Shitting the bed, Part Deaux

[RWS]

It's not. Sorry.

I know you've never been in BDS, so you are unaware, but when you're the home team, you have a significant advantage. It gets loud as shit when the visiting team has the ball in a big SEC game. And that stadium was about 95% crimson.

In New Orleans, it will be at the very least 75% purple & gold. LSU fans already have the tickets bought up. They have season tickets at the Super Dome and have connections.

It's a factor that makes Oregon a more suitable rematch, even though I don't want to see it either.

Another factor is with the SEC fatigue that's already in place, they're going to put two schools from the same division of the same conference who already played each other on the field be the only teams with an opportunity to play for it all? Think if it was hypothetically a Stanford-Oregon rematch. You'd be pissed beyond words. It makes no sense. No one outside of the northwest United States will give a shit. And it's unfair to the rest of the country.

So, since Alabama lost to LSU at home in overtime in an evenly matched blow-for-blow game, they should give way to Oregon, who got their asses beat in Baton Rouge......simply due to geography? Are you fucking serious? If AU were in the same situation and I suggested this scenario, you would lose your shit. I would clearly be a Bama homer who was blinded by the rage of AU playing for a NC.

If it were a Stanford-Oregon rematch, why would I be so pissed about that? If those were the #1 and #2 teams, then it is what it is. Like I said before, the only reason it is a travesty now is because it might benefit Alabama. If AU were in the same situation, you would defend it to anybody who suggested otherwise.

What is with this sudden infatuation with Stanford? How are they all of a sudden the standard to which all teams should be compared, when they haven't beaten anybody of significance this season? Their biggest win is over a then ranked #20 USC (now unranked), who themselves haven't even beaten a ranked team all season.

[AUChizad]

Who do you think is the better team? 

Alabama vs. Oklahoma. 
Alabama vs. Oregon.
Alabama vs. Clemson.
Alabama vs. Boise State.
Alabama vs. Stanford. 
Alabama vs. Virginia Tech. 

Unless you can tell me why Alabama loses one of those games, then I don't see how anyone can argue that Bama isn't the #2 team in the country.

Irrelevant.

What we do know is who is the better team: LSU vs. Bama. LSU. We also know LSU is the better team between them and Oregon.

What we do NOT know, and thus the purpose of the extra BCS National Championship game, is who will win these games.

LSU vs. Oklahoma. 
LSU vs. Oklahoma State.
LSU vs. Clemson.
LSU vs. Boise State.
LSU vs. Stanford. 
LSU vs. Virginia Tech.

[Townhallsavoy]

Irrelevant.

What we do know is who is the better team: LSU vs. Bama. LSU. We also know LSU is the better team between them and Oregon.

What we do NOT know, and thus the purpose of the extra BCS National Championship game, is who will win these games.

LSU vs. Oklahoma. 
LSU vs. Oklahoma State.
LSU vs. Clemson.
LSU vs. Boise State.
LSU vs. Stanford. 
LSU vs. Virginia Tech.

Wrong.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game showcase of college football. It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809699

The purpose of the BCS is to put the best two teams in New Orleans.  If the humans and the computers say Alabama is number 2, then they are without question the right team to be in New Orleans. 

[JR4AU]

Wrong.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809699

The purpose of the BCS is to put the best two highest rated (read as highest ranked) teams in New Orleans.  If the humans and the computers say Alabama is number 2, then they are without question the right team to be in New Orleans.

Fixt.  Second part is correct, but shouldn't happen IMHO. If the humans vote for that, they're fucking stupid. That game has been played. 

[AUChizad]

Fixt.  Second part is correct, but shouldn't happen IMHO. If the humans vote for that, they're fucking stupid. That game has been played.

THIS!

Without a playoff there's no empirical way of knowing who the two "best" teams are, with the exception of head-to-head matchups.

Auburn was undoubtedly at least one of the two best teams in the nation in 04. Chokelahoma was one of the top 2 RANKED teams.

And for the record, if we lose to Samford at home today, I don't believe we deserve a rematch.

[Townhallsavoy]

I must be devoid of logic because I can't seem to figure out how the TWO TOP RATED teams shouldn't be the TWO BEST TEAMS.

