PDA

View Full Version : BCS blather



Pages : [1] 2

Roy Tucker
11-21-2011, 04:57 PM
To roll a grenade into the room....

I'd love to see LSU lose to Arkansas or the SEC championship game and see the BCS system get throw into an absolute tizz and hear what the BCS apologists have to say.

Even if LSU wins out, coming up with the 2nd team will be hard. If LSU loses, Katy bar the door.

dabvu2498
11-21-2011, 05:00 PM
An SEC rematch is almost inevitable at this point. Sad to say.

dougdirt
11-21-2011, 05:24 PM
An SEC rematch is almost inevitable at this point. Sad to say.

That all depends on Arkansas and LSU this weekend, then the SEC championship game doesn't it?

bucksfan2
11-21-2011, 05:37 PM
I think you will have a strong push to get Oklahoma State in the game if they beat OU. I don't think the country wants to see another LSU Alabama game, especially since the first one redefined titanic struggle. If Arkansas beats LSU I can see them jumping to the #1 spot with LSU second and Alabama 3rd. I realize Bama beat them but college football is a what have you done for me lately.

I think there will be a strong push from the voters not to put a rematch, especially a same conference rematch, in the title game. And I think the voters may be a little sympathetic to OSU losing the same night as a tragic plane crash.

medford
11-21-2011, 05:48 PM
Imagine Arkansas beats LSU in a tight one, then losses on the SEC championship game and LSU plays Alabama for the title, while neither won neither their own division nor championship.

Frankly, this isn't the BCS' fault, its the fault of the B10, Pac12, ACC & B12 for failing to field a team fails to capture BCS title aspirations.

Short of a playoff, I'd be in favor of scrapping the whole system, going back to the way it used to be, with a ton of games on New Year's day, you're big ol' big ones like the rose bowl, sugar bowl, Orange Bowl, etc... Then maybe, just maybe, a national title game to follow a couple of weeks later between the top 2 teams at that point.

Caveat Emperor
11-21-2011, 05:57 PM
Frankly, this isn't the BCS' fault, its the fault of the B10, Pac12, ACC & B12 for failing to field a team fails to capture BCS title aspirations.

Stanford, Okie State, Boise State, VA Tech, and Houston? If anything, the system is revealing its natural bias towards the SEC.

dabvu2498
11-21-2011, 06:08 PM
Imagine Arkansas beats LSU in a tight one, then losses on the SEC championship game and LSU plays Alabama for the title, while neither won neither their own division nor championship.



Technically, LSU, Arkansas and Alabama would be co-West Division champs.

medford
11-21-2011, 06:16 PM
Stanford, Okie State, Boise State, VA Tech, and Houston? If anything, the system is revealing its natural bias towards the SEC.

IMHO, none of those teams really scream "great" to me. Stanford maybe, Okie State plays little defense, Boise just kind of seems OK aside from a great QB, VTech just seems kind of blah, has Houston played anyone?

Perhaps its always been this way, I know the season OSU lost to Louisianna was very similar to this one. OSU shouldn't have been anywhere near a BCS title game, but apparently nobody else did either and they kind of were the last man standing on a team that was just "ok" Maybe most years are like that, which is my problem with the BCS. Outside of the title game, the other games are just for "show". Short of a playoff, I'd rather go back to the old system, then have a +1 of the top 2 teams after that.

Natural bias towards the SEC? I'm no SEC honk, I'm an OSU fan, but they've won the last 5 national titles and are the front runners for a 6th straight. They've done that w/ what, 4 different teams? (Florida x2, Bama, Auburn & LSU) They've knocked off the top team from the B10 x2, the B12 x2, and the P10. Over a period when the ACC & Big East have pretty well sucked at either the top or overall (or both in some years), an SEC team has knocked off a team from the best that the other power conferences could throw at them. I don't know if the SEC plays the BCS "game" the way the Big East used to play the RPI "game" in basketball to inflate their resume's better than other conferences, but I do know when its mattered most over the last 5 years, they've proven they're the best. They've shown its not just 1 team propping up a conference, but a handful of teams that can ascend to the top. The SEC has earned the respect they're getting on the football field.

medford
11-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Technically, LSU, Arkansas and Alabama would be co-West Division champs.

For sure? I don't know, I know in the B10, at least up until this year, they would be, does the SEC give that title the same way, or do they give it just the team that represents in the SEC championship game? At either rate, none of the 3 would be crowned conference champ.

dabvu2498
11-21-2011, 06:20 PM
Stanford, Okie State, Boise State, VA Tech, and Houston? If anything, the system is revealing its natural bias towards the SEC.

Right or wrong, it's going to come down to comparing losses and non-conference schedules.

I don't think LSU loses in the next 2 weeks and assuming Bama beats Auburn (somewhat convincingly), I don't think any of the other one loss teams has the "resume" to match up with Bama's.

Also, upon further analysis, it's unlikely Arkansas plays in the SEC Championship game, unless they blow out LSU.

dabvu2498
11-21-2011, 06:22 PM
For sure? I don't know, I know in the B10, at least up until this year, they would be, does the SEC give that title the same way, or do they give it just the team that represents in the SEC championship game? At either rate, none of the 3 would be crowned conference champ.

If there is a 3-way tie in the division, the team ranked highest in the BCS standings gets to play in the SEC Championship.

Joseph
11-21-2011, 06:28 PM
An SEC rematch is almost inevitable at this point. Sad to say.

Whats sad about it? If they are the best, thats what everyone wants right?

dabvu2498
11-21-2011, 06:37 PM
Whats sad about it? If they are the best, thats what everyone wants right?

I was hoping at least one other team would "step up" (hate that cliche) and make their case to be #2.

I don't enjoy wars of attrition. (Like when LSU last won it.)

medford
11-21-2011, 06:37 PM
If there is a 3-way tie in the division, the team ranked highest in the BCS standings gets to play in the SEC Championship.

I get that, but does the SEC declare them co-division champions? I know in the B10, at least prior to this year, if two teams ended up with the same record, even if one beat the other, they'd both be declared B10 champs, no matter who goes to the Rose Bowl

dabvu2498
11-21-2011, 06:44 PM
I get that, but does the SEC declare them co-division champions? I know in the B10, at least prior to this year, if two teams ended up with the same record, even if one beat the other, they'd both be declared B10 champs, no matter who goes to the Rose Bowl

Yes.

http://sec.xosdigitallabs.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/134195/sec-divisional-tie-breaker.aspx


In the event of a tie for the division championship, the following procedures will be used to break all ties to determine the SEC Football Championship Game representative.

gonelong
11-21-2011, 07:02 PM
I'm for a playoff where the BCS conferences each send a representative, and the last 2 two teams are the highest ranked BCS teams that are not automatically sent. This allows a second school from a top conference to get in and also gives the TCU/Boise State/Houston a shot at getting in.

First round is a home game at the top 4 BCS ranked schools that are auto qualifyers. This means some games could be played in snow or very, very cold weather. (Yes!)

The semi-final is a rotation of the 2 of the 4 big bowl games, and the final is rotated amon the Big4 bowl games..

The odd-man-out of big bowl games gets their pick of the at large teams that year.

This makes the whole season a playoff. Win your conference championship and you go, otherwise it's off to a bowl game. If you can't win your conference, you don't get to go (unless you make one of the 2 at large bids). Each conference gets a shot at the big trophy and the little guys get a fighting shot at it as well.

If you are not of the top 8, you go play the bowls as we always have. People will still travel, people will still watch.

It's not a big burden on the kids, they would have played a bowl game anyways, only 4 school will play more than 1 post-season game.

The first 4 games would sell out no problem. I suspect it wouldn't be an issue to sell out the last 3 games (2 semi-final) either.

Not perfect, but does address some of the "deal breakers". The big losers might be the 4 big bowls, so this probably never happens.

GL

RBA
11-21-2011, 07:10 PM
Southern California looks pretty good. ;)

top6
11-21-2011, 07:11 PM
I'm for a playoff where the BCS conferences each send a representative, and the last 2 two teams are the highest ranked BCS teams that are not automatically sent. This allows a second school from a top conference to get in and also gives the TCU/Boise State/Houston a shot at getting in.

First round is a home game at the top 4 BCS ranked schools that are auto qualifyers. This means some games could be played in snow or very, very cold weather. (Yes!)

The semi-final is a rotation of the 2 of the 4 big bowl games, and the final is rotated amon the Big4 bowl games..

The odd-man-out of big bowl games gets their pick of the at large teams that year.

This makes the whole season a playoff. Win your conference championship and you go, otherwise it's off to a bowl game. If you can't win your conference, you don't get to go (unless you make one of the 2 at large bids). Each conference gets a shot at the big trophy and the little guys get a fighting shot at it as well.

If you are not of the top 8, you go play the bowls as we always have. People will still travel, people will still watch.

It's not a big burden on the kids, they would have played a bowl game anyways, only 4 school will play more than 1 post-season game.

The first 4 games would sell out no problem. I suspect it wouldn't be an issue to sell out the last 3 games (2 semi-final) either.

Not perfect, but does address some of the "deal breakers". The big losers might be the 4 big bowls, so this probably never happens.

GL

I support basically this plan, except I would have the first round of the 8-team playoff take place the weekend after conference championship games (at the home stadium of the higher seeded teams, as you suggest), or otherwise take place in early December. Then the 4 losers can still play in traditional bowl games.

The 4 winners can play two playoff games on New Years Day, and you can give those games to traditional bowls (rotating between the big bowls, I guess, if you have to, again as you suggest). The championship game would be a week later, which is when it is now anyway. You could even have the 3rd and 4th place team play a consolidation bowl the day before. Again, that game could also be given to a traditional bowl.

It's hard to see any loser in this scenario.

medford
11-21-2011, 07:44 PM
I'm for a playoff where the BCS conferences each send a representative, and the last 2 two teams are the highest ranked BCS teams that are not automatically sent. This allows a second school from a top conference to get in and also gives the TCU/Boise State/Houston a shot at getting in.

First round is a home game at the top 4 BCS ranked schools that are auto qualifyers. This means some games could be played in snow or very, very cold weather. (Yes!)

The semi-final is a rotation of the 2 of the 4 big bowl games, and the final is rotated amon the Big4 bowl games..

The odd-man-out of big bowl games gets their pick of the at large teams that year.

This makes the whole season a playoff. Win your conference championship and you go, otherwise it's off to a bowl game. If you can't win your conference, you don't get to go (unless you make one of the 2 at large bids). Each conference gets a shot at the big trophy and the little guys get a fighting shot at it as well.

If you are not of the top 8, you go play the bowls as we always have. People will still travel, people will still watch.

It's not a big burden on the kids, they would have played a bowl game anyways, only 4 school will play more than 1 post-season game.

The first 4 games would sell out no problem. I suspect it wouldn't be an issue to sell out the last 3 games (2 semi-final) either.

Not perfect, but does address some of the "deal breakers". The big losers might be the 4 big bowls, so this probably never happens.

GL

Actually, I'd take 1 step further, include the top 12 BCS teams, or perhaps some combination of conference winners, plus the next highest BCS ranked teams. Top 4 get a bye week 1, while 9-12 play at 5-8. The winners play the following week at 1-4. Then give me 2 semi-finals at a neutral site, then a championship game the week before the super bowl. How do you work the bowl games into that scenerio? I don't know, I guess I don't care too much, perhaps schedule is such that round 2 is on/around Jan 1, then have a bunch of games the week b/w the 1st round and the 2nd round for teams that didn't qualify.

wolfboy
11-21-2011, 11:45 PM
This means some games could be played in snow or very, very cold weather. (Yes!)

I agree with what you've typed up except for this part. Watching bowl games on t.v. in the snow would be great. Unfortunately, it's a hard sell to 80,000 fans (including this one) to travel north for a bowl game. One bad snowstorm could make bowl season hell.

Captain Hook
11-22-2011, 12:10 AM
So Alabama is rooting for LSU to beat Arkansas so they(Alabama) don't win their division because if they did win their division they'd have to play in the SEC championship game and win in order to play for a National Championship.Just finish second guys and your in the National Championship Game!!!

MWM
11-22-2011, 12:38 AM
Will be interesting to see how people's opinions come out this time. Back in 2006, the choruses from the SEC crowd were that a team should not play for the national championship if they didn't win their conference. We also heard a lot of "they had their chance" so why should they get another one. If those who cried that in 2006 are consistent they will argue against a second SEC team in the title game.

gonelong
11-22-2011, 12:49 AM
I agree with what you've typed up except for this part. Watching bowl games on t.v. in the snow would be great. Unfortunately, it's a hard sell to 80,000 fans (including this one) to travel north for a bowl game. One bad snowstorm could make bowl season hell.


Not bowl games. Home games. Zero problem selling them out when the home team is a top4 team or won their conference. Weather is not a factor for the home team or their fans, just the visitors.

dabvu2498
11-22-2011, 01:58 AM
Will be interesting to see how people's opinions come out this time. Back in 2006, the choruses from the SEC crowd were that a team should not play for the national championship if they didn't win their conference. We also heard a lot of "they had their chance" so why should they get another one. If those who cried that in 2006 are consistent they will argue against a second SEC team in the title game.

Who is more deserving this time around?

I certainly don't want a rematch, but it's a tough sell for me to think that any of the other one loss teams would measure up to what Alabama has done thusfar.

KronoRed
11-22-2011, 03:09 AM
The BCS should have fixed this way back in 03 when Oklahoma got into the title game without winning their conference.

Todd Gack
11-22-2011, 07:20 AM
What was wrong with the original system we had? You know? When we had 15 games on New Years Day? Ugggh, I hate this new system and a playoff will make it even worse.

Roy Tucker
11-22-2011, 09:29 AM
I guess I don't see the BCS changing in a big-bang 8 or 16 team playoffs kind of way. If it changes, it will be in a more evolving way.

I think if they go to the "plus one" game, that's a good start. Seed the top 4 teams, 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. Then the winners play. Put these games in the 4 big bowls (2 semis and a finals) and the left-out bowl gets its pick of the next 2 teams. Rotate it all around like they do now.

Once that toe gets put in the door, its inevitable that it will expand to 8 or 16 teams.

And I'd love to see a "bad winter" game get played in the north. All the Big 10 teams would sell out their stadiums. There might be a problem with a Big East team though since their attendance is spotty. I'd love a snow-bowl game though. We used to play those as a kid and slip and slide and wreck someones back yard and get completely frozen but have a gas. I miss mud games too.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 10:00 AM
Frankly, this isn't the BCS' fault, its the fault of the B10, Pac12, ACC & B12 for failing to field a team fails to capture BCS title aspirations.



Either that or the strength of the SEC is making a mockery of those other conferences. Depends on how you look at it I guess


Stanford, Okie State, Boise State, VA Tech, and Houston? If anything, the system is revealing its natural bias towards the SEC.

So the computer has a bias now?

cumberlandreds
11-22-2011, 10:03 AM
What was wrong with the original system we had? You know? When we had 15 games on New Years Day? Ugggh, I hate this new system and a playoff will make it even worse.

I take this system a 100 times out of 100. It's certainly not perfect. But you generally get two of the better teams playing each. Before it was all politics on who played who in a bowl. For example the SEC champion was slotted for the Sugar Bowl. They could play the 3rd best team from the Big 8 and still claim a national championship. You had no way to match up two of the best teams and call it a real champion.

RiverRat13
11-22-2011, 10:07 AM
So the computer has a bias now?

The computers have the Big 12 as the best conference this year and three of the six BCS computer rankings have OK State as #2 and Alabama #3 (the other three have it reversed). If OK State wins out, they would most likely pass Alabama in all of the computers. A one-loss OK State deserves to play for the title more than Alabama does.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 10:15 AM
The computers have the Big 12 as the best conference this year and three of the six BCS computer rankings have OK State as #2 and Alabama #3 (the other three have it reversed). If OK State wins out, they would most likely pass Alabama in all of the computers. A one-loss OK State deserves to play for the title more than Alabama does.

That sounds logical to me, so given that, how does the system show an SEC bias?

reds1869
11-22-2011, 10:27 AM
Computers that lack emotion crunch the numbers. Someone is always going to have their feelings hurt (or their own personal bias shot down) and scream bias. I am all for a playoff but this is waaaay better than what we used to have. I watched an undefeated Top 10 Marshall team get shut out of the big bowls when I was in school. Under the current system they might have received an at-large bid to a BCS games. Under the old system they simply thrashed BYU in the Motor City Bowl.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 10:41 AM
Computers that lack emotion crunch the numbers. Someone is always going to have their feelings hurt (or their own personal bias shot down) and scream bias. I am all for a playoff but this is waaaay better than what we used to have. I watched an undefeated Top 10 Marshall team get shut out of the big bowls when I was in school. Under the current system they might have received an at-large bid to a BCS games. Under the old system they simply thrashed BYU in the Motor City Bowl.

I was with you 100% until the last line. Under the old system they let BYU win the national championship by beating a .500 team in the Holiday Bowl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Holiday_Bowl

The current system is flawed in that it attempts to do what can't be done and that's to narrow the field to only two teams. There are just too many teams and too many differing schedules to do such a determination. How do you compare an Ok St and LSU? They zero, zilch common opponents.

If they must narrow it down to two schools then I think the BCS is as good as we're going to get.

RiverRat13
11-22-2011, 10:41 AM
That sounds logical to me, so given that, how does the system show an SEC bias?

I never argued that it did, but since you asked, the system (I see you moved from computers to "system") heavily uses human polls. The human polls have 3 SEC teams ahead of Oklahoma State, despite the impartial computers either having only one or two. The highest any computer has Arkansas is fourth (2) and the lowest is seventh. The other three have Arkansas fifth or sixth. Yet Arkansas is third in the BCS Standings due to the human element, and I think we all can agree any human element is going to bring some bias, intended or not.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 10:52 AM
I never argued that it did, but since you asked, the system (I see you moved from computers to "system") heavily uses human polls. The human polls have 3 SEC teams ahead of Oklahoma State, despite the impartial computers either having only one or two. The highest any computer has Arkansas is fourth (2) and the lowest is seventh. The other three have Arkansas fifth or sixth. Yet Arkansas is third in the BCS Standings due to the human element, and I think we all can agree any human element is going to bring some bias, intended or not.

My original post (that you responded to) was as a reply to this:


Stanford, Okie State, Boise State, VA Tech, and Houston? If anything, the system is revealing its natural bias towards the SEC.

Hence the word "system". I frankly don't see a difference between computers or system but if you see a difference, please illuminate it. The BCS system is well known as a formula fed into a computer and has often been criticized as a computer picking the NC pairing.

The computers determine the BCS pairing and of course the computers are only as good as what people put into them so sure, there's a human element. So I don't see it as a system wide bias towards the SEC. It is what it is and this year the SEC comes out strong based on the formula chosen to be programmed into the computer

MWM
11-22-2011, 10:55 AM
Who is more deserving this time around?

I certainly don't want a rematch, but it's a tough sell for me to think that any of the other one loss teams would measure up to what Alabama has done thusfar.

I won't argue that. There's no question the 2 best teams in the country are LSU and Alabama (although, I'm not really buying Arkansas). It's not even close, IMO. I wouldn't have a problem with that being the championship game. I just think it will be interesting to see if people's tunes change this time around. Some may argue that this time is different, but regardless of what other circumstances have changed, the argument of not winning the conference or "having their chance" are exactly the same.

I can understand the conference argument. In MLB, the NFL, or the NBA the best two teams don't always play for the championship. Sometimes the best two teams are in the same conference or league and that's just too bad. But they have a system that allows all deserving teams to compete for it. They only have two conferences. If college football had only 2 conferences, then it would be a non-argument. But they have so many and only one championship game that it's still very arbitrary. The current system is so stupid.

RiverRat13
11-22-2011, 11:00 AM
I frankly don't see a difference between computers or system but if you see a difference, please illuminate it.

I differentiate between the independent computer systems (Massie, Sagarin, etc.) and the BCS point system that incorporates the average of the six computers and the human polls. I was talking about the former, it looks like you were talking about the latter. I'm guessing that is the confusion.

Roy Tucker
11-22-2011, 11:02 AM
2/3 of the BCS is human polls and 1/3 is a conglomerate of the computer polls. Yes, they use computers to calculate the final BCS standings, but 2/3 of it is based on imperfect carbon-based units (people).



A breakdown of the ranking components:

I. Harris Interactive Poll (1/3rd)
The first poll will be released October 9, then weekly through December 4. A team's score in the Harris poll will be divided by 2,875, which is the maximum number of points any team can receive if all 115 voting members rank the same team as Number 1. Example: 2,875 / 2,875 = 1.0. If a team receives a total of 115 voting points, an average of 25th place, their BCS quotient of this component would be .04. (1.0 / 25 = 0.04).

II. Coaches Poll (1/3rd)
A team's score in the USA Today poll will be divided by 1,475, which is the maximum number of points any team can receive if all 59 voting members rank the same team as Number 1. Example: 1,475 / 1,475 = 1.0. If a team receives a total of 59 voting points, an average of 25th place, their BCS quotient of this component would be .04. (1.0 / 25 = 0.04).

(Better understanding the polls: In both human polls, voting members fill out their own top 25 rankings ballot. Each team receives 1-25 points in reverse order of the way they are ranked. The 25th place team on each ballot receives 1 point, 24th place gets 2 points, 23rd receives 3 points... first place receives 25 points. This inverse point order is also applied to the computer rankings.

In the Harris Interactive College Football Poll and USA Today Coaches Poll, a team will be evaluated on the number of voting points it receives in each poll. The number of actual voters, which can vary, is figured into the computation on a weekly basis in stating each team's percentage of a possible perfect score.

III. Computer rankings (1/3rd)
The computer rankings percentage is calculated by dropping the highest and lowest ranking for each team and then dividing the remaining total by 100, the maximum possible points. (Example: the 6 rankers have Team A ranked 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, and 4. Take away the 2 and 4 which leaves an average of 3rd place. The BCS quotient of this component would be 0.92. (23 / 25 = 0.92).

Peter Wolfe
Wes Colley
Sagarin
Seattle Times
Richard Billingsley
Kenneth Massey

jojo
11-22-2011, 11:58 AM
WAR EAGLE is all I have to say on the subject.

HotCorner
11-22-2011, 12:25 PM
Let's say both LSU and Alabama lose this weekend. Arkansas would then play Georgia in the SEC Championship. Let's say Georgia wins that game. Let's also say OkSt beats Oklahoma and VT wins out in the ACC.

What two teams get to the National Championship? I've got imagine LSU and OkSt yet LSU wouldn't have even played in their own conference championship game.

MWM
11-22-2011, 12:30 PM
Yeah, a team in a conference with a championship game getting to the NATIONAL championship game without even qualifying for the conference one would be really strange, but I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. Alabama is not going to lose to Auburn and they play no more games. I think they are a lock more than anyone else at this point.

dabvu2498
11-22-2011, 12:55 PM
Let's say both LSU and Alabama lose this weekend. Arkansas would then play Georgia in the SEC Championship. Let's say Georgia wins that game. Let's also say OkSt beats Oklahoma and VT wins out in the ACC.

What two teams get to the National Championship? I've got imagine LSU and OkSt yet LSU wouldn't have even played in their own conference championship game.

I'd have a hard time with one loss VT getting in over one loss LSU, especially given LSU's non-conference schedule.

Caveat Emperor
11-22-2011, 01:28 PM
The computers determine the BCS pairing and of course the computers are only as good as what people put into them so sure, there's a human element. So I don't see it as a system wide bias towards the SEC. It is what it is and this year the SEC comes out strong based on the formula chosen to be programmed into the computer

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument with you.

The "System" is the BCS System -- Human Voters + Computers.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 04:43 PM
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument with you.

The "System" is the BCS System -- Human Voters + Computers.

I'm not interested in a semantics argument with either.

So how is "the system" biased towards the SEC?

Roy Tucker
11-22-2011, 05:02 PM
I'm not interested in a semantics argument with either.

So how is "the system" biased towards the SEC?

If I read the arguments correctly, its because human polls consistently rank SEC teams higher than the computer polls. And human polls make up 2/3 of the BCS.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 05:21 PM
If I read the arguments correctly, its because human polls consistently rank SEC teams higher than the computer polls. And human polls make up 2/3 of the BCS.

Right now the polls do have SEC teams 1,2 and 3 but that's not much different from the computers and I hardly think it shows an SEC bias. Some of those computers didn't even drop OK ST after they lost to an unranked team. I don't know about you but I think that's nuts

Roy Tucker
11-22-2011, 06:44 PM
Right now the polls do have SEC teams 1,2 and 3 but that's not much different from the computers and I hardly think it shows an SEC bias. Some of those computers didn't even drop OK ST after they lost to an unranked team. I don't know about you but I think that's nuts

Looked at http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

Seems that the difference is with Oklahoma St. vs. Arkansas. Computers have OSU ranked #3 while the human polls put them #6. Is this a SEC bias? Eh. Could be, could not be. The computer polls seem to love the Big 12 (OSU #3, K-State #5, Oklahoma #6) while the human ones don't (OSU #4, K-State #11, Oklahoma #9). I will say there is a human bias in the BCS.

I have no idea what the algorithms are for the computer polls. All I know is that they strive to eliminate the human bias and try to rank teams on objective criteria. Us humans have all kinds of agendas and biases and whatnot.

But my overall comment is that I'd like to see who the best team is decided on the playing field and not in the minds of the voters or in the bits and bytes of the computers. Like it is now.

Sea Ray
11-22-2011, 06:54 PM
Looked at http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

Seems that the difference is with Oklahoma St. vs. Arkansas. Computers have OSU ranked #3 while the human polls put them #6. Is this a SEC bias? Eh. Could be, could not be. The computer polls seem to love the Big 12 (OSU #3, K-State #5, Oklahoma #6) while the human ones don't (OSU #4, K-State #11, Oklahoma #9). I will say there is a human bias in the BCS.

I have no idea what the algorithms are for the computer polls. All I know is that they strive to eliminate the human bias and try to rank teams on objective criteria. Us humans have all kinds of agendas and biases and whatnot.

But my overall comment is that I'd like to see who the best team is decided on the playing field and not in the minds of the voters or in the bits and bytes of the computers. Like it is now.


I understand where you're coming from.

My point is that the computers are only as good as the guys who program it. The people who vote don't seem to agree with the guys who programmed the computers at Sagrin, Harris or whatever.

dabvu2498
11-22-2011, 10:57 PM
The Big 12 and PAC 12 schools are helped in the computer polls by playing 9 conference games. One less game against a Sun Belt team will help you in the computer polls but not that much in the human polls.

TeamSelig
11-23-2011, 08:56 AM
LSU/Bama rematch please.

They are the two best teams, in a whole different class than other schools IMO.

bucksfan2
11-23-2011, 09:25 AM
LSU/Bama rematch please.

They are the two best teams, in a whole different class than other schools IMO.

I don't agree. I want to see OSU LSU well before LSU/Bama.

OSU's sole lose this season was on the same day they suffered a tragic plane crash. Heck until last weekend I would have rather seen Oregon LSU over a Bama rematch. Bama had their shot, a night home game, and scored 6 points. IMO they don't deserve a chance at the title.

jojo
11-23-2011, 09:53 AM
That's where I'm at. Bama had LSU at home. Their roads to The BCS game are ridiculously divergent after the Bama loss to LSU (assuming LSU wins out). Again, assuming a run of the table, LSU has an air tight case. Bama has a case but it's not nearly as strong IMHO.

In any event, hopefully Auburn will take care of this with some holiday magic.

TeamSelig
11-24-2011, 12:27 PM
Did you watch the LSU/Bama game? Bama was the superior team. Their kicker blew that game.

LSU will blow out any other team IMO.

jojo
11-24-2011, 03:06 PM
Did you watch the LSU/Bama game? Bama was the superior team. Their kicker blew that game.

LSU will blow out any other team IMO.

I think Bama loses to LSU 7 out of 10 times in a neutral location if LSU can beat them in Tuscaloosa.

Slyder
11-24-2011, 10:38 PM
Did you watch the LSU/Bama game? Bama was the superior team. Their kicker blew that game.

LSU will blow out any other team IMO.

You mean like how everyone just assumed that Ohio State and Michigan were the two best teams in the nation in 06 I think? How'd that one work? Bama had a chance.

George Foster
11-24-2011, 11:17 PM
Whats sad about it? If they are the best, thats what everyone wants right?

Is there really any question that Alabama is the second best team in college football? Who beats them other than a 6-3 loss to LSU? Ok State? Oklahoma?...please! So far the BCS has worked perfectly.

Oh....if Alabama and LSU meet in the Championship game the SEC will get ALL the money and not just half of it...wow!

Even if Arkansas beats LSU, Bama WILL beat Auburn. Then Bama will be #1 and Arkansas #2. Bama beats Georgia in the SEC championship game and Bama and Arkansas meet for all the marbles....The SEC stills wins... Every team in the conference splits the money.

dougdirt
11-24-2011, 11:29 PM
Is there really any question that Alabama is the second best team in college football? Who beats them other than a 6-3 loss to LSU? Ok State? Oklahoma?...please! So far the BCS has worked perfectly.


Sure, there is a question about it. I think that Alabama is the best team in college football. I think LSU is the second best team in college football. But, what I think doesn't mean its reality.

Caveat Emperor
11-25-2011, 03:02 AM
Did you watch the LSU/Bama game? Bama was the superior team. Their kicker blew that game.

The winning team is the superior team.

Someone else deserves a chance at the title.

dabvu2498
11-25-2011, 09:09 AM
Someone else deserves a chance at the title.

Who deserves it more than Bama?

TeamSelig
11-25-2011, 07:18 PM
Who deserves it more than Bama?


No one.

Todd Gack
11-25-2011, 10:15 PM
Who deserves it more than Bama?

So if Alabama wins and they both end up with 1 loss both to each other, it makes sense to crown Alabama the champ?

'Bama had their chance and they blew it.

dabvu2498
11-25-2011, 10:27 PM
So if Alabama wins and they both end up with 1 loss both to each other, it makes sense to crown Alabama the champ?

'Bama had their chance and they blew it.

Nope. No more than it would make sense to crown Okie State/Stanford/Va Tech/et al the champ if they beat LSU in a bowl game... Okie State had their chance against an inferior opponent and blew it. Va Tech's loss was to Clemson, a very good team, but compare their 12 games to Bama's. Ditto Stanford.

I don't care for a rematch either, but I think it's the only shot at producing a close/competitive game amongst the rest of the college football field, unless LSU plays a full 48 minutes like they did the 1st half tonight.

Hell, truth be told, this is one case where I'm in favor of an LSU-Houston National Championship game. Never thought I'd say that.

Todd Gack
11-25-2011, 10:49 PM
Nope. No more than it would make sense to crown Okie State/Stanford/Va Tech/et al the champ if they beat LSU in a bowl game... Okie State had their chance against an inferior opponent and blew it. Va Tech's loss was to Clemson, a very good team, but compare their 12 games to Bama's. Ditto Stanford.

I don't care for a rematch either, but I think it's the only shot at producing a close/competitive game amongst the rest of the college football field, unless LSU plays a full 48 minutes like they did the 1st half tonight.

Hell, truth be told, this is one case where I'm in favor of an LSU-Houston National Championship game. Never thought I'd say that.

An Alabama/LSU rematch makes as much sense as LSU vs _______________. Hell, Alabama didn't even win its own division let alone conference. And being 'competitive' means nothing. Alabama/LSU was a 'competitive' game and was one of the worst played games all year.

Of course, this is all assuming LSU beats a Georgia team everyone is dismissing right now and is on par with playing some of the best football in the country not named LSU. Every week in CFB is a playoff and a rematch in the NC makes about as much sense as well. . . . instituting a playoff system.

KronoRed
11-25-2011, 10:51 PM
Oklahoma State needs to demolish Oklahoma.

Save us from a rematch!

dabvu2498
11-25-2011, 11:27 PM
An Alabama/LSU rematch makes as much sense as LSU vs _______________.

Agreed. LSU wins next week, the National Championship game won't mean anything to me. LSU will have proven itself beyond a doubt in my mind.


Hell, Alabama didn't even win its own division let alone conference.

I could care less about this if they're one of the top 2 teams in the country, which I belive they are.


And being 'competitive' means nothing. Alabama/LSU was a 'competitive' game and was one of the worst played games all year.

Disagree entirely. Entirely, but that's a matter of taste.

Slyder
11-25-2011, 11:38 PM
Plus rematches never ever end well. Almost all of them end up in blowouts one way or another.

Caveat Emperor
11-26-2011, 04:18 AM
No one.

Alabama's claim to a national championship shot is no stronger than any of the ther 1-loss teams. Of course, their loss was at home -- which I think should factor into this discussion as well.

dabvu2498
11-26-2011, 09:42 AM
Of course, their loss was at home -- which I think should factor into this discussion as well.

So was Stanford's. So was Va Tech's.

jojo
11-26-2011, 09:55 AM
Assuming everyone wins out, OSU would have the hardest schedule of any one loss team based upon Sagarin.

Given bama's route post loss relative to LSU's it doesn't seem right to make LSU beat Bama twice to become champions though I think there is a danger that an LSU-OSU matchup might look alot like the Arkansas game from yesterday.

George Foster
11-26-2011, 12:16 PM
Plus rematches never ever end well. Almost all of them end up in blowouts one way or another.

Rocky says Hi!:thumbup::laugh::D

Slyder
11-26-2011, 09:32 PM
Rocky says Hi!:thumbup::laugh::D

Look up real events not movies written for that purpose.:p

TeamSelig
11-27-2011, 10:19 AM
How can you say Alabama is below the other one loss teams? Alabama has the best "loss" among all 1 loss teams.

Like I said, Alabama is the only team that won't get blown out by LSU. Oklahoma State would lose by 21+ IMO

After demolishing Auburn, I think Bama gets the rematch.

TeamSelig
11-27-2011, 10:20 AM
So if Alabama wins and they both end up with 1 loss both to each other, it makes sense to crown Alabama the champ?

'Bama had their chance and they blew it.

These other teams had their chance to go undefeated and they blew it as well.

Todd Gack
11-27-2011, 12:21 PM
If only we had a playoff, all would be well. :rolleyes:

OnBaseMachine
11-27-2011, 01:09 PM
How can you say Alabama is below the other one loss teams? Alabama has the best "loss" among all 1 loss teams.

Like I said, Alabama is the only team that won't get blown out by LSU. Oklahoma State would lose by 21+ IMO


You don't know that. Alabama had their chance and blew it. Oklahoma State should get that same chance if they beat Oklahoma next week.

Todd Gack
11-27-2011, 01:34 PM
You don't know that. Alabama had their chance and blew it. Oklahoma State should get that same chance if they beat Oklahoma next week.

That's my point. It was already a playoff game by default. Alabama lost. . .at home to LSU. LSU, played quite possibly one of the toughest schedules in the past 15 years, beat Alabama on their homefield, plays another game against a Top 10 UGA team, and Alabama could win the NC if they just beat LSU once. . . all the while LSU already beat them with a much tougher schedule.

Yeah, it makes complete sense to vote Alabama the National Champion or let them have another shot at it. :rolleyes:

IMO, if LSU beats UGA on Saturday, LSU should win the NC no matter what happens in the bowl game.

On the other hand, if LSU loses on Saturday, then yes I'd agree that it should be LSU/'Bama for the National Title.

dabvu2498
11-27-2011, 02:18 PM
You don't know that. Alabama had their chance and blew it. Oklahoma State should get that same chance if they beat Oklahoma next week.

So the team that lost to an unranked team should get a chance that a team that lost to a #1 team doesn't deserve?

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 02:36 PM
That's my point. It was already a playoff game by default. Alabama lost. . .at home to LSU. LSU, played quite possibly one of the toughest schedules in the past 15 years, beat Alabama on their homefield, plays another game against a Top 10 UGA team, and Alabama could win the NC if they just beat LSU once. . . all the while LSU already beat them with a much tougher schedule.


No, it wasn't a playoff game by default. Why? Because the national championship can still easily include Alabama. It wasn't a playoff because Alabama was still able to continue playing after the loss.

OnBaseMachine
11-27-2011, 03:00 PM
So the team that lost to an unranked team should get a chance that a team that lost to a #1 team doesn't deserve?

So a team that lost at home should get a rematch with that same team? How is that fair?

Oxilon
11-27-2011, 03:09 PM
The point of the National Championship is to have the two best teams in the country play against each other, correct? Than it's got to be Alabama vs. LSU. People can be frustrated about that due to the teams being from the same conference (and division for that matter) and the snoozefest they already put on, but there's no real denying those are the two best teams in the country.

jojo
11-27-2011, 03:11 PM
So a team that lost at home should get a rematch with that same team? How is that fair?

This is really a case where OSU might end up paying big time for the Big 12 not having a conference championship game this year. Several other one loss teams have one ( ex Va Tech) but even with the extra resume building they probably don't have enough juice. Assuming OSU beats OU, an extra game might've caused them to leap frog Bama.

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 03:21 PM
So a team that lost at home should get a rematch with that same team? How is that fair?

How is anything in college football fair? Let's pretend that LSU loses in the SEC championship game for a second. That will leave one team who is undefeated in the country and there is NO CHANCE they would get to play for the title.

But with the current system we have, it is fair.

IslandRed
11-27-2011, 03:21 PM
A few weeks ago shortly after LSU-Alabama, I heard Tony Barnhart on a radio show saying he thought there was a lot of antipathy among voters for a rematch, even though certain quarters were already hyping the possibility. And he didn't rule out the voters doing a little "adjusting" in order to produce the matchup they wanted. Of course, that presumes a viable alternative to the rematch, and OSU slipped up after that. So I think the Cowboys have to lay a paddling of historic proportions on Oklahoma to have any chance to sneak ahead, and even that may not be enough.

OUReds
11-27-2011, 03:30 PM
The point of the National Championship is to have the two best teams in the country play against each other, correct? Than it's got to be Alabama vs. LSU. People can be frustrated about that due to the teams being from the same conference (and division for that matter) and the snoozefest they already put on, but there's no real denying those are the two best teams in the country.

It's not that simple. There is not way to objectively know if one team is better then another without them playing. The one thing we do know, is that LSU was better then Alabama in their own stadium. Is Alabama probably better then then OSU? Sure. But to my mind another team deserves a shot to test itself against LSU.

Honestly, I hope we do get a rematch so we can see how hollow the whole "every week is a playoff" rhetoric is when it comes to the BCS.

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 03:33 PM
It's not that simple. There is not way to objectively know if one team is better then another without them playing. The one thing we do know, is that LSU was better then Alabama in their own stadium. Is Alabama probably better then then OSU? Sure. But to my mind another team deserves a shot to test itself against LSU.

No, we know that LSU won the game. I don't think for a second that LSU is better than Alabama is.

OUReds
11-27-2011, 03:34 PM
No, we know that LSU won the game. I don't think for a second that LSU is better than Alabama is.

What exactly would convince you? They won in their own house in primetime.

dabvu2498
11-27-2011, 03:36 PM
So a team that lost at home should get a rematch with that same team? How is that fair?

So a team that lost to an unranked team should get a shot at a national championship? How is that fair?

OUReds
11-27-2011, 03:38 PM
So a team that lost to an unranked team should get a shot at a national championship? How is that fair?

It's not, nothing about the BCS is fair.

Oxilon
11-27-2011, 03:38 PM
It's not that simple. There is not way to objectively know if one team is better then another without them playing. The one thing we do know, is that LSU was better then Alabama in their own stadium. Is Alabama probably better then then OSU? Sure. But to my mind another team deserves a shot to test itself against LSU.

Honestly, I hope we do get a rematch so we can see how hollow the whole "every week is a playoff" rhetoric is when it comes to the BCS.

Why does OSU deserve at shot at LSU when they can't beat lowly Iowa St.?

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 03:39 PM
What exactly would convince you? They won in their own house in primetime.

Beating them again. I watched the game. At no point did I ever think that LSU was the better team.

OUReds
11-27-2011, 03:41 PM
Beating them again. I watched the game. At no point did I ever think that LSU was the better team.

I watched the game also, and I did think LSU was the better team. The difference, of course, is that LSU actually won.

Oxilon
11-27-2011, 03:41 PM
Beating them again. I watched the game. At no point did I ever think that LSU was the better team.

Arguing who is better between LSU and Alabama is a moot point. We should be debating who are the two best teams. And LSU and Alabama are the two best teams.

OUReds
11-27-2011, 03:44 PM
Why does OSU deserve at shot at LSU when they can't beat lowly Iowa St.?

A good point of course. I can only say again that with Alabama having already lost to LSU, I think another team deserves a shot at them.

OnBaseMachine
11-27-2011, 03:49 PM
So a team that lost to an unranked team should get a shot at a national championship? How is that fair?

As others have said, nothing is fair about the crappy BCS but allowing Alabama a rematch against a team they lost at home to is bullcrap. Oklahoma State deserves their chance, regardless of who they lose to.

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 03:51 PM
As others have said, nothing is fair about the crappy BCS but allowing Alabama a rematch against a team they lost at home to is bullcrap. Oklahoma State deserves their chance, regardless of who they lose to.

Why do they deserve it though? Because they didn't lose to LSU? That doesn't really hold much water. Do you want the best two teams playing or do you want the #1 team vs someone they haven't played? I want the best two teams playing and I simply don't believe that Oklahoma State is one of those teams.

OnBaseMachine
11-27-2011, 04:19 PM
Why do they deserve it though? Because they didn't lose to LSU? That doesn't really hold much water. Do you want the best two teams playing or do you want the #1 team vs someone they haven't played? I want the best two teams playing and I simply don't believe that Oklahoma State is one of those teams.

Alabama already had their chance, AT HOME, and blew it. They shouldn't get another chance. I hate LSU, but even as a LSU hater I don't think it's fair to them to have to play Alabama again after beating them once. I also happen to think Oklahoma State is a top 2-3 team in the country. They had one bad game, other than that they have dominated all season long.

jojo
11-27-2011, 04:37 PM
Beating them again. I watched the game. At no point did I ever think that LSU was the better team.

Why should LSU play a tougher schedule, beat Bama in Tuscaloosa, play a conference championship game and then HAVE to beat Bama a second time?

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 04:45 PM
Why should LSU play a tougher schedule, beat Bama in Tuscaloosa, play a conference championship game and then HAVE to beat Bama a second time?

Because Alabama is the second best team in the country and the current system is set up to try and make the best team play the second best team in the final game of the season.

dougdirt
11-27-2011, 04:47 PM
Alabama already had their chance, AT HOME, and blew it. They shouldn't get another chance. I hate LSU, but even as a LSU hater I don't think it's fair to them to have to play Alabama again after beating them once. I also happen to think Oklahoma State is a top 2-3 team in the country. They had one bad game, other than that they have dominated all season long.

Why shouldn't they? I can't stand the SEC in football. I don't like their fans and I really don't think that SEC football is as good as their fans seem to think it is. In every other sport you can play a team you already played and beat in the "playoffs" and that is what the BCS title game is, even though its only a one round playoff. Alabama has only played one bad game this year and it came against the #1 team in the country and they still took it to overtime.

Todd Gack
11-27-2011, 10:52 PM
Why shouldn't they? I can't stand the SEC in football. I don't like their fans and I really don't think that SEC football is as good as their fans seem to think it is. In every other sport you can play a team you already played and beat in the "playoffs" and that is what the BCS title game is, even though its only a one round playoff. Alabama has only played one bad game this year and it came against the #1 team in the country and they still took it to overtime.

How pissed would you be if you were LSU and you lost to 'Bama for the NC?

#1) You've played the toughest schedule in recent memory and went undefeated

#2 You already beat 'bama on their homefield.

#3) Bama didn't even play in the SECCG and LSU has to risk 1 more game to get to the NC in the first place.

IMO, LSU should be crowned NC as soon as they step off the field of beating UGA on Saturday (assuming that happens).

Oxilon
11-27-2011, 11:40 PM
How pissed would you be if you were LSU and you lost to 'Bama for the NC?

#1) You've played the toughest schedule in recent memory and went undefeated

#2 You already beat 'bama on their homefield.

#3) Bama didn't even play in the SECCG and LSU has to risk 1 more game to get to the NC in the first place.

IMO, LSU should be crowned NC as soon as they step off the field of beating UGA on Saturday (assuming that happens).

That's something that LSU is going to have to deal with. The National Championship involves the #1 and #2 teams in the country. And Oklahoma St. isn't one of them.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 12:01 AM
How pissed would you be if you were LSU and you lost to 'Bama for the NC?

#1) You've played the toughest schedule in recent memory and went undefeated

#2 You already beat 'bama on their homefield.

#3) Bama didn't even play in the SECCG and LSU has to risk 1 more game to get to the NC in the first place.

IMO, LSU should be crowned NC as soon as they step off the field of beating UGA on Saturday (assuming that happens).

1. Doesn't mean anything. The rules for the Championship are what they are.

2. You were lucky to do so.

3. Alabama is the easily one of the best two teams in the SEC. They just happen to be in the same division as the other team that is simply better than everyone else in the country.

The rules are set up to try and make the best two teams play each other in the National Championship BCS Title game. Those two teams are LSU and Alabama.

The idea that you can't rematch someone in a "playoff" is ridiculous. What sport do we have where rematch's can't happen where there is a regular season and something resembling a championship? Baseball has it. The NFL has it. The NBA has it. The NHL has it. College Basketball has it. College Baseball has it (Where two SEC teams played in the finals this past year). Lower levels of college football have it. Everyone has a possibility of playing someone for a championship that they have already beaten when it comes to sports that have regular seasons and playoffs.

Roy Tucker
11-28-2011, 12:01 AM
What is sad is that LSU can lose the SEC championship game and probably still make the NC game. So you'd have 2 teams from the SEC playing for the NC that didn't even win their conference.

And while I'm sure LSU will come out and play their hearts out in the SEC championship game, what is the motivation for them to win if they have a slot in the NC game no matter what?

It's all a bunch of malarkey in my book.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 12:03 AM
What is sad is that LSU can lose the SEC championship game and probably still make the NC game. So you'd have 2 teams from the SEC playing for the NC that didn't even win their conference.

And while I'm sure LSU will come out and play their hearts out in the SEC championship game, what is the motivation for them to win if they have a slot in the NC game no matter what?

It's all a bunch of malarkey in my book.

I am hoping that it somehow happens. So that there is only one undefeated team in college football who doesn't sniff the title game.

jojo
11-28-2011, 02:04 PM
"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the national championship game."~~~~~ Nick Saban, 2003.

gonelong
11-28-2011, 02:12 PM
"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the national championship game."~~~~~ Nick Saban, 2003.

I completely agree.

GL

nmculbreth
11-28-2011, 02:12 PM
What is sad is that LSU can lose the SEC championship game and probably still make the NC game. So you'd have 2 teams from the SEC playing for the NC that didn't even win their conference.

And while I'm sure LSU will come out and play their hearts out in the SEC championship game, what is the motivation for them to win if they have a slot in the NC game no matter what?

It's all a bunch of malarkey in my book.

Would that even be possible? It was my understanding that a conference could only have two teams play in BCS games and UGA would get one of those slots if they were to win the SEC championship game.

jimbo
11-28-2011, 02:24 PM
The championship game should be between the two best teams in the country, period. All these arguments about what is or is not fair to certain teams, or about who played who during the regular season is meaningless, IMHO.

LSU and Alabama are the two best teams, and I think the majority of America would agree. And it really pains me to say it as I really dislike both teams and coaches, but it is what it is.

MWM
11-28-2011, 02:38 PM
"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the national championship game."~~~~~ Nick Saban, 2003.

Wow.

I'm guessing his tune has changed.

MWM
11-28-2011, 03:00 PM
Oh man, that Saban quote has me cracking up. It could really come back to bite him in the arse.

I will say this in his defense. Back then there was a lot more parity among the conferences. This separation of the SEC is a recent thing, ccontrary to what some of the vocal minority here on Redszone would have you believe. There is a larger gap, but just at the top IMO, than there was prior to the last 4-5 years. Now, I won't get into the reasons why this has happened as that's for another thread and some would rather assume it's just because they're better, but it's not a coincidence. But the gap is there nonetheless.

VottoFan54
11-28-2011, 03:07 PM
Anyone have a link for that Nick Saban quote? If that is true, I am suprised that it has not been mentioned in the media yet.

jojo
11-28-2011, 03:25 PM
Anyone have a link for that Nick Saban quote? If that is true, I am suprised that it has not been mentioned in the media yet.

It might not be true....

MWM
11-28-2011, 03:29 PM
Then why post it here?

jimbo
11-28-2011, 03:36 PM
Anyone have a link for that Nick Saban quote? If that is true, I am suprised that it has not been mentioned in the media yet.

I searched for the article that supposedly contained the quote but had no luck, but it is mentioned quite a bit in blogs and such. Have to take it with a grain of salt.

jojo
11-28-2011, 04:23 PM
Then why post it here?

It's all over the net. After the request for the link, I starting looking harder and I don't trust that this is legit.

Caveat Emperor
11-28-2011, 04:43 PM
I don't know if this is posted, but I think this is VERY interesting -- using a blind resume to determine who should be the #2 team in the nation:

http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/33566427

bucksfan2
11-28-2011, 04:49 PM
Oh man, that Saban quote has me cracking up. It could really come back to bite him in the arse.

I will say this in his defense. Back then there was a lot more parity among the conferences. This separation of the SEC is a recent thing, ccontrary to what some of the vocal minority here on Redszone would have you believe. There is a larger gap, but just at the top IMO, than there was prior to the last 4-5 years. Now, I won't get into the reasons why this has happened as that's for another thread and some would rather assume it's just because they're better, but it's not a coincidence. But the gap is there nonetheless.

There is a SEC hype that has been circling the nation over the past few years. The SEC has been the best conference in college football but I don't think the gap is as big as people make it out to be. With the exception of LSU, what SEC team out there has your really saying "wow look how good they are!" Alabama's non SEC marquee win is against PSU. Arkansas, a Texas A&M team that is currently unranked.

The SEC may be the best, but I think the likes of Oklahoma and OSU are pretty good out of the Big 12. I also think USC, Oregon, and Stanford are pretty formidable out in the Pac 12. The Big 10 is a mess, although Wisconsin is two hail mary's away from being in the BCS title game. While the SEC is the best I think its unfair to say that there aren't other capable teams out there.

gonelong
11-28-2011, 05:19 PM
The championship game should be between the two best teams in the country, period. All these arguments about what is or is not fair to certain teams, or about who played who during the regular season is meaningless, IMHO.

LSU and Alabama are the two best teams, and I think the majority of America would agree. And it really pains me to say it as I really dislike both teams and coaches, but it is what it is.

The majority of America is wrong about these things quite often, so I won't be taking their word for it. Everybody thought OSU#1 and Mich#2 was the NC game and we saw how that turned out. Mich probably had a better claim to be in the NC that year than Florida. I didn't want to see a rematch then, and don't want to see one now.

