All Forums | College Football

*** The System is Broken, you need to read and pay close attention ***

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 8163
Posts: 185
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #76
Quote Originally Posted by Tappy:


Lee had two picks, which was more than he had all season... McCarron only had one... LSU had 91 yards passing, we had 199... 

So yeah, our secondary was better...

Are you 19 years old?.............

Reid dropped his man to go yank the ball on the goal line.

Claiborne has allowed ONE receptional all year.

You are just delusional.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #77

And that precious Bama secondary had 2-3!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Ruben all game.  Including Dre Kirk.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #78

Time to Tap Out of that Tappy.............. You guys got out physicaled and out coached.

LSU shows up with an ice cold QB and still wins.

 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2008
Posts: 17342
Posted: #79
Quote Originally Posted by The-Kid-Is-Good:

Boom-

Another couple of points you should digest before getting so worked up bro:

1.)  As teams win and lose, their strengths of schedule adjust, and so do all of their opponents, and their opponents.  This makes a drastic change on how the teams are ranked at the end of the season.  Which brings me to my next point...

2.)  There are still FOUR weeks left, plus conference championship games!!!  Relax!  A lot will shakedown between now and early December.  Several of the teams most consider "in the hunt" will lose between now and then, and some a couple of times.  The teams that truly deserve a look at the title game will rise to the top.  Which reminds me, see my 1st point!


I'm damn-near disappointed in you Boom.  Getting so goddamn worked up over all this hypothetical bullshit, with a whole month to go.  We won't get a rematch of Bama/LSU.  You can go ahead and mark that down while you're at it.  Now go grab a fucking beer and relax...there's still a lot of football to watch!



I get what your saying man.... but your missing my point here. Its not about Stanford jumping Alabama this week......its the fact that Stanford was completely dis respected...... AND The point is they wouldn't have done the same to a team Like BAMA OR LSU
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 3470
Posted: #80
Quote Originally Posted by FriedShrimp:

Are you 19 years old?.............

Reid dropped his man to go yank the ball on the goal line. - Ok... He intercepted a lob from our WR on a trick play lol... Impressive...

Claiborne has allowed ONE receptional all year. - He is a good player, but a secondary is made up of more than just one athlete. 

You are just delusional. - Yes, quite dellusional... Two teams went onto the field, and one team's unit performed better than the others, which is obvious to everyone except you.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 3470
Posted: #81
Quote Originally Posted by FriedShrimp:

And that precious Bama secondary had 2-3!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Ruben all game.  Including Dre Kirk.


And he GOT SHUT DOWN ALL NIGHT LONG! Putting however many on him obviously didn't matter, because I didn't see any of your other receivers doing anything huge like you said they would. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2005
Posts: 2590
Posted: #82
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:

I get what your saying man.... but your missing my point here. Its not about Stanford jumping Alabama this week......its the fact that Stanford was completely dis respected...... AND The point is they wouldn't have done the same to a team Like BAMA OR LSU

Totally feel you on disrespect for Stanford, as I've consistently been the highest voter in the SBN BlogPoll for Pac-12 teams (esp. ASU and UDub). However, respect for Alabama does not necessarily mean disrespect for Stanford. There are really four teams that have played head and shoulders above the rest so far (and if Boise would get healthy, they'd make it five), and I don't think any ordering of OSU, Bama, and Stanford is disrespectful of them. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 3470
Posted: #83
Quote Originally Posted by FriedShrimp:

Time to Tap Out of that Tappy.............. You guys got out physicaled and out coached.

LSU shows up with an ice cold QB and still wins.


I agree totally with everything you are saying... Just not what you are saying about the secondary. 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 55436
Posted: #84

BAMA plays Oklahoma for the title after Stanford loses to Oregon, Ok St loses to the Sooners and LSU loses to Arkansas.......

 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2004
Posts: 2093
Posted: #85
Tappy and Fried Shrimp  No dis respect but make your own thread and argue, better yet exchange cell #    There about 72 threads about BAMA/LSU  not ths one.  thanks
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 3470
Posted: #86
LOL, Train...
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2010
Posts: 396
Posted: #87
Dude, I totally got your point.  However, I'm telling you they would have done the same to a team like Bama or LSU given the correct results.  Alabama only lost by a field goal in overtime.  That's it. To the voters, that's not worthy of as drastic of a drop as losing to a lesser opponent.  That's it.  It's not that Stanford doesn't deserve credit.  It's the fact that the voters, and others, think that Alabama doesn't deserve to be discredited because of an overtime loss to a very comparable team.

