In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports
Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports
The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners
The place to buy, sell or trade tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
And Alabama fans would say yeah and we played:
etc etc every year
and back to square one....
Ok. You win. I got it now. LSU has no advantage playing in New Orleans. Florida gets no advantage playing in Florida. And Texas losing Colt McCoy, their AA QB, had no impact on the outcome. I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks for proving me wrong. I just need to fall in line and start accepting that the SEC is Gods gift to football. I should listen to the media more and just ignore common sense..... Wrong!
Teams can overcome home field or crowd advantages. But it doesn't mean it's not an advantage and "in a close game between equal teams", it can make the difference. Like it did for Florida and LSU. Auburn-Oregon was neutral, Texas lost QB early, everyone but Herbstreit knew Ohio St was overrated and didn't belong in game. I don't remember FSU-Tenn. Point is, SEC has had some luck, some home cooking, and alot of rumors and accusations of improprieties. I'm not drinking the kool aid, so please don't feel the need to convert me. I won't be chanting "SEC" with you anytime soon.
This post was edited by kboz61 2 years ago
Apparently it's Oscar season......
Don't forget that Demarco didn't play in that game.I think he would have made a big difference in the outcome.
You must be saying my post is worthy of an award. I appreciate the sentiment, but really, anyone sitting in the Super Dome or at the Orange Bowl against Florida would tell you the same thing.
Before 1936* there was no recognized National Champion. Obviously, almost 40 years of college football had already been played by that time, and many teams had great years, and at times undefeated seasons.
Some teams (including Alabama), just took what their newspaper headlines, or some local sports writer said as fact when they were referred to a 'National Champions.' (Pitt is another school that did the same).
Most schools however were not so presumptuous and until 1936 no one seriously claimed the title of National Champions. However, in the game of can you top this? Some schools now go back into the dark archives of football history and display these long past titles on their stadiums and in their press guides.
I guess you could make an argument for doing so, but then it gets down to the qualifications and objectives of the various 'nominators,' (some who had little credibility at all).
For example, if we were still under the same system, Robert Allen would have likely declared OSU 'National Champions' this year and no doubt thousands of Cowboys would embrace the title and forever claim it as legitimate.
But, thank goodness, that's not how it's done anymore.
*1936 -- first AP football poll,
This post was edited by BBishop 2 years ago
You might not appreciate the sentiment if you knew which award your post is worthy of.....
Do you have anything to back up what you are saying besides the the stale textbook anti-SEC agenda or the worn out "you must be at the opposite extreme if you don't agree with me" tactic? There;s just no real reason to beleive for even a minute that the OU/Florida game or the OU/LSU game would have turned out differently had they been played in Pasadena or Phoenix.
It's just an excuse.
What could I ever say to possibly enlighten you? You don't believe LSU benefitted from playing 45 miles from their campus! I just hope you have nothing to do with scheduling our games. You think it is just an excuse. OK. I guess Vegas doesn't know what they are doing setting odds then. I'm through arguing about it though, because quite honestly, whats the point? We'll just have to disagree. I can sure live with that. BTW...to be accurate, I never said we lost because we played in New Orleans. I merely pointed out that it was a big advantage for LSU. You can call it an excuse. I call it a fact. I would say the same thing about us if we played them in Tulsa.
Any benefit that received was miniscule. Alabama can tell you all about it.
While I agree that there's no changing history, I believe that if OU/LSU had played in another venue, LSU and Saban wouldn't have cheated and had spies watching OU's practices and OU could've/would've won. Among several other things that didn't go well for OU in that game, e.g. White's injuries, the pro-LSU crowd, Wilson's reluctance to continue to run the ball in the 4th qtr, etc., I think that probably had an impact.
I was going to let it end, but then I read this. I about died laughing. Do you remember posting it?
"Yes, I like that we are going to UTEP. For all of the players who will be contributors in 2012 that were not contributors previously the experience of travelling and playing in an environment other than the comforts of home is important. Our youngsters will get a chance to experience an away game against a lightweight opponent before having to travel to Lubbock where we have struggled the past 3 trips. Those road games will also help OU's players be more prepared to play in the RRS since the absence oif the comforts of home will not be unusual for any of them. "
What's that? Why is it important to learn to play outside the "comforts" of home? Seems you are saying there is a difference playing on the road afterall. I guess the difference is only "miniscule" to you when it is an SEC team getting the advantage. Too dang funny.
When a game is played at niether team's home stadium, playing away from the comforts of home is something both teams have to deal with. They basically offset unless one of the teams has a lot of players who have never experienced it before, which can be an issue early in the season. By the time the teams in any NCG take the field, they have already played all the road or neutral site games on their schedule.
Did you even think about what you posted before writing it, or were you just in too much of a rush to try and get in a "gotcha" post?
You're grasping at straws and you missed.
Who didn't think about what they posted?
