[stupac2]

Losing always hurts, but to have your last bit of hope extinguished when a squib kick hits your up man and the kicking team recovers, now that's something. Has anyone even seen that before? I've never seen that before.

Not only that, but after giving up 10 sacks all season, Alabama gave up 7 tonight. I'm sure the defensive totals are horrendous, run and pass. I thought that we got outplayed, but not like that. Alabama got massively outplayed.

A bad game can happen to anyone, at least ours wasn't embarrassing!

[stupac2]

Losing always hurts, but to have your last bit of hope extinguished when a squib kick hits your up man and the kicking team recovers, now that's something. Has anyone even seen that before? I've never seen that before.

Not only that, but after giving up 10 sacks all season, Alabama gave up 7 tonight. I'm sure the defensive totals are horrendous, run and pass. I thought that we got outplayed, but not like that. Alabama got massively outplayed.

A bad game can happen to anyone, at least ours wasn't embarrassing!

[BostonCard]

Speaking of teams with 14-0 talent winding up with 11 wins... how about Alabama?

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking of teams with 14-0 talent winding up with 11 wins... how about Alabama?

BC

[OutsiderFan]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

[OutsiderFan]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

[OutsiderFan]

And I must say, I'd way rather have Oklahoma win the Sugar Bowl against Alabama than Oregon!

[OutsiderFan]

And I must say, I'd way rather have Oklahoma win the Sugar Bowl against Alabama than Oregon!

[Farm93]

Worst coaching ever.  Who is this Saban guy?  He needs to go.

There was no creativity in the play calling.  They stubbornly stayed with the run until they were down by 2 TDs.  And then it was clear that they had no ability to pass without the credibility of play action.  What kind of hack is this guy?

The all-american QB of theirs barely had 3,000 yards.  Didn't Jared Goff get like 500 in one game?!!?  Geez, I think Saban needs to get a new staff because CLEARLY they don't know what they are doing.  And he gets like $7 million a year.  Way overpaid.

Replace Saban with Shaw.  And that sums up the discussion on this board.

Coaching is a hard profession because everyone thinks they could correct every mistake and every good call is clearly attributable to the raw talent on the team.  BTW - MSU will likely finish #2.  So Stanford could have finished #2 with a good last drive but can at least go into the offseason with a clear understanding of the work that must get done.  I am sure our terrible coach will find a way to get the team ready to defend their back-to-back Pac-12 titles and their back-to-back-to-back-to-back BCS bowl appearances.

[Farm93]

Worst coaching ever.  Who is this Saban guy?  He needs to go.

There was no creativity in the play calling.  They stubbornly stayed with the run until they were down by 2 TDs.  And then it was clear that they had no ability to pass without the credibility of play action.  What kind of hack is this guy?

The all-american QB of theirs barely had 3,000 yards.  Didn't Jared Goff get like 500 in one game?!!?  Geez, I think Saban needs to get a new staff because CLEARLY they don't know what they are doing.  And he gets like $7 million a year.  Way overpaid.

Replace Saban with Shaw.  And that sums up the discussion on this board.

Coaching is a hard profession because everyone thinks they could correct every mistake and every good call is clearly attributable to the raw talent on the team.  BTW - MSU will likely finish #2.  So Stanford could have finished #2 with a good last drive but can at least go into the offseason with a clear understanding of the work that must get done.  I am sure our terrible coach will find a way to get the team ready to defend their back-to-back Pac-12 titles and their back-to-back-to-back-to-back BCS bowl appearances.

[BostonCard]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC

[BostonCard]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC

[BostonCard]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC

[BostonCard]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC

[jeboody]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

[jeboody]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

[jeboody]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

[jeboody]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

[OutsiderFan]

Or the concept of playoffs in any sport?

[OutsiderFan]

Or the concept of playoffs in any sport?

[OutsiderFan]

Or the concept of playoffs in any sport?

[OutsiderFan]

Or the concept of playoffs in any sport?

[JohnR34231]

No matter what kind of playoff system you have, you will get people arguing that it doesn't determine the "best" team, probably because "best" is a highly normative term. Does this mean you shouldn't bother with a playoff at all? I think most people would say, no, you should still have one.

[JohnR34231]

No matter what kind of playoff system you have, you will get people arguing that it doesn't determine the "best" team, probably because "best" is a highly normative term. Does this mean you shouldn't bother with a playoff at all? I think most people would say, no, you should still have one.

[JohnR34231]

No matter what kind of playoff system you have, you will get people arguing that it doesn't determine the "best" team, probably because "best" is a highly normative term. Does this mean you shouldn't bother with a playoff at all? I think most people would say, no, you should still have one.

[JohnR34231]

No matter what kind of playoff system you have, you will get people arguing that it doesn't determine the "best" team, probably because "best" is a highly normative term. Does this mean you shouldn't bother with a playoff at all? I think most people would say, no, you should still have one.

[stupac2]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

[stupac2]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

[stupac2]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

[stupac2]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

[jacketree]

Congratulations to the 2007/08 New England Patriots!!!!!

And of course the 1984 Brigham Young Cougars.....

[jacketree]

Congratulations to the 2007/08 New England Patriots!!!!!

And of course the 1984 Brigham Young Cougars.....

[jacketree]

Congratulations to the 2007/08 New England Patriots!!!!!

And of course the 1984 Brigham Young Cougars.....

[jacketree]

Congratulations to the 2007/08 New England Patriots!!!!!

And of course the 1984 Brigham Young Cougars.....

[JohnR34231]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

[JohnR34231]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

[Mick]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Funny...I was looking at the NFL playoffs, and with the exception of the Bengals, I like the underdogs in all three...I like the Pack in the cold especially with Rodgers and their receivers against a deteriorating SF secondary, I like Luck versus Smith (and his rapidly deteriorating defense over the second half of the season) and I like Drew Brees big time against Philly's crap defense and Boles.

[Mick]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Funny...I was looking at the NFL playoffs, and with the exception of the Bengals, I like the underdogs in all three...I like the Pack in the cold especially with Rodgers and their receivers against a deteriorating SF secondary, I like Luck versus Smith (and his rapidly deteriorating defense over the second half of the season) and I like Drew Brees big time against Philly's crap defense and Boles.