2011NCAA Football Thread

[infrared41]

I asked that question assuming the stakes would be the same. Would you rather watch a 9-6 national championship game, or a 67-56 national championship game?

That's easy. Give me the 9-6 game. If I want a basketball score, I'll watch a basketball game. Any team that gives up 67 or 56 points in a NCG doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.

One could argue that a team that can only score 9 or 6 points doesn't belong there either.

Yes, I suppose they could. But, do you really think that inept offenses are why LSU and Bama played such a low scoring game? Seems to me that LSU's offense had no trouble at all with Oregon's defense. Or Georgia's, or West Virginia's, or Auburn's, or Arkansas'. I didn't bother listing the cupcakes the Tigers curb stomped on their way to 13-0. Come to think of it, Alabama's offense did OK too. They had no trouble scoring on Arkansas, Penn State, or Auburn. And again, I didn't bother with listing the cupcakes the Tide curb stomped on their way to 11-1.

So yes, I suppose you could argue that "teams that can only score 9 or 6 points" don't belong in the NCG; if the two teams in question had shown throughout the season that their offenses were woefully inept. Clearly, that is not the case with LSU or Alabama.

Try again.

[thespleenenator]

I asked that question assuming the stakes would be the same. Would you rather watch a 9-6 national championship game, or a 67-56 national championship game?

That's easy. Give me the 9-6 game. If I want a basketball score, I'll watch a basketball game. Any team that gives up 67 or 56 points in a NCG doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.

One could argue that a team that can only score 9 or 6 points doesn't belong there either.

Yes, I suppose they could. But, do you really think that inept offenses are why LSU and Bama played such a low scoring game? Seems to me that LSU's offense had no trouble at all with Oregon's defense. Or Georgia's, or West Virginia's, or Auburn's, or Arkansas'. I didn't bother listing the cupcakes the Tigers curb stomped on their way to 13-0. Come to think of it, Alabama's offense did OK too. They had no trouble scoring on Arkansas, Penn State, or Auburn. And again, I didn't bother with listing the cupcakes the Tide curb stomped on their way to 11-1.

So yes, I suppose you could argue that "teams that can only score 9 or 6 points" don't belong in the NCG; if the two teams in question had shown throughout the season that their offenses were woefully inept. Clearly, that is not the case with LSU or Alabama.

Try again.

That is true, however you could argue that those numbers were inflated due to the fact that they never played an elite offense. LSU did play WVU and Oregon, but they scored well past the average points LSU allowed per game, and they were outgained on offense in both those games. Alabama never faced a great offense period. Baylor faced Ok St, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and TCU; Washington faced Oregon, Stanford, and USC. I'm not saying that Baylor or Washington had great defenses, nor am I saying that Alabama and LSU had bad offenses, but those defensive numbers would not be the same had they faced the same teams Baylor and Washington had faced.

[HedleyLamarr]

That is true, however you could argue that those numbers were inflated due to the fact that they never played an elite offense. LSU did play WVU and Oregon, but they scored well past the average points LSU allowed per game, and they were outgained on offense in both those games. Alabama never faced a great offense period. Baylor faced Ok St, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and TCU; Washington faced Oregon, Stanford, and USC. I'm not saying that Baylor or Washington had great defenses, nor am I saying that Alabama and LSU had bad offenses, but those defensive numbers would not be the same had they faced the same teams Baylor and Washington had faced.

For what it's worth....LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas all finished in the top-16 in points scored. Furthermore, had they not played each other, LSU and Alabama finish in the top-12 in points scored. They're not exactly slouches on offense.

Also, the best defense Baylor faced all season (TCU) allowed 21.3 points per game. The best defense Oklahoma State faced all season (Texas) allowed 23.3 points per game. One could certainly argue that these high-powered Big XII offenses feasted off of terrible defenses in both league play and non-conference games, and aren't as high-powered as we're led to believe.

[thespleenenator]

That is true, however you could argue that those numbers were inflated due to the fact that they never played an elite offense. LSU did play WVU and Oregon, but they scored well past the average points LSU allowed per game, and they were outgained on offense in both those games. Alabama never faced a great offense period. Baylor faced Ok St, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and TCU; Washington faced Oregon, Stanford, and USC. I'm not saying that Baylor or Washington had great defenses, nor am I saying that Alabama and LSU had bad offenses, but those defensive numbers would not be the same had they faced the same teams Baylor and Washington had faced.

For what it's worth....LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas all finished in the top-16 in points scored. Furthermore, had they not played each other, LSU and Alabama finish in the top-12 in points scored. They're not exactly slouches on offense.

Also, the best defense Baylor faced all season (TCU) allowed 21.3 points per game. The best defense Oklahoma State faced all season (Texas) allowed 23.3 points per game. One could certainly argue that these high-powered Big XII offenses feasted off of terrible defenses in both league play and non-conference games, and aren't as high-powered as we're led to believe.

You literally did not address anything in my post. At all. I was not talking about the deffenses Baylor faced, I was talking about the offenses. Both Washington's and Baylor defensive numbers were not steller partially because they played great offenses each week. LSU and Bama didn't. Let's look:

Alabama-

Kent St= 17.1 pts per game

Penn State=19.8

UNT=24.8

Arkansas=37.4

Florida=25.6

Vanderbilt=26.9

Ole MIss=16.1

Tennesse=20.3

LSU=38.5

Mississippi State=25.3

Georgia Southern is an FCS team

Auburn=24.3

Alabama faced 2 top 60 offenses. 2.

LSU-

Oregon=46.2

Northwestern State is an FCS team

Mississippi State=25.3

West Virginia= 34.9

Kentuckey=15.8

Florida=25.6

Tennessee=20.3

Aurburn=24.3

Alabama=36.0

Western Kentucky=22.9

Ole MIss=16.1

Arkansas=37.4

Georgia=32.2

LSU did much better than Bama, but still only faced 5 top 60 offenses.

Now let's look at Baylor-

TCU=40.8

Stephen F. Austin is an FCS team

Rice=23.3

Kansas State=33.1

Iowa State=22.7

Texas A&M=39.6

Oklahoma State=49.3

Missouri=32.8

Kansas=22.3

Oklahoma=40.3

Texas Tech=33.8

Texas=28.6

Washington=33.4

Baylor faced 9 teams in the top 60, NONE in the bottom 100, and 4 in the top 10.

Washington-

Eastern Washington is an FCS team

Hawaii=31.5

Nebraska=30.5

Cal=28.3

Utah=24.6

Colorado=19.8

Stanford=43.6

Arizona=30.8

Oregon=46.2

USC=35.8

Oregon State=21.8

Washington State=29.8

Baylor=45.3

They also faced 9 teams in the top 60, and 3 in the top 10.

My point? Alabama's and LSU's defensive numbers are inflated because of the teams they faced, while Baylor's and Washington's defensive numbers are defelatd because of the teams they faced.

In an unrelated note, this also partially gives credance to the fact that Alabama does not deserve to go to the championship game because they lost to the one really good team they played.

[See Red]

That's not telling the whole story, though. The teams that LSU and Alabama play typically don't play the same teams that Oklahoma State and Washington play. Oklahoma State faced teams with "better offenses" because Big XII teams aren't typically touted for their defense. Same can be said for Washington in the Pac 12. Meaning the numbers you use to "prove" your point are no less skewed than the ones that you're arguing against.

[infrared41]

That is true, however you could argue that those numbers were inflated due to the fact that they never played an elite offense. LSU did play WVU and Oregon, but they scored well past the average points LSU allowed per game, and they were outgained on offense in both those games. Alabama never faced a great offense period. Baylor faced Ok St, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and TCU; Washington faced Oregon, Stanford, and USC. I'm not saying that Baylor or Washington had great defenses, nor am I saying that Alabama and LSU had bad offenses, but those defensive numbers would not be the same had they faced the same teams Baylor and Washington had faced.

For what it's worth....LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas all finished in the top-16 in points scored. Furthermore, had they not played each other, LSU and Alabama finish in the top-12 in points scored. They're not exactly slouches on offense.

Also, the best defense Baylor faced all season (TCU) allowed 21.3 points per game. The best defense Oklahoma State faced all season (Texas) allowed 23.3 points per game. One could certainly argue that these high-powered Big XII offenses feasted off of terrible defenses in both league play and non-conference games, and aren't as high-powered as we're led to believe.

You literally did not address anything in my post. At all. I was not talking about the deffenses Baylor faced, I was talking about the offenses. Both Washington's and Baylor defensive numbers were not steller partially because they played great offenses each week. LSU and Bama didn't. Let's look:

If by "you literally did not address anything in my post" you mean "Hedley basically destroyed my convoluted, inane, argument and now I'm just trying to deflect because I can never admit I'm wrong and I just like to argue", then yeah, you pretty much nailed it.

[thespleenenator]

That is true, however you could argue that those numbers were inflated due to the fact that they never played an elite offense. LSU did play WVU and Oregon, but they scored well past the average points LSU allowed per game, and they were outgained on offense in both those games. Alabama never faced a great offense period. Baylor faced Ok St, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and TCU; Washington faced Oregon, Stanford, and USC. I'm not saying that Baylor or Washington had great defenses, nor am I saying that Alabama and LSU had bad offenses, but those defensive numbers would not be the same had they faced the same teams Baylor and Washington had faced.

For what it's worth....LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas all finished in the top-16 in points scored. Furthermore, had they not played each other, LSU and Alabama finish in the top-12 in points scored. They're not exactly slouches on offense.

Also, the best defense Baylor faced all season (TCU) allowed 21.3 points per game. The best defense Oklahoma State faced all season (Texas) allowed 23.3 points per game. One could certainly argue that these high-powered Big XII offenses feasted off of terrible defenses in both league play and non-conference games, and aren't as high-powered as we're led to believe.

You literally did not address anything in my post. At all. I was not talking about the deffenses Baylor faced, I was talking about the offenses. Both Washington's and Baylor defensive numbers were not steller partially because they played great offenses each week. LSU and Bama didn't. Let's look:

If by "you literally did not address anything in my post" you mean "Hedley basically destroyed my convoluted, inane, argument and now I'm just trying to deflect because I can never admit I'm wrong and I just like to argue", then yeah, you pretty much nailed it.

How did he prove it wrong?

[infrared41]

How did he prove it wrong?

Honestly Spleen, you're just boring me now. You're right, I'm wrong. Now how about you move along and go play with someone else?

[cshookemHORNS]

That is true, however you could argue that those numbers were inflated due to the fact that they never played an elite offense. LSU did play WVU and Oregon, but they scored well past the average points LSU allowed per game, and they were outgained on offense in both those games. Alabama never faced a great offense period. Baylor faced Ok St, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and TCU; Washington faced Oregon, Stanford, and USC. I'm not saying that Baylor or Washington had great defenses, nor am I saying that Alabama and LSU had bad offenses, but those defensive numbers would not be the same had they faced the same teams Baylor and Washington had faced.

For what it's worth....LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas all finished in the top-16 in points scored. Furthermore, had they not played each other, LSU and Alabama finish in the top-12 in points scored. They're not exactly slouches on offense.

Also, the best defense Baylor faced all season (TCU) allowed 21.3 points per game. The best defense Oklahoma State faced all season (Texas) allowed 23.3 points per game. One could certainly argue that these high-powered Big XII offenses feasted off of terrible defenses in both league play and non-conference games, and aren't as high-powered as we're led to believe.

Even though Texas has a top 15 defense and Baylor made them look silly out there. Besides Alabama and LSU don't play teams like the Big 12.

Edit: and the SEC is not as good as they have been in the past this year.

[Chicageaux]

In an unrelated note, this also partially gives credance to the fact that Alabama does not deserve to go to the championship game because they lost to the one really good team they played.

Who happens to be the number one team in the country, which helped their case. And also beat the Big East Champions as well as the Pac-12 Champions. Whether or not those two teams outplayed them offense doesn't really matter because they out scored them by 38 points. A good team takes advantage of the mistakes the other team makes on offense. Are you seriously going to compare Baylor and Washington against LSU and Alabama?

Baylor might have been in the Top 5 in points scored, but they allowed 37 points a game. Washington allowed 36 points a game. Don't even say the SEC wasn't as good as they were in previous years when one of the Pac-12 representatives in the Championship Game was UCLA.

The game of the century was hyped to the point where if one of those two teams lost, they'd be eliminated from the National Championship. That's what everyone believed going into it. No one knew what would follow after the November 5th matchup would have happened. I didn't think the two teams would face each other again. Now that they're both in the big game, they can't hold anything back.