I don't care if those teams are the two best teams by a factor of 2, 10, or 200. One of them, as far as I am concerned, has already been eliminated from National Championship consideration because they won't win their conference.

If more than two teams had a chance at the NC, then I would have a different opinion. World Champs not being conference champs works for me in the MLB, NBA, and the NFL because they have an open playoff system. If they only allowed two teams the chance to play for the world championship, I'd feel the same.

It would work for me in the BCS if they had the 6 BCS conf champs and 2 at large teams in a playoff. This would give each conference a chance to prove it on the field, as well as a 2nd chance to a team like Alabama this year. However, I can't get on board with Alabama this year at the expense of 4-5 other teams that are then shut out of an opportunity to win the NC. Alabama won't (likely) even win their conference, I'd rather see any other BCS conference champion get the shot than Alabama.

GL

TeamSelig
11-28-2011, 06:29 PM
I don't buy into the winning the conference thing. What does it matter? Take the two best teams. If they are from the same conference, so be it.

*BaseClogger*
11-28-2011, 06:34 PM
How do you know they are the two best teams?

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 06:37 PM
I don't know if this is posted, but I think this is VERY interesting -- using a blind resume to determine who should be the #2 team in the nation:

http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/33566427

I had my decision come down to Oklahoma State and Alabama. Didn't think the other teams should have even been in the conversation, when looking solely at the numbers presented in the original article. My vote went to Oklahoma State, but when I look at their resumes with the knowledge that Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State and that Alabama lost to LSU, in overtime, it changes everything about the numbers presented.

jojo
11-28-2011, 06:51 PM
I had my decision come down to Oklahoma State and Alabama. Didn't think the other teams should have even been in the conversation, when looking solely at the numbers presented in the original article. My vote went to Oklahoma State, but when I look at their resumes with the knowledge that Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State and that Alabama lost to LSU, in overtime, it changes everything about the numbers presented.

Why not look at their entire road to the BCS championship?

Caveat Emperor
11-28-2011, 06:58 PM
I had my decision come down to Oklahoma State and Alabama. Didn't think the other teams should have even been in the conversation, when looking solely at the numbers presented in the original article. My vote went to Oklahoma State, but when I look at their resumes with the knowledge that Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State and that Alabama lost to LSU, in overtime, it changes everything about the numbers presented.

That's the point -- there's more to a resume than just "Team X lost to a better team than Team Y, therefore Team X is superior."

You can't boil the decision down to just that.

Would the situations were changed and it was Boise State whose 1 loss came to LSU while Alabama had lost to TCU, would you say Boise State automatically makes the national title game because it's 1 loss was to the #1 overall team?

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 07:20 PM
That's the point -- there's more to a resume than just "Team X lost to a better team than Team Y, therefore Team X is superior."

You can't boil the decision down to just that.

Would the situations were changed and it was Boise State whose 1 loss came to LSU while Alabama had lost to TCU, would you say Boise State automatically makes the national title game because it's 1 loss was to the #1 overall team?

Well, I think the numbers presented are a bit skewed, particularly in the point differential. Alabama has one loss, which negatively impacts that number. Same for Oklahoma State. But one team lost to a great team. The other lost to Iowa State. The numbers simply aren't telling the whole story because of that.

If Boise State had one loss and it was to LSU, I think it would matter how they performed in the game. Did they lose in a close game or lose by 40? Did Alabama lose in a close game to TCU?

In the end, I think Alabama and LSU should be playing in the BCS Title game because they are, in my opinion, the best two teams in college football. Alabama/Oklahoma State resume's look similar if you don't account for who they each lost to. But when you look at their resume's side by side and account for who the losses came to, then Alabama has the stronger resume.

dabvu2498
11-28-2011, 09:02 PM
Using strictly Sagarin's ratings gives OSU top 20 wins over:

#12 Texas A/M (6-6)
#14 Texas (7-4)
and #18 Missouri (7-5)

I have a hard time thinking of those as "top 20" wins.

Sagarin's own rating has Bama #2, OSU #3.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt11.htm

MWM
12-01-2011, 05:05 PM
I'm no fan of Rick Reily, but I thought he made some really good points in this:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7302138/rick-reilly-no-rematch-bcs-title-game

Caveat Emperor
12-01-2011, 05:23 PM
I'm no fan of Rick Reily, but I thought he made some really good points in this:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7302138/rick-reilly-no-rematch-bcs-title-game

I never thought of it this way, but with the BCS Title Game being played in New Orleans, it really is like a home-home series between 'Bama and LSU.

If 'Bama wins round 2, do they have a neutral-site matchup at Cowboys Stadium in February to settle it?

dabvu2498
12-01-2011, 05:27 PM
I'm no fan of Rick Reily, but I thought he made some really good points in this:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7302138/rick-reilly-no-rematch-bcs-title-game

He lost me with this: "Or what about Stanford-LSU?"

Combined with:

"A team that didn't even make its conference title game will be playing in the national title game? It's like Rick Perry withdrawing from the primaries and then going up against President Obama." (Stanford is not playing in the PAC-12 Championship Game this weekend.)

So yeah, other than him being a jerk and all sorts of flawed logic, yeah... Not bad.

Do they really pay him to write this crap?

Roy Tucker
12-01-2011, 06:32 PM
Be that all as it may, if Oklahoma St. beats Oklahoma, I would say they have a legit gripe about not being in the BCS NC game. A good case can be made for either Alabama or Ok St. Maybe have a play-in game?

Captain Hook
12-01-2011, 08:15 PM
So if Georgia wins they get the automatic BCS bowl for the SEC. The thing I don't get is that I've heard a few experts say that LSU would likely hold on to one of the top two stops even if they loose and if Oaklahoma State isn't able to over take Alabama by beating Oaklahoma then that would leave LSU and Alabama 1 and 2 in the final poll. The thing I don't understand is how the BCS can let those teams play for the National Championship when they don't allow one conference more then one at large team to play in a BCS bowl.

BuckeyeRed27
12-01-2011, 08:23 PM
So if Georgia wins they get the automatic BCS bowl for the SEC. The thing I don't get is that I've heard a few experts say that LSU would likely hold on to one of the top two stops even if they loose and if Oaklahoma State isn't able to over take Alabama by beating Oaklahoma then that would leave LSU and Alabama 1 and 2 in the final poll. The thing I don't understand is how the BCS can let those teams play for the National Championship when they don't allow one conference more then one at large team to play in a BCS bowl.

I believe it is because neither team in the championship game is an At-Large, so it allows for three total teams from the same conference only in this exact scenario.

Captain Hook
12-01-2011, 08:37 PM
I believe it is because neither team in the championship game is an At-Large, so it allows for three total teams from the same conference only in this exact scenario.

If that's the case Arkansas should be eligible for a BCS bowl games but I've heard otherwise from those same experts.

Oxilon
12-01-2011, 09:11 PM
They should just make the SEC Division I football and move the rest down to Division II. Solves everything. All Oklahoma St., Alabama, and LSU have a chance to play in the NC game.

texasdave
12-03-2011, 01:13 PM
So if Georgia beats LSU they will be SEC Champs and there will probably be two SEC teams in the Championship game - neither of which is Georgia?

jojo
12-03-2011, 09:25 PM
Georgia was just vaporized by a punch to their face. LSU beat Bama in Tuscaloosa. Why are Bama fans so confident that the Tide will soon win the Championship?

IslandRed
12-03-2011, 09:50 PM
I just wish the Powers That Be would be consistent. Back in 2006, after Ohio State and Michigan had their classic 1-2 game, the majority opinion after the game was that those were the two best teams. The arguments advanced for Alabama this year ("the two best teams," "best loss," etc.) argued for Michigan then. Yet, in the final voting, enough votes swung from Michigan to Florida to jump Florida to #2, even though a lot fewer people were picking them to beat OSU than would have picked Michigan in a rematch. The overwhelming reason why voters did that can be summarized in four words: Michigan had their chance. Most thought there shouldn't be a rematch and thus there wasn't one. I agreed with that, by the way.

I guess we can argue about why they've apparently changed their minds about such a thing, but it seems they have.

Slyder
12-03-2011, 10:02 PM
I just wish the Powers That Be would be consistent. Back in 2006, after Ohio State and Michigan had their classic 1-2 game, the majority opinion after the game was that those were the two best teams. The arguments advanced for Alabama this year ("the two best teams," "best loss," etc.) argued for Michigan then. Yet, in the final voting, enough votes swung from Michigan to Florida to jump Florida to #2, even though a lot fewer people were picking them to beat OSU than would have picked Michigan in a rematch. The overwhelming reason why voters did that can be summarized in four words: Michigan had their chance. Most thought there shouldn't be a rematch and thus there wasn't one. I agreed with that, by the way.

I guess we can argue about why they've apparently changed their minds about such a thing, but it seems they have.

That game is so overrated by everyone neither team would be within 20 of LSU or Bama and probably 10 of OSU and Oregon. They were 2 bad snaps by the OSU center (who had used the cast the entire season) from that being a 20 point blowout for OSU and yes I watched the game. The bowls proved that the blowhards on tv were wrong.

OnBaseMachine
12-03-2011, 10:30 PM
I just wish the Powers That Be would be consistent. Back in 2006, after Ohio State and Michigan had their classic 1-2 game, the majority opinion after the game was that those were the two best teams. The arguments advanced for Alabama this year ("the two best teams," "best loss," etc.) argued for Michigan then. Yet, in the final voting, enough votes swung from Michigan to Florida to jump Florida to #2, even though a lot fewer people were picking them to beat OSU than would have picked Michigan in a rematch. The overwhelming reason why voters did that can be summarized in four words: Michigan had their chance. Most thought there shouldn't be a rematch and thus there wasn't one. I agreed with that, by the way.

I guess we can argue about why they've apparently changed their minds about such a thing, but it seems they have.

Just proves what we already knew: Everything is biased toward the SEC. It makes me sick. It should be LSU/Oklahoma State IF OSU hangs on tonight.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 12:13 AM
Just proves what we already knew: Everything is biased toward the SEC. It makes me sick. It should be LSU/Oklahoma State IF OSU hangs on tonight.

I don't think anyone "deserves" to play LSU.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 04:39 AM
Oklahoma State with an impressive beatdown of Oklahoma. I betcha the voters still screw them out of the National Championship.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 04:58 AM
Oklahoma State with an impressive beatdown of Oklahoma. I betcha the voters still screw them out of the National Championship.

They shouldn't have lost to Iowa State. The voters can't "screw them" if they win all of their games. And let's be honest, they aren't being screwed. Even if you believe they are better than Alabama, I don't believe for a second that anyone who believes that believes it without a doubt.


Georgia was just vaporized by a punch to their face. LSU beat Bama in Tuscaloosa. Why are Bama fans so confident that the Tide will soon win the Championship?

I don't know why they are so confident, but they probably think they are the better team. I am with them. With that said, I thought that Georgia had a chance coming into today... then after the first half I was feeling alright about it. Then, well, LSU showed why they are the #1 team in the country.

jojo
12-04-2011, 09:11 AM
There may be several one loss teams around but there is only 1 that won its conference by playing yesterday and crushing the #10 team in the country. I'm convinced.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 12:48 PM
They shouldn't have lost to Iowa State. The voters can't "screw them" if they win all of their games. And let's be honest, they aren't being screwed. Even if you believe they are better than Alabama, I don't believe for a second that anyone who believes that believes it without a doubt.



I don't know why they are so confident, but they probably think they are the better team. I am with them. With that said, I thought that Georgia had a chance coming into today... then after the first half I was feeling alright about it. Then, well, LSU showed why they are the #1 team in the country.

Alabama shouldn't have lost to LSU at HOME.

Oklahoma State won their conference, Alabama didn't. That pretty much ends the discussion.

*BaseClogger*
12-04-2011, 12:53 PM
I don't think anyone "deserves" to play LSU.

:thumbup:

This is just one of those years when the BCS system doesn't work. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't...

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 01:59 PM
Alabama shouldn't have lost to LSU at HOME.

Oklahoma State won their conference, Alabama didn't. That pretty much ends the discussion.

Oklahoma State shouldn't have lost ANYWHERE to IOWA STATE. That pretty much ends the discussion.

jojo
12-04-2011, 02:01 PM
Oklahoma State shouldn't have lost ANYWHERE to IOWA STATE. That pretty much ends the discussion.

Alabama shouldn't have lost any game in Tuscaloosa. The not only didn't win their own conference, Bama didn't even win their division because they couldn't hold serve at home.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 02:03 PM
Alabama shouldn't have lost any game in Tuscaloosa.

While that is true, losing to LSU = a lot more acceptable, even at home, in overtime, than losing to Iowa State in football.

jojo
12-04-2011, 02:04 PM
While that is true, losing to LSU = a lot more acceptable, even at home, in overtime, than losing to Iowa State in football.

Losing is losing. OSU had a harder schedule.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 02:06 PM
Losing is losing. OSU had a harder schedule.

Alabama is the better team. OSU did have a tougher schedule. Doesn't matter to me. The idea of the BCS is to get the two best teams to play. Alabama and LSU are those teams.

bucksfan2
12-04-2011, 02:29 PM
Alabama is the better team. OSU did have a tougher schedule. Doesn't matter to me. The idea of the BCS is to get the two best teams to play. Alabama and LSU are those teams.

Who has Alabama beaten to make you say they are the better team? There have been a ton of assumptions that Bama is a better team, but I don't buy it. Alabama's best win is against Arkansas and then who else? Some people have crowned them as the 2nd best team in the country based upon hype.

At the start of the day yesterday the BCS guru's were saying its Alabama all the way. Now the tone has changed to it will be the closest BCS poll in history. I think OSU gets the nod. They destroyed OU in a primetime game in which most of the votors should have been watching.

jojo
12-04-2011, 02:32 PM
Alabama is the better team. OSU did have a tougher schedule. Doesn't matter to me. The idea of the BCS is to get the two best teams to play. Alabama and LSU are those teams.

The idea of the BCS is to get the two most deserving teams to play. Why is Bama more deserving than OSU? If a 40 yard FG kick was half a foot further to the left, no one could argue that OSU shouldn't play LSU. Would you still argue that Bama was the better team?

kaldaniels
12-04-2011, 02:33 PM
Where does it say you have to win your conference to play for the title? If that is your opinion fine, but to say it "ends the discussion" is just your opinion. Others may not agree. And FWIW I think OSU should get their shot. But that decision was reached by on field events, not the conference standings.

jojo
12-04-2011, 02:43 PM
Where does it say you have to win your conference to play for the title? If that is your opinion fine, but to say it "ends the discussion" is just your opinion. Others may not agree. And FWIW I think OSU should get their shot. But that decision was reached by on field events, not the conference standings.

Why beat up a straw man? Being a one loss conference champion of the Big 12 is a stronger resume than being a one loss team who finished second in the SEC West despite a favorable schedule.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 02:56 PM
The idea of the BCS is to get the two most deserving teams to play. Why is Bama more deserving than OSU? If a 40 yard FG kick was half a foot further to the left, no one could argue that OSU shouldn't play LSU. Would you still argue that Bama was the better team?

I would argue that Alabama was the better team, because they are. But, I wouldn't argue against OSU playing in the title game, because they went undefeated.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 02:59 PM
Losing is losing. OSU had a harder schedule.

Agreed.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 02:59 PM
Why beat up a straw man? Being a one loss conference champion of the Big 12 is a stronger resume than being a one loss team who finished second in the SEC West despite a favorable schedule.

No, it really isn't. When that one loss came in overtime to the #1 team in the country and you dominated everyone else you played all year, it isn't a worse resume than what Oklahoma State has.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 03:01 PM
Who has Alabama beaten to make you say they are the better team? There have been a ton of assumptions that Bama is a better team, but I don't buy it. Alabama's best win is against Arkansas and then who else? Some people have crowned them as the 2nd best team in the country based upon hype.
Watching them play LSU tells me that they are the better team. No one else has come closer to even being in a game for four quarters with LSU. Alabama should have won that game. They didn't, and I get that, but they were the better team on the field that day. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State. That is what tells me that Alabama is the better team.

kaldaniels
12-04-2011, 03:13 PM
Watching them play LSU tells me that they are the better team. No one else has come closer to even being in a game for four quarters with LSU. Alabama should have won that game. They didn't, and I get that, but they were the better team on the field that day. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State. That is what tells me that Alabama is the better team.

I agree OSUs loss was worse. But why are we not looking at the wins of both teams?

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 03:23 PM
I agree OSUs loss was worse. But why are we not looking at the wins of both teams?

My stance is this: Alabama is clearly the better of the two teams. I only worry about wins/losses when someone else brings them up. OSU has better wins when looking at the schedules. Doesn't matter. Alabama is the better team.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 03:26 PM
Alabama is the better team.

In your opinion of course. Some of us think Oklahoma State is the better team.

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 03:47 PM
Just proves what we already knew: Everything is biased toward the SEC. It makes me sick. It should be LSU/Oklahoma State IF OSU hangs on tonight.

For good reason. The SEC has shown for yrs and yrs now that it is deserving of such a lofty standing

MWM
12-04-2011, 04:10 PM
Like others, I just want consistency. Many of the loudest screamers of "they didn't even win their conference" and "they didn't beat anybody" are the sames one now screaming it has to be Alabama. It's so freaking ridiculous, it's tough to even listen to.

Some people think the SEC is exempt from any discussion around who they actually beat. Heck, I bought into the hype myself even, but now that I've actually gone a looked, Alabama hasn't really beat anyone of consequence this other than Arkansas. And if there's a team deserving of the most over-hyped team this year it's Arkansas. They have beaten no one of any quality. They got demolished by the only two really good teams they played. So how can they be SO good if they can't even be competitive with top tier teams.

Alabama beat 3 teams this year with a winning record. 3 teams!!! But they are exempt from schedule scrutiny like everyone else due to the SEC exception. This is such BS. It's like Reily said, the SEC fanbase thinks they invented football and no one else can play. It's impossible to even have an intelligent dialogue with these people. Heck, why not just make the SEC championship game the national championship game and forget about the BCS.

The "who'd they beat" argument has been used mercilessly here and everywhere else usually coming from the very people who have conveniently forgotten about it now. The hypocrisy is ridiculous and not even subtle. All most of us want is consistency. You can't have one set of rules for everyone else, and a different one for the anointed SEC.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 04:12 PM
Like others, I just want consistency. Many of the loudest screamers of "they didn't even win their conference" and "they didn't beat anybody" are the sames one now screaming it has to be Alabama. It's so freaking ridiculous, it's tough to even listen to.

Some people think the SEC is exempt from any discussion around who they actually beat. Heck, I bought into the hype myself even, but now that I've actually gone a looked, Alabama hasn't really beat anyone of consequence this other than Arkansas. And if there's a team deserving of the most over-hyped team this year it's Arkansas. They have beaten no one of any quality. They got demolished by the only two really good teams they played. So how can they be SO good if they can't even be competitive with top tier teams.

Alabama beat 3 teams this year with a winning record. 3 teams!!! But they are exempt from schedule scrutiny like everyone else due to the SEC exception. This is such BS. It's like Reily said, the SEC fanbase thinks they invented football and no one else can play. It's impossible to even have an intelligent dialogue with these people. Heck, why not just make the SEC championship game the national championship game and forget about the BCS.

The "who'd they beat" argument has been used mercilessly here and everywhere else usually coming from the very people who have conveniently forgotten about it now. The hypocrisy is ridiculous and not even subtle. All most of us want is consistency. You can't have one set of rules for everyone else, and a different one for the anointed SEC.

This is an excellent post. :thumbup:

Roy Tucker
12-04-2011, 04:13 PM
My stance is this: Alabama is clearly the better of the two teams.

The part that I disagree here is the "clearly" part. "Maybe"? Sure. But there is considerable room for doubt.

OSU beat the #8, #10, and #22 teams in the nation.

Alabama beat the #12, #14, #23, #24 teams.

Bama lost at home to the #1 team by 3. OSU lost in a 2 OT game the day after a tragic coaching loss.

Maybe I'd give a slight edge to Alabama. Maybe. But its pretty darn near a toss-up.

In my mind, the tie-breaker is the "you had your shot and you lost" argument. Yeah, you can say a FG was wide or a receiver tripped or whatever. But at the end of the day, you *lost*. Why do you get another shot when there is a team that is very possibly equal to you?

BCS will say the system worked this time but I'll disagree.

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 04:15 PM
This is an excellent post. :thumbup:

I'm not impressed. So if popularity means something to you, it's 1-1.


You can't have one set of rules for everyone else, and a different one for the anointed SEC.

Winning 5 straight BCS championships (mostly via blowouts) has that kind of effect

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 04:20 PM
Bama lost at home to the #1 team by 3. OSU lost in a 2 OT game the day after a tragic coaching loss.

Maybe I'd give a slight edge to Alabama. Maybe. But its pretty darn near a toss-up.

In my mind, the tie-breaker is the "you had your shot and you lost" argument. Yeah, you can say a FG was wide or a receiver tripped or whatever. But at the end of the day, you *lost*. Why do you get another shot when there is a team that is very possibly equal to you?

BCS will say the system worked this time but I'll disagree.


Don't you think in all fairness you should mention that the team OSU lost to was a .500 team? I think that's pertinent and I think if Alabama lost to a .500 team like Vanderbilt that it'd have knocked 'em further down than a loss to LSU.

I do agree with the point in your last paragraph

jojo
12-04-2011, 04:24 PM
Like others, I just want consistency. Many of the loudest screamers of "they didn't even win their conference" and "they didn't beat anybody" are the sames one now screaming it has to be Alabama. It's so freaking ridiculous, it's tough to even listen to.

Some people think the SEC is exempt from any discussion around who they actually beat. Heck, I bought into the hype myself even, but now that I've actually gone a looked, Alabama hasn't really beat anyone of consequence this other than Arkansas. And if there's a team deserving of the most over-hyped team this year it's Arkansas. They have beaten no one of any quality. They got demolished by the only two really good teams they played. So how can they be SO good if they can't even be competitive with top tier teams.

Alabama beat 3 teams this year with a winning record. 3 teams!!! But they are exempt from schedule scrutiny like everyone else due to the SEC exception. This is such BS. It's like Reily said, the SEC fanbase thinks they invented football and no one else can play. It's impossible to even have an intelligent dialogue with these people. Heck, why not just make the SEC championship game the national championship game and forget about the BCS.

The "who'd they beat" argument has been used mercilessly here and everywhere else usually coming from the very people who have conveniently forgotten about it now. The hypocrisy is ridiculous and not even subtle. All most of us want is consistency. You can't have one set of rules for everyone else, and a different one for the anointed SEC.

I think the soapbox is misplaced for the purposes of this discussion. I'm clearly a huge fan of SEC football and don't think Bama should be in the BCS championship game. Doug is not an SEC diehard and he argues the opposite. There is fertile discussion here.

KoryMac5
12-04-2011, 04:30 PM
I have seen all 3 of these teams play this season, Bama and LSU are heads and shoulders above OSU and it's not even close. That being said I would like to see some kind of a plus one system to settle some of these arguments on the field.

MWM
12-04-2011, 04:31 PM
You missed the larger point. This isn't just about here. It's everywhere. The chorus of disbelief coming from the general populace down here in 2006 that a team could be in the title game without having won their conference is completely reversed now. It's like it shouldn't even matter at all. And I can't tell you how many times I've heard "they didn't beat anyone", and almost always coming from some SEC partisan. They have no interest when those same arguments are used against them. They want no part of it. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy. There might be exceptions, but that's all they are - exceptions. I don't care if someone argues a point opposed to mine or anyone else's. I don't think it's too much to ask for people to be consistent. That's what's not happening here.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 04:31 PM
BTW, it's really hard for me to take SEC fans and rivalries seriously. How can you be fierce rivals when the whole conference is pulling for each other? I have never understood that. You will never hear me chanting "Pac-12! Pac-12! Pac-12!" or "NL Central! NL Central!" That's stupid, and only SEC fans do it.

MWM
12-04-2011, 04:34 PM
I have seen all 3 of these teams play this season, Bama and LSU are heads and shoulders above OSU and it's not even close. That being said I would like to see some kind of a plus one system to settle some of these arguments on the field.

Did you watch OSU last night? How could anyone watch them last night and summarily dismiss them as inferior to Alabama is beyond me. Yes, I think Alabama is probably better, but it's not so obvious as others are making it. It's impossible to completely remove brand name and hype from our perceptions. Fact is, OSU has made me rethink just how much better Alabama may be. OSU is legit. It's hard for some to really buy into that when it's Alabama we're talking about. But they can play.

jojo
12-04-2011, 04:38 PM
This year OSU is basically being hurt badly by the fact that the Big 12* can not have a conference championship game.

For what it's worth, I haven't heard many of my SEC friends clamoring for a rematch. But I love the environment of SEC football and I don't think there is anything stupid about honoring and respecting the traditions of Alabama football for instance even though my dislike for them on the field grows with every season.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 04:44 PM
If OSU's resume is so obviously better to "unbiased" eyes, then surely all 6 computer polls will rank OSU ahead of Alabama?

Nope... Looks like it's going to be 3-3.

I don't want LSU-Bama in the National Championship Game. I want the SEC to go 2-0 in BCS games, not 1-1.

jojo
12-04-2011, 04:44 PM
Personally I think an LSU-OSU match up would end up just like LSU-Arkansas or LSU-Georgia. That doesn't mean that I don't believe OSU deserves the chance to prove me wrong. I already know that LSU can beat Alabama and they can do it in the most hostile environment imaginable.

KoryMac5
12-04-2011, 04:44 PM
Did you watch OSU last night? How could anyone watch them last night and summarily dismiss them as inferior to Alabama is beyond me. Yes, I think Alabama is probably better, but it's not so obvious as others are making it. It's impossible to completely remove brand name and hype from our perceptions. Fact is, OSU has made me rethink just how much better Alabama may be. OSU is legit. It's hard for some to really buy into that when it's Alabama we're talking about. But they can play.

OSU is a cute team with a great offense and nothing on defense. Sorry I don't like the current BCS system but it is the system teams have to play within, and under that system teams that lose to Iowa State don't get to be a part of the Championship discussion.

jojo
12-04-2011, 04:45 PM
I don't want LSU-Bama in the National Championship Game. I want the SEC to go 2-0 in BCS games, not 1-1.[/SECguy]

That pretty much sums it up perfectly I think as long as I don't have to watch the Alabama game.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 04:47 PM
What hurts Oklahoma State more than anything is this:

25.8 (61st)

That's their average points per game allowed and ranking among FBS teams.

Many people will look at that and think that the 2nd best team in the country should have a better defense. And I wouldn't argue with that.

MWM
12-04-2011, 04:51 PM
dabvu, I don't think a lot of people are even trying to argue against what you're arguing. The big question is what criteria should be used. If a conference championship has mattered in the past, it should matter now. If now we're being 100% subjective based on who people *think* the better team is, then that's fine as long as that's the way it's been in the past. The problem is, there's no consistency in how people are making their decisions.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 04:59 PM
Are we really still grousing about 2006? When the BCS got it right, I might add.

I want the 2 best teams in the National Championship Game. Don't really care about conference championships so much (not like OSU had to play an extra game to earn it).

If it was so objectively obvious that OSU's resume was better, they'd be #2 in all 6 computer polls. Guess what? It's not going to be that way. It's going to be 3-3.

Hell, if I was a voter, I'm not sure what I'd do... Probably vote LSU #1 and leave the rest of my ballot blank.

MWM
12-04-2011, 05:03 PM
2006 was that last time a situation occurred, so I'd say it's relevant. What I find disappointing is the sudden change in ideology we're seeing.

At the end of the day, this is only even being discussed because of the moronic nature of the current system. What's most stupid in all of this is that we're even having to have the conversation.

Stray
12-04-2011, 05:33 PM
I don't really know all of the criteria on how a National Champion is crowned, but I know we've had split champions before. My question is, what in the heck happens if LSU loses the NCG?

You'd have some 1 loss teams, and of that group LSU would have the best resume by far.

Alabama would have a home loss to LSU.
Oklahoma State would have a road loss to Iowa State.
LSU would have a 'neutral' site loss to one of them, but would also have wins over Alabama, Oregon, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Georgia.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it just seems messed up.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 06:26 PM
Some people think the SEC is exempt from any discussion around who they actually beat. Heck, I bought into the hype myself even, but now that I've actually gone a looked, Alabama hasn't really beat anyone of consequence this other than Arkansas. And if there's a team deserving of the most over-hyped team this year it's Arkansas. They have beaten no one of any quality. They got demolished by the only two really good teams they played. So how can they be SO good if they can't even be competitive with top tier teams.
To be fair, who has been competitive with Alamaba and LSU other than Alabama and LSU? No one has.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 06:28 PM
OSU lost in a 2 OT game the day after a tragic coaching loss.


I don't want to take anything away from the tragedy that was the plane crash.... but do you really think that any of those players had even met the Womens basketball coaches that were lost? It isn't like they lost one of their coaches or players.

KronoRed
12-04-2011, 06:42 PM
To me it comes down to this, LSU/OSU would be something new, probably an entertaining game, I think LSU wins but I'd watch.

I'd skip the rematch.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 06:46 PM
To me it comes down to this, LSU/OSU would be something new, probably an entertaining game, I think LSU wins but I'd watch.

I'd skip the rematch.
What would be the better game, regardless of "entertainment value"?

VottoFan54
12-04-2011, 06:49 PM
I don't want to take anything away from the tragedy that was the plane crash.... but do you really think that any of those players had even met the Womens basketball coaches that were lost? It isn't like they lost one of their coaches or players.

In addition to this, Alabama had to overcome the loss of a player (Aaron Douglas) and a tornado ripping through Tuscaloosa over the summer. I don't think tragedies should be factored into this discussion but if we are going to consider tragedies lets not ignore what happened to Alabama this summer.

MWM
12-04-2011, 06:49 PM
What would be the better game, regardless of "entertainment value"?

You don't know, and neither does anyone else. It's all speculation, no matter how certain anyone thinks they are. The first time they played, it was anything but entertaining.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 07:08 PM
You don't know, and neither does anyone else. It's all speculation, no matter how certain anyone thinks they are. The first time they played, it was anything but entertaining.

Of course. My question was more "what would be the better game" since he said he wouldn't watch a rematch, but would watch OK State. He didn't state who he thought was better between the two though.

MWM
12-04-2011, 07:12 PM
But you're making assumptions that some people don't agree with, such as it should be decided based solely on who people think the better team is. That's why I won't respond to your poll. It's the wrong question. The first question is how should the participants be decided. Only when that is agreed upon does asking the other question even matter.

Thing is, if you base your decision based solely on who you think is better, then you open up all kinds of opportunity for things like why can't a 2 loss team be in the final game. Afterall, if it's strictly who is the best team, all of a sudden the record doesn't matter as much. This is the insanity of the BCS. There is no way to decide these things without all kinds of holes being present.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 07:17 PM
But you're making assumptions that some people don't agree with, such as it should be decided based solely on who people think the better team is. That's why I won't respond to your poll. It's the wrong question. The first question is how should the participants be decided. Only when that is agreed upon does asking the other question even matter.
Maybe I am wrong here, but isn't the BCS set up with the idea that it will pit the two best teams in college football against each other?

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 08:02 PM
If there's a rematch I sure as heck won't be watching.

MWM
12-04-2011, 08:53 PM
Maybe I am wrong here, but isn't the BCS set up with the idea that it will pit the two best teams in college football against each other?

It's not that black and white. What if OSU wouldn't have missed the FG and had actually beaten Iowa State. Does that make them a better team than they are now? I don't think so. So you're saying there's this huge gulf between Alabama and OSU. I don't think them winning that game would make that any different. But if OSU were undefeated, this wouldn't even be a debate as they would be playing LSU for the championship. But most everyone would still think Alabama was better. So if it's about the two best teams, it shouldn't matter if there are two undefeated teams. If there's a one loss team better than one of the undefeated teams, then based on what you're saying, shouldn't the one loss team get the nod?

So it's not about picking the two best teams, now it becomes about the two most "deserving" teams, which opens up a completely different can of worms. The entire thing is completely subjective with any 2 people having 2 different ideologies as to who should get picked.

It's all moot now, the rematch is going to happen. My guess it will be one of the lower rated games since the BCS started. Few people outside the southeast will have a lot of interest, IMO.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 09:02 PM
It's all moot now, the rematch is going to happen. My guess it will be one of the lower rated games since the BCS started. Few people outside the southeast will have a lot of interest, IMO.

I don't get this. As a college football fan, I don't care who is playing in the game. I am watching it.

MWM
12-04-2011, 09:10 PM
That's you and most ardent fans. I'm sure I'll watch as I enjoy watching good college football. But the masses will be less interested with it being an all SEC final most likely. I will admit, it will be much less interesting to me, and will just add fuel to the fire that is the SEC fanbase, which makes enjoyable college football discussion next to impossible, but it's still the national championship game, so I'll be watching.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 09:25 PM
Well damn. An SEC team is going to lose in the National Championship Game. (I love being "that guy." :) )

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 09:27 PM
One reason to hate this: there's no sane person who'd rather see Saban win than see Gundy win.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 09:27 PM
LOL. The BcS screws it up again. What a complete joke. I won't be watching this garbage.

MWM
12-04-2011, 09:29 PM
I honestly think this will lessen the interest the rest of the country has about college football. This is not a good thing in the bigger picture, IMO.

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 09:31 PM
LOL. The BcS screws it up again. What a complete joke. I won't be watching this garbage.

I think they got it right. So it isn't a real screw up or a complete joke. In fact, I would imagine most of the country thinks they got it right.

jojo
12-04-2011, 09:31 PM
I've got shotgun on the under....

BuckeyeRed27
12-04-2011, 09:33 PM
Wrong choice. I won't watch.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 09:41 PM
Irony: a "plus one" playoff would include Stanford but not Oregon.

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 09:46 PM
Thing is, if you base your decision based solely on who you think is better, then you open up all kinds of opportunity for things like why can't a 2 loss team be in the final game. Afterall, if it's strictly who is the best team, all of a sudden the record doesn't matter as much. This is the insanity of the BCS. There is no way to decide these things without all kinds of holes being present.

We already know a two loss team can win the NC. It happened 4 yrs ago with LSU.

MWM
12-04-2011, 09:47 PM
there's no sane person who'd rather see Saban win than see ______ win. It doesn't matter who you put there, the answer is the same. Saban is the least likeable coach in college football, by a large margin.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 09:49 PM
Here's actually why the BCS sucks: Va Tech vs Michigan in the Sugar Bowl. Awful.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 09:50 PM
there's no sane person who'd rather see Saban win than see ______ win. It doesn't matter who you put there, the answer is the same. Saban is the least likeable coach in college football, by a large margin.

Yeah. Good point. Though Petrino isn't that much of a step up, either.

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 09:51 PM
I think it'd be much simpler if we'd just bag the whole BCS system and let's just start a new tradition of taking the top two SEC teams and let the rest of the country fight it out for the other Bowls. It'll save some poor sap from enduring another SEC beating...:devil:

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 09:54 PM
Here's actually why the BCS sucks: Va Tech vs Michigan in the Sugar Bowl. Awful.

I sure don't get Mich earning a BCS game. Why not Mich St? There's a lot of more deserving teams and unlike the NC, this is pure politics where it was chosen based upon someone whim rather than a computer ranking. And to those that think this system is rigged towards the SEC, this is not a year that the Big Ten deserves two BCS bids. That's pure charity on the part of the BCS

MWM
12-04-2011, 09:54 PM
One of my really good friends had a minor run in with Saban a couple of years ago at the airport. She said he was a first class arse hole in every way. The security team that had to intervene agreed.

SandyD
12-04-2011, 09:59 PM
I sure don't get Mich earning a BCS game. Why not Mich St? There's a lot of more deserving teams and unlike the NC, this is pure politics where it was chosen based upon someone whim rather than a computer ranking. And to those that think this system is rigged towards the SEC, this is not a year that the Big Ten deserves two BCS bids. That's pure charity on the part of the BCS

Nor the ACC. Why not K-State?

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 10:00 PM
Nor the ACC. Why not K-State?

I'm dumbfounded that the ACC's getting two bids

MWM
12-04-2011, 10:04 PM
Yep, the Big Ten probably didn't deserve two, but it's not like the choices were all that clear. Michigan was 10-2 afterall. But the entire system sucks. I hate the idea that there's such a financial component of the BCS and the decisions are based on factors that are entirely biased towards bigger conferences. It's set up to make the rich richer. The Big Ten will almost always get 2 teams, and sometimes not deservingly. It's not fair. If there is a silver lining in this year, it will be that it might be the biggest example yet of how screwed up the system is and it will have a broader affect then in the past. This could wind up pissing off just enough people, and the right people, that it could be a catalyst for change.

dabvu2498
12-04-2011, 10:04 PM
Nor the ACC. Why not K-State?

Sadly, the answer is obvious... Hotel rooms, airline tickets, hurricanes on Bourbon Street.

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 10:05 PM
I think it'd be much simpler if we'd just bag the whole BCS system and let's just start a new tradition of taking the top two SEC teams and let the rest of the country fight it out for the other Bowls. It'll save some poor sap from enduring another SEC beating...:devil:

Ok, as long as the winner of that game agrees to play USC at the end.

50-14
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=262450008

70-17
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=252600030

23-0
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=232420002

24-17
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=222450030

Ouch.

MWM
12-04-2011, 10:06 PM
So who should have gotten the at large bids this year?

jojo
12-04-2011, 10:21 PM
Ok, as long as the winner of that game agrees to play USC at the end.

50-14
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=262450008

70-17
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=252600030

23-0
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=232420002

24-17
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=222450030

Ouch.

He problem with that suggestion is that USC may or may not be eligible or pot season play on a given year and they would likely just have to vacate the game if they indeed won it....

Caveat Emperor
12-04-2011, 10:34 PM
The only good that will come out of this garbage -- and yes, this result IS garbage -- is that, apparently, T. Boone Pickens is going to start putting some of his billions to work to get the system changed at a higher level than the BCS and the NCAA.

As for the game? Count me as another die-hard college fan that has zero interest in this game.

SandyD
12-04-2011, 10:35 PM
The big 12 (-2) deserved 2 teams ... especially over the ACC. I'd be ok with the Big 10 getting 2, but I'm surprised Mich instead of Mich State. Stanford certainly deserves their spot.

