Rematch hypocrisy?

[Tre4ISU]

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

Not the point.

 

[IowaSTATCyclone]

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've completely missed the simple part. If the #1 team in their conference is the undefeated, #1 team in the BCS, then, yeah. You are done. You literally had a shot at the champ, and lost.

If there was no Okie St. this year, you would still have Stanford who hasn't played head to head with LSU. Yeah, they get to go ahead of 'Bama. Why not? They missed their conference title game, just like Alabama. They lost to their conference champs, just like Alabama.

It isn't about acceptable losses. Its about not giving losers a chance to prove it twice.

Alabama muddles things - if they lose they only prove what is already known: that they are worse than LSU. If they win they prove that LSU and Alabama are evenly matched.

A rematch should be the last option for a one game selection. It is a very easy selection criteria to implement, and is the only criteria with the advantage of settling it on the field.

 

[Boxerdaddy]

I count 4 teams that Bama played with records better than ISU: Penn St, Arkansas, LSU, and Auburn. Three more (Florida, Vandy, MSU) had the same record.

And remember, Bama BEAT all of those teams (except LSU).

If the BCS scores favored OKSt., then Bama shouldn't complain either. But as a lot of commentators have mentioned today, it matters who you lose to. Championship-caliber teams don't lose those games like OKSt. did.

So if Houston had won you would have put them in the NC game since they didn't have a loss? PUHLEASE. It's just as much who you beat. Remember the last few years with TCU and Boise. No way they were going to get to play in the Championship with no losses. The one year the BCS even screwed them again by having them play each other. Stupid stupid stupid. You can't have it both ways.

 

[IowaSTATCyclone]

So if Houston had won you would have put them in the NC game since they didn't have a loss? PUHLEASE. It's just as much who you beat. Remember the last few years with TCU and Boise. No way they were going to get to play in the Championship with no losses. The one year the BCS even screwed them again by having them play each other. Stupid stupid stupid. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe I need to draw a picture:

LSU _______ OSU
----------> <---------
Alabama____ K-State

Don't like K-State there because K-State lost to Oklahoma?
Oh, well then put Oklahoma there.
Don't like Oklahoma because they lost to Baylor?
Oh, put Baylor there.
Don't like Baylor because they lost to A&M?
Then put A&M there.

It doesn't matter. OSU beat them all. Alabama lost its chance at a title (except in mythical ESPN world) by losing on the field to one of the contenders.

Okie State lost one game, and hasn't had its shot at the contender.

a 12-1 Okie state that trounces Stanford (and please let it be so) will be remembered as a team that, because of tragedy and an Overtime game, and coaches who opposed them with a vote, didn't have the chance to prove just how good they were.

A 12-1 Alabama that beats LSU will be remembered as a team that, because of losing an Overtime game and coaches who helped them with a vote, got a second chance to beat a team that had already proved to be their superior on the field.

It really is, despite protestations otherwise, that simple.

Trying to get into the pretzel logic of "better losses and worse losses" is a nerd game. The BCS should be about winners, wins and winning.

As I said - this year's NC game is for half the title. LSU already secured 50% of it in the state of Alabama. [I'd even be more generous (slightly) toward Alabama if the regular season game had been in Baton Rouge. But they had everything in their favor and still couldn't muster more points against LSU than freaking Georgia did - a team, I might add, that lost at home to Boise State.]

 

[Mizzoulander]

Maybe I need to draw a picture:

LSU _______ OSU
----------> <---------
Alabama____ K-State

Don't like K-State there because K-State lost to Oklahoma?
Oh, well then put Oklahoma there.
Don't like Oklahoma because they lost to Baylor?
Oh, put Baylor there.
Don't like Baylor because they lost to A&M?
Then put A&M there.

It doesn't matter. OSU beat them all. Alabama lost its chance at a title (except in mythical ESPN world) by losing on the field to one of the contenders.

Okie State lost one game, and hasn't had its shot at the contender.

a 12-1 Okie state that trounces Stanford (and please let it be so) will be remembered as a team that, because of tragedy and an Overtime game, and coaches who opposed them with a vote, didn't have the chance to prove just how good they were.

A 12-1 Alabama that beats LSU will be remembered as a team that, because of losing an Overtime game and coaches who helped them with a vote, got a second chance to beat a team that had already proved to be their superior on the field.

It really is, despite protestations otherwise, that simple.

Trying to get into the pretzel logic of "better losses and worse losses" is a nerd game. The BCS should be about winners, wins and winning.

As I said - this year's NC game is for half the title. LSU already secured 50% of it in the state of Alabama. [I'd even be more generous (slightly) toward Alabama if the regular season game had been in Baton Rouge. But they had everything in their favor and still couldn't muster more points against LSU than freaking Georgia did - a team, I might add, that lost at home to Boise State.]

This format doesn't lend itself to pictures...:smile:

That's fine. I get that you want to avoid rematches at all costs, even if you have to bend the competitive formula to do it.

But OKSt. didn't PLAY any national championship contenders. No LSU, no Alabama, no Stanford, no VA Tech, no Oregon...nobody.

They played (and beat) some good teams, as evident by their strength of schedule. But none of the big boys at the top of the rankings.

KSU? They got murdered by the two strong teams in the conference, and played all the mediocre teams close. Nobody's considering them for a championship.

OU? They're not the same team after all those injuries to skill players. That's why they lost their last 2 out of 3.

What's the incentive to playing "contenders" (especialy early in the season) if a loss automatically disqualifies you from the NCG? Your format rewards teams that DON'T have a CCG...which would have been a laughable position for a Big 12 fan to take 1-2 years ago.

Remember what we used to say about the Big 10?

 

[rochclone]

And my point is that it's silly to try and compare the middle or the bottom of conferences. Kansas and Ole Miss both stink, but which one stinks less? It's irrelevant.

You want to compare conference strength? Look at the top 4 or 5 teams (or 3 or 4...I don't care). How do those teams match up?

If the top of the Big 12 is OKSt. (Top 5), KSU (Top 10), OU (Top 20) and Baylor (Top 20), and you compare it to LSU (Top 5), Alabama (Top 5), Arkansas, (Top 10), and Georgia (Top 20).

Which of those games would you expect the Big 12 to win?

Doesn't that make more sense than trying to match up who wins between Texas Tech and Kentucky?

I've heard this same argument from National pundits that seem to be on the SEC payroll. Last time I check the strength of a conference is defined very simply by the entire conference. Not sure how a person can argue with a straight face that we should ignore 50%-75% (6-9 teams) and just focus on the top three or the top six. And the sole reason is that Alabama didn't even play most of the teams in the Top 6 in their conference. Alabama didn't play Georgia or South Carolina which were both in the top 5 in that conference. They did however happily play Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, and Mississippi. None of those teams had a winning record and yet that was 50% of Alabama's wins in conference.

The best conference from top to bottom by any set of rankings is the Big 12. The SEC along with CBS (huge contract with the SEC) and ESPN (Just signed a 15 billion dollar contract with SEC) have brainwashed these voters into thinking the SEC will always be the best despite tangible evidence to the contrary.