LSU 9 - Bama 6 or Georgia 44 - LSU 41?

I'd pick 44-41.

I guess the latter. Who doesn't love a back and forth shoot out?

Why is it that a poorly played football game is interesting, but a poorly played baseball game is inauspicious?

I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

(09-30-2013 03:05 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  LSU 9 - Bama 6 or Georgia 44 - LSU 41?

I'd pick 44-41.

I liked the Bama 9-6 win better of course, but I did enjoy the 44-41 score. It is rare to see a game where both QB's are on their A game...

I keep reading and/or hear people asking this question and I honestly don't understand it at all?

I want to see a well played game, the score is almost immaterial. If it's a good 44-41 game, I'll take that. However, I will also take a well played 9-6 game. That said, everyone here understands that not all shootouts - or slugfests - are created equal.

I am a Pitt fan and just last weekend I watched Pitt and Duke each stumble and bumble their way to a 58-55 nightmare of a game and that wasn't fun to watch at all even though my team won.

This week, Pitt beat Virginia 14-3 in a game in which neither team did anything on offense for the entire 60 minutes. Both of Pitt's touchdowns came as a result of ridiculously stupid decisions by UVA players that each led to turnovers deep in their own territory. That wasn't very fun to watch either.

Watching two teams fail to tackle anyone can be just as frustrating to watch as two teams failing to block the other.

Last year at this time I watched West Virginia beat Baylor, 70-63. Oh, people had out the K-Y for that one. "It was amazing!," they proclaimed. "It was incredible," others bloviated.

In truth, it was an absolutely horrible display of defensive football by two teams that couldn't stop anyone all season long.

Let me put it this way; I didn't come out of that game thinking more highly of either team. I came out of it thinking, "Wow! RGIII benefitted greatly from that system and may well be extremely overrated and WVU is WAAAAAAAY more vulnerable than I had imagined them to be."

So far, I think my impressions were right on both counts. WVU's O eventually stopped scoring and their D never did find a way to stop anyone. For his part, RGIII has many more endorsements than accomplishments so far as an NFL player.

I just miss the days when the Heisman Trophy and other major awards typically went to exceptional players, not mediocre players who happened to play in cosmetically enhanced "systems" as we have seen over and over again in recent years in the form of guys like Jason White, Sam Bradford and Johnny Manziel.

It's not about scores or stats, it's about the game. If I just wanted to watch gratuitous offense for gratuitous offense's sake, I'd watch the Arena League or some bush league nonsense like that.

Agreed doc...the WVU/Baylor game last year was unwatchable. My 7 year old son calls better defensive schemes on playstation...

I like to see some scoring but within reason. It needs to be based on nice plays, not bad defense. A nice fade pass to the back of the endzone just over the outstretched arms of the defender for a TD. A one-handed grab in traffic. A QB on the run zipping a ball to a WR on the sideline who drags his feet in bounds for the completion and first down. Not throwing a TD to a WR with no defenders within 10 yards.

My problem with the Alabama-LSU match up wasn't the score. My problem with it was that it did not determine whom the better team was. LSU had already beaten Alabama once that year but then Alabama beat them and won the National Championship for that win. Alabama was only 1-1 versus LSU that year but they got to be Champions.

The Score is immaterial. Defensive match ups can be just as exciting as offensive duels.

(09-30-2013 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

I like to see nice scores on the offense and defense... great defensive play can lead to some extra scoring. A few INT's that put you around the 20 and in position to score? OR maybe some pick 6's, some forced fumbles...interesting stuff!

(09-30-2013 03:05 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  LSU 9 - Bama 6 or Georgia 44 - LSU 41?

I'd pick 44-41.

SECond to none football conference is known for physical offense (we will push you all over the field) and good D ( thank God if you score a TD). Consequently, I would prefer to see SEC schools play good D and physical football than letting each other fling the ball all over the field. However, 9-6 is to low and 44-41 is too high. A 24-21 score is a very good SEC game in my opinion because each team would earn every point. Georgia and LSU looked like Georgia St and Louisiana Tech playing each other—that wasn’t SECond to none football (it was touch football, and the refs let a lot of touching go on during that game)….

(09-30-2013 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

It's more entertaining when there is a lot of scoring.

But you're also implying "piss poor defensive" when maybe its very good offense.

(09-30-2013 11:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

I like to see nice scores on the offense and defense... great defensive play can lead to some extra scoring. A few INT's that put you around the 20 and in position to score? OR maybe some pick 6's, some forced fumbles...interesting stuff!

I thoroughly enjoyed WVU's 30-21 win over OSU, even with all the mistakes on offense and defense. IMO you guys are arguing over nothing. If it's a close game, the fans will love it, whether it's 3-2 or 70-63...

(10-01-2013 10:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 11:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

I like to see nice scores on the offense and defense... great defensive play can lead to some extra scoring. A few INT's that put you around the 20 and in position to score? OR maybe some pick 6's, some forced fumbles...interesting stuff!

I thoroughly enjoyed WVU's 30-21 win over OSU, even with all the mistakes on offense and defense. IMO you guys are arguing over nothing. If it's a close game, the fans will love it, whether it's 3-2 or 70-63...

I'm more impressed with WV’s D this year than the Offense last year. In fact, many college football commentators have taken notice of WV’s D.

(09-30-2013 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

With up tempo offenses and higher pass/run ratios 44-41 is the new 20-14. That might be extreme, but certainly a combined 60-70 points could still mean decent defenses were playing.

UCF - USC was 28-25 and both those teams have pretty good defenses and play a ball control game relative to most of CFB. If it wasn't so sloppy (8 turnovers! Of which only 1 or 2 really resulted in points) it probably would have been a total around 70. In that game 18 out of 26 drives didn't result in points and the total was still over 50.

(10-01-2013 10:49 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I prefer 20-14 type games... Both extremes aren't entertaining to me. I'm fascinated on how people just love to watch piss poor defensive games and call it football.

With up tempo offenses and higher pass/run ratios 44-41 is the new 20-14. That might be extreme, but certainly a combined 60-70 points could still mean decent defenses were playing.

UCF - USC was 28-25 and both those teams have pretty good defenses and play a ball control game relative to most of CFB. If it wasn't so sloppy (8 turnovers! Of which only 1 or 2 really resulted in points) it probably would have been a total around 70. In that game 18 out of 26 drives didn't result in points and the total was still over 50.

UCF should have won that game.... However, it wasn't about to put up 40+ points on SC's D. In fact, when SC decided to play physical football the SECond half, it pushed UCF’s D all over the field. If SC had played that kind of football the entire game, it probably would have blown UCF out. Likewise, UCF had speed and would have gotten into the 30s with an up-tempo no huddle offense. Nevertheless, if both teams had played to their strengths the entire game, SECond to none football would have prevailed in my opinion....

Btw… Let us not forget that SC lost its starting QB in the first half of the game and still won on the road by playing SEC football the second half…..

(10-01-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Btw… Let us not forget that SC lost its starting QB in the first half of the game and still won on the road by playing SEC football the second half…..

Honestly, it was a blessing in disguise that their started went down. It forced them to switch from the spread/west coast offense they've been playing with him in the game (an offense UCF schemes heavily against, because they see it a lot) to a more old school SEC/pro style offense (power running + the deep threat). UCF was too slow to adjust with personnel and scheme.

(09-30-2013 05:35 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I want to see a well played game, the score is almost immaterial. If it's a good 44-41 game, I'll take that. However, I will also take a well played 9-6 game. That said, everyone here understands that not all shootouts - or slugfests - are created equal.

This is true. It is hard to explain but when you watch you can tell the difference between good offense and bad defense. Likewise you can tell the difference between good defense and bad offense.

Now all that said, I am not sure this game was an example of good offense. It looked like a lot fo bad defense. It baffled me how LSU could have this monster pass rush every other play, then pull back and have a three man line as though the D. coordinator had scripted out the plays and was not actually paying attention to what was working and what did not. Georgia's defense just didn't play well at all.

The only bone of contention I have with a game like this is when these teams play a game like this, it is called great offense (it really wasn't). When Louisville and West Virginia played this game on the big national TV stage on a Thursday night, when both were playing different styles of great offense, and it was called "bad football with no defense." Mind you those two teams combined to put about 20-25 offensive players and a coach in the NFL - not total players but just OFFENSIVE players - but it was called bad defense.

The double standard kills me.

(09-30-2013 07:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  My problem with the Alabama-LSU match up wasn't the score. My problem with it was that it did not determine whom the better team was. LSU had already beaten Alabama once that year but then Alabama beat them and won the National Championship for that win. Alabama was only 1-1 versus LSU that year but they got to be Champions.

I wouldn't say it didn't determine who the better team was. You have to remember in that 9-6 game, Alabama missed three field goals from 44 yards, 50 yards, and 52 yards in OT. (a fourth one was blocked which is a credit to the defense). In 3 attempts, even though not chip shots, you expect at least one of those to go in. LSU did not miss any. Now this does not mean Alabama should be credited with a win or anything, but when you consider the lopsided score of the championship game, and the somewhat flukish win in the regular season of an evenly matched game, with having to choose, I think it's easy to make the case that Alabama was the better team of the two.

Now you can make a far better case that Oklahoma State was the more deserving team to be in that spot. No argument here. But between the two, Alabama proved itself to be superior.

(10-01-2013 11:53 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 11:43 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Btw… Let us not forget that SC lost its starting QB in the first half of the game and still won on the road by playing SEC football the second half…..

Honestly, it was a blessing in disguise that their started went down. It forced them to switch from the spread/west coast offense they've been playing with him in the game (an offense UCF schemes heavily against, because they see it a lot) to a more old school SEC/pro style offense (power running + the deep threat). UCF was too slow to adjust with personnel and scheme.

Your right…. Spurrier was interviewed at halftime and admitted that he needed to run the ball more (play physical SEC football). Consequently, SC ran all over UCF the second half. If SC had played that type of football the first half, UCF would have been blown out (as much as it pains me to admit it). Spurrier might not have changed his offense if the starting QB was still in the game….