Don't be surprised if all the playoff talk suddenly dies now

After a 21-0 rout the media and BCS apologists will now say that the system worked exactly as intended. The best two teams were matched up, and the better team won in convincing fashion. ESPN got the rematch they wanted, and their golden child won big, so I'd expect to see articles and stories along these lines soon.

 

DING DING DING DING. We have a winner.

GEAUX TIGERS

 

Not so. Mike and Mike this morning both called for playoffs and were very, very kind to Miles and LSU.

 

I'm more interested in what the big-time college football writers/analysts will say. Guys like Schlabach, Maisel, Mandel, May, etc. Herbie may not climb out onto that ledge after being one of the more vocal playoff proponents before the game.

 

Fair enough. The "College Football Playoff Debate" is not of great interest to me at the moment, in any event.

My main concern right now is whether LSU football can learn from its mistakes and make the necessary improvements that will lead to progress.

 

I didn't listen, and plan on avoiding any non-LSU related media in the near future. That said, interesting that Mike and Mike are going against the (as in their) company line.

:geauxtige

 

First of all, I think teams like Stanford and Ok. State would disagree that the two best teams got to play. In a year when the Big 12 conference was considered the best conference, a conference-champion, one loss Ok. State was denied the chance to play in favor of a one-loss Alabama team that didn't win its conference in what was a down year for the SEC. With the way LSU played, Stanford and Ok State probably would have beaten LSU too- the defense wouldn't have shut out LSU like Alabama did but the offenses would have scored more points against LSU.

And, I don't see how you could argue this matchup was what ESPN wanted. Do you really think ESPN or the rest of the country wanted to see two southern schools replay each other, when the first game was a defensive snooze fest? Just in terms of ratings, the viewership was 8% less than last year. Why would ESPN want a matchup that gave them lower ratings?

ESPN would have preferred a match-up like Ok State or Stanford vs. LSU or Alabama, offense vs. defense. Or, on a regional basis, another team from a different region than two southern schools playing each other. In terms of star power, how about Andrew Luck vs the LSU or Alabama defense?

 

ESPN campaigned for a rematch as soon as LSU kicked the winning OT field goal, with Herbie and Urban Meyer both calling for one, and Tracy Wolfson of CBS asking Les about one as soon as the game ended. ESPN is the network that spent a solid week prior to Bedlam proclaiming that the game didn't matter, because they had already decided Bama was the 2nd best team. Ditto for CBS and Gary Danielson.

ESPN allowed Nick Saban to blatantly politick for his team on GameDay on a national platform that every Harris Poll voter would see, while Gundy was busy playing OU. Their in-house BCS expert told anyone who would listen that there was no way Okie State or Stanford would ever jump Bama to grab the #2 spot, though it was definitely a plausible scenario.

So given all this, you tell me what ESPN wanted. You'll have to ask them why they pushed it, but the fact that they did so is undeniable. I don't think they ever anticipated the curb-stomping Okie State gave OU, and IMO overestimated their audience's desire to see a defense-heavy rematch.

 

Nah, a playoff is more likely than ever.

 

This is what ESPN wanted

Changes likely in store for BCS system | NOLA.com

Anyway you cut it, ESPN now controls college football.