They're synonymous.  Equals.  Tautology.  Homonyms.  Homophones.  Metonyms.  Twins.  Doubles.  Identicals.  Parallels. 

You're wanting the voters to vote Alabama #3 in spite of believing they're #2. 

If you want the voters to use their vote to manipulate a tournament, then go ahead.  But that's worse - much worse - that voting honestly based on the outcome of the actual games. 

[AUChizad]

Bama struggling against Georgia Southern isn't doing that "undeniably 2nd best team in the country" argument any favors.

Also shitting the bed: Us and Georgia (already discussed). Florida struggling with Furman 37-32 in the 4th.

[Townhallsavoy]

THIS!

Without a playoff there's no empirical way of knowing who the two "best" teams are, with the exception of head-to-head matchups.

Auburn was undoubtedly at least one of the two best teams in the nation. Chokelahoma was one of the top 2 RANKED teams.

And for the record, if we lose to Samford at home today, I don't believe we deserve a rematch.

And there is no playoff.  And the system we have is based on subjective voting which utilizes empirical evidence to determine the hierarchy of teams.  It's why Auburn is ranked lower than South Carolina.  Why Georgia is ranked higher than South Carolina. 

Head to head matchups have never mattered that much in terms of who is ranked where at the end of the season.  It's always been a "what have you done most recently," and the fact is, most of the top teams are stepping in dog shit just in time for Alabama to move their way up to #2.

Just because the system is retarded doesn't mean they should suddenly stop using the system because it's Alabama in the mix. 

[Ogre]

Essentially what you're saying is that for Alabama to win the MNC they only have to beat LSU once, after losing to them at home. In order for LSU to win, they have to beat Alabama twice, once at their house. And they have to win the conference whereas Alabama doesn't even have to win their division.

Sorry, if Alabama wanted to play for the MNC, they should have beaten LSU when they played them. Give another 1-loss team (other than Alabama or Oregon) a shot. It's not like we are lacking for them.

[Townhallsavoy]

Essentially what you're saying is that for Alabama to win the MNC they only have to beat LSU once, after losing to them at home. In order for LSU to win, they have to beat Alabama twice, once at their house. And they have to win the conference whereas Alabama doesn't even have to win their division.

Sorry, if Alabama wanted to play for the MNC, they should have beaten LSU when they played them. Give another 1-loss team (other than Alabama or Oregon) a shot. It's not like we are lacking for them.

I understand what you're saying, and I completely agree.  It would be great to have a stipulation that says, "If you don't win your conference, you can't compete in the BCSCG."

I'm just arguing that the system isn't set up for that to happen.  The system says that voters should vote based on who they think is the best.

1. LSU.
2. ?????

So even though Alabama is the clear cut favorite against all one-loss teams, you don't vote them number 2 simply because you don't want to see a BCSCG between LSU and Alabama?

What if Oklahoma loses to Baylor?  And Oklahoma State to Oklahoma?  And Oregon to USC?  And Clemson to South Carolina?  And Virginia Tech in the ACC championship?

Do you still keep Alabama out? 

[Ogre]

We can "what-if" to death. What I do know is that LSU beat Alabama and Oregon on the field. If there is a one loss BCS team (who will likely be a conference champion, even though that's not a BCS stipulation) available, they deserve a shot against the #1 team. Bama and Oregon had their chances.

If there are no 1-loss BCS teams out there other than Alabama or Oregon, then I'd consider a rematch.

[RWS]

Essentially what you're saying is that for Alabama to win the MNC they only have to beat LSU once, after losing to them at home. In order for LSU to win, they have to beat Alabama twice, once at their house.

Translation: I'm not sure LSU can beat Alabama twice given the results of the first matchup, so they shouldn't get a chance, because it's Alabama.

[Ogre]

Translation: I'm not sure LSU can beat Alabama twice given the results of the first matchup, so they shouldn't get a chance, because it's Alabama.

Translation:  I root for Ala-GD-bammah and we deserve to be in the Nashunal Championship game!  It's our God-given right!  RTR!!!!!1!!! 

I can paint with a broad brush, too.

[JR4AU]

I must be devoid of logic because I can't seem to figure out how the TWO TOP RATED teams shouldn't be the TWO BEST TEAMS.