"When a game is played at niether team's home stadium, playing away from the comforts of home is something both teams have to deal with. They basically offset unless one of the teams has a lot of players who have never experienced it before, which can be an issue early in the season."
What a load of garbage. Now you try to claim it only matters early in year because you were caught saying it mattered where they play. I am not sure why it is so hard for you to admit that it is an advantage for a team like LSU to play in New Orleans. Ask Stoops if he'd rather play LSU in Tulsa or New Orleans? According to you, it doesn't matter. Right! Tell me again who is not thinking. You better stay clear of Vegas.
I claim it is an issue early in the year because that is when new players are getting their first taste of playing away from home. By the end of the year, those same players have played away from home 5 or 6 times. Are you actually trying to argue that newer players do not gain any experience from the 5 or 6 games they play away from home during the season?
I find it rather humorous that you went and pulled a post of mine from another thread to use as an example and within that post I was talking about true road games and the RRS, which has a 50/50 split for each teams' fans.
No reason to beleive the outcome would have been any different if the game had been in Tulsa. LSU was the better team that day.
Any advantage is miniscule. To say otherwise is just to regurgitate a lame excuse. LSU was playing in New Orleans last month and failed to even score agaisnt a team it had already beaten.
you still have not offered anything but insinuation to back up what you are trying to say. Your whole argument is basically that for LSU or Florida to play in a NCG in their home state is a significant advantage because you say it is. Meanwhile, the win/loss records say otherwise.
Not arguing your point but I am under the impression that tickets are sold to both programs attending the game. So there is a fair estimate that the stadium is or should be 50/50. However, I get your point of LSU playing basically a home game. I also think that USC loosing to Texas in the NC game was in the favor of USC if we were to use your logic. Good teams win no matter where they are at IMO.
For the last decade or so the SEC has dominated the NC game in appearance I think. There is just no way around that fact. The only way for programs to change that gripe is you have to beat them plain and simple. I don't think the system is set up for them to win. I think the physical style of play along with outstanding recruiting (however they get that done) in that conference allows for stronger teams in the NC game. IMO only...
Yeah, it must stink to have your own words burn you no matter how you try to spinout. I did not say RRR was advantage to anyone. I laughed at you commenting OU needed to gain experience on the road because you claimed ad neaseum that it didn't matter. Now it matters early in year apparently, but not later. I say it always matters. Also, because a road team wins a game does not mean it was not an advantage for the loser. Lookup "advantage" in dictionary since you don't seem to know what it means. It means some odds swing in their favor. Notice it does not guarantee victory. You claim because some road teams win, that proves it doesn't matter where it is played. Nonsense, and apparently Vegas agrees with me since it affects the spread. So there goes the "just because I say so" argument. I guess you think Arkansas and Alabama must be the most benevolent teams ever. They used to actually give away home games to play at "neutral" sites. They played "neutral" games in Little Rock and Birminham where they sacrificed their home field advantage for only a minuscule advantage. That was so brave of them.
My initial point was there are a lot of factors why SEC has won, including the advantage of sometimes having home crowds in stadiums much closer to campus. I was at the LSU SB and Florida OB. Those were decidedly pro-LSU and Florida crowds. Nowhere near 50-50. I said in close games with evenly matched teams, that the crowd can make a difference. I would love to have played those games in KC. I would have thought that was pretty much common sense. But apparently, claiming the SEC has any advantage rubs some the wrong way. Apparently, not even losing an AA QB was any advantage to Alabama. Just an excuse. On that, I guess I differ from a few but I would bet the majority agrees with me.
While you were laughing you apparently missed where I made it clear that playing those early games away from home was important for NEW PLAYERS who had never done so before. I never said OU needed to gain experience, I said it would be good for OU's NEW PLAYERS to gain experience. That's a rather large distinction.
If we were talking about one instance, maybe you'd be correct, but we're not. If the "road" teams manage to go 3-3 in the 6 games that fit this discussion (OU/USC can also fit since we had such a huge crowd advantage, but I digress) it strongly disputes any claim that the "home" teams had anything more tyhan a miniscule advantage. If you include the OU/USC game, where we had a much larger share of the audience than USC, then the teams with the "advantage" are actually 3-4. That's not a very good record for teams who you claim to have a large advantage.
The AA QB was playing when the game started. Bama knocked him out of the game. That's not an "advantage". That's football. Their defense put a hit on the QB and he had to sit down. It's not like he got hurt in practice the week before the game. Team's need to protect their QB. Texass didn't.
I'm still laughing. It must be hard for you to place bets since you have to figure out who has the most NEW players. I'll stick to my belief that home field matters. You stick to your belief that NEW players matter and we can go our seperate ways. I'm a little tired arguing the same point anyway. It's been fun though. I wouldn't want you to place any bets for me but you could be my lawyer.
That doesn't even make sense.
That's all well and good, but playing teams on their own home field is not what we've been talking about. Are you altering the topic?
Hey, we agree. You make no sense.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports