Skip to main content

No LSU/Alabama rematch is needed, thank you...

Even before their big #1 vs. #2 showdown on Saturday night, there was already chatter about if the game were close, if the two teams should meet again in the National Championship Game. Of course, it's way too early to make such predictions. Either or both of the teams could lose from here on out. Unfortunately, the game was very tightly knit throughout with LSU eventually winning 9-6 in overtime. Yes, it was the game of the century indeed. Not...

Now, if LSU had won by 3 points at home and the two teams went the rest of the way not losing a game, I could understand a possible rematch between the two clubs, so long as there wasn't another unbeaten outside of LSU. HOWEVER, the game was played in Tuscaloosa, where LSU was a 4-point underdog. Since LSU beat Alabama on their home turf, what really is the point of the two teams playing again, this time on a neutral field? This would do a disservice to the Tigers. What if Alabama won the game on a neutral field? The two teams would have split the season series, with the Crimson Tide winning at a neutral site and LSU winning in Tuscaloosa. What, should they then play the rubber match in Baton Rouge? A plus 1 after the title game, this time at LSU? Let's not do this...

Sadly, Alabama fell to #3 in the BcS Poll. There are still unbeatens outside of Baton Rouge - Oklahoma State, Stanford, Boise State and Houston. Oklahoma is a 1-loss team as are Clemson and Virginia Tech, among others. Alabama had their shot and at home. Let's give another team a chance to dethrone LSU from the top spot, if they go on to finish the regular season undefeated. Oklahoma State still has to deal with Oklahoma. Stanford plays Oregon this next weekend. Boise State plays TCU next Saturday.

Do I think any of the before-mentioned teams are better than Alabama? Not necessarily. Oklahoma State has a dreadful defense. Boise State and Houston aren't as tested, in playing in the WAC and Conference-USA. Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech, a team they should have handled fairly easily. Clemson fell to Georgia Tech (#20). Virginia Tech was defeated by Clemson. I think of all the teams I listed, if they should finished unbeaten, that Stanford would be the best matchup for LSU. They're solid in both phases of their offense. Quarterback Andrew Luck may be the face of the team, but they've been solid on the ground this year. Their defense is better than most people realize as well. Are they better than Alabama? That's highly debatable. I think they have the better all-around offense, but their defense isn't quite as stout. However, if Alabama finishes with that one loss to LSU and Stanford finishes unbeaten, I think the Cardinal should get an opportunity to beat LSU in the title game. 'Bama had their shot and lost. Unless all the before-mentioned teams lose again this season, I don't think they should be given that second opportunity. Considering that most college football commentators referred to this past weekend's game between the Tigers and Tide as "The Game of the Century," if they were to play again in the title game, that "Game of the Century" would have meant absolutely nothing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"