They're synonymous.  Equals.  Tautology.  Homonyms.  Homophones.  Metonyms.  Twins.  Doubles.  Identicals.  Parallels. 

You're wanting the voters to vote Alabama #3 in spite of believing they're #2. 

If you want the voters to use their vote to manipulate a tournament, then go ahead.  But that's worse - much worse - that voting honestly based on the outcome of the actual games.

You must be devoid of ears.  I've heard numerous BCS-ologist talk about this ad nausium.   As has happened this year, and IF fucking Ok State and Stanford hadn't lost, bammer, who most believe is at least the 2nd best team in the nation, would not have been ranked number 1 or 2.  That would be due to having already matched up with the "other best team in the nation".  What is it about the polls you don't get?

I, for the life of me, can't get why you don't get it if the voters decide "Welp, we've seen that matchup, bammer had their shot, at home no less, and lost, let's see another one". 

[JR4AU]

I understand what you're saying, and I completely agree.  It would be great to have a stipulation that says, "If you don't win your conference, you can't compete in the BCSCG."

I'm just arguing that the system isn't set up for that to happen.  The system says that voters should vote based on who they think is the best.

1. LSU.
2. ?????

So even though Alabama is the clear cut favorite against all one-loss teams, you don't vote them number 2 simply because you don't want to see a BCSCG between LSU and Alabama?

What if Oklahoma loses to Baylor?  And Oklahoma State to Oklahoma?  And Oregon to USC?  And Clemson to South Carolina?  And Virginia Tech in the ACC championship?

Do you still keep Alabama out?

Under any and all scenarios where LSU remains undefeated, I keep bammer out because....


LSU vs Bammer has been played, bammer got their shot, with home field advantage, and lost. 

[AUChizad]

Translation: I'm not sure LSU can beat Alabama twice given the results of the first matchup, so they shouldn't get a chance, because it's Alabama.

If that's how you translate that, then, there's no other way to translate anything you say any other way than:

Translation:  I root for Ala-GD-bammah and we deserve to be in the Nashunal Championship game!  It's our God-given right!  RTR!!!!!1!!! 

I can paint with a broad brush, too.

[RWS]

If that's how you translate that, then, there's no other way to translate anything you say any other way than:

Bottom line, this thing is dripping with butthurt. If it were AU in the same position, you would argue up and down how it is totally fair, and this is the system we have to work with. You would argue that it doesn't matter if AU had already lost to LSU earlier in the season. You would argue anything to validate AU being in the NC game.

But the fact that it might be Alabama, well that changes things. Fuck no. They can't have another shot, because they might actually win. Can't have that.

[Townhallsavoy]

You must be devoid of ears.  I've heard numerous BCS-ologist talk about this ad nausium.   As has happened this year, and IF fucking Ok State and Stanford hadn't lost, bammer, who most believe is at least the 2nd best team in the nation, would not have been ranked number 1 or 2.  That would be due to having already matched up with the "other best team in the nation".  What is it about the polls you don't get?

I, for the life of me, can't get why you don't get it if the voters decide "Welp, we've seen that matchup, bammer had their shot, at home no less, and lost, let's see another one".

You're not making any sense.  Because you have none.  Your judgement is clouded by the crimson and white, and you refuse to look at the history of the polls or the purpose of them. 

Think about what you're saying the voters should do and then ask yourself if ever in the history of time they have made an end of the season judgement simply because "They don't want to see that game happen." 

[Kaos]

I must be devoid of logic because I can't seem to figure out how the TWO TOP RATED teams shouldn't be the TWO BEST TEAMS.

They're synonymous.  Equals.  Tautology.  Homonyms.  Homophones.  Metonyms.  Twins.  Doubles.  Identicals.  Parallels. 

No.  No, they're not. 

See 2004. 

[Kaos]

Bottom line, this thing is dripping with butthurt. If it were AU in the same position, you would argue up and down how it is totally fair, and this is the system we have to work with. You would argue that it doesn't matter if AU had already lost to LSU earlier in the season. You would argue anything to validate AU being in the NC game.

But the fact that it might be Alabama, well that changes things. Fuck no. They can't have another shot, because they might actually win. Can't have that.