So we were a missed fg from a LSU-Boise St. final
- Thread starter skb124
- Start date
BCS Championship - which is the way it should be.....so for that, I am happy.
However, there is a part of me that would enjoy greatly seeing what would happen to Boise on a national stage, in the Super Dome on a South LA evening by either of AL or LSU. We would not have to listen to them anymore bitching about respect.
However, there is a part of me that would enjoy greatly seeing what would happen to Boise on a national stage, in the Super Dome on a South LA evening by either of AL or LSU. We would not have to listen to them anymore bitching about respect.
I would like to see them play a real defense with time to prepare, so they would shut up. I just hate seeing teams play two tough games all year in a weak leaguewith 4 weeks of cupcakes in between....it is just not fair to someone having a tough matchup every week (SEC West). Same for Houston,TCU (last year), Cinncinati (2 years ago) etc.
Tomake matters worse, SEC teamscatch's hell for OOC opponents. Why wouldyou want to schedule a real tough OOCgame when youhave8 tough as hell conference games and you get no credit for that (according to the Boise St bunch).
Tomake matters worse, SEC teamscatch's hell for OOC opponents. Why wouldyou want to schedule a real tough OOCgame when youhave8 tough as hell conference games and you get no credit for that (according to the Boise St bunch).
lsu already beat bama. if the regular season "is a playoff" and the current system "preserves the sanctity of the regular season" then lsu shouldn't be playing bama again. i would be 100% fine watching lsu blow out boise or okie st, because lsu is trying to win the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, not a rematch against a team they already beat in tuscaloser a month ago. hell, at least oregon could have argued they played lsu in week 1 and came a long way between then and now, bama played lsu when they should have been at peak form and lost. at home. at night.
<div>
</div><div>do you think msu would get the benefit of the doubt bama got? arkansas? south carolina? anyone?</div>
<div>
</div><div>do you think msu would get the benefit of the doubt bama got? arkansas? south carolina? anyone?</div>
No matter what you do. The SEC basically dominates the country every season in football. They do it in championship games, other bowl games, and regular season games. You will never shut these people up just by beating them. People won't stop complaining ever. Would a playoff shut them up? How about a 64 team playoff? That's what we have in basketball, and we complain every time we don't make it. No matter how many teams get a shot at the title, there will be some who think they've been cheated. Beating them doesn't shut them up... Nothing does.
Everybody has to play by the same set of rules. You want a shot at the title? All you have to do is prove you're the best or second best. You don't do that with the 77th toughest schedule and a loss.
Everybody has to play by the same set of rules. You want a shot at the title? All you have to do is prove you're the best or second best. You don't do that with the 77th toughest schedule and a loss.
The sole purpose of the NC game is to determine who is #1 not who is #2, and we already know Bama isn't it. Even if they win, they still won't be it.
Edit to clarify: I'm not saying Bama shouldn't be in the NC game. I'm arguing against the point that they <span style="text-decoration: underline;">have</span> to be in because they are the 2nd best team in the nation. We all know they <span style="text-decoration: underline;">are</span> the 2nd best team in the nation, which means that cannot be #1. The problem this year is that there really is no viable contender.
Edit to clarify: I'm not saying Bama shouldn't be in the NC game. I'm arguing against the point that they <span style="text-decoration: underline;">have</span> to be in because they are the 2nd best team in the nation. We all know they <span style="text-decoration: underline;">are</span> the 2nd best team in the nation, which means that cannot be #1. The problem this year is that there really is no viable contender.
Dawgs I honestly don't think that Bama is in because their name is Bama. I think they got in because most people legitimately think they are the second best team. So in this instance I do believe that any other SEC team would be in the same boat, if they came in as highly regarded as Bama's team was this year. Now if it had been us starting at #16 in the nation then no I don't think we would be playing for the championship. But Bama was preseason #2. If you just put our jerseys on their players, I still think they'd be in the championship.
The entire purpose is to get the two BEST teams. The regular season is not a playoff. There is no playoff in college. The BCS tries to find the two best teams in the nation and have them play each other for a winner-take-all trophy. That is what has happened and they got it right. Not fair to punish Alabama just because they happen to be in the same conference as the #1 team in the nation. They are #2.dawgs said:
Why does LSU beating Bama in November hold more weight than Bama beating LSU in January? If LSU is clearly better than Bama, then they should be able to beat them again. But I don't think they are clearly better. They are two very evenly matched teams and winner takes all. If Bama wins, do you not think the BCS chose the right team? The whole point is to find out the "best team".
The better team doesn't always win. If they did, there'd be no upsets. If there's an undefeated team out there, or even a 1-loss team that looks like it could stay within 2 TDs of Bama, then yeah, they deserve to be in the championship game instead of Bama. But Bama would skullf**k any of the 1-loss teams that are out there. I know that's subjective, but few people really think any of those teams are as good as Bama. Collin Cowherd said last week that Las Vegas oddsmakers have said that Bama is the only team in the country that wouldn't be more than a TD underdog against LSU. I'm sorry if Oklahoma St. is butthurt about this. Too bad. How about not losing to Iowa freaking St. You lost to a team that should have finished with a losing record.
I don't care that Bama is in the title game, but I would not have been upset if someone else had gotten in. If Bama wins, I will likely still not be convinced they are the better team for all the reasons that have been listed a hundred times already (LSU played another game, beat Bama at home, and won the SEC).
...the regular season is a playoff. By putting these teams back together the BCS is implying that LSU's first win wasn't enough. They are diminishing a regular season game to meaninglessness.<div>
</div><div>In a perfect world, they would just crown LSU champs now. What else do they have to prove? They're the lone unbeaten and have played an unassailably difficult schedule (Oregon, WVU, MSU, Florida, Auburn, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, etc.). To ask them to beat Bama again is an insult to what they've already accomplished.</div><div>
</div><div>ETA: No one can gripe about not getting in. If you want to play for it all, then don't lose (the very concept of a playoff).</div>
</div><div>In a perfect world, they would just crown LSU champs now. What else do they have to prove? They're the lone unbeaten and have played an unassailably difficult schedule (Oregon, WVU, MSU, Florida, Auburn, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, etc.). To ask them to beat Bama again is an insult to what they've already accomplished.</div><div>
</div><div>ETA: No one can gripe about not getting in. If you want to play for it all, then don't lose (the very concept of a playoff).</div>
I agree that in a completely fair system LSU should be crowned champion. But thats not realistic and that only works this year since they are the only undefeated team. Thats also why they went to a championship game anyway, so that a team cant just claim a championship. ( I feel confident you know that though. Just throwing out the obvious.)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space
re"> </span><div>
</div><div>I disagree about the playoff though. Its not a playoff because its not a single playoff tree. Why would Bama losing to LSU eliminate Bama, but OSU losing to Iowa State would not eliminate them? It cant be a playoff because the same teams are not involved. In a playoff a loss is a loss, no matter who it is to. This is just a big cluster of crap. Thats why a TRUE playoff needs to be implemented.</div>
re"> </span><div></div><div>I disagree about the playoff though. Its not a playoff because its not a single playoff tree. Why would Bama losing to LSU eliminate Bama, but OSU losing to Iowa State would not eliminate them? It cant be a playoff because the same teams are not involved. In a playoff a loss is a loss, no matter who it is to. This is just a big cluster of crap. Thats why a TRUE playoff needs to be implemented.</div>
Is that any type of championship rewards the best team always. With the way football is... that will never happen, especially in college. Even in the Super Bowl, the best team does not always win. Is there any doubt that the 2007 Patriots were the best team in the NFL? But the 1 loss that they had was against the Giants in the 1 game that mattered most.<div>
</div><div>This current situation is not too different (with the exception of a playoff). As much **** as I give the BCS, this is quite possibly the best way to consistently put the two best teams in the nation against one another. Despite me saying that, I still do not think it is the most fair, entertaining or deserving way. But as of now, if Alabama and LSU were to have another close match or Alabama were to win, that still would not 100% prove that Alabama is the better team when compared to LSU since they are both pretty even. Just the winner was able to play their best game and get all of the breaks at the right time. That's it.</div>