[thespleenenator]

In an unrelated note, this also partially gives credance to the fact that Alabama does not deserve to go to the championship game because they lost to the one really good team they played.

Who happens to be the number one team in the country, which helped their case. And also beat the Big East Champions as well as the Pac-12 Champions. Whether or not those two teams outplayed them offense doesn't really matter because they out scored them by 38 points. A good team takes advantage of the mistakes the other team makes on offense. Are you seriously going to compare Baylor and Washington against LSU and Alabama?

Baylor might have been in the Top 5 in points scored, but they allowed 37 points a game. Washington allowed 36 points a game. Don't even say the SEC wasn't as good as they were in previous years when one of the Pac-12 representatives in the Championship Game was UCLA.

The game of the century was hyped to the point where if one of those two teams lost, they'd be eliminated from the National Championship. That's what everyone believed going into it. No one knew what would follow after the November 5th matchup would have happened. I didn't think the two teams would face each other again. Now that they're both in the big game, they can't hold anything back.

I think you're missing my point. Infared made the point that a team that gives up 56 or 67 points in a game does no deserve to go to a national championship game. I made the point that a team that scores 9 or 6 points doesn't either. He said that that was because they both had good defenses, and had proved so throughout the season. I said that, while those were impressive numbers, they were inflated by the fact that they did not play good offenses, at least not as many as Washington or Baylor did, and I conversley made the point that, while Baylor's and Washington's offenses weren't great, they were skewed by the fact that they played very good offenses.

[Chicageaux]

But neither team played good defenses. Everyone talks about the Big 12 as being so great, but no team in the Big 12 was defensively dominate, they just outscored their opponents. The same thing can be said about the Pac-12. In my opinion, the best Pac-12 wasn't allowed to play in a bowl game this year. That being said, who was actually dominate in the Pac-12? The average points Oregon gave up was 24 points.. LSU scored 40 on them.

The fact is a team that scores 67 points, doesn't deserve to go to the National Championship and neither does a team that only allows 6 points. It's based on the season. Would I much rather see a high scoring game versus a defensive game? Well it depends on who the teams are. Baylor and Washington are not National Championship material. I would not expect the top two teams to have a 67-56 game. I would honestly expect it to be more of a 9-6 point game.

[thespleenenator]

But neither team played good defenses. Everyone talks about the Big 12 as being so great, but no team in the Big 12 was defensively dominate, they just outscored their opponents. The same thing can be said about the Pac-12. In my opinion, the best Pac-12 wasn't allowed to play in a bowl game this year. That being said, who was actually dominate in the Pac-12? The average points Oregon gave up was 24 points.. LSU scored 40 on them.

The fact is a team that scores 67 points, doesn't deserve to go to the National Championship and neither does a team that only allows 6 points. It's based on the season. Would I much rather see a high scoring game versus a defensive game? Well it depends on who the teams are. Baylor and Washington are not National Championship material. I would not expect the top two teams to have a 67-56 game. I would honestly expect it to be more of a 9-6 point game.

And why not? I'm trying to say that it works both ways. You've been making the point that it probabley won't be 9-6 again. Well, do you honestly think that the Baylor-Washignton game would be 67-56 if it was played again?

Yes, Baylor and Washignton didn't play great defenses, but LSU and Bama din't play great offenses. There is this inherent bias towards defense, that when people a 9-6 game they think "That's a great game!", but a 67-56 game is "A complete joke!". They are both equal in my mind. One has great defense, the other has great offense.

[Chicageaux]

I understand where you're coming from and I'm not on here trying to come out and say you're flat out wrong because I don't think you're wrong. You're never wrong when it comes to your opinion. But, and this is me speaking more on LSU's behalf because I they're the team I know the best, they played the team with the 3rd most points scored (Oregon - 46 points) and 7 most passing yards (West Virginia - 342 yards), outplayed them, and beat them. But in my opinion, there's a much better chance of a second LSU-Bama game having one of the teams scoring 3 touchdowns (not saying much) than both Washington-Baylor being held under 6 touchdowns for one of the teams. I don't even think Oklahoma State would put up 28 points against Alabama let alone LSU.