I'm not telling you I agree....but that's clearly the reasoning behind this situation.  If Alabama or LSU would have lost that game by 10 points in regulation, they would have dropped a few more spots, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Plain and simple.  Hate it or love it, that's the truth bro.


 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 3470
Posted: #88
For some reason, I don't think LSU fans are complaining, saying "the system is broken"... I's just sayin...
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 12718
Posted: #89
I AGREE  IT WILL BE AN ABERRATION IF A REMATCH HAPPENS---  TO MUCH LOVE FOR THE SEC MAKES ME SICK

THEY DO HAVE SOME GOOD TEAMS BUT SO DO OTHER CONFERENCES---  I HOPE STANFORD BEAT THE DUCKS OR OKST BEAT THE SOONERS -- BSU WILL NEVER GET A SHOT BECAUSE THEY ARE A NON AQ ----
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2008
Posts: 17342
Posted: #90
Quote Originally Posted by The-Kid-Is-Good:

Dude, I totally got your point.  However, I'm telling you they would have done the same to a team like Bama or LSU given the correct results.  Alabama only lost by a field goal in overtime.  That's it. To the voters, that's not worthy of as drastic of a drop as losing to a lesser opponent.  That's it.  It's not that Stanford doesn't deserve credit.  It's the fact that the voters, and others, think that Alabama doesn't deserve to be discredited because of an overtime loss to a very comparable team.

I'm not telling you I agree....but that's clearly the reasoning behind this situation.  If Alabama or LSU would have lost that game by 10 points in regulation, they would have dropped a few more spots, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Plain and simple.  Hate it or love it, that's the truth bro.


not true at all.... LSU and BAMA and The media all already decided that these 2 teams should meet again. Did you not watch the love fest after and before the game????? Sickening!!!!!!!

your point about them losing only by 3 points..... DUDE............They lost at HOME  as the favorite. If LSU loses by 3 on the road..... then your argument may carry weight. But it doesn't in this point
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2010
Posts: 293
Posted: #91
Boom,
I hear ya, and I agree. 

The disturbing part for me is; this same thing happened with Ohio State & Michigan in '06.  Urban Meyer literally, in his press conference, came out and said that he did not believe in re-matches..  that Michigan "had their chance" and lost.  Michigan lost on the road to then #1 Ohio State and played them to the wire.  Florida, that year, lost to Auburn by 10 on the road.  

Everybody in the country was calling "bullshit" if there was a re-match back in '06.  Yet, now, because we have two SEC schools, it seems perfectly fine for a re-match to take place?   

I didn't think a rematch should have taken place back in '06.  Michigan had their shot and lost.  And I don't think a rematch should happen this time around either.  For two reasons;  (1) It is very difficult to beat the same team twice in one season, especially given how close those teams are.  Which brings me to (2); let's say 'Bama gets a rematch and wins...  So...  they would have lost at home, but would beat them on a neutral field.  They would win the National Championship with one loss, yet LSU would have beat them at home and they too would have one loss. 

If you give a good coach like Saban a second time around to break down film, see what LSU was trying to do on certain formations, blitz packages, etc.. .. he is going to eat Miles alive.  He had his shot on Saturday and they lost the game.  Plain and simple.  

I will leave you with this thought;
What if OK State goes undefeated, beats OU at home and Stanford beats Oregon and runs the table?  Then what?
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2004
Posts: 2093
Posted: #92
I agree with The Kid Is Good, the way they lost, definately has to be factored into the drop.  The OU to TTECH at home they deserve the drop they recieved.  Time of year maybe factor also.  

How many Wisconsin drop when they lost to Sparty? Anyone know
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2005
Posts: 2590
Posted: #93
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:

not true at all.... LSU and BAMA and The media all already decided that these 2 teams should meet again. Did you not watch the love fest after and before the game????? Sickening!!!!!!!

your point about them losing only by 3 points..... DUDE............They lost at HOME  as the favorite. If LSU loses by 3 on the road..... then your argument may carry weight. But it doesn't in this point

At home in overtime.