K-State wouldn't travel to see their team in a BCS bowl?

OnBaseMachine
12-04-2011, 10:36 PM
He problem with that suggestion is that USC may or may not be eligible or pot season play on a given year and they would likely just have to vacate the game if they indeed won it....

Well maybe they should just apply for SEC membership so all of those charges will just disappear. Amazing how teams like Auburn can get away with so much but teams from other conferences are severely penalized.

Boston Red
12-04-2011, 10:38 PM
So who should have gotten the at large bids this year?

Boise State is certainly better than VaTech.

MWM
12-04-2011, 10:44 PM
I'd be all for Boise State getting another BCS berth. I also think Michigan State was the better team over Michigan. Actually, watching them in the Big Ten title game last night I was really impressed with them. They're a much better team than most gie them credit for.

jojo
12-04-2011, 10:50 PM
Well maybe they should just apply for SEC membership so all of those charges will just disappear. Amazing how teams like Auburn can get away with so much but teams from other conferences are severely penalized.

The complete exoneration by the NCAA is a death blow to this argument. But thre is a thread in the archives that definitively demonstrates this if you're willing to reexamine your premises.

jojo
12-04-2011, 10:51 PM
Boise State is certainly better than VaTech.

VaTech had a pretty weak schedule.

KronoRed
12-04-2011, 10:57 PM
What would be the better game, regardless of "entertainment value"?

Oklahoma State would be a better game, we don't get that now, we get a game we've already seen.

Slyder
12-04-2011, 11:01 PM
Here's actually why the BCS sucks: Va Tech vs Michigan in the Sugar Bowl. Awful.

Another bowl I will not watch. Its garbage that the only team Va Tech plays the entire f'ing season kicks their teeth down their throats and they get an at large bid. The Big 12 got screwed twice IMO.

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 11:24 PM
Ok, as long as the winner of that game agrees to play USC at the end.



If there were a playoff this yr and everyone was eligible, I think USC would win it. That's why the whole BCS system is screwed up because even if USC were eligible, they'd not accrue enough pts to play LSU. I agree with those that say the system needs to change but if if it does, I hope the change is to some sort of playoff format as opposed to a revamping of the BCS formula. Anything that involves narrowing the field down to two teams is flawed

Sea Ray
12-04-2011, 11:30 PM
Oklahoma certainly should have gotten in due to the strength of the Big 12.

Mich St travels very well so I don't understand them getting shafted over rival UM. Once you get past that, how did Nebraska bounce over them in the pecking order? A lot of this doesn't make sense. It's not like MSU got blown out last night

dougdirt
12-04-2011, 11:40 PM
Oklahoma State would be a better game, we don't get that now, we get a game we've already seen.

So Oklahoma State is going to provide a better game than one that went to overtime? Sign me up for somehow getting OK State into the game now.

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 01:13 AM
BTW, it's really hard for me to take SEC fans and rivalries seriously. How can you be fierce rivals when the whole conference is pulling for each other? I have never understood that. You will never hear me chanting "Pac-12! Pac-12! Pac-12!" or "NL Central! NL Central!" That's stupid, and only SEC fans do it.

At the risk of losing my SEC Homer card, I'm going to root bigtime for UC in the Liberty Bowl...:eek:

kaldaniels
12-05-2011, 01:38 AM
The one thing that always gets lost in these BCS debates is playing the NC game a month after the season ends. That's the cherry on top of all this mess.

jojo
12-05-2011, 01:46 AM
Seriously? Northern Illinois vs Arkansas State on jan 8th promises to be a highlight.....of the year....

cumberlandreds
12-05-2011, 09:45 AM
I would have much rather seen a LSU/Oklahoma State game. But saying that I know LSU and Bama are the two best teams. The BCS, in the end, got it right.
Some other thoughts about some of the other matchups:

Virginia Tech should not have got into the Sugar Bowl. They were thumped in the ACC final and just aren't that good. They got there because they have a great fan base that travels. No other reason for them to be in New Orleans. IMO, Baylor should have been there. What a matchup that would have been between the the two QB's!

Baylor,Boise and TCU got screwed the worst in where they went. All three deserved much better bowls.

The Rose Bowl is a great matchup. That game will be a 45-42 game.
Also the Fiesta Bowl should be a nice game. Plenty of scoring in that one too.
I have no interest in the Sugar and Orange. Just bad matchups in both of those. The day the BCS kicks the Big East will make the whole process much better.
I am assuming the SEC couldn't get three teams in the BCS bowls. Because Arkansas would have been a better game going against Michigan.

jojo
12-05-2011, 09:45 AM
Even as an SEC enthusiast, I may or may not watch the SEC errr national championship game depending upon what the wife and kids have going on. We've already seen this game and frankly, clearly i'm biased as I don't like Alabama. That said, I don't like LSU either. I hate Georgia too. Arkansas, not alot of good to say about them either. Same with MSU, SC, and U of F... Kentucky? I'm less and less of a college basketball fan every year. Tennessee mostly just makes me sad. Vandy? They're like your little brother. I'll root for them against a BCS conference co-champ who is trying to bully them. So really my lack of enthusiasm isn't due to anti-Bama sentiment.

Having to wait 5 weeks to watch a rerun? Jeeps. It's going to be hard to sustain that excitement even for an SEC enthusiast, the "controversy that keeps the current BCS system in the conversation and therefore relevant" notwithstanding.

I think LSU vs OSU would've had a better storyline even though the odds of a tight game probably would'nt have been great.

bucksfan2
12-05-2011, 09:48 AM
Oklahoma certainly should have gotten in due to the strength of the Big 12.

Mich St travels very well so I don't understand them getting shafted over rival UM. Once you get past that, how did Nebraska bounce over them in the pecking order? A lot of this doesn't make sense. It's not like MSU got blown out last night

Michigan is a better story. Michigan also has 2 losses as opposed to 3 for MSU. You can say that MSU got screwed because of a money grab (Big 10 title game). I have watched several of Michigan's games and can honestly say they are one of the worst teams ever to get an at large BCS bowl bid.

jojo
12-05-2011, 09:53 AM
I would have much rather seen a LSU/Oklahoma State game. But saying that I know LSU and Bama are the two best teams. The BCS, in the end, got it right.
Some other thoughts about some of the other matchups:

Virginia Tech should not have got into the Sugar Bowl. They were thumped in the ACC final and just aren't that good. They got there because they have a great fan base that travels. No other reason for them to be in New Orleans. IMO, Baylor should have been there. What a matchup that would have been between the the two QB's!

Baylor,Boise and TCU got screwed the worst in where they went. All three deserved much better bowls.

The Rose Bowl is a great matchup. That game will be a 45-42 game.
Also the Fiesta Bowl should be a nice game. Plenty of scoring in that one too.
I have no interest in the Sugar and Orange. Just bad matchups in both of those. The day the BCS kicks the Big East will make the whole process much better.
I am assuming the SEC couldn't get three teams in the BCS bowls. Because Arkansas would have been a better game going against Michigan.

This year the BCS championship game may very well be second fiddle to several of the games you've mentioned....

On a personal note, the Auburn vs Virginia game will be interesting for me as Virginia should be a tough challenge but a doable one for Auburn's youngsters.

Roy Tucker
12-05-2011, 09:56 AM
I'll have the NC game on (what else is there to do on a early January Sunday night) but I can't say I'm very excited. Other matchups are more compelling for all the rest of us non-SEC fans. Didn't you guys already have an SEC championship game? ;-)

I am curious as to how Illinois, UCLA, Ohio St., and Florida got in bowl games. Didn't they all, like, suck?

And Northern Illinois has a very good mid-major type team. They played a helluva game against Ohio U.

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 11:04 AM
Michigan is a better story. Michigan also has 2 losses as opposed to 3 for MSU. You can say that MSU got screwed because of a money grab (Big 10 title game). I have watched several of Michigan's games and can honestly say they are one of the worst teams ever to get an at large BCS bowl bid.

MSU played Wisc to the last whistle. They should not be penalized for playing in their championship game especially if it was a close game. It's happened before with other conferences but I still don't like it. Can you help me out with why Nebraska got a better bowl bid than the Spartans? That's another head scratcher

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 11:04 AM
I'll have the NC game on (what else is there to do on a early January Sunday night) but I can't say I'm very excited. Other matchups are more compelling for all the rest of us non-SEC fans. Didn't you guys already have an SEC championship game? ;-)

I am curious as to how Illinois, UCLA, Ohio St., and Florida got in bowl games. Didn't they all, like, suck?

And Northern Illinois has a very good mid-major type team. They played a helluva game against Ohio U.

It's on a Monday night

MWM
12-05-2011, 11:44 AM
Michigan State is a much better team than Michigan. They beat them head to head and Michigan never had to play Wisconsin. Michigan State also beat Wisconsin first time around. You can't hold it against them that they played in the conference championship game against the top team in the conference.

Stray
12-05-2011, 11:50 AM
I don't have a problem with the National Championship game, well unless Alabama wins that game.

The at large selections were terrible though. Kansas State is more deserving than some of those teams.

bucksfan2
12-05-2011, 11:56 AM
Michigan State is a much better team than Michigan. They beat them head to head and Michigan never had to play Wisconsin. Michigan State also beat Wisconsin first time around. You can't hold it against them that they played in the conference championship game against the top team in the conference.

Michigan is the better story and has 2 losses. MSU isn't as appealing and has 3 losses. In the end its about selling the most tickets and generating the most buzz. Michigan does that. It sure as heck isn't fair but its what the current system allows.

MWM
12-05-2011, 12:03 PM
How is Michigan the better "story"? I'm pretty sure MSU is a much better team and that's what *should* matter.

bucksfan2
12-05-2011, 12:35 PM
How is Michigan the better "story"? I'm pretty sure MSU is a much better team and that's what *should* matter.

Do I really have to go back in the the annuals of history to explain why Michigan is a better story? Historic program, has been down for years, gets new coach, goes 10-2, beats arch rival, etc. A resurrection of Michigan may just trump anything MSU has done in the past 25 years.

kaldaniels
12-05-2011, 12:54 PM
Do I really have to go back in the the annuals of history to explain why Michigan is a better story? Historic program, has been down for years, gets new coach, goes 10-2, beats arch rival, etc. A resurrection of Michigan may just trump anything MSU has done in the past 25 years.

I think "better story" is just a euphemism for "more fans traveling and higher TV ratings. :D

HotCorner
12-05-2011, 01:00 PM
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/632405/cant_spell_bcs_without_bs_tshirt-p235744595216858751t53h_400.jpg

Caveat Emperor
12-05-2011, 02:33 PM
Michigan State is a much better team than Michigan. They beat them head to head and Michigan never had to play Wisconsin. Michigan State also beat Wisconsin first time around. You can't hold it against them that they played in the conference championship game against the top team in the conference.

There's a very real argument to be made that Michigan State would've been better off declining an invitation to the Big 10 Championship game.

Caveat Emperor
12-05-2011, 02:35 PM
BTW -- I've come around to MWM's way of thinking on this.

If the "No Rematch" arguments against #2 Michigan were valid in 2006 (destroys value of regular season, not conference champion, other teams just as deserving of a shot) when it lost ON THE ROAD to the #1 Ohio State team, why are they no longer valid for Alabama who finds itself in the exact same situation despite the fact that it lost AT HOME to the #1 team.

Doesn't pass the sniff test at all, IMO.

*BaseClogger*
12-05-2011, 03:09 PM
http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics28/640/UL/ULWCLXAVJCNKKQT.20080826152253.jpg

(I don't know why I like this image so much)

BuckeyeRed27
12-05-2011, 03:22 PM
BTW -- I've come around to MWM's way of thinking on this.

If the "No Rematch" arguments against #2 Michigan were valid in 2006 (destroys value of regular season, not conference champion, other teams just as deserving of a shot) when it lost ON THE ROAD to the #1 Ohio State team, why are they no longer valid for Alabama who finds itself in the exact same situation despite the fact that it lost AT HOME to the #1 team.

Doesn't pass the sniff test at all, IMO.

Michigan had the misfortune of losing on the last day of the regular season. Alabama was lucky enough to lose a few weeks ago. That's really about it.

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 03:32 PM
BTW -- I've come around to MWM's way of thinking on this.

If the "No Rematch" arguments against #2 Michigan were valid in 2006 (destroys value of regular season, not conference champion, other teams just as deserving of a shot) when it lost ON THE ROAD to the #1 Ohio State team, why are they no longer valid for Alabama who finds itself in the exact same situation despite the fact that it lost AT HOME to the #1 team.

Doesn't pass the sniff test at all, IMO.

The difference is whether Mich/OSU were really the two best teams. People outside of the Big Ten bubble questioned that fact. I thought Florida would give OSU a good game and deserved a chance. I must say I did not know at the time how weak the Big Ten really was that year.