[thespleenenator]

I understand where you're coming from and I'm not on here trying to come out and say you're flat out wrong because I don't think you're wrong. You're never wrong when it comes to your opinion. But, and this is me speaking more on LSU's behalf because I they're the team I know the best, they played the team with the 3rd most points scored (Oregon - 46 points) and 7 most passing yards (West Virginia - 342 yards), outplayed them, and beat them. But in my opinion, there's a much better chance of a second LSU-Bama game having one of the teams scoring 3 touchdowns (not saying much) than both Washington-Baylor being held under 6 touchdowns for one of the teams. I don't even think Oklahoma State would put up 28 points against Alabama let alone LSU.

This isn't about LSU so much as it is about the notion that a high schoring game is a bad game, but a low scoring game is a good game. People could say "If I wanted to see a 67-56 game, I would watch basketball.". Well if I wanted to watch a 9-6 game, I would watch baseball.

[ninersdd]

I understand where you're coming from and I'm not on here trying to come out and say you're flat out wrong because I don't think you're wrong. You're never wrong when it comes to your opinion. But, and this is me speaking more on LSU's behalf because I they're the team I know the best, they played the team with the 3rd most points scored (Oregon - 46 points) and 7 most passing yards (West Virginia - 342 yards), outplayed them, and beat them. But in my opinion, there's a much better chance of a second LSU-Bama game having one of the teams scoring 3 touchdowns (not saying much) than both Washington-Baylor being held under 6 touchdowns for one of the teams. I don't even think Oklahoma State would put up 28 points against Alabama let alone LSU.

This isn't about LSU so much as it is about the notion that a high schoring game is a bad game, but a low scoring game is a good game. People could say "If I wanted to see a 67-56 game, I would watch basketball.". Well if I wanted to watch a 9-6 game, I would watch baseball.

What about hockey?

[Chicageaux]

I understand where you're coming from and I'm not on here trying to come out and say you're flat out wrong because I don't think you're wrong. You're never wrong when it comes to your opinion. But, and this is me speaking more on LSU's behalf because I they're the team I know the best, they played the team with the 3rd most points scored (Oregon - 46 points) and 7 most passing yards (West Virginia - 342 yards), outplayed them, and beat them. But in my opinion, there's a much better chance of a second LSU-Bama game having one of the teams scoring 3 touchdowns (not saying much) than both Washington-Baylor being held under 6 touchdowns for one of the teams. I don't even think Oklahoma State would put up 28 points against Alabama let alone LSU.

This isn't about LSU so much as it is about the notion that a high schoring game is a bad game, but a low scoring game is a good game. People could say "If I wanted to see a 67-56 game, I would watch basketball.". Well if I wanted to watch a 9-6 game, I would watch baseball.

And that's where differing opinions come into play. I'd much rather see a close low-scoring defensive game than a close high-scoring offensive game. In a high-scoring game, you have teams that are pretty much in a shoot-out and it's pretty much when the clock runs out who's ever in the lead wins. In a defensive game, you're on the edge of your seat because you know that one touchdown or field goal might be it. For me, LSU-Bama I was a lot different than it was for you based on the fact by the fourth quarter I was completely nervous--I literally did not sit from the start of the fourth quarter till Alleman kicked the game winner in overtime. That's based on the fact that I had interest in the game because the team I'm a fan of was playing in it. I love that feeling and if I can get that sense of anxiousness/nervousness/excitement in the NCG, I'll be more than satisfied as a fan. I'm sure the same could be said for a Baylor or Washington fan.

The fact is, I think you're going to get different opinions on the types of games based on who people are fans of. Typically, you'll see Big 10 fans and somewhat SEC fans enjoy more of defensive struggles, while you'll have Pac-12 fans and somewhat Big 12 fans enjoy the high-scoring games. That's the way it is and it has a lot to do with the style of football that's played. I'm not going to sit here and tell you a defensive game is more exciting than an offensive game because frankly, I know I'm not going to change your mind and that's not what I'm here to do.

[ninersdd]

Pretty fun Sun Bowl as the Utes storm back to stun Georgia Tech in OT.

[Kevin W.]

Well, that's certainly a good start to Utah's tenure in the Pac-12.

[infrared41]

I think you're missing my point. Infared made the point that a team that gives up 56 or 67 points in a game does no deserve to go to a national championship game.

Actually, it was nothing more than a throw-away joke line. If I'd known it was going to lead to all this, I never would have typed it.