- 12/05/2011, 06:20PM ET
CuntryBlumpkin said 12/05, 06:20 PM
I'll admit, I was hoping OSU would jump Bama, but I didn't expect them to, and in all fairness, they didn't deserve to jump Bama.
The purpose of the BCS system is to pair the two best teams in the country together, if the two best teams happen to play in the same conference, obviously both of them can't win the conference Championship. The fact Oklahoma State won the Big 12 and Bama had LSU to contend with in their division should have no barring on who gets in and who gets left out.
Oklahoma State was beating Iowa State 24-7 late in the third, only to choke away the game and lose to a team that wouldn't have made a bowl if they didn't beat them. Talk about the plane crash all you want, but it didn't seem to effect them for the first 3/4 of the game.
Bama's loss was an OT loss to the ONLY undefeated team in the country, in a game that many people think Bama outplayed LSU.
I'm not sure why this is even a debate, the quality of your losses do matter, and just two weeks ago Bama was the unanimous number 2. When Bama was idle, why was that supposed to change?
It's just a case of people crying about not getting what they wanted.
cubby2bubby said 12/05, 06:42 PM
2007 ring a bell?
The argument was that you can't have two teams from the same conference play for the title game. Michigan's only loss came to Ohio St, but the game was given to Florida.
All sounds like garbage to me, which is college football....two best teams? really? How so, when one can't win their own conference...or in years past this was the instance, but now that the SEC has this scenario, it's okay for two teams from the same conference play each other?
Secondly, how can you have a team, which already loss to their opponent, get a rematch when there is just a deserving team in OSU, according to computer polls, which actually take EMOTION and the human factor out of the rankings?
SO, you say past opponents and wins should old merit, but then you go on to say that Bama couldn't help that they played LSU, and should have no effect on who gets in and who gets out. Bama lost fair and square, like any other opponent, why do they get a rematch?
It's all a fix, and money driven, otherwise playoffs would be on the horizon and a TRUE Champion crowned.
CuntryBlumpkin said 12/05, 06:55 PM
You meant 2006, not 2007, and Florida's lone loss was to Auburn, a teams that finished the season ranked in the top 10, completely different when OSU's loss was to a team that wouldn't even be bowl eligible without that win. And if you remember correctly, Florida dominated Ohio State, so it looks like, once again, the BCS got it right.
When the two best teams in the country happen to play in one conference, of course only one of them can win the conference. Winning your conference isn't, and shouldn't be a requirement. We have at large bids for a reason, and this season is a prime example of why winning your conference shouldn't be a requirement.
It's quite simple, Bama lost by 3 in OT to the number 1 team. OSU lost to a team that finished 6-6. OSU clearly wasn't as deserving.
Bama deserves the rematch for having the best defense in the country judging by yards and points allowed, having a loss to a much better team than OSU's loss, and OSU did nothing that would warrant jumping Bama in a week where Bama was idle.
Anti-SEC bias is a huge reason why people are crying. The two best teams are playing for the championship, the way it should be.
cubby2bubby said 12/05, 07:29 PM
So if it is convenient for your argument, it's okay to have this years # 1 and 2 team plays but not years past? Doesn't work like that. The number 1 and 2 teams were Mich and Ohio St, regardless of the loss...just like this years scenario but were denied a rematch.
More proof, that any team can win anytime. you can't say the BCS got it right, just because the Florida scenario worked out with them winning in 2006. Hinde sight is always 20/20 and very rewarding for your sake of argument.
The same rules need to apply...the two best teams were Mich and Ohio St in Jan of 2007 Just like you are preaching here, but for some reason, its the SEC and it needs to have them play, but years past the BCS messed up? And you call anti-SEC? Regardless of the outcome, the two best teams were Mich and Ohio st. That game didnt happen....
Bama deserves nothing....just ask the computer who put them lower than OSU....human element put them in the title game, not the true rankings.
If you can't beat a team, at home, you don't deserve another shot over a team who hasn't had the chance...
It's not anti-SEC, it's anti BCS, b/c that's what put Bama in
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia