I kinda felt like LSU won the game before it even started when OU suspended all their best defensive players. Even at full strength OU would have had their hands full against LSU and the would have likely given up 40+ points for the game, but with their offense, they might have been able to make it interesting late - that was their most realistic way of beating LSU. But when they lost whatever defense they had, holding Burrow’s attack to under 45 points was much less likely. LSU could have scored 70-75 points tonight if they had needed to.
The winner of OSU and Clemson (looking like OSU right now) will obviously be a much tougher opponent.
How in the hell does Ohio State’s coaching staff allow anyone near the kicker when they’re backed up near their own end zone? That’s on the coaching staff.
The other story is that Clemson’s speed is starting to outmatch OSU’s strength advantage. OSU can’t fall behind by any more than where they’re at now or it’s over.
Yeah, it doesn’t look like it would have made much difference, but for the BCS semis and final, they should have “New York” review controversial plays, and overrule the refs if they turn out to be stupid, blind, and on the take.
I think the first 15 minutes will tell the tale. Can LSU walk on the field and not be in awe of Clemson’s greatness? They passed a similar test this year when they went into Tuscaloosa and dominated Bama. But Bama’s not the same bama; Clemson, OTOH, is the best they’ve ever been.
How in the world would the #1 team in football that’s defeated lots of ranked (many top 10) programs in the SEC be “in awe” of Clemson?
At any rate, I do feel this is a better matchup from a fan’s perspective that is only invested in Burrow as a Bengals fan. It should be a QB matchup for the ages honestly.
Clemson is arguably among the top five greatest college football teams in 125 years of the sport, and that is not hyperbole. What Clemson has accomplished over the last 5 years is something that few programs have ever achieved, particularly when you consider the extra hurdle that teams have to jump over to win a championship. Clemson hasn’t lost a game in 2 effing years, and it’s not like they lost more than 2 in any of the previous 4 years. Over the last few years, Clemson is about as close to the John Wooden UCLA Bruins or Joe Torre NY Yankees of college football as you can get.
LSU knows that Clemson is a different beast. I don’t think they’re in awe of them, but I think that, mentally, they need the first 15 minutes of football to go well more than Clemson does. Clemson knows that they can recover from a deficit. As great as LSU is, they don’t have that knowledge about themselves because they’ve never been tested.
Yeah, but they torched Alabama last year and beat Ohio State this year, too. Clemson hasn’t lost a game since January 2018. And they didn’t lose that many in the 2 years before then. Clemson is “the shit.”
They haven’t looked that bad so far, considering the relative rankings. Unranked UW beat #19 BSU convincingly. USC didn’t look good against Iowa, but Iowa was supposed to win, #16 against #22, with a better record. Wazzu kept it fairly close against Air Force, even though they were 6-6 to AF’s !0-2. And Cal beat UI by 15 with only a slightly better won-loss record. I’d say none of those were big surprises, and the Pac-12 didn’t lose any games it looked like it should have won.
Today we have ASU vs FSU, which is a pickem, and Utah against Texas, which Utah absolutely better win to give the Pac-12 credibility. And tomorrow, Oregon against Wisconsin, #6 vs #8. If Utah and Oregon both lose badly, then I’ll barricade myself in my house and eat ice cream till I pass out.
PS What genius decided unranked, 7-5 Iowa State would make a good match for #15, 10-2 Notre Dame?
Wow, what a horrible last two games for the Utes. I don’t follow them, and I didn’t watch the game, but glancing through the google I don’t see any stories about key players injured or DQd, so this just sucks for the Pac-12. It’s all up to Oregon tomorrow to win back some respect.
My boyfriend’s back, he’s gonna save my reputation…
I couldn’t disagree more. All season people outside of Pac-12 country were saying how poor the Pac-12 is and I live in Pac-12 country and I feel exactly the same way about that. If it’d been up to me only three Pac-12 teams would’ve been extended bowl invitations and after the latest results even that may have been too many.
As another poster put it “B.S.U. didn’t have much motivation as they were hoping to get a Cotton Bowl bid and felt let down after they didn’t get it.” I’m not here to defend B.S.U. (not in the least) but I just don’t think that beating the Mountain West champions is really all that much of an accomplishment if the opponent is from a so-called “Power” conference.
It wasn’t just the score, though. U.S.C. (somehow - I would say, “Because the Pac-12 simply wasn’t that good this year”) went 7 - 2 in conference play and effectively finished in 3rd place in the Pac-12 and then laid an egg against what was, what? The 5th or 6th best team in the B1G? USC rushed for only 22 yards against Iowa; Iowa averaged 20 PPG against B1G competition but scored nearly 50 against USC; and that was the most points given up by USC AND the most lopsided loss by USC in a bowl game since they lost a Rose Bowl in the late 1940s to Michigan, 0 - 49. Not a good showing by the (formerly) formidable Trojans, to say the least.
The moment WSU lost to (pitiful) UCLA after leading the Bruins BY 32 POINTS IN THE 3RD QUARTER (at home, no less!) they should’ve been disqualified from any post-season consideration, in my opinion.
In the old days neither one of those teams would’ve even been given a look in terms of being offered a chance to play in a bowl game.
Were any Pac-12 teams favored in any of their bowls?
I don’t follow college football as closely as I used to but by what I’ve seen on this board it looks like Utah lost, and badly, to so-so Texas.
One down, one to go!
I asked the very same question of some of my buddies via text the day that game was being played. One of them responded, basically, that “despite the relative proximity of the two campuses Notre Dame and I.S.U. had never met on the football field” and “you don’t decline a chance at a bowl game being played in Texas or Florida (i.e. “fertile recruiting territory”) no matter the competition.” I can kinda see his point but, like you, I think that was a poor match-up. A much better one, in my opinion, would’ve been putting the Iowa team that roughed USC up against Notre Dame.
I know I need to get off my own lawn, but I miss the days of New Years Day bowl games that meant something. The playoffs really have made college football less interesting. Plus, once NFL playoffs have started. I’m mentally done with college football.
I couldn’t agree more. That’s one (unfortunate?) by-product of college football having a playoff: it renders all other bowl games - even formerly prestigious ones - pretty much meaningless.
When you’re called “The Conference of Champions” (although I’m not sure how accurate that is these days, unless you’re talking about ALL sports, not just football and men’s basketball) if you’re hanging your hat on a bowl win over a “Group of Five” conference champion, a middling (at BEST) team from a fellow “Power” conference, and a win over a team that has now endured back-to-back losing seasons for the first time in 43 years, then that’s pretty hollow, in my estimation. In my opinion that team from Eugene is the only one that can restore a little pride to the Pac-12 in terms of its football with a win in today’s Rose Bowl (and, personally, I hope they don’t get it).
Plus the explosion of bowl games and the move to ESPN for just about all of them. That makes it hard for cord cutters.
Having the bowls on New Years Day was kind of a nice way to wrap up the holiday season before returning to work or school. Now, having the national championship right after NFL playoffs just seems weird. It seems like going to a Christmas party or NYE party in early January.
Also, maybe I’m nostalgic for going back to school or the office on Jan 2 and having the #1 team arguments most years.