Meh. I’m not really disappointed that Florida has to play Louisville, while the Dawgs get a team in Nebraska that carries much more tradition and cache.
Plus, Florida played a damn though schedule. I’m good with them in the Sugar.
I can assure you that it is, and a very good one. (University of Alabama, Class of '91.)
Roll Tide!
It’s my opinion as well. This is just like Michigan State got penalized for playing in the Big 10 title game and Michigan got a BCS bowl.
And mine. It doesn’t make sense to say that a team that didn’t make the playoffs (and lost to the team that did) is better than the team that made but lost the first round of the playoffs.
Of course, you have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since I’m the one (non-USC fan) that thinks that USC should have won the SEC East last year, since they beat all of the other 5 SEC East teams.
Not really. Oregon played LSU in its first game of 2011, and would have played Kansas State in its first game of 2012, but Kansas State backed out, so Oregon had to scramble for whatever opponent it could get.
I hope ND gets blown out 80-0, after all their squeaker wins this year. IMO they only played one game all season where they looked like they should be in the BCS picture.
On the other hand, I’m not so much of a hypocrite that I think Oregon should be in the championship game without winning its conference. Nor should any other team.
I don’t care. Texas A&M is in the Cotton Bowl, and the Heismen winner is QB.
Please don’t perpetuate this lie. I’ll let it slide on any other board, but not the SD.
Oregon asked K-State to reschedule the 2011 game because it wanted to play LSU (understandable). When in negotiation about rescheduling, Oregon refused to guarantee a home/home rotation with K-State (i.e. Oregon asked out of the game in Manhattan, K-State agreed, and then Oregon wouldn’t commit to a return trip in 2013).
K-State said “how 'bout we cancel the game instead?”. Oregon said “sure!” The fact that it was mutual is clearly indicated in that neither school paid a cancellation fee.
All this was in 2010, mind you. So 86 the “scramble” and the “back out”. Oregon wanted to treat K-State like a little sister of the poor, and K-State said ‘no’.
I’m going by credible sources, e.g. this one.
Credible doesn’t mean infallible, so I’m willing to look at your more credible sources. But your anonymous word won’t do it, nor will this homer blogger, who seems to rely more on cynicism (nobody would be nice enough to not insist on a cancellation fee) than facts.
And you hurt your own credibility by implying that it’s a snap to schedule games with a BCS-quality opponent less than two years in advance.
I think that’s an admirable trait of SEC fans. There’s a lot of pride in the conference, and fellowship and mutual respect that flows from it. I’m a UK fan, we get crushed by Florida every year (and for 25 years in a row), but I’d be rooting for Florida in the Sugar Bowl even if they weren’t playing Louisville.
Bingo. If you want to complain about last year’s All-SEC rematch, that’s fine. But in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007, the SEC team beat a non-SEC contender for the championship, by an average margin of 14 points. So it’s hard to believe that the conference is overrated.
Since it’s not possible for both of them to lose, I hope Alabama beats ND 2-0.
Doctor Who is far and away the most rational SEC fan I’ve encountered online. I hate living under the thumb of SEC tyranny, but the best way to end it is on the field. So I’ll be rooting like mad for Notre Dame (for whom I have no strong feelings one way or another).
It’s actually a good thing that Alabama lucked into this game, because if there was no SEC team in the BCS NCG we would be hearing for another year how they are still really, deep down, you know it to be true…the bestest.
I just checked, and Notre Dame beat 9 bowl-bound teams this year – it would have been 10, but Miami declared themselves bowl-ineligible. I don’t think any other team comes close (Alabama beat 7, and that’s with the benefit of a 13th game). No question that ND deserves to be here.
I disagree that the source you provided is credible. Looking at his article history, he’s at least as much a screaming homer as the author of the link you dismissed.
This thing only became an issue when K-State and Oregon were locked firmly in the title hunt and K-State jumped Oregon in the BCS standings. Oregon blogs started beating the drum loudly that K-State had “backed out,” as if that gave Oregon a moral standing that should place it above K-State in the standings.
But go back and look at what was published on Aug 2, 2010, when the cancellation was announced. The K-State athletic director released a letter that addresses the “mutual agreement with Oregon to cancel that series without any financial penalty to either school.” The Topeka paper reports on the cancellation. The Register-Guard had an article by the reporter you cited above wherein he sneers that of course K-State would cancel under Snyder, but with no source, quote, or cite that it played out that way. Tellingly enough, he also mentions that there are ongoing talks with LSU–talks that obviously began before the cancellation was agreed upon. The Oregon AD released no statement.
Then this year comes along and Oregon bloggers and Rob Moseley start screaming. National outlets passed on as received truth that “K-State backed out.” Chip Kelly was perpetuating the myth, probably because he thought it would sway voters and bump Oregon (and no complaints from me about that–it’s part of a coach’s job in the BCS system). So when Ivan Maisel goes to fact check what he had reported he’s told by the Oregon assistant AD that “when the 2011 Cowboys Classic offered a slot against LSU, Oregon asked Kansas State to reschedule. Kansas State, needing to go to a nine-game Big 12 schedule, said, let’s just call off the home-and-home, and Oregon agreed.”
The 2011 game was the Manhattan game. The 2012 game was the Autzen game.
In short:
Bill Snyder was back as coach at K-State, and while he willingly plays AQ opponents (USC, Miami, etc) his scheduling philosophy absolutely precludes two AQ opponents in the same year.
The Big12 was down to ten teams, resulting in nine conference games instead of eight. Every team in the Big12 had to drop a game from its schedule.
Oregon had a brand new AD from the SEC (Kentucky) who moved quickly to arrange a game against an SEC opponent (LSU) at a neutral site, a very lucrative proposal.
It was in the process of negotiating this new game that Oregon made the first move by asking K-State to reschedule.
It was a win-win. Oregon got to replace a tough road game with a tough (and more lucrative) neutral site game. K-State was able to get its schedule in line with its conference’s new requirements, with the added bonus of getting the schedule in line with the coach’s philosophy.
It wasn’t until the spectre of K-State and Oregon going head-to-head in standings for a shot at the MNC that it became an issue to anyone.
Now it’s become a lie that almost everyone accepts as true. But now, it doesn’t matter.
I consider that a credible source, and I stand corrected.
The thing that sports pundits and SEC partisans don’t seem to understand is that winning the national championship game for 6 years straight DOESN’T MEAN A THING ABOUT THE CURRENT YEAR. Statistically speaking, (A) 6 is too small a sample size and (B) how good a team or a conference was in 2011, 2010, …, 2006 is wholly irrelevant to how good a team or a conference is in 2012.
If the SEC was as good as academic conference as it is a football conference, then they’d understand that. 
GO IRISH.
Since my father grew up Irish catholic during the depression he was always a bit of a Notre Dame fan. I can’t say I’m a big fan but I do have a soft spot in my heart for them. So that’s who I’ll be rooting for. Also because they weren’t even ranked preseason and here they are.
There is no such thing as an academic conference. They’re all athletic.
In and of itself, sure. But if you have an 11-1 Oregon team and a 12-1 Alabama team, the SEC team should get the nod, in part because of the SEC’s recent dominance of the national championship game. They’ve earned the right. Call it a tiebreaker.
No.
Just no.
No, that’s just prejudice, not math. 
