BCS Championship Open Thread

You've all been waiting with bated breath for my pick in tonight's BCS championship game (wait, what?) featuring Alabama and LSU. I like Alabama (7 units). The line is pick.

I got some props as well - Trent Richardson to score the first TD (3/1 1 unit), Alabama QB McCarron under 15 1/2 completions (1 unit) and he throws a pick before he throws a TD (1 unit.)

Open Thread.

< The Money Laundering Activities of Harold Mauricio Poveda-Ortega | ACLU Crunches Guantanamo Numbers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    If you'll pardon me, the whole BCS thing is BS.  The conference commissioners will be meeting about possible changes.  
    What the changes will be is hard to say because it's all open for debate, from eliminating automatic bids to top-tier bowl games to creating a four-team playoff -- an idea that's known as the plus-one model.

    What's not a realistic option is exactly what many football fans are clamoring for, a full-scale playoff that would require numerous teams to play additional games.  

    If there's not some kind of meaningful "full-scale playoff," I couldn't care less.

    IMHO a playoff system in the NCAA (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    could only come about if they shortened the season by at least the +1 you mention.  The NCAA and schools are already making too much off the athletes.

    I agree that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    the NCAA (and the schools) are "making too much off the athletes."  They need to find some way to compensate the athletes in some meaningful way.  As far as I'm concerned, the majority of these kids (who will never make it into well-compensated professional sports) are being taken advantage of.  Many of them will not even wind up with a college degree.  I certainly don't think that much, if anything, will change, but I do know that the system is screwed up.  The NFL (and the NBA, for that matter) use the colleges as their "minor leagues."  They should be compensating the players accordingly.

    If BTAL ran the NCAA for a day (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:58:14 PM EST
    Either the NCAA or the schools would have to take out at least a few million dollar insurance policy for each player on the roster that increases each year.  The insurance would cover injuries that prevented them from moving onto the pros - payable to the player.  The actuaries would be able to easily calculate the costs and the NCAA/schools could easily afford the premiums.

    That would be (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:21:42 PM EST
    a good start, BTAL.   ;-)

    The revenue sport perhaps... (none / 0) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:26:50 PM EST
    but the majority of student-athletics are in non-revenue sports; field hockey, swimming, golf, soccer, hockey, water polo, volleyball and the like.  Even bowling!

    The revenue sports are what provides the income that pays for the scholarships for these kids.  I don't think they are being taken advantage of in any way.  In fact, it allows them to participate in activities that they enjoy while getting a college education.  Should they all be compensated too?


    I'd be way more impressed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    if the "revenue sports" also provided academic scholarships for the colleges, very frankly.

    Ah... (none / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:24:12 PM EST
    The revenue sports generate endowments that allow the AD to reimburse the school for the athletic scholarships to offers (allowing for the $ to be spent on academic ones)--as well as provide directly for academic ones.

    Plus, then there are the work-study jobs the athletic departments provide.  Marketing, promotions, logistics, sports med--or in my case, audio-visual.  Hundreds, if not thousands of jobs for non-athletes at my school alone.  Real world experience gained while putting cash in the pockets of students to help defray the cost of attending school.  


    What I can't understand is why some (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 09:01:54 PM EST
    18 year old young adults should have their fun and games paid for by other 18 year old young adults.

    Childhood is over. The lessons to be learned in sports should have already been learned.

    Football and basketball make money for everyone but the workers. If this was a group of steel workers I suspect the unions would be screaming their heads off.... and rightly so.


    Careful (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:34:28 AM EST
    Hockey is a revenue sport in our neck of the woods.

    My comment was to this (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:35:56 AM EST
    but the majority of student-athletics are in non-revenue sports; field hockey, swimming, golf, soccer, hockey, water polo, volleyball and the like.  Even bowling!
    The revenue sports are what provides the income that pays for the scholarships for these kids.

    Sorry, Donald, but the fact that you profit from the status quo doesn't change the facts.


    Donald (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:45:36 PM EST
    Everyone here understands that you have a daughter on a volleyball scholarship.

    And yes, I am speaking in general about all colleges in the US.

    And I'm right.

    BTW - You have a bad habit of attacking anyone who disagrees with you. Long term that will, perhaps has, cause you some bad personal problems.


    I'm not assuming anything Don. (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:03:37 AM EST
    Rather making an "on average" statement while you're talking about regional popularity of certain sports.  Revenue isn't just about ticket sales and butts in the seat, but things like endowments, licensing/merchandise sales and media contracts.  

    You shouldn't assume that I'm not aware of wrestling in places like Iowa, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Penn State or hockey at places like Denver, Colorado College or North Dakota.  However, "popularity" doesn't necessarily translate into "revenue".  Field hockey is very popular at Iowa, but that doesn't make it a revenue sport.  Wrestling is also popular, but it doesn't bring in anywhere close to the revenue as football or basketball.  Ask Tom Brands about his salary and budget compared to Coach Kirk's or Coach Fran's.

    BTW, the latest B1G figures I could find shows that the NE womens volleyball team had an average of 4131 for 15 home matches (61965) and 14685 total for last season while the BB team has an average of 9616 for 10 home games (96160) and a total of 152778 through 15 games so far this season.  I'd be interested to see how that translates into volleyball being a much bigger revenue sport.    


    This from ESPN (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    Not every NCAA-sponsored sports team makes money for its school. In fact, at most Division I schools, only the football and men's basketball teams generate revenue for their athletic departments. And in most cases, the football team is footing nearly all of the bills for the other sports.

    Shouldn't men's basketball and football players receive some sort of stipend since they're generating most of the money for their athletic departments? After all, a real estate agent who sells nothing doesn't make the same as one with a thick portfolio.



    I love how Romney and Gingrich are making (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:04:26 PM EST
    a mockery out of the superpac regulations. Gingrich fake reluctantly publicly announces he is going to have to take the gloves off, and, voila, a superpac he supposedly has no communication with unveils a documentary about Romney's years at Bain Capital.

    I know Stephen Colbert will share my amusement.

    It was Romney's (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:37:43 AM EST
    SuperPAC that whacked Gingrich in Iowa.

    Almost forgot with all (none / 0) (#1)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:32:39 PM EST
    the NFL and GOP action lately that there was still that BCS Championship game to be played.

    I know nothing about units and don't care about point spreads or Vegas betting odds, but I agree Bama is going to prevail tonight, probably narrowly.

    I just hope to see some more scoring of TDs and, gee, actual exciting offensive plays that go for more than five yards.  Last time, though it was a well played game, it appealed mainly to a limited number of defense minded football purists from the Old School.

    In spite of the complaints (none / 0) (#2)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    about the matchup this could be a very interesting game.

    Personally I believe the matchup isn't in any way out of line.  If the championship game should be a contest between the two best teams then we're getting just that.

    Right now the SEC is way beyond any conference in the country and it's fitting that the two best SEC teams duke it out for the big prize.

    I'm pulling for 'Bama, but only because I want (none / 0) (#3)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    to see the drama and questioning afterwards. LSU will have been SEC champs with their only loss being to #2 Bama, Bama would have only one loss to #1 LSU but not even division champ of the SEC.

    It's not that I love the Tide (none / 0) (#17)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    but LSU did beat my alma mater the Fighting Ducks so I don't like them for that...

    I've been reading (none / 0) (#5)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:36:41 PM EST
    TL for at least 3 or 4 years now, and I still have no idea what any of those numbers actually mean. I also still don't understand over/under. Sports makes me feel so dumb sometimes heh

    WWTP? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    Who would Tebow pick?

    'Bama 'cause (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:41:05 PM EST
    Les Miles is Satan incarnate.  ;)

    I don't care, but my niece does, so... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:53:11 PM EST
    Roll Tide!

    I asked my Gator-loving bro. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:42:26 PM EST
    He sd.   LSU.   I sd why.  Likes AL coach but says bunch of rednecks. Query: is LSU any different?

    Not all rednecks (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    At last year's Capital One bowl I had several great conversations with Alabama fans.  Not a redneck in the bunch.

