|
|
Scopes
by Hoof2table. 11/15/24 07:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
131 registered members (Narrow Gap, UA Hunter, UncleHuck, Turkey, rst87, HappyHunter, BradB, BigEd, coosabuckhunter, TurkeyJoe, jacannon, oldbowhunter, LuckyGoose, oakachoy, Whiskey9, Ol' Skinny, JBrown1975, Tall Dog, NVM1031, Ryano, MarksOutdoors, Geezer, thayerp81, Koba, Hunter44, HDS64, GomerPyle, dirtwrk, Fattyfireplug, CarbonClimber1, Rainbowstew, apolloslade, akbejeepin, SCOOP, BPI, top cat, Sixpointholler, desertdog, JSanford1974, Beer Belly, NWFJ, chuck216, BobK, eclipse829, bowkl, El_Matador, PineTop, Cedar, geeb1, Stoney, Chancetribe, PanolaProductions, timmytruck, Quack Quack Bang, BACK40, courseup, Turkeyneck78, CKyleC, Jwillbucks, auman, TheVern, Gary Harris, Ridge Life, clayk, outdoorguy88, Calvin, antlerhunter, St. Clair FF, scrape, Mdees, Backwater, jprice, Geeb, Cactus_buck, Keysbowman, jdhunter2011, Mbrock, Hornhntr, Ben2, Fishduck, Turberville, bamabeagler, Zbrann, Pwyse, Big Al, Floorman1, BC, ATDH79, burbank, BigA47, mathews prostaff, Dave_H, Joe4majors, zgobbler5, dave260rem!, LG, Tree Hanger, hillmp, Bake, Jdkprp70, AU coonhunter, foghorn, Woodslife, Priority, HSV. HUNTER, 7PTSPREAD, bigfoot15, jaydub12, CeeHawk37, mossyback, beeline08, imadeerhntr, hue, Hoytdad10, CRUTCHJD76, UABCPA, twaldrop4, abolt300, slippinlipjr, XVIII, SwampHunter, 10 invisible),
1,172
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#219060
11/13/11 09:11 PM
11/13/11 09:11 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,089
Round ‘bout there
Clem
Mildly Quirky
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,089
Round ‘bout there
|
Those computers are probably sitting in a quiet hotel suite somewhere, smoking cigars and sipping 10W-40, and thinking "How can we screw up the programmed system we have no control over that takes data, wins, losses and strength of schedule, and create a BCS nightmare? Hahahahahahahaha!"
In 2004 with Aubrun, we heard "the system" is set up that way and that's how it happens.
Or did they get manipulated then to achieve an end result the way LSU and Bama will get manipulated so they don't have a rematch?
Or ... maybe it's not a conspiracy, the data gets input and the numbers get spit out to five or six decimal places based on some egghead formulas.
If we have a playoff, who determines the playoff teams? The sportswriters everyone hates? The computers everyone hates?
Division 1-AA, II, III and NAIA's 43 divisions all have playoffs THAT WORK. Dammit.
"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter
"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013
"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Little Foot]
#219123
11/13/11 11:47 PM
11/13/11 11:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,340
Jackson County
BrentM
Mr. Turkey
|
Mr. Turkey
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,340
Jackson County
|
I think Bama's best chance to get in the NC game is for LSU to win out. If/when Oklahoma beats Oklahoma state, the voters will look at the losses. Alabama lost to the #1 team in the nation and Bama gets in...I hope  I think the only that hurts Bama in this, is that they lost at home! I think they deserve it, but think the home loss will weigh heavy on the voters! Oklahoma lost at home too......to a 30 point underdog. If you try to make a case for Oregon, you must remember this: LSU had suspended Jefferson and a couple of other key players for the first part of the season, but they still beat Oregon by double digits. Now you must ask yourself if LSU could have beaten Alabama if Jarrett Lee had qb'd the whole game. I don't think LSU could have scored on Alabama with Lee if they had played 8 quarters. If OSU beats Oklahoma they deserve to get a shot, but once you get down to one-loss teams, Alabama is by far the best choice.
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#219187
11/14/11 07:14 AM
11/14/11 07:14 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
The way the computers are set up either definitely prefer "offensive" minded teams, or they just plain favor Big 12 teams period. They absolutely LOVE the Big 12 teams, even though they have proven time and time again to be fodder for every team in the BCSNC game except OU in 2000. The Big 12 is 1-5 in BCSNC games....while the SEC is 7-0.
Brent, you're right on Oregon as well. Oregon played a weakened LSU, and ended up scoring a trash td with about 20 seconds left on the clock to make it a 13 point loss instead of a 20 point loss. The big arguement is that even though the game was played on a neutral field, that there were about 75% LSU fans there. Well, last time I checked, home field is worth no more than 3 points. That still leaves a whole lot of points out there unaccounted for from Oregon's standpoint. Besides...it's not like Oregon's "high flying" offense could even put up points against an Auburn defense last year that wasn't exactly one of the best SEC defenses to ever hit the field.
All that aside...it sucks that we didn't handle our own business in a game that we statistically dominated against LSU.
Last edited by hunterbuck; 11/14/11 07:19 AM.
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#219221
11/14/11 08:31 AM
11/14/11 08:31 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,924
Decatur
chevyman
12 point
|
12 point
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,924
Decatur
|
The way the computers are set up either definitely prefer "offensive" minded teams, or they just plain favor Big 12 teams period. They absolutely LOVE the Big 12 teams, even though they have proven time and time again to be fodder for every team in the BCSNC game except OU in 2000. The Big 12 is 1-5 in BCSNC games....while the SEC is 7-0.
Brent, you're right on Oregon as well. Oregon played a weakened LSU, and ended up scoring a trash td with about 20 seconds left on the clock to make it a 13 point loss instead of a 20 point loss. The big arguement is that even though the game was played on a neutral field, that there were about 75% LSU fans there. Well, last time I checked, home field is worth no more than 3 points. That still leaves a whole lot of points out there unaccounted for from Oregon's standpoint. Besides...it's not like Oregon's "high flying" offense could even put up points against an Auburn defense last year that wasn't exactly one of the best SEC defenses to ever hit the field.
All that aside...it sucks that we didn't handle our own business in a game that we statistically dominated against LSU. Well said
Wisdom doesn't always come with age.
Sometimes age shows up all by itself.
Roll Tide
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#219630
11/14/11 06:19 PM
11/14/11 06:19 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,739
Falkville
MTeague
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,739
Falkville
|
The way the computers are set up either definitely prefer "offensive" minded teams, or they just plain favor Big 12 teams period. They absolutely LOVE the Big 12 teams, even though they have proven time and time again to be fodder for every team in the BCSNC game except OU in 2000. The Big 12 is 1-5 in BCSNC games....while the SEC is 7-0.
Brent, you're right on Oregon as well. Oregon played a weakened LSU, and ended up scoring a trash td with about 20 seconds left on the clock to make it a 13 point loss instead of a 20 point loss. The big arguement is that even though the game was played on a neutral field, that there were about 75% LSU fans there. Well, last time I checked, home field is worth no more than 3 points. That still leaves a whole lot of points out there unaccounted for from Oregon's standpoint. Besides...it's not like Oregon's "high flying" offense could even put up points against an Auburn defense last year that wasn't exactly one of the best SEC defenses to ever hit the field.
All that aside...it sucks that we didn't handle our own business in a game that we statistically dominated against LSU. This don't really look like domination to me!!! Team Stat Comparison LSU Alabama 1st Downs 15 17 Total Yards 239 295 Passing 91 199 Rushing 148 96 Penalties 7-56 6-73 3rd Down Conversions 3-11 5-13 4th Down Conversions 0-0 0-0 Turnovers 2 2 Possession 29:54 30:06 Passing Leaders LSU C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT Jefferson 6/10 67 6.7 0 0 Alabama C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT McCarron 16/28 199 7.1 0 1 Rushing Leaders LSU CAR YDS AVG TD LG Ford 11 72 6.5 0 15 Jefferson 11 43 3.9 0 18 Alabama CAR YDS AVG TD LG Richardson 23 89 3.9 0 24 Lacy 5 19 3.8 0 20 Receiving Leaders LSU REC YDS AVG TD LG Shepard 2 39 19.5 0 34 Randle 2 19 9.5 0 13 Alabama REC YDS AVG TD LG Richardson 5 80 16.0 0 39 Maze 6 61 10.2 0 19 Scoring Summary SECOND QUARTER LSU ALA FG 03:53 Jeremy Shelley 34 Yd 0 3 FG 00:00 Drew Alleman 19 Yd 3 3 THIRD QUARTER LSU ALA FG 07:56 Cade Foster 46 Yd 3 6 FOURTH QUARTER LSU ALA FG 14:13 Drew Alleman 30 Yd 6 6 OVERTIME LSU ALA FG Drew Alleman 25 Yd 9 6
I had much rather be tried by twelve than carried to my grave by six!!!!
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#219657
11/14/11 06:44 PM
11/14/11 06:44 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 15,547
Panhandle Florida
PaschalBD
Used to be TiderBD
|
Used to be TiderBD
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 15,547
Panhandle Florida
|
Bama should have won the game by atleast 16 points. You know if's and buts.
A servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
USAF Veteran
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: MTeague]
#219681
11/14/11 07:05 PM
11/14/11 07:05 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
The way the computers are set up either definitely prefer "offensive" minded teams, or they just plain favor Big 12 teams period. They absolutely LOVE the Big 12 teams, even though they have proven time and time again to be fodder for every team in the BCSNC game except OU in 2000. The Big 12 is 1-5 in BCSNC games....while the SEC is 7-0.
Brent, you're right on Oregon as well. Oregon played a weakened LSU, and ended up scoring a trash td with about 20 seconds left on the clock to make it a 13 point loss instead of a 20 point loss. The big arguement is that even though the game was played on a neutral field, that there were about 75% LSU fans there. Well, last time I checked, home field is worth no more than 3 points. That still leaves a whole lot of points out there unaccounted for from Oregon's standpoint. Besides...it's not like Oregon's "high flying" offense could even put up points against an Auburn defense last year that wasn't exactly one of the best SEC defenses to ever hit the field.
All that aside...it sucks that we didn't handle our own business in a game that we statistically dominated against LSU. This don't really look like domination to me!!! You have to realize that most teams' idea of domination isn't the same as Auburn's. If anyone knows domination...they know it. 4 different times this year, to be exact. However, while watching the game, at no point before the clock hitting zero in regulation did I ever feel like LSU controlled the game in any way. I did feel as if Bama dictated the game the entire way. Unfortunately, when the clock hit zero at the end of regulation, I knew Bama had lost the upper hand due to field goal kicking. The two could have probably played until now and neither would have scored a td.
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#220729
11/15/11 08:48 PM
11/15/11 08:48 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,739
Falkville
MTeague
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,739
Falkville
|
The way the computers are set up either definitely prefer "offensive" minded teams, or they just plain favor Big 12 teams period. They absolutely LOVE the Big 12 teams, even though they have proven time and time again to be fodder for every team in the BCSNC game except OU in 2000. The Big 12 is 1-5 in BCSNC games....while the SEC is 7-0.
Brent, you're right on Oregon as well. Oregon played a weakened LSU, and ended up scoring a trash td with about 20 seconds left on the clock to make it a 13 point loss instead of a 20 point loss. The big arguement is that even though the game was played on a neutral field, that there were about 75% LSU fans there. Well, last time I checked, home field is worth no more than 3 points. That still leaves a whole lot of points out there unaccounted for from Oregon's standpoint. Besides...it's not like Oregon's "high flying" offense could even put up points against an Auburn defense last year that wasn't exactly one of the best SEC defenses to ever hit the field.
