Message Boards

I have a reverse opinion: putting in a team that didn't even win their division, much less their conference, is lobbying for mediocrity.

Also, Do we KNOW that they are the 2 best? after all Bama has only beaten 3 teams with winning records. I remember a year when EVERYONE KNEW that both TOSU and Michigan were better than everyone else. Yet surprise! TOSU got beat by Florida in the BCS NC game, and Michigan got beat by USC in the Rose.

I THINK they may be better, but the only way to confirm this is for both to go to different bowls and play quality opponents that have won their conference; like the year Bama played Utah...

Maybe that memory can be erased by playing Houston this year? Better than a rematch that will be watched by few that aren't Tide or Geaux Tiger fans. and what does it prove anyway, regardless who wins? If LSU wins we know they are better than Bama. Uhhhh... didn't the regular season determine that?

And if Bama wins.. well who's really better? They will have split, right? I for one won't be watching a rematch, but that's just me.

QUOTE:

Originally posted 06:22 PM ET  12.02 by Tidecrush

In the absence of a play off, you take the two best teams by merit.

I disagree. In playoff terminology, Bama is a wild card. When only 2 teams are allowed, you can't afford a wild card (conference and division winners get preference in every playoff/championship scheme there is, except the totally idiotic BCS that is). maybe when there is a playoff where ALL conference Champs get in, then we can afford to put in wild cards. But NOT when there are only 2 allowed.

Yes, Bama has beaten all they have faced, but there's not much on that list cept possibly Arky. Not much of an arg, and if that arg is valid for Bama's weak sched, then why not Houston's? Bama's sched includes Kent State, PSU, North Texas, Arky, Florida, Vandy, Ole Miss, Georgia Southern, and Aubie. Only Arky approaches a 'quality' win.

I agree with LSU (if they beat UGAly). But Bama? No, they haven't proven they are the best, at least not to me.

In my opinion, it's these kind of fluky years that high-light the case for a playoff. But everything you say is true, LSU and Bama clearly set themselves apart from the field.

What's even more amazing is how incredibly close the margin of victory is against the opponents in common for LSU and Alabama.

LSU ---------------------------------- Alabama
41-17 ---------Arkansas----------- 38-14
41-11 ---------Florida-------------- 38-10
38-7 ----------Tennessee--------- 37-6
45-10 ---------Auburn------------- 42-14
52-3 ----------Ole Miss------------ 52-7
19-6 -------Mississippi State----- 24-7

QUOTE:

Originally posted 06:22 PM ET  12.02 by Tidecrush

Oklahoma State is a fine football team with a strong resume, but there season is tainted.

Bama's season is also tainted by lack of wins against wuality opponents, and even more tainted by not being able to win their division, much less their conference.

Until we have a playoff, I guess we'll never truly know who the best team is. That is the BCS in a nutshell. Still, If there were a playoff, would you watch LSU vs. Bama in a final? My opinion is that the end result would produce the same game. It's total speculation on my part, but I am basing that on what I've seen during the season. It hurts to say, but USC looks like a better team than OK State. VT should also be in the conversation. Once again it's only an opinion, but Until we have a way of deciding champions on the field, we have to guess.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 07:35 PM ET  12.02 by Norka!

In my opinion, it's these kind of fluky years that high-light the case for a playoff. But everything you say is true, LSU and Bama clearly set themselves apart from the field.What's even more amazing is how incredibly close the margin of victory is against the opponents in common for LSU and Alabama.LSU ---------------------------------- Alabama 41-17 ---------Arkansas----------- 38-1441-11 ---------Florida-------------- 38-1038-7 ----------Tennessee--------- 37-645-10 ---------Auburn------------- 42-1452-3 ----------Ole Miss------------ 52-7 19-6 -------Mississippi State----- 24-7

Maybe, but LSU also has wins against Oregon (probable PAC winner), WV (probable BE winner), Bama, Arky, and is going to the SEC CCG. MUCH more impressive IMO.

And to me at least there is still doubt based on the weak sched and other teams stronger sched, even if they did have a flub (under sorta extenuating circumstances).

Brings up this question: which is worse, losing a game you shouldn't have or not having any signature wins to speak of? IOW, Bad losses vs Good wins? IDK, they kinda wash to me with the decider being who can win their conference.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 07:35 PM ET  12.02 by Norka!

LSU ---------------------------------- Alabama
41-17 ---------Arkansas----------- 38-14
41-11 ---------Florida-------------- 38-10
38-7 ----------Tennessee--------- 37-6
45-10 ---------Auburn------------- 42-14
52-3 ----------Ole Miss------------ 52-7
19-6 -------Mississippi State----- 24-7

BTW, that is cazy close for common opponents. I've never seen a comparison before, but that's wild.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 07:36 PM ET  12.02 by UlTroyFanII

Bama's season is also tainted by lack of wins against wuality opponents, and even more tainted by not being able to win their division, much less their conference.

I can't fault them for not winning their division, yet still making a claim for being #2. There have been years when Yankees and Red Sox were probably the two best teams in baseball.

"Oklahoma State is a fine football team with a strong resume, but there season is tainted."

Any team that plays a lot of quality opponents, which Okla St. did, can easily drop a game or even two. Tainted is a little strong for one loss amidst a very tough schedule.

Bama's schedule was not awful but they did avoid some tough teams in the SEC this year, no Georgia, no South Carolina. Overall their schedule was weaker than Okla St's.

The point made eariler by TroyFan about how people were saying the same nonsense about Ohio St and Michigan in 2006 should be enough of a wake up call to not just put Bama in without a whole lot of thought.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 07:48 PM ET  12.02 by UB bulls

I can't fault them for not winning their division, yet still making a claim for being #2. There have been years when Yankees and Red Sox were probably the two best teams in baseball.

Agree there. Sometimes it happens like that. Texas and Oklahoma in 08 for example.

Have to throw in something about the Rays however who have won two division titles and one wild card in AL EAST in past four years. Better than either of the two mentioned.

QUOTE:

Originally posted 06:22 PM ET  12.02 by Tidecrush

It seems that lots of College Football writers are lobbying against an LSU vs. Alabama rematch.

I really haven't seen this. After the Auburn game, I saw major articles on the Rivals, ESPN and CBS sports web sites that essentially said, "Alabama sealed the deal and left no doubt they deserve to be in the NCG."

The only media stories I've seen that are critical of a LSU/Bama NCG are by people like Dan Wetzel at Rivals, who think the BCS stinks in general and are using this as an example of why we need a playoff, not out of any disrespect for Alabama's accomplishments.

I think Mandel has been a little critical of the rematch, even though he thinks they are the best two teams, as I do.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 07:54 PM ET  12.02 by JPax

the Rays however who have won two division titles and one wild card in AL EAST in past four years. Better than either of the two mentioned.

the Rays are a freakin' EXPANSION team. They have no history like the Yankees or Red Sox do. The Yankees have Sabathia, Jeter, A Rod, and Rivera. The Sox have Youklis, Gonzales, Ortiz.

Big name players in big name cities, playing on big name TV channels.

Red Sox and Yankees had 13 players on the all star team this year. THIRTEEN. The Rays had two.

Everybody knows both the Red Sox and Yankees are better than the Rays.

:)

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 07:43 PM ET  12.02 by Tidecrush

Until we have a playoff, I guess we'll never truly know who the best team is. That is the BCS in a nutshell. Still, If there were a playoff, would you watch LSU vs. Bama in a final? My opinion is that the end result would produce the same game. It's total speculation on my part, but I am basing that on what I've seen during the season. It hurts to say, but USC looks like a better team than OK State. VT should also be in the conversation. Once again it's only an opinion, but Until we have a way of deciding champions on the field, we have to guess.

It might (produce the same result) and it might not. Look at NFL Super Bowls. They rarely follow the script. Nor does any playoff system. That's why they actually have playoffs, isn't it?

And yes, I agree with your USC statement. The thing about a playoff is it allows teams that get better as the year progresses to compete. Even if they weren't inelligible, they wouldn't be in the BCS NC game. That's where the BCS fails, there is no allowance for teams to get better as the season goes on. They are quite possibly, right now, one of the two best teams. But they would have no chance of getting to the BCS.

So if, as you say, the purpose of the BCS is to pit the 2 best teams against each other, it doesn't even do that by your own example (assuming of course that USC is on par with Bama).

I also agree Va Tech should be considered, if they avenge their loss to Clemson. I would be OK with either OSU or VT, assuming they win conference. Just kinda depends on scores of their respective games which I would lean towards.

And yes, "we have to guess". But lets use what's in place to make it less guess work and more OTF. What is in place is conference champs.

Bottom line: it's illogical, to me, to say a team is the best in the country and at the same time say they are NOT the best in their own conference.

