Rematch hypocrisy?

[Tre4ISU]

So let's look at the whole season. I'm seeing that OKSt. beat 3 teams that are still ranked right now: KSU, OU, and Baylor.

Alabama also beat 3 teams that are still ranked: Arkansas, Auburn, and Penn St.

You're saying that OKSt. had the best win (KSU, I'm assuming) by 7 points and it's "not arguable." I'm saying you're full of **** and a 24-point win over Arkansas (ranked higher than KSU) is at LEAST as good as anything OKSt has done.

Is a win over 5-7 Texas Tech better than a win over 5-7 Kentucky? Is Alabama's 48-7 win over Kent State better than OKSt.'s 37-0 win over the same team? Is that REALLY how you want to want to decide the national championship?

The overall body of work between OKSt. and Alabama is similar in most respects. And when that is the case, then the small "8%" differences are the deciding factor. In this case, a loss to LSU versus a loss to ISU.

Holy hell. No. Demolishing OU is their best win. Bama didn't have to play 2 of the better teams in their conference. They played neither Georgia or South Carolina. Auburn and PSU, neither one are as good as Baylor.

 

[Mizzoulander]

As a Michigan fan (I'm sorry, they probably shouldn't be in the BCS) I remember vividly the 2006 season. The SEC side would take every chance they got to compare wins and OVERALL bodies of work. In the end, they were correct in doing so. The main problem I have is that the voters this time around took the exact opposite route in determining things. That is a big problem. There has to be some sort of consistency in how things are viewed. IMO, right now, I would say voters should be comprised of people recruited by the NCAA. Real experts, or at least people who do not find themselves compromised. I am talking about people not in the mainstream media. I am talking about a Brent Blum. Perhaps some ordinary Joes who follow the football world closely. These people should be made confidential. This shouldn't come down to Craig James and Gary Pinkel. Craig James is an almost convicted murderer of hookers and Pinkel doesn't know the alphabet. The voters should combine to make up 1/2 of the BCS and computers the other half. I do not want a playoff because there hasn't ever been 4 teams that deserve a shot at the title. It is seldom that the top two aren't cut and dried. The whole issue is that people are biased at some level. I try not to be but if you replace OSU with ISU, I would be. Replace Bama with Michigan and I would be. Somehow we need more competent voters.

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense. :smile:

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

 

[Tre4ISU]

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense. :smile:

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy but it's not realistic.

 

[VeloClone]

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense. :smile:

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

Yeah, you keep saying that. But we are talking about which team that did lose should go. In case you hadn't noticed there is only one 1 loss team in the NCG.

And it is perfectly appropriate to say that they screwed the pooch when they are extremely inconsistent from year to year on what a team has to do to be that team with a loss that goes.

 

[brentblum]

As a Michigan fan (I'm sorry, they probably shouldn't be in the BCS) I remember vividly the 2006 season. The SEC side would take every chance they got to compare wins and OVERALL bodies of work. In the end, they were correct in doing so. The main problem I have is that the voters this time around took the exact opposite route in determining things. That is a big problem. There has to be some sort of consistency in how things are viewed. IMO, right now, I would say voters should be comprised of people recruited by the NCAA. Real experts, or at least people who do not find themselves compromised. I am talking about people not in the mainstream media. I am talking about a Brent Blum. Perhaps some ordinary Joes who follow the football world closely. These people should be made confidential. This shouldn't come down to Craig James and Gary Pinkel. Craig James is an almost convicted murderer of hookers and Pinkel doesn't know the alphabet. The voters should combine to make up 1/2 of the BCS and computers the other half. I do not want a playoff because there hasn't ever been 4 teams that deserve a shot at the title. It is seldom that the top two aren't cut and dried. The whole issue is that people are biased at some level. I try not to be but if you replace OSU with ISU, I would be. Replace Bama with Michigan and I would be. Somehow we need more competent voters.

:wideeyed: Thanks!

 

[KidSilverhair]

It is very, very simple:

Unlike a NFL playoff system the BCS is a selection process. When winnowing down (by vote and computer) to the two "best" teams out of 120, there is a serious flaw in the selection process if:

The process can't account for the golden opportunity to eliminate viable teams in regular season (or conference title) head-to-head matchups.

In other words, any time a viable candidate for the National Title game defeats an opponent on the field, that losing opponent has lost its claim to the title game. If Oregon had won all of its games following the loss to LSU, it still should not have been considered for the national title game (or, at minimum, it should be put at the very bottom of the BCS 1-loss team bucket).

It is silly to put an in-game incentive on losing to the #1 team, but that is exactly what Alabama received in its home loss missed field goal festival.

In other words, if you go undefeated and are the #1 team in the country, you have eliminated 12 teams already: the dozen you have already beaten on the field, even if that includes the theoretical #2 and #3 (or whatever) qualifier.

One loss, of any sort (whether to the #2 in the country or an unranked foe) should not knock a team from the title game. Didn't #2 Florida go on to win a NC after a terrible loss to an unranked foe? Oh yeah. They emblazoned Tim Tebow's speech on the stadium for that one...

And that was a home loss to -22 point dog Ole Miss for the Gators.

The only argument in favor of Alabama is that they are, somehow a "more complete one loss team" or that their loss is of "higher quality" or something.

I understand that argument. Really, I do. I think it is very possible that Alabama might beat OSU if they played head-to-head.

But the point is this: we already know that LSU is a better team than Alabama. It's been proven on a scoreboard - in Tuscaloosa!

If 'Bama was in the East and, say, lost to Georgia and didn't make it to the SEC title game, I would have less problem with them playing LSU for the NC now.

But I only see this as an opportunity to split the National Title - Alabama can win half of it in Louisiana in January. The other half they already lost at home.

I'll put it another way: when your best argument is "our one loss didn't suck as bad as yours did" and their best argument is "we defeated a higher number of quality opponents," I don't see how the scale ends up tipping in your favor.

Maybe I'll let Gary Pinkel explain it to me...

Truth, my man. Truth. You're saying the same thing I've been saying since November 5. If the purpose of a championship game is to find the best team, how does it make sense for a team that's already lost to the #1 team to get a second chance at them? They've already shown they couldn't beat that team - what is the point of giving them a re-do?

I happily subscribe to your "elimination" notion.

 

[Tre4ISU]

:wideeyed: Thanks!

You're welcome. I had Chris Williams in there but after the brutal insult he tweeted about me early, he is no longer worthy of voting. I expect the NCAA to be appointing me as Chair of the Voter Search Committee as soon as they read that post so be expecting a phone call.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Holy hell. No. Demolishing OU is their best win. Bama didn't have to play 2 of the better teams in their conference. They played neither Georgia or South Carolina. Auburn and PSU, neither one are as good as Baylor.

OU? Three-loss OU? Number 14 ranked OU? Lost to Texas Tech at home OU? Fourth-best team in the conference OU?

THAT was OKSt.'s best win?! At HOME?!

By that rationale, I suppose Iowa State's best win this year was against Texas Tech. They demolished a ranked team, just like OKSt...

 

[JUKEBOX]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPoNph3TkY&feature=player_embedded]LSU Alabama Game of the Century Part II - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Tre4ISU]

OU? Three-loss OU? Number 14 ranked OU? Lost to Texas Tech at home OU? Fourth-best team in the conference OU?

THAT was OKSt.'s best win?! At HOME?!

By that rationale, I suppose Iowa State's best win this year was against Texas Tech. They demolished a ranked team, just like OKSt...

Oh yeah, MOV doesn't matter to you. Your ridiculous rules............beating the reviously 14th ranked OU by a bunch is their best win.

 

[Ficklone02]

Somehow, as an Ohio State fan I am going to have to conger up the gall to cheer for Michigan in the opener next year. But with good reason, they play Alabama and I hope they smoke them.

 

[GMackey32]

OU? Three-loss OU? Number 14 ranked OU? Lost to Texas Tech at home OU? Fourth-best team in the conference OU?

THAT was OKSt.'s best win?! At HOME?!

By that rationale, I suppose Iowa State's best win this year was against Texas Tech. They demolished a ranked team, just like OKSt...

Last time I checked, the season is 12 games long, not 1. Why do you keep trying to make your point by pointing out 1 game at a time?? Oh that's right. It's because Oklahoma State has the better overall body of work and it's detrimental to your SEC love fest argument.

 

[Ficklone02]

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense. :smile:

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

Maybe Alabama shouldn't have lost either.

 

[Wesley]

Yards, yes. Points, no.

You say you are talking about points but then quote a ranking based on yards. I believe they are 60th in scoring defense.

OSU led the country in takeaways.

 

[JUKEBOX]

The other problem with human polls is jackarses like Les Miles. He voted KSU at 17, while voting Michigan at 8. Seriously??? How obvious does it have to be that he was trying to shaft the Big 12.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQR3oNZgLgU[/ame]

 

[Wesley]

OU? Three-loss OU? Number 14 ranked OU? Lost to Texas Tech at home OU? Fourth-best team in the conference OU?

THAT was OKSt.'s best win?! At HOME?!

By that rationale, I suppose Iowa State's best win this year was against Texas Tech. They demolished a ranked team, just like OKSt...

Yet the computers voted 4-2 to have OSU over Alabama.

 

[Mizzoulander]

It is very, very simple:

...

There should be a rule that says you can't start a post with, "It is very, very, simple" and then ramble on for 500 words. :smile:

Let's say there's no OKSt. this year. Let's say the top one-loss teams are Boise from the Mountain West, Houston from CUSA, and Alabama.

Under your system, you'd put a MWC or CUSA champ against LSU, instead of a team from a BCS, also with 1 loss, because they HAPPENED to play the #1 team in their conference? And lost in OT?

If your goal is to make the conference championship more meaningful that the national championship, and to drive down interest in college football, then I'd say this is a start.

What rule is there that the best 2 teams at the end of the season can't come from the same conference?

Nobody WANTS a rematch, but there were a lot of teams ahead of Bama in the line for #2: Stanford, Boise St., OK St. All of them faltered. What makes THEIR losses more acceptable than Alabama's?

 

[IowaSTATCyclone]

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense. :smile:

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

Point taken, but since it is more likely than not that the 2nd team will be once-defeated, the selection criteria do matter. Why not select Boise State? What if three teams go undefeated?

"Not losing" is no guarantee, but, apparently, neither is "losing once to the team in the title game" a guarantee that you won't get a 2nd shot at the thing!

In a system where anywhere from 2-5 one-loss teams are going to be somewhat arbitrarily eliminated from the NC game, doesn't it make sense to eliminate all the teams that have lost the big game to the undefeated #1 team already? Re-matches are fine in a tournament, but in a arbitrary selection game, they make the least sense of all.

If Alabama wins 5-2 and Okie State drills Stanford 75-30, you don't think there won't be more polling shenanigans?

I'll put it one more way: if OSU had been picked for the game, and lost - would Alabama's argument that they should have had "their shot" at the title carry any weight?

Of course not. Everyone (and I mean everyone) would shrug and say, "You had your chance on the field."

I already know, for certain, that LSU is better than:

Alabama
Oregon (and Oregon defeated Stanford)
West Virginia
Georgia

But I can't tell you, without doubt, that they are better than one of the best teams in the country: OSU.

Okie State lost one game, on the road, in Overtime, on the day of a terrible tragedy for their sports department, in a league that decimated nearly all the teams it played from the Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC and Big East.

Our conference played one game with the SEC. One.

Forget fairness. How about a little variety?

Let the two teams play. I'm fairly confident that LSU is going to win anyhow. I'd just rather be allowed to know for certain.

As it is, if OSU beats Stanford, I don't see any reason why there won't be at least some debate about there being "three" national champions this season, if Alabama happens to win as well.

 

[Tre4ISU]

There should be a rule that says you can't start a post with, "It is very, very, simple" and then ramble on for 500 words. :smile:

Let's say there's no OKSt. this year. Let's say the top one-loss teams are Boise from the Mountain West, Houston from CUSA, and Alabama.

Under your system, you'd put a MWC or CUSA champ against LSU, instead of a team from a BCS, also with 1 loss, because they HAPPENED to play the #1 team in their conference? And lost in OT?

If your goal is to make the conference championship more meaningful that the national championship, and to drive down interest in college football, then I'd say this is a start.

What rule is there that the best 2 teams at the end of the season can't come from the same conference?

Nobody WANTS a rematch, but there were a lot of teams ahead of Bama in the line for #2: Stanford, Boise St., OK St. All of them faltered. What makes THEIR losses more acceptable than Alabama's?

You clearly aren't getting it. I would actually put Boise in over Bama. As you said before, just win. Bama got the chance of all chances and they lost. Why do they get a redo?

 

[Doc]

And beat them worse than Bama beat anyone not coached by Houston Nutt all year. Think about that. OSU beat Oklahoma worse than Bama beat Georgia Southern, Tennesee, PSU, Florida and Vanderbilt. Those are 5 extremely mediocre teams.

Vanderbilt is pretty solid this year and no more mediocre than us.