Bcs - wtf 2011

[longknocker]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Greg, would you care to try to objectively comment? I am really interested to hear an honest take on that from the 'Bama contingent....

E.J.: I Am Truly Sorry For Oklahoma's Loss On The Plane Crash; I Do Feel It Affected Their Play. Alabama's Deep Snapper Lost His GF To The Tornado That Tore Tuscaloosa Apart, But He & The Entire Team Played A FB Game The Next Week & Won. I Realize The Only True Way To Determine A Champion May Be A Playoff System. Even Then, It Would Be Two Games Per Team & What Would That Prove? I Think A Team 's Performance Over An Entire Year Is More Relevant. The "Existing" System In The BCS Seeks To Place The Top Two Teams Against Each Other & Most Experts Agree This Year Those Teams Are LSU & BAMA.

[OLS]

Originally Posted by longknocker

I Think A Team 's Performance Over An Entire Year Is More Relevant.

I agree with what you say here, Greg, but another Bama fan was making a case in the SEC thread
that said basically, "look, here are the teams that bama and OKST played, and here is their ranking
AT THAT TIME, blablabla..." and my first thought was, wait, you would put early season rankings up
as (partial) proof of the solidity of a team? It's A WAY of doing it, but it's not a GOOD way. Everyone knows
pre-season rankings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and anything prior to week 4-5 is
nearly useless. So I found that particular argument weak, but it might certainly help this person
make a point, just not what I would call a good point.

So I do agree that the season as a whole is a better arbiter than a playoff to a point. But when others
make their case with numbers that were a fantasy back when, I do not agree that they make a slam dunk
case for slotting team A ahead of team B at the end. I need to go back and look at those numbers. Well I don't
need to, this deal is done now by the oracles of the BCS and my team is in, so......

I would be willing to bet that if you looked at wins against top 25 teams in the final standings, one
team would be clearly on top. People might say, 'well no, we had injuries or this happened or that occurred,
but that is why you have depth, to surmount those issues. BETTER teams have BETTER depth, so that is
not valid to me, nor are untimely deaths for that matter. That kind of stuff happens and has to be left out
of the argument. That may well BE why OK St. lost, but it's not neccessarily valid here, in my book.
I DO understand it was only brought up as an afterthought, I'm not saying this was ever thrown up as
an excuse. Now, off to check the numbers, lol.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by OLS

I agree with what you say here, Greg, but another Bama fan was making a case in the SEC thread
that said basically, "look, here are the teams that bama and OKST played, and here is their ranking
AT THAT TIME, blablabla..." and my first thought was, wait, you would put early season rankings up
as (partial) proof of the solidity of a team? It's A WAY of doing it, but it's not a GOOD way. Everyone knows
pre-season rankings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and anything prior to week 4-5 is
nearly useless. So I found that particular argument weak, but it might certainly help this person
make a point, just not what I would call a good point.
.

I read that argument, but it was so ridiculous….as were previous comments, I considered the source, as well as my being ask to leave by said person and figured there was no reason to punch holes in it.