I'm as against the rematch as you are, but it's hard to knock a team too far down for an overtime loss against the #1 team in the country. If they'd lost by 10 and the media decided Bama must stay at #3 to fit the narrative, it'd be worth yelling and screaming over. But right now, it's pretty reasonable to keep Alabama high (it's debatable how high, but it's reasonable to keep them high). An overtime game shows two teams are pretty even. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 3470
Posted: #94
Quote Originally Posted by rLp:

Boom,
I hear ya, and I agree. 

The disturbing part for me is; this same thing happened with Ohio State & Michigan in '06.  Urban Meyer literally, in his press conference, came out and said that he did not believe in re-matches..  that Michigan "had their chance" and lost.  Michigan lost on the road to then #1 Ohio State and played them to the wire.  Florida, that year, lost to Auburn by 10 on the road.  

Everybody in the country was calling "bullshit" if there was a re-match back in '06.  Yet, now, because we have two SEC schools, it seems perfectly fine for a re-match to take place?   

I didn't think a rematch should have taken place back in '06.  Michigan had their shot and lost.  And I don't think a rematch should happen this time around either.  For two reasons;  (1) It is very difficult to beat the same team twice in one season, especially given how close those teams are.  Which brings me to (2); let's say 'Bama gets a rematch and wins...  So...  they would have lost at home, but would beat them on a neutral field.  They would win the National Championship with one loss, yet LSU would have beat them at home and they too would have one loss. 

If you give a good coach like Saban a second time around to break down film, see what LSU was trying to do on certain formations, blitz packages, etc.. .. he is going to eat Miles alive.  He had his shot on Saturday and they lost the game.  Plain and simple.  

I will leave you with this thought;
What if OK State goes undefeated, beats OU at home and Stanford beats Oregon and runs the table?  Then what?

Pretty obvious... Stanford goes in ahead of Ok st because of SOS. LSU vs Stanford, and Ok st vs Bama. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #95
Quote Originally Posted by Tappy:


And he GOT SHUT DOWN ALL NIGHT LONG! Putting however many on him obviously didn't matter, because I didn't see any of your other receivers doing anything huge like you said they would. 

This is where it's about to get embarassing for you Tappy......... Dre Kirk is maybe the top DB in NCAA........ and he needed MAJOR help covering Ruben.

Did you watch the game?.......... I've watched it 4 times......... 2 Guys on Ruben plus safety help.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #96

At the end of the game............ it was kind of embarassing......... 2 guys on Ruben at SCRIMMAGE.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #97

Have you ever seen the LSU secondary have to double a receivber at scrimmage???????

Think not.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #98

LSU DBs are badass mother farkers.

Comfy in single coverage all day.  All of them.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2010
Posts: 396
Posted: #99
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:

not true at all.... LSU and BAMA and The media all already decided that these 2 teams should meet again. Did you not watch the love fest after and before the game????? Sickening!!!!!!!

your point about them losing only by 3 points..... DUDE............They lost at HOME  as the favorite. If LSU loses by 3 on the road..... then your argument may carry weight. But it doesn't in this point

Well this is where we disconnect then, because I don't personally put as much weight on home field in a game like this.  In fact, I think we could both agree that LSU would have been favored up to that point in the season if they were the home team.  Again, if you disagree on this point as well, then we are disconnecting at this point in the argument.  I'm not saying I agree with the rankings, nor am I lobbying for a re-match, I just think it's hard to say that either of these teams were better than the other based on Saturday night.  That being the case, it's easy to understand why the ranking are as they are....nothing more, nothing less.

I've already told you I think the BCS is a fucked up system, that I don't agree with this week's rankings, and that a re-match of this game will not happen in January.

Good conversation, Boom.  Just wait, all these rankings will shuffle as the SOS's are tweaked and teams start to lose.  We'll probably be bitching about something BCS-related come December.  Happens every year, with the exception of a couple undefeated matchups we've been blessed to see in years past.

Good luck this week  
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #100

EVERY SINGLE one of them are comfy in solo coverage.

Yet they got Dre Kirk and "company" all crowded on Ruben?????

All Forums | College Football
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.