    Why, oh why... (none / 0) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    can't they both lose?

    For the first time in BCS history (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:11:20 PM EST
    I passed on watching the game. Even knowing the outcome now, I still have an issue with Alabama being invited to play in the game. You lose at home to the number 1 team and finish second in your conference division, you don't deserve an invite.

    I've stuck up for the BCS in the past but Alabama being crowned a champ by going 1-1 against LSU, and finishing with one less win than LSU, has all the makings of a flawed voting system.

    And if there was a four team playoff, Alabama didn't deserve an invite to that either.

    Huh! (none / 0) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:45:20 AM EST
    And if there was a four team playoff, Alabama didn't deserve an invite to that either.

    It appears that 'proving it on the field' is lost on you.

    If the championship game is supposed to be between the two best teams then that's exactly what we got.

    If you think Alabama was undeserving because of one loss then please explain why any other team with 1 loss would have been more deserving.  

    LSU was the only undefeated team and only beat Alabama earlier by 3 points in OT.

    So what team was a more worthy opponent?


    Final Score (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:23:22 PM EST
    Alabama 21 - LSU 0

    You have no case and the "evidence" you presented is both flawed and ridiculous.

    Alabama played 6 teams with winning records.  Five of those opponents were ranked.  Three of those ranked opponents were beaten on the road.

    Yes, I know Brantley was knocked out of their game in Gainesville with seconds to go in the 1st half but Alabama was leading 24-10.

    You have only other one loss teams to consider for the game and it appears your choice is Oklahoma State.  I should poiint out that Oklahoma State did NOT play in a separate conference championship game, they entered bowl season with an identical 11-1 record.  Oklahoma State played 4 ranked teams during the regular season and finished 61st in the FBS in points allowed.  Alabama, against better competition, allowed 8.2 points per game.  Defense wins championships.  It would have been interesting to see if Oklahoma State could have managed to get off a pass against Alabama's defense.  

    You don't have a worthy replacement for Alabama.

    If the objective of a national championship game is to pit the 2 best teams against each other, the Alabama-LSU game fulfilled that objective and Alabama won that contest decisively.

    Alabama is the best team in the country fully deserving the national championship.


    Well said cal1942 (none / 0) (#39)
    by BTAL on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:30:03 PM EST
    But don't get in the way of a good 'ole SEC hate fest.

    BTAL (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    You're right.  I think SEC hatred may be a big part of this.



    SEC hatred (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    certainly isn't part of the initial post.

    Referencing the comments (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:43:16 AM EST
    not the post.

    I'm on board with you. (none / 0) (#34)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    They weren't even second in their conference. I will agree that they may indeed still be one of the top teams in the country, but for them to be playing for the title is a slap in the face to everyone. They did look much better than LSU last night, but they shouldn't have been there.

    You didn't miss much, Donald (none / 0) (#36)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:48:47 AM EST
    It was like watching a root canal.

    What! (none / 0) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    undefined criteria

    Undefined?  Apparently you haven't examined the BCS standings content.

    I don't particularly care for the BCS but this year at least the BCS standings for nos 1 and 2 were correct and the elements that determine the standings are published.

    The money grubbing corruption in college football didn't begin with the BCS it started long before probably during the 70s when television money came to dictate terms.

    Your suggestion for a 16 team playoff is ridiculous.  Apparently you'd sacrifice the regular season.  Talk about ruining college football.


    Here's the first part... (none / 0) (#22)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:32:42 PM EST
    of a 3 part series Think Progress is carrying about the "economics" of the BCS bowl series.

    In Dixville Notch, Romney and Huntsman tie (none / 0) (#23)
    by cymro on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:44:42 PM EST
    Everyone voted, and the results are in:

    Romney and Huntsman received two votes each. Coming in second with one vote apiece were Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.


    Dixville Notch (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:41:35 AM EST
    needs a writer familiar with horse racing. With Romney and Huntsman tying for first, Gingrich and Paul would then be tied for third.

    And Obama got more votes (3) (none / 0) (#37)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    Than either Romney or Huntsman.