Has been a disaster the 2 times it's happened (non CC's in BCS NC Game). The games proved the polls and pundits wildly wrong: Oregon was better than the non division winner Nebraska in 2001 (Colorado won B12 North by beating Nebraska soundly, then Oregon beat Colorado soundly in the Rose, and Nebraska was blown out). USC was better than OU in 2003 (OU was blown out in B12 CCG, then beaten by LSU. USC beat Michigan convinciungly enuff to split the polls).

So lets say Okie St beats OU, then wins convincingly in whatever bowl; and LSU beats Bama (or vice versa); Again, what has been proven? Or disproven? NOTHING!

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 07:54 PM ET  12.02 by UB bulls

I really haven't seen this. After the Auburn game, I saw major articles on the Rivals, ESPN and CBS sports web sites that essentially said, "Alabama sealed the deal and left no doubt they deserve to be in the NCG."The only media stories I've seen that are critical of a LSU/Bama NCG are by people like Dan Wetzel at Rivals, who think the BCS stinks in general and are using this as an example of why we need a playoff, not out of any disrespect for Alabama's accomplishments.

I think Mandell has written an article or two compairing OSU and Bama: quality win vs. bad loss sort of thing. He had some convincing args NOT based on CC.

http://tinyurl.com/7a373lt

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 08:04 PM ET  12.02 by UB bulls

the Rays are a freakin' EXPANSION team. They have no history like the Yankees or Red Sox do. The Yankees have Sabathia, Jeter, A Rod, and Rivera. The Sox have Youklis, Gonzales, Ortiz. Big name players in big name cities, playing on big name TV channels.Red Sox and Yankees had 13 players on the all star team this year. THIRTEEN. The Rays had two.Everybody knows both the Red Sox and Yankees are better than the Rays.:)

Sorry, you guys lost me. Are these CFL teams or something? My eyes glazed at the mention of things like AL...

I don't want to come across as denigrating Oklahoma State. They are a quality team, both coaches, and players. I don't necessarily agree that there schedule was more difficult, though. I haven't noticed any outstanding defenses in the Big 12. Both Alabama and LSU have typically gone four deep on there rosters by the third quarter in games this year, and have limited there offensive teams to running the ball to kill clock. The margin of victory for both teams could have been much greater in most of the games they have played. It's worth mentioning that this has come against some of the best defensive teams in the nation. Strength of schedule seems to be a beauty contest between conferences and prognosticators. SEC teams usually fare well out of conference regardless of there in conference standing. Strength of schedule is a relative value, at best. Why not base an SEC regular season schedule on conference success during the BCS era. No one in the SEC has an easy road to walk.

Louisiana-Lafayette
W61-34

Arizona
W37-14

Tulsa
W59-33

#8 Texas A&M
W30-29

Kansas
W70-28

#22 Texas
W38-26

Missouri
W45-24

Baylor
W59-24

#14 Kansas State
W52-45

Texas Tech
W66-6

Iowa State
L37-31 2OT

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 08:04 PM ET  12.02 by UB bulls

the Rays are a freakin' EXPANSION team. They have no history like the Yankees or Red Sox do. The Yankees have Sabathia, Jeter, A Rod, and Rivera. The Sox have Youklis, Gonzales, Ortiz. Big name players in big name cities, playing on big name TV channels.Red Sox and Yankees had 13 players on the all star team this year. THIRTEEN. The Rays had two.Everybody knows both the Red Sox and Yankees are better than the Rays.:)

It's a good thing you stuck that smile in there, or we might be at war. :)

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 08:27 PM ET  12.02 by Tidecrush

I don't want to come across as denigrating Oklahoma State. They are a quality team, both coaches, and players. I don't necessarily agree that there schedule was more difficult, though. I haven't noticed any outstanding defenses in the Big 12.

We hear this kind of talk every year. Most Big12 programs have very prolific offenses, and the top Big12 programs have defenses that were built to contain them. If you're just looking at stats then yes Big 12 defenses won't look as pretty as teams facing facing ball control or play action offenses.

Big 12 QBs like Weeden are used to facing NFL caliber pass rushers and DBs. Players like Von Miller, Brian Orakpo, Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Earl Thomas, et al. I would not take Weeden and Blackmon lightly if I were playing OkState and I would not assume they haven't faced a great defense or great players.

There are definitely some very talented players in the Big Twelve on both sides of the ball. I was speaking more about complete units. Ok State gives up an average of 27 points a game. Alabama surrenders about 7 points per contest. We surrendered a total of 9 points (3 in O.T.) to LSU. They have a decent offense, too. Arkansas hung 14 on us. There offense reminds me a great deal of Ok State. I know it's comparing apples to oranges, but once again there are no playoffs, so what else can we do? We need a playoff!