you think we will ever hear about those ratings?
My answer… No.
AdamTheTitan - January 10, 2012
I found this
on the Washington Post site. The game received a 14.0 rating, down 8% from last year’s game.
This was the third lowest rating of the 14 BCS title games.
redvalley - January 10, 2012
And, in case anyone's wondering,
The two BCS games with lower ratings were 2002 Miami-Nebraska (13.9) and 2005 USC-Oklahoma (13.7).
redvalley - January 10, 2012
Look! We're not irrelevant! We're BCS killers!
Salt Creek and Stadium - January 10, 2012
You scared the hell out of me!
I was admiring my post, and up you popped. Stop it!
redvalley - January 10, 2012
STOP IT!
Just stop it!!!!!
HailVarsity - January 11, 2012
Very well put
Couldn’t agree more about hoping that next season is more about the players and the games than the drama surrounding them. Not only that, but if I never hear the words “conference realignment” or “super conferences” again it would be too soon.
Anyone else excited to hear about how great the SEC is for another year?
Billgrip - January 10, 2012
I in no way think OSU is #1
But I’ll stand behind you on this one. I’m thoroughly fed up with this season, the SEC, and the pro-SEC bias that’s rampant in the media. This is the year for a protest vote!
jdhusker - January 10, 2012
Just for full disclosure...
I voted Oklahoma State #1 as well…
Husker Mike - January 10, 2012
TWO HEROES.
Where’s Iowa?
Salt Creek and Stadium - January 10, 2012
The
best way to get rid of the bias is beat them and we sure as hell couldn’t do it this year along with a lot of others.
Huzkerfan - January 11, 2012
Did not watch either
Saw the highlights and what a snooze fest. One touchdown for the whole game and it was at the end. Yuck. Id rather rewatch us lose to Miami in the 01 title game.
BledRed - January 11, 2012 via mobile
I'm surely more favorably disposed towards the SEC than most posters here...
…and I think those were the two best teams in the country last night, hands down, even if one of them laid an egg.
That said, I strongly suspect that a Plus One game is coming, and here are some of the reasons why. Hint: Even the SEC website thinks that the dominance of the SEC in the current system might just torpedo it.
The biggest question mark involves a Plus One system possibly morphing into something else over the long haul and diluting the importance of the regular season. The NCAA Men in Suits (Men in Suites?) who attend conferences at fancy hotels and discuss these subjects are concerned that the four-team playoff will mushroom to eight teams and then sixteen. That might be the deal-breaker.
But I still think it is more likely than ever before. People are S-I-C-K, sick, sick, sick of the current joke of a system. The power-brokers are more favorably disposed towards a change than in the past. To look forward to an alteration of the current madness is no longer a completely utopian outlook.
HailVarsity - January 11, 2012
I wouldn't say we disagree with the players in the game. Alabama deserved to be in the conversation.
But no one wants to watch rematches, especially conference rematches in the so-called national championship game. Alabama had their one shot – they lost.
If the regular season or conference championships don’t matter, why not have everyone go independent. I’m sure those SEC teams can fill up on Sun Belt teams and go undefeated every year.
Salt Creek and Stadium - January 11, 2012
I guess it's Alabama #1 for lack of a better option.
But I have to call it a virtual poll tie in oversigning, Miles might be the big winner, but Saban brings them in & boots them out as regularly as anyone. The SEC has finally limited them to 25 per year which will slow them down a little by only allowing them to run off 3-4 players per year.
I don’t have a problem with a plus one/4 team format with the major bowls serving as semi-finals, but I’d still want some sort of no rematch clause in the mix to prevent things like, I don’t know, teams that can’t even win their division, let alone conference, into the mix.
Incidentally, I might have heard my favorite stupid comment of the year at halftime. From the “Tim Tebow Leads his team to 13-9 Victory!!” files, one of the announcers said that AJ McCarron was the obvious MVP to that point at halftime. Hmmm, a QB whose offense hasn’t produced a single TD. Yeah, good call. Wouldn’t want to pick someone off a defense that had shut out LSU and allowed something like 2.6 total yards to that point.
I think that was when I gave up & turned on the Xbox.
Andy Ketterson - January 11, 2012
They really needed an offensive MVP. Otherwise what would they do with that trophy?!
Salt Creek and Stadium - January 11, 2012
I thought it
was like watching a couple of high school offenses Monday night. Maybe those two defenses were that good but we will never know because the media kept OSU out of the game. College football is really starting to look like a joke. Not just with Alabama in the title game but the other questionable BCS invites.
Huzkerfan - January 11, 2012
Agree
I think they should get rid of all conference tie-ins except for the rose bowl, since it’s been like that for 100 years. Then we could get some really interesting match-ups.
Lake_show - January 12, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Corn Nation to post a comment.