In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1736
Online now 1498 Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap 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.
Article about why USC was "screwed" by being dropped to number two. Article makes no sense, especially since Bama beat a top ten team just as bad as USC beat an unranked team, no surprise UA jumped them, besides its week 1. Then you see it was written by a barner and you understand why it makes no sense. Haha, you mad bro?
I watched The Experts on ESPN last night and all 4 or 5 of the experts, two of which played for USC if I remember correctly, seemed to agree that there was absolutely no basis for having USC preseason #1. If anything this is a course correction.
This post was edited by GooPhi 19 months ago
That's a nice catch. It's funny that even some of the USC fans were calling him out for just being a bama hater.
Bama is the one that got screwed by not being #1 to begin with.
I can't believe they published what was basically an " I don't think Alabama should be number one because I'm an Awbarn fan" article....talk about unprofessional
Bleacher report.....Enough said....
My thoughts exactly, but maybe being snubbed removed a possible distraction from the team during the offseason.
This post was edited by bamadvm 19 months ago
It's a user submitted site. They are not a "professional" media outlet.
God, give me patience today. If given strength I may beat someone to death.
I realize it is BR, but I will respond any way and also ask how this guy is a "featured columnist":
(1) "Polls are simply a way of judging a team’s progression before the release of the BCS standings"--so once we start making progress to the BCS release we are not to ever change our opinion? Because that is what he is saying. Voters formed a new judgment about Alabama based off playing a quality team. They said we were underrated. Under his logic, as long as you don't lose, the rankings don't change from pre-season, which is what screwed Auburn in 2004.
(2) "the offense did just enough to get by"--that offense scored 34 points which would have netted us a 20 point win over a quality team at a neutral site. (not against a WAC team that hasn't been good since Colt was their QB back 5 or 6 years ago under June Jones...at home).
(3) A.J. McCarron didn’t do anything to separate himself from the rest of the signal-callers in the game.--don't think he was asked to (just like USC probably didn't go to a grind it out strategy). And what does this have to do with anything. So should UT be #2 because Bray looked so good at QB and that is the only important position according to this guy.
(4) That makes the point that there is no apparent reason for the Crimson Tide to have taken such a leap over the Trojans in the second release of the AP poll.--wait, so there is no difference between Michigan and Hawaii??????
(5) There is a lot of football left to be played, but as it stands today, the Trojans got screwed in the latest AP poll. After all, they couldn't help who they drew in Week 1.--the dumbest comment in the article. Last time I checked Hawaii isn't in the Pac 12, so yes they can help who they draw week 1. USC I am pretty sure (about 100%) has the power to schedule 3 teams outside their conference, Hawaii being one of them.
Barners gonna barn...
Dude, everyone's a 'featured columnist". Almost all of them are hacks, especially the Auburn ones (Kevin McGrady is always good for a laugh). Don't get me started on the guy who called us "pretenders" and FSU "contenders" last year, then claimed that it was obvious "to everyone not enamored with Nole love" that they were phonies after dropping three straight.
This post was edited by macamatic 19 months ago
Didn't realize that. I mean I knew they weren't top level, but thought they were a little more picky about who was a "featured columnist" and that sort of thing. Thanks for the info.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports