"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business..."

[Vandy Vol]

Which makes me wonder...

If there are guidelines for the voters, then can the NCAA regulate the vote?  Essentially meaning, can they launch an investigation claiming that several coaches conspired together to vote for a specific team for a specific reason, contradictory to the guidelines which claim that only X, Y, and Z may be considered in voting.

It would be extremely difficult for the NCAA to prove requisite intent to that degree, but possible I guess.  At the very least they'd launch an investigation to see what could be uncovered.

That would be a fucked up investigation...but maybe needed in order to get away from the BCS voting nonsense.

[RWS]

Because you guys keeping pointing at the media, like it's some type of ESPN orgy to have a rematch, but not a word is said about the voting of 33% of the equation?

For that matter, the human polls account for 66% of the selection process. Harris gets 33%, USA Today Coaches Poll gets 33%, and computers get 33%.

[War Eagle!!!]

The bottom line remains, every other team had the same opportunity as Alabama. 

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!

Every other team has not played LSU so the opportunity to beat them hasn't existed...

[War Eagle!!!]

So then, we'll reward the team who doesn't have to beat #1 in regular season?  That seems much more fair.

No. We just don't punish the ones with an equal record that hasn't had the chance to play them yet.

Why should Alabama even be #1/ Because they started higher in the rankings? That doesn't seem right either...

[War Eagle!!!]

Who is Team B? 

So we decide to implement a new clause that states that if the #2 team has not won their conference and has already lost to the #1 team, they cannot play for the national championship.  (This clause does not exist as of yet.)

Who then deserves to play the #1 team in the country?  #3?  Any one loss team that won their conference? 

And how do we determine who the best one-loss team is?  Subjective voting?  Isn't that where we are right now?  A huge issue with voters ranking Alabama #2 to play in the BCSCG when they don't deserve it?

It's pretty simple really. If there are equal one loss teams, the highest ranked team that has not already proven that they are inferior to the #1 team gets to play. I don't see what the big deal is....

[War Eagle!!!]

So then, we'll reward the team who doesn't have to beat #1 in regular season?  That seems much more fair.

It does to me too. Are we trying to find a true National Champion? Or are we just going to let this be a fucking popularity contest? And it's not OSU's fault that LSU wasn't on the schedule. For all we know, if Oklahoma had won out they could be #1 and OSU would have to play the #1 team.

Look, I said this when OSU and Michigan were believed to be the best 2 teams by far in the nation. The rematch didn't happen then and it shouldn't happen now. LSU beat the shit out of OSU in the Championship game. Who is to say they couldn't have done that in the regular season...thus knocking OSU out of it all together. If Michigan and OSU had played, the best team would have gotten left out. Alabama had their shot and they lost. Time to see if someone else can do what they couldn't...

I am confused how this is so hard...

[War Eagle!!!]

So you are saying that 91% of college football coaches, the guys who you constantly remind us know 100000000000000 times more about football than us monday morning armchairs,  are absolutely wrong for voting Alabama as the #2 team in college football.  Right? 

<snicker>

 

Oklahoma State had a shot, and they shit the bed AGAINST AND UNRANKED 6-5 TEAM.  But hey, that shouldn't matter, because they didn't have LSU on their schedule. 

It doesn't matter who they lost to really. They have lost once and so has Alabama. OSU has played a harder schedule and only have one loss. We know for a fact that LSU is better than Alabama because they have already played it on the field and lost. We don't know for a fact that OSU could not beat LSU on the field. Thus, OSU should get the chance to do what Alabama could not...

[War Eagle!!!]

haha...I responded to the same question twice....

[Yoda]

So you are saying that 91% of college football coaches, the guys who you constantly remind us know 100000000000000 times more about football than us monday morning armchairs,  are absolutely wrong for voting Alabama as the #2 team in college football.  Right? 

Because you guys keeping pointing at the media, like it's some type of ESPN orgy to have a rematch, but not a word is said about the voting of 33% of the equation?

Oklahoma State had a shot, and they shit the bed AGAINST AND UNRANKED 6-5 TEAM.  But hey, that shouldn't matter, because they didn't have LSU on their schedule.

Response to the other 33% of the equation Okie St still has one regular season game to play.

And using your logic, becaus Okie St lost to a 5-6 team they should have lost to KSU, Baylor, and Missouri because they have better records.  But wait that didn't lose to them they beat them.  The computers (or other 33%) say that Okie St has a stronger strength of schedule than Bama.  They have beaten more currently ranked teams therefore have a better "body of work".  Yes they lost a game so did Bama who's to say that one loss is worse than the other.  The team teams did not play the same opponents, so you are left with a subjective poll to determine who the better team is.  All the focus has been put on the one loss, and not the other 10 or 11 wins, why is that?  We have seen year after year that any one team can lose to any other team regardless of ranking.  In my opinion Okie St has more significant wins than the Tahd.  If they beat OU they should play LSU.

[War Eagle!!!]

I am trying to up my post count and see if I can get the record for most consecutive posts...

[War Eagle!!!]

Damn you Yoda...

[Yoda]

Damn you Yoda...

My bad

[Token]

Response to the other 33% of the equation Okie St still has one regular season game to play.

If the polls change and OSU slides up to #2 after they beat Oklahoma, you won't hear me bitching.  Just remember they are going to have to jump VT and Stanford to do it. 

And using your logic, becaus Okie St lost to a 5-6 team they should have lost to KSU, Baylor, and Missouri because they have better records.  But wait that didn't lose to them they beat them.  The computers (or other 33%) say that Okie St has a stronger strength of schedule than Bama.  They have beaten more currently ranked teams therefore have a better "body of work".  Yes they lost a game so did Bama who's to say that one loss is worse than the other.  The team teams did not play the same opponents, so you are left with a subjective poll to determine who the better team is.  All the focus has been put on the one loss, and not the other 10 or 11 wins, why is that?  We have seen year after year that any one team can lose to any other team regardless of ranking.  In my opinion Okie St has more significant wins than the Tahd.  If they beat OU they should play LSU.

How does my logic suggest that Oklahoma State should lose to KSU, Baylor or anyone else?  I'm not suggesting that, I'm saying it's complete horseshit that yall will dismiss a loss to an unranked team and still try to talk about how awesome they are because of their SOS.  If they were that deserving, because they played such tougher teams, they should have been less susceptible to lose to a shit team. 

Oklahoma State was in prime position to walk into the BCS game. THEY SHIT THE BED.  They shit the bed late and they did it against a shit team.  Plain and simple. 

The awesome part?  If they get beat by OU Saturday?  The same argument will exist but it will Virginia Tech who deserves it.  Unless VT gets beat again by Clemson, but that game shouldn't be played because Clemson already won it in regular season.  Then it will be Stanford, until people realize that Stanford isn't playing in their conference championship because they didn't win their own division.  Then it will be Houston, in which case SOS will no longer matter because Houston can only play who's on their schedule. 

Fuck it, we need a playoff.

[Vandy Vol]

Did you guys know that there are approximately 50,000 black Jews in America?

Crazy stuff...

[War Eagle!!!]

I hate when people do this...but here goes...

 I'm not suggesting that, I'm saying it's complete horseshit that yall will dismiss a loss to an unranked team and still try to talk about how awesome they are because of their SOS.  If they were that deserving, because they played such tougher teams, they should have been less susceptible to lose to a shit team. 

Not the point. The point is that we don't know that LSU is better than OSU, or any other one loss team. However, we know for a fact that LSU is better than Alabama.

Oklahoma State was in prime position to walk into the BCS game. THEY SHIT THE BED.  They shit the bed late and they did it against a shit team.  Plain and simple.

Again, not the point. Alabama shit the bed too. Why now are they more deserving to have a second chance?

The awesome part?  If they get beat by OU Saturday?  The same argument will exist but it will Virginia Tech who deserves it.

Yep. Because they have not played LSU. No one knows how the LSU V. Tech game would end up. We know how LSU and Alabama has ended.

Unless VT gets beat again by Clemson, but that game shouldn't be played because Clemson already won it in regular season.

Bad point. This is like saying that we shouldn't have a play-off because there would be rematches. Not at all. This game is for the conference championship where everyone plays a very similar schedule. Both teams have one loss in conference. It doesn't matter who the loss is to, because it is the CONFERENCE championship. If Alabama and OSU had both played played similar schedules and both lost to LSU , then yes, at that point they are equal.

Then it will be Stanford, until people realize that Stanford isn't playing in their conference championship because they didn't win their own division.  Then it will be Houston, in which case SOS will no longer matter because Houston can only play who's on their schedule. 

This is where I would agree with you. At this point, Alabama has as much claim as anyone. I don't think you should play for the national championship if you don't win your conference. Period. That should be the criteria for playing in the championship game. You win the conference that you play in. Period. If you don't win that. You shouldn't get to play.

The whole thing with LSU possibly losing the SEC game saturday and still playing in the championship game bugs me too. Was it fair last year that Seattle Seahawks made the playoffs last year with only 7 wins? Hell yes it was, because they won their division. They won the games on the field that mattered. None of the other teams in their Division did that.

Alabama can't say that. They didn't win their conference, or their division. They should not play for a national championship. It's how the cookie crumbles. Next year, we could have a 2 loss SEC team win the conference and play for the championship game. It's just how it goes.

[Vandy Vol]

No, really...fifty thousand.

[Token]

I hate when people do this...but here goes...

Me too, but...

Not the point. The point is that we don't know that LSU is better than OSU, or any other one loss team. However, we know for a fact that LSU is better than Alabama.

  So then why is it only OSU and not VT, Stanford, or Boise St?

Again, not the point. Alabama shit the bed too. Why now are they more deserving to have a second chance?

Because the teams ahead of and closely surrounding them all imploded against teams who were ranked below them.

Yep. Because they have not played LSU. No one knows how the LSU V. Tech game would end up. We know how LSU and Alabama has ended.

We also don't know how OSU, Stanford, Houston or Boise would do against LSU.  Should LSU have to play all of them to be crowned champs?  I mean, that's never been the process before.

Bad point. This is like saying that we shouldn't have a play-off because there would be rematches. Not at all. This game is for the conference championship where everyone plays a very similar schedule. Both teams have one loss in conference. It doesn't matter who the loss is to, because it is the CONFERENCE championship. If Alabama and OSU had both played played similar schedules and both lost to LSU , then yes, at that point they are equal.

It doesn't matter if they played similar teams.  VT and Clemson have already played this game on the field, and Clemson was the better team.  So now you're saying that it's fair that after getting a 20 point beating by Clemson in the regular season, VT should be able to play them again in the conference championship game and be crowned conference champs if they win, although the teams would be 1-1 against each other?  But it's a shamockery if the exact same thing happens in the BCS game?  Hop off the fence.

Also, using that logic, if Auburn and Clemson are paired in the Chik-Fil-a Bowl, shouldn't they cancel the game and give the trophy to Clemson?  I mean, that game has already been played this season and we know who the better team is.

This is where I would agree with you. At this point, Alabama has as much claim as anyone. I don't think you should play for the national championship if you don't win your conference. Period. That should be the criteria for playing in the championship game. You win the conference that you play in. Period. If you don't win that. You shouldn't get to play.

 

Bad news, we still don't agree.  I simply brought up the point that Stanford didn't win their division in the event that OSU and VT shit the bed this weekend, because I'm certain some people would declare that Stanford was more deserving that Bama without thinking about it.  There is no way that I will ever agree that any highly ranked team should be left out of post season to assure a worse team a spot because they won a weaker division. 

If you really subscribe to the fact that only conference champs should play for the title, then you also subscribe to the fact that IF we ever get an 8 team playoff, it could only be conference champs.  That's total crap and it would completely destroy any and every conference in college football.  Who would want to play in the SEC, win 10 games, and be left out of an 8 team playoff so 7-5 West Virginia can represent the Big East?  Nobody. 

[Kaos]