Now we got people registering today coming in to trash the SEC. LOL. They lost 5 games primarily because they got 10 teams and three of the teams that lost were scraping the bottom of the barrel of the league (UK, UT, UGA). I guess it would have looked better if the Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee didn’t get a bid and the SEC finished 5-2.
5 BCS title in a row, by 4 different teams. And another team won a BCS Title in the late 90’s. 5 different SEC teams have won BCS Titles, while no other conference has more than 2 different teams with BCS Titles.
yep, these two only won the BCS games in the last two years. And I sure both coaches saw plenty of tape of Oregon whipping Tennessee way back in September.
Yes, their credentials as coaches are impeccable. Their credentials as analysts are suspect – they were both intimately familiar with Auburn, and completely unfamiliar with Oregon. Given that an SEC team was playing a Pac-10 team, you would think that ESPN would either try to find a coach from each conference (balance), or 2 coaches from neither conference (unbiased).
that is a valid consideration, especially if ESPN was looking for insight into what it’s like to coach in the NCG.
But if they wanted a serious answer to the question: “what are the Oregon keys to victory?”…not so much. All their answers were couched in Auburn terms, like “stop Cam Newton”, and any idiot with a subscription to Sports Illustrated could’ve said that. I’m not sure they knew the names of any Oregon players other than Lamichael James.
I wish I hadn’t deleted the pre-game show. But that’s precisely what I’m suggesting, based on my impressions while viewing. They knew Auburn backwards & forwards and thought they could fake the rest.
I didn’t get that at all. To be honest, they really didn’t provide much color of any kind. It was just extremely basic stuff, and I expected alot more. But even a regular viewer of college football like me has enough information in his/her memory on the top teams to provide the level of analysis required for prime time football. To say that they were completely unfamiliar with Oregon, while being intimately familiar with Auburn is not true. At least not based on their actual commentary.
Yes I have seen Cam play this year…vs. All the top S.E.C. Teams…and Auburn was impressive…and also watched at least one s.e.c. Game weekly…and what became glaring was a conference plagued with sub-par defenses…
I’m not disputing that S.E.C. Has the best conference in the nation…to dispute that would be foolish…however its 5-5 bowl certainly does not live up to the label “dominant” and the constant pronouncements that no other schools outside the conference could compete in the league…
Did anyone see how Florida State slapped South Carolina around in the Bowl?
Really the S.E.C had two great football teams this year…Auburn and Alabama not 5 or 6 as the Espn experts try to convey…Michigan on New Years Day? Paaaaleeeeese
And yes…Cam is over rated…he benefited from having the countries best O-line…last night he was forced to “make” plays n he didn’t…his only two touchdown passes were to receivers who were wIiiiiiiiide open…which was routine during the regular season vs S.E.C. Defenses…n his rushing stats on the year were due to a dominating O-line that open up gaping running lanes…sure he had occasional highlight film runs but with that blocking n the fact he runs the ball 20 plus times per game it would be expected to “break” one on occasion
Why is it that the QB from Oregon put up the same TD to int figures…the same completion percentage…the same exact rushing average as Cam on the season but Cam gets the heisman n he gets no mention at all in the national press?
Cam Newton is a good QB…however he should take his name off the Heisman n give it to his O-line
…And its the same jump on the Espn bandwagon thinking that screwed the best team in the nation from having a crack at the title…“T.C.U” …that’s what this is all about…TCU and Espn’s biased flapping that kept the best team outta of the title game…cause Cammie would have no chance defense
Even when an offense starts at its own 1 yard line, safeties are so rare that to rely on them when deciding to go for it on 4th and goal is ridiculous; and to include it in any kind of calculation is equally ridiculous. The following touchdown is not a factor because it did not rely on any of the goal-line events. They simply drove for a touchdown. Saying that touchdown was a factor of the 4th and goal play is like saying a touchdown drive from your own 1 yard line after an interception is “points off a turnover.” Yes, they (eventually) scored the drive after the turnover, but the turnover didn’t directly lead to points. The team had to execute the game normally to earn a score, it wasn’t an intercepted pass at your opponents 10 yard line returned directly for a score.
The play you want to convince me is so successful as deeming it almost necessary was 0 for 2 yesterday. The play I claim that should have been made was 1 for 1, the game winner.
Trust me, I understand about expected value, and probability; but, obviously, those 4th and goal from the one plays are not as sucessful as people project. And the results are skewed because of course they’re going to be more successful against Ball St. and Eastern Michigan early in the season.
I got the impression that Meyer and Saben were most interested in validating their own failures rather than giving accurate analysis…particularly Saben who I could see just wanted to blurt out “dammit. CAM NEWTON AND AUBURN DIDN’T BEAT US WE GAVE THE GAME AWAY BY FUMBLING AWAY THREE TOUCHDOWN OPPURTUNITIES!!!”…both coaches were seeking vindication by Auburn winning the Natty…but then again so did all the bias Espn commentators…they all came closer than expected to looking like complete fools than the expert “it’ll be a high scoring game” they claim to be…bring on TCU…dare any team in the S.E.C. To play them…come on…take just one sub-division team off n play a real team in the non-conference schedule
Ah, the old schedule thing. The SEC conference consistently schedules more non-conference BCS opponents on a per team basis than either the Pac 10, Big 10 or the Big 12.
IMO, most everyone is not considering the impact of the turf on the lack of scoring. Players were not getting firm footing last night
Today, one of the talking heads (and I have no idea which one) said the rule book distinguishes between the palm side of the wrist and the other side wrist. The palm side of the wrist does not mean a player is down, while the other side of the wrist does.
Sounds very subjective to me and I have no idea whether it is right or wrong. Dyer’s palm side of the wrist was down, as indicated in the picture in the link, but in the Sugar Bowl, the other side of the wrist touched the turf.
I don’t think it would have mattered. After the 1st quarter, Oregon’s offense was mostly stuffed (other than a miraculous TD drive after Newton’s fumble, to tie) and Auburn’s was moving well. They had time and TO’s and a good FG kicker – it was more or less inevitable that they would have moved into FG range before time expired.
“Oregon’s miraculous touchdown drive”? Are u serious? Considering Auburns defensive stats for the year I’d say it was no miracle. The only miracles that occurred for Oregon was a missed field goal by the U of California which was also a miracle for Auburn as it kept TCU out of the title game.
But that’s precisely what I’m suggesting, based on my impressions while viewing. They knew Auburn backwards & forwards and thought they could fake the rest.