All that aside...it sucks that we didn't handle our own business in a game that we statistically dominated against LSU. This don't really look like domination to me!!! You have to realize that most teams' idea of domination isn't the same as Auburn's. If anyone knows domination...they know it. 4 different times this year, to be exact. However, while watching the game, at no point before the clock hitting zero in regulation did I ever feel like LSU controlled the game in any way. I did feel as if Bama dictated the game the entire way. Unfortunately, when the clock hit zero at the end of regulation, I knew Bama had lost the upper hand due to field goal kicking. The two could have probably played until now and neither would have scored a td. But that is not what you said! You said Alabama dominated LSU statistically in the game!
I had much rather be tried by twelve than carried to my grave by six!!!!
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#220784
11/15/11 09:30 PM
11/15/11 09:30 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
Ok...Bama had more total yards, percentage-wise by quite a bit. Bama had 6 scoring opportunities, and LSU had 3. Bama had more first downs. Bama was better on 3rd down efficiency. Bama averaged right at a yard more per play. Bama ran more plays. Bama only punted 2 times to LSU's 6.
I guess none of that is winning the statistical battle to you?
Scoreboard is all that matters, though.
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#220863
11/15/11 11:11 PM
11/15/11 11:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,308
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,308
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
Ph
Scoreboard is all that matters, though.
Really? Because you have spent the last week crying abouts it and wasting bandwidth. Alabama is a very good team but lsu is better. They proved it in Alabamas house.
" I do view Jim Waltz as a really good Presidential candidate"
Bama_Earl
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#220891
11/16/11 04:52 AM
11/16/11 04:52 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
I think I'll step it up some, since my posting bothers you so much, bill.
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#220894
11/16/11 04:59 AM
11/16/11 04:59 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
Hogwild
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
|
Bama only punted 2 times to LSU's 6 Take those dumba$$ missed FG's into account and you just PROVED how much smarter Les was and how much better LSU's Special Teams were! I think I'll step it up some I really think you should!! You are REALLY entertaining me!!!! 
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#220923
11/16/11 06:53 AM
11/16/11 06:53 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,308
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,308
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
I think I'll step it up some, since my posting bothers you so much, bill. Who says it bothers me? I actually like it. Every time a bama fan points at shuter all we have to do is point back at you or timbercruiser.
" I do view Jim Waltz as a really good Presidential candidate"
Bama_Earl
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#220934
11/16/11 07:16 AM
11/16/11 07:16 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
It must bother you. You love to stalk my posts and comment on pretty much every one of them. It either bothers you, or you admire me.
The problem with you, bill...is you want to attack the poster, rather than take issue with what is posted. Why is that?
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#221170
11/16/11 12:36 PM
11/16/11 12:36 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
And you feel the need to respond to every one of them.
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: hunterbuck]
#221203
11/16/11 01:18 PM
11/16/11 01:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,308
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,308
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
And you feel the need to respond to every one of them.
Well, since I don't spend all my time and energy posting garbage about Alabama I have the time. Did you know Alabama was having a pretty good season?
" I do view Jim Waltz as a really good Presidential candidate"
Bama_Earl
|
|
|
Re: Stanford and Boise lost
[Re: Skinny]
#221210
11/16/11 01:23 PM
11/16/11 01:23 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
hunterbuck
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,056
AL
|
Yep...I'm aware of it. Like it. Getting pretty used to it.
2nd most wins in the nation since 2008, behind only Boise St.
It's pretty rough when last year's 10 win season is viewed as a major disappointment. No excuses, either.
"You think I care? Roll Damn Tide"
Have you tried Google?
|
|
|
|