</div><div>This current situation is not too different (with the exception of a playoff). As much **** as I give the BCS, this is quite possibly the best way to consistently put the two best teams in the nation against one another. Despite me saying that, I still do not think it is the most fair, entertaining or deserving way. But as of now, if Alabama and LSU were to have another close match or Alabama were to win, that still would not 100% prove that Alabama is the better team when compared to LSU since they are both pretty even. Just the winner was able to play their best game and get all of the breaks at the right time. That's it.</div>
The regular season is the furthest thing from a playoff. The way this cluster17 of a system is setup, 5, 6 or more teams can end the season off undefeated. What kind of playoff is that?<div>
</div><div>If there was a playoff system (like every other sport) and LSU would have to play Alabama again.. how would that be an insult to LSU then? If any LSU player is insulted to have to play Alabama again then they deserve to get their *** beat for looking down on a team they were only able to beat by a field goal in OT. You don't go to OT (usually) against a team that is clearly inferior to you.</div>
</div><div>If there was a playoff system (like every other sport) and LSU would have to play Alabama again.. how would that be an insult to LSU then? If any LSU player is insulted to have to play Alabama again then they deserve to get their *** beat for looking down on a team they were only able to beat by a field goal in OT. You don't go to OT (usually) against a team that is clearly inferior to you.</div>
L
latham12
Guest
Comparing if Green Bay goes undefeated and has to play a team they have already beaten again in the Super Bowl and that team beats them, no one is gonna say Green Bay deserves to be champions because they beat that team in November? All the marbles for one game. Throw out the records, like it or not, the BCS more than not matches up the two best teams. You can not say that with a playoff system in D2, NFL, baseball or any other sport. Playoffs wins goes to the hot hand sometimes.
a sport that requires some kind of series for a playoff tends to get it right more than any other. When you look at baseball, NBA and NHL, the best teams are usually always playing each other at the end.
I was actually talking with some friends in class the other day about that. When you play one game, you are figuring out who is better on that day, not necessarily who is the better team overall. With college football it is the absolute worst because you are not playing from the same pool of times. There is no way to legitimately know who the best team is. Like Herbstreit says, he uses the "eyeball test". That proves nothing, but its the best we've got. I think more times than not, though, the best team in the nation wins the college football championship. Even if there was a playoff it still wouldn't guarantee the best team wins, but I think its the fairest way to go about it.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-spacere"> </span><div>
</div><div>Look at the college basketball playoffs. I'd say the best team in the nation actually only wins the championship around %40 of the time. That's just me pulling a number out, but I think thats a fair number. You have to play almost perfect for 6 games to win that. There is no chance Butler was the #2 team in the nation the past two years, yet they played for the championship. Its just all about who you play and when you play and if your shots are falling that night. I don't think theres that much of an argument that the two North Carolina teams were the best teams in the nation, and the Florida teams were most likely the best teams. But other than that, the champions in my opinion were probably not the best teams. However, I absolutely love March Madness. The best team may not win it all, but it is a fair way of finding a champion.</div><div>
</div><div>Just like Green Bay last year. They were a six seed. Barely snuck in the playoffs. But they played the best once they got there. Were they the best team? Possibly, but then who was the rest of the year?</div><div>
</div><div>I feel like MLB, NHL, and NBA do it the fairest way, but theirs no way you can do that in college or the NFL. </div><div>
</div><div>Sorry for my wordiness.</div>
re"> </span><div></div><div>Look at the college basketball playoffs. I'd say the best team in the nation actually only wins the championship around %40 of the time. That's just me pulling a number out, but I think thats a fair number. You have to play almost perfect for 6 games to win that. There is no chance Butler was the #2 team in the nation the past two years, yet they played for the championship. Its just all about who you play and when you play and if your shots are falling that night. I don't think theres that much of an argument that the two North Carolina teams were the best teams in the nation, and the Florida teams were most likely the best teams. But other than that, the champions in my opinion were probably not the best teams. However, I absolutely love March Madness. The best team may not win it all, but it is a fair way of finding a champion.</div><div>
</div><div>Just like Green Bay last year. They were a six seed. Barely snuck in the playoffs. But they played the best once they got there. Were they the best team? Possibly, but then who was the rest of the year?</div><div>
</div><div>I feel like MLB, NHL, and NBA do it the fairest way, but theirs no way you can do that in college or the NFL. </div><div>
</div><div>Sorry for my wordiness.</div>
How convincing would if have to be for you to consider them "undisputed" NC?<div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>
</div>
like the yankees and the lakers ruining all the fun. I like one great or terrible game shaking things up. So many teams have won a superbowl, and I love it that wya.
just that you pretty much always find out who the best teams are. I like parity and variety, so I din't mind a one and done playoff anyway.
You're saying that if in NOLA (read: at LSU) Bama shuts down LSU's offense like they did in Tuscaloosa but their offense executes and wins, say, 24-13, then it's a "tie"....???<div>
</div><div>if so, your logical is illogical...</div><div>
</div><div>give Bama 3 points for home field advantage plus the 3 by which they lost.... That leaves Bama 6 points "behind" LSU for the NC....</div><div>
</div><div>Now Bama will be playing "at" LSU/NOLA (let's call that only a 2 point advantage for the "home" team).... </div><div>
</div><div>Therefore, a 4 point Bama win would make them "even"... and would certainly justify a split title.</div><div>
</div><div>My query is "In your mind, how much would Bama need to win by for you to call them "undisputed NC"?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>if so, your logical is illogical...</div><div>
</div><div>give Bama 3 points for home field advantage plus the 3 by which they lost.... That leaves Bama 6 points "behind" LSU for the NC....</div><div>
</div><div>Now Bama will be playing "at" LSU/NOLA (let's call that only a 2 point advantage for the "home" team).... </div><div>
</div><div>Therefore, a 4 point Bama win would make them "even"... and would certainly justify a split title.</div><div>
</div><div>My query is "In your mind, how much would Bama need to win by for you to call them "undisputed NC"?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
The only sport I can think of that always crowns the best team as champion is the English Premier League in soccer. They don't have a playoff. They play a double round robin and at the end of the season, the team with the best record is the champion. The more teams you have in a playoff, the more chance there is for an upset where the best team loses in the playoffs. Does anybody really think Villanova was a better team than Georgetown in 1985? Of course not. Nova lost3 out of4 games against Georgetown that year. Or how about the Giants and the Patriots in 2007-2008. They won the Super Bowl, but they went 14-6 that year while the Patriots went 18-1. And the 2 teams split 2 games that year.
Edit: Sorry. Misread your post. I was thinking you said sports with more teams in the playoffs usually get the best team as champion. I see now that you're saying sports that make teams play a series in each round of the playoffs get it right more often than sports with a single elimination format. Clearly, you're right about that.
Edit: Sorry. Misread your post. I was thinking you said sports with more teams in the playoffs usually get the best team as champion. I see now that you're saying sports that make teams play a series in each round of the playoffs get it right more often than sports with a single elimination format. Clearly, you're right about that.
The regular season is a regular season. The title game is a 2-team playoff. There's almost no question that LSU and Bama are the 2 best teams in the country, so they are the 2 that belong in the playoff. Most of the teams that have everplayed in the title game have had at least 1 loss during the season. And none of those teams' loss was as good a loss as Bama's was this year. If Bama doesn't deserve to play for the title this year, then none of those teams deserved to play in it either.klerushund said:
It's an apples to oranges comparison due largely to the numbers difference. The NFL consists of 32 total teams divided into2 leagues (AFC and NFC). There are 119 college teams playing division 1A football. I think there are 12 college football conferences (currently) in addition toteams listed as Independents. NFL regular season = 16 games. The division winners+ 1 wild card team from each conference go to the playoffs. Conference winners go to the Super Bowl. Given that there are only 32 total teams that can possibly win the Super Bowl (championship) and the eventual winner has to navigate through the playoffs to do so, this is the logical way oftheir determining a champion in the pro ranks.
Now given that there are 119 college teams vying for a title each year andonly 12 regular season games + conference championship games for some, you see the obvious difference in methods of determining a "champion" from the college ranks. The regular season results must weigh heavily in the decision of determining a "champion" from the college ranks because there is no playoff system. I think you have to look at prior regular season matchups as "elimination" games b/c you don't have a set playoff system. In my view, LSU eliminated Bama from the right to play for the title (represent the SEC) on Nov. 5th. It's funny that these same talking heads thatmake the Green Bay comparision are never askedabout GB having to play another NFC team in the Super Bowl rather than the AFC champ. There have been several years in the NFL when the 2 best teams were in the same conference. They never deviated from the Super Bowl game pitting the NFC champ versus the AFC champ did they? The comparison to the NFL in my view is null and void. LSU and Bama are in the same conference (obviously). The college Nat'l Title gameshould pit one conference champ versus another conference champ. The dead horse hasofficially been beaten beyond all recognition.
Now given that there are 119 college teams vying for a title each year andonly 12 regular season games + conference championship games for some, you see the obvious difference in methods of determining a "champion" from the college ranks. The regular season results must weigh heavily in the decision of determining a "champion" from the college ranks because there is no playoff system. I think you have to look at prior regular season matchups as "elimination" games b/c you don't have a set playoff system. In my view, LSU eliminated Bama from the right to play for the title (represent the SEC) on Nov. 5th. It's funny that these same talking heads thatmake the Green Bay comparision are never askedabout GB having to play another NFC team in the Super Bowl rather than the AFC champ. There have been several years in the NFL when the 2 best teams were in the same conference. They never deviated from the Super Bowl game pitting the NFC champ versus the AFC champ did they? The comparison to the NFL in my view is null and void. LSU and Bama are in the same conference (obviously). The college Nat'l Title gameshould pit one conference champ versus another conference champ. The dead horse hasofficially been beaten beyond all recognition.
i think you missed my sarcasm referring to the "regular season is a playoff" which is one of the core arguments from the pro-bowl side. if you want to argue the bowls preserve the regular season and all that other utter ********, then you better back it up and preserve the integrity of the first bama-lsu outcome.<div>Incognegro said:
</div><div>i'm 100% for a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff. i think it'd be the most fair and equitable way to determine a champion. there are 120+ FBS programs that play in a wide variety of conferences and SoS's. a playoff lets us see on the field whether a 1 loss conference champ from conference A is better than an undefeated conference champ from conference B. if 1 teams (like say lsu and bama this year) end up in the title game, then the 1 loss bama team proved without a doubt they are the #2 team in the country and deserve to play the #1 team for the title, not just handed a winner take all shot at beating lsu and winning it while sitting at home while lsu had to go beat a 10 W uga team in the sec cg.
</div>
well in 2006 florida lost to auburn, but jumped ahead of michigan who only lost to #1 ohio st by 3. then come bowl season we found out the big 10 was **** when florida beat down ohio st and usc beat down michigan. not saying this year that would have happened. thankfully lsu played oregon and wvu out of conference, so we have a decent idea of where they stand relative the upper class of other conferences, but in CFB because of the sheer number of teams and only 3-4 games of inter conference play (mostly big team beating up on sun belt type teams though), it's often impossible to know 100% for certain which conferences are the best/deepest until bowl season. does a cluster of 6-6 to 8-4 teams mean a lot of mediocrity or does it mean a balanced, deeply talented conference where everyone knock off everyone week to week? by sticking lsu and bama in the title game, we are negating the champion of the #1 rated conference according to computers a shot to prove they only lost a game because they played a tougher week to week conference schedule. you can argue all you want about the sec v. the big 12, but it's all just predictions on how you think it'd play out. without on field results, we'll never know for sure. i do know a 10-2 arkansas team needed a major comeback to beat a 6-6 a&m team. and i know that the big 12 only lost 3 non-conference games all season, all 3 to other BCS conferences teams (i know mizzou in OT @ az st and kansas @ GT...but can't remember the other). <div>skb124 said:
</div><div>just seems to me when you essentially set up a 1 game playoff, you give the shot the the 1 loss conference champ of the #1 rated conference according to the numbers, not the divisional runner up who already lost the the #1 team. bama might be the #2 team, but we already no they are worse than lsu. </div>
we'll see. i hope lsu blows the doors off bama, and okie st blows out stanford. just don't try to argue that the BCS worked cause it matched up #1 and #2. the BCS will always spit out a #1 and a #2. according to that kinda logic, the only way the BCS would fail would be if they randomly decided to pick #1 and #3 to play for the title. i know what the numbers say. i'm saying the logic behind the numbers and the current system is flawed and returning to the old bowl system is more flawed.AssEndDawg said:
I'm with you 100% on this one, and there's no telling how many times over I've heard "Bama had their shot and lost. Someone else deserves a chance!" I'm sorry... why? Just as you pointed out, why does losing to the best team in the country eliminate you from contention while losing to Iowa St, TCU, etc does not? If that's the way it's gonna be, then look for SEC teams to delve even further into creampuff OOC scheduling because god forbid you lose to a damn good team. It makes no sense at all.
The fact of the matter is that the BCS championship game and formula is designed to put the two best teams in college football against each other for a title game. I wouldn't say that it's always been successful, but this is one year where I think it did exactly that. Also, people act like having two teams from the same conference is some massive loophole that has just been exposed when in reality, it is the first time it's even come close to happening since the inception of the BCS, and I believe it's the first time that two teams are playing that had already played each other earlier in the season. People need to get over it, although I feel like we're inching closer to some sort of playoff every year. It's gonna happen at some point.
it almost happened in 2006 ith ohio st and michigan. florida lost to an inferior auburn team. michigan lost @ ohio st by 3 points. florida barely edged michigan after last minute voter shifts. turns out both michigan and ohio st were overrated based on the bowl results. not saying that's the case this year with bama and lsu, and we won't know because they'll be playing each other instead of 2 highly ranked teams from other conferences. oklahoma st's argument is the EXACT same argument florida had in 2006 - the year the sec run began. it's ironic (in the alanis way) that in 2006 the sec was ready to blow their tops if michigan got in over florida, but in 2011 will vehemently defend bama getting a shot in the exact same scenario. as a sec writer stated in an article i read the other day, the sec pride with this run of titles is coupled with beating down the very best the other conferences have had to offer. by having a rematch, we are avoiding beating down the very best the other conferences had to offer, specifically the champion from the #1 cpu rated conference in the country. there's no sec pride to be gained here, unless you take pride in the abstract methods by which #1 and #2 of the bcs are determined instead of on field results.<div>Seinfeld said:
</div><div>it's time the sec got humbled. this **** reached ridiculous levels 3 years ago and is well past the point of being bearable these days. and i'm a starkville native who grew up on msu and sec sports.
<div>
</div> </div>
They only went 11-2 that year. That's a lot different from Okie St. losing to a team that went 5-6 in the rest of its schedule. Also, Florida had played a much tougher schedule than Michigan in 2006. As Colin Cowherd said last week, take away the game LSU and Bama played against each other and you've got 20 games and 20 blowouts. Okie St. not only has the bad loss, they've also struggled in a few of their wins.
oklahoma st played a much tougher schedule according to any SoS ranking you can dig up. also, that auburn team had 3 losses. so they were worse than the team michigan lost to on paper. that's all that matters.
the fact that we actually have this argument instead of letting bama and oklahoma st decide who is better on the field is ludicrous and only serves to line the pockets of bowl execs and the higher ups in the conferences and big time universities.
the fact that we actually have this argument instead of letting bama and oklahoma st decide who is better on the field is ludicrous and only serves to line the pockets of bowl execs and the higher ups in the conferences and big time universities.