Bcs - wtf 2011

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?

Yes, apparently be a great team, in a great conference and "just win" against a bunch of .500/sub .500 teams....

That's not what I asked you. And I do happen to still believe we are the better team, but that's a different argument all together.

And I acknowledged our loss. Had we have won that game, you're still probably looking at an Alabama - LSU championship game. Why? Because everybody else that had a clear path failed. All OK St had to do was beat a lowly 6-6 team and they were in. Done deal. Stanford got beat by Oregon who then proceeded to get beat by USC.

So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?

[357]

Originally Posted by E.J.

I agree.....it is what I said...

Sorry, I was agreeing with you. I just forgot to include that part.

Originally Posted by rizzle

So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?

I would argue Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. You can argue the strength of the teams that beat them, but the fact is we KNOW LSU is better than Alabama. We don't know if LSU is better than OK State; and that's the point.

We'll never know thanks to the BCS.

Think about this from the other side. If Alabama won, would you think it fair that LSU would get to play them again? Why should you have to beat one team twice and the winner of the SECOND game is the only one that counts?

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by 357

Sorry, I was agreeing with you. I just forgot to include that part.




I would argue Oklahoma State is better than Alabama. You can argue the strength of the teams that beat them, but the fact is we KNOW LSU is better than Alabama. We don't know if LSU is better than OK State; and that's the point.

We'll never know thanks to the BCS.

Think about this from the other side. If Alabama won, would you think it fair that LSU would get to play them again? Why should you have to beat one team twice and the winner of the SECOND game is the only one that counts?

The thing is, it isn't about fair. It's about matching 1 vs 2. In some people's minds, since we lost to the best, are not the best, it is impossible to be considered the second best.

Take it a step further. Bama lost by three to the best team in the country, who lost no other games. Ok State lost by three to a 6-6 Iowa State team that lost to 6 other teams by an average of 20+ points a game. If we had lost to Mississppi State instead of LSU, do you think we should be considered?

Look, I'm not a huge BCS fan, please don't mistake it. It's simply a fluke that the two best teams this year reside in the same division. Probably will never happen again. But I think a lot of the arguments out there are simply due to SEC fatigue. And that's understandable. But it is what it is.

[ninjavanish]

There is obviously only one way to settle this:

MORTAL KOMBAT!!!

<queue techno music>

[357]

Originally Posted by rizzle

The thing is, it isn't about fair. It's about matching 1 vs 2. In some people's minds, since we lost to the best, are not the best, it is impossible to be considered the second best.

Take it a step further. Bama lost by three to the best team in the country, who lost no other games. Ok State lost by three to a 6-6 Iowa State team that lost to 6 other teams by an average of 20+ points a game. If we had lost to Mississppi State instead of LSU, do you think we should be considered?

Look, I'm not a huge BCS fan, please don't mistake it. It's simply a fluke that the two best teams this year reside in the same division. Probably will never happen again. But I think a lot of the arguments out there are simply due to SEC fatigue. And that's understandable. But it is what it is.

First I never said anything about fair. It's not just about 1-2 because in 2006 after Ohio State beat Michigan 42-39 they were still 1-2 and yet they didn't play again in the title game. All we KNOW is LSU is better than Bama. We dont' know if any other conference champs are better because they haven't played them. Why play again when we know who is better? The only way to prove who's the best is to play it on the field. LSU-Bama has already been proven for this season. LSU-OK State or OK-Boise St hasn't been done. Nobody knows who would win either of those matchups.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by 357

First I never said anything about fair. It's not just about 1-2 because in 2006 after Ohio State beat Michigan 42-39 they were still 1-2 and yet they didn't play again in the title game.

Impossible. In the BCS championship game, 1 plays 2. Always. Michigan went and got thumped by USC and then Ohio State got thumped by Florida anyways.

All we KNOW is LSU is better than Bama. We dont' know if any other conference champs are better because they haven't played them. Why play again when we know who is better? The only way to prove who's the best is to play it on the field. LSU-Bama has already been proven for this season. LSU-OK State or OK-Boise St hasn't been done. Nobody knows who would win either of those matchups.

We're arguing about two different things. You have to be able to separate them.

And LSU would win both those matchups. Big.

[357]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Impossible. In the BCS championship game, 1 plays 2. Always. Michigan went and got thumped by USC and then Ohio State got thumped by Florida anyways.

First, it's not impossible. See below. Plus, the end results doesn't matter. The debate is who should play who, not who won in the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_BC...mpionship_Game

Pre-game buildup
The Ohio State Buckeyes were the No. 1 ranked team for the entire 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season, anchored by Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Troy Smith. The Buckeyes were 12–0 with several wins over ranked opponents: the defending national champions, then No. 2 Texas Longhorns, then No. 24 Penn State Nittany Lions, then No. 13 Iowa Hawkeyes, and their then undefeated Big Ten Conference rival, then No. 2 Michigan. The win over Michigan to finish the regular season essentially guaranteed the Buckeyes a spot in the National Championship game. Who they would play remained a highly-debated question. Despite the loss to Ohio State, Michigan remained No. 2 in the polls, followed by No. 3 Southern California (USC), No. 4 Florida, and No. 5 Notre Dame.

The next week, with both No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Michigan's regular season complete, No. 3 USC defeated then No. 5 Notre Dame. Fourth-ranked Florida defeated unranked in-state rival Florida State. With the victory over Notre Dame, USC passed Michigan in the polls, taking over the BCS No. 2 spot. Michigan fell to No. 3 with Florida remaining No. 4 and Notre Dame falling to No. 10.

The last week of the regular season was dynamic for the national championship race. Third-ranked Michigan remained idle. Fourth-ranked Florida faced No. 9 Arkansas in the SEC Championship, while No. 2 USC faced unranked, in-city rival UCLA. Both Florida and Michigan cheered as USC fell to UCLA 13–9. Florida defeated Arkansas to claim the 2006 SEC Championship Title. USC's loss knocked them out of contention, leaving No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 Florida as the most likely teams to earn the No. 2 ranking and face Ohio State for the BCS National Championship. The final BCS poll passed Florida over Michigan to take the No. 2 spot while Michigan remained unchanged at No. 3, with .0101 points separating the two teams. This small difference was a result of the human polls (the Coaches Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second.

Controversy over No. 2: Rematch or new opponent?
There were many theories how Florida jumped Michigan in the final poll. Some sportswriters theorized that it was not a matter of which was the better team, claiming Florida had an advantage in the polls because they had played the last two weeks while Michigan had not, or that voters were swayed due to Florida coach Urban Meyer's "campaign"[citation needed] to get Florida into the BCS National Championship Game.[4][5][6] The fact that the difference in the final BCS Poll was due to human voters, not computer rankings, gives some credence to these theories. Other theories suggest that since Michigan did not win their conference title, they did not deserve to play for the BCS National Championship, or that a rematch between Michigan and Ohio State was not favored by the poll voters.[7] The controversy was largely resolved when USC defeated Michigan 32–18 in the 2007 Rose Bowl, and Florida beat top-ranked Ohio State 41–14 in the BCS Championship Game.

Clearly the theory that "voters" feel that a team who failed to win their own conference should be excluded from playing in a national title game is BUNK. They forgot to exclude non-conference winning 1-loss SEC teams.

My point is a rematch reeks of an SEC bias. The Big-10 didn't get that chance in 2006. Why should the SEC get it now? Overall my point is pretty well summed up by E.J.

Originally Posted by E.J.

Greg, the point isn't if people "think" they could play with LSU....it is giving them the chance to show they can. Alabama had that chance at home and lost.

There are MANY, MANY games every year that teams win, that NOBODY thought they could.

Originally Posted by rizzle

And LSU would win both those matchups. Big.

Nobody in their right mind thought Boise State could be Oklahoma in 2007 but it happened. Alabama had their chance to beat LSU. Time for someone else to get a chance. LSU-Alabama was settled on the field. NEXT!

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by 357

First, it's not impossible. See below. Plus, the end results doesn't matter. The debate is who should play who, not who won in the end.

Mike, I hate to point it out to you, but you just proved my point. See below as a cut and past of what you posted.

The last week of the regular season was dynamic for the national championship race. Third-ranked Michigan remained idle. Fourth-ranked Florida faced No. 9 Arkansas in the SEC Championship, while No. 2 USC faced unranked, in-city rival UCLA. Both Florida and Michigan cheered as USC fell to UCLA 13–9. Florida defeated Arkansas to claim the 2006 SEC Championship Title. USC's loss knocked them out of contention, leaving No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 Florida as the most likely teams to earn the No. 2 ranking and face Ohio State for the BCS National Championship. The final BCS poll passed Florida over Michigan to take the No. 2 spot while Michigan remained unchanged at No. 3, with .0101 points separating the two teams. This small difference was a result of the human polls (the Coaches Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second.

1 played 2 for the championship game. Always.

Clearly the theory that "voters" feel that a team who failed to win their own conference should be excluded from playing in a national title game is BUNK. They forgot to exclude non-conference winning 1-loss SEC teams.

My point is a rematch reeks of an SEC bias. The Big-10 didn't get that chance in 2006. Why should the SEC get it now? Overall my point is pretty well summed up by E.J.

Nobody in their right mind thought Boise State could be Oklahoma in 2007 but it happened. Alabama had their chance to beat LSU. Time for someone else to get a chance. LSU-Alabama was settled on the field. NEXT!

And that's what makes college ball so great, ain't it? We still owe y'all for the 2000 Orange Bowl, by the way. See you in Dallas next September.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

So again, who do you think is better than LSU and Bama?

You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I don't know who is better. I know they played....and one team won and one team lost and that is that....

I could not care less if the masses would say the better team didn't win the game....who cares? They played the game and there was a winner and a loser, you move on from there.

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - LSU > Alabama

[OLS]

Originally Posted by E.J.

You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I

he wants to know if you are rational or can be dismissed.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I don't know who is better. I know they played....and one team won and one team lost and that is that....

I could not care less if the masses would say the better team didn't win the game....who cares? They played the game and there was a winner and a loser, you move on from there.

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - LSU > Alabama

It IS relevant for the basis of this whole freaking conversation, IMO.

My part in this converstion has nothing to do with the fact that LSU > Alabama. I'm saying that just because Alabama isn't number 1 doesn't mean they can't be number 2. And for the BCS championship game, that is all that matters.

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - Alabama > Oklahoma State

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - Alabama > Oklahoma State

Because they have not played, your saying that is purely assumption. Again, it is why we play the games....

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Because they have not played, your saying that is purely assumption. Again, it is why we play the games....

Then get it scheduled. I would love to wipe the field with T Boone's boys.

I've got a really good article I'll post in a few after I find it. You guys know that the SEC proposed a +1 system already and that the ACC was the only conference to agree, right? We already tried to remedy this. Problem is, nobody screams foul about it until they're directly affected.

It'll all change after the contract runs out in 2013. God can only hope they somehow get it right. But for the next two years we're stuck with it.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Then get it scheduled. I would love to wipe the field with T Boone's boys.

I've got a really good article I'll post in a few after I find it. You guys know that the SEC proposed a +1 system already and that the ACC was the only conference to agree, right? We already tried to remedy this. Problem is, nobody screams foul about it until they're directly affected.

It'll all change after the contract runs out in 2013. God can only hope they somehow get it right. But for the next two years we're stuck with it.

I read that article, it was pretty good....and you're right, nobody came to the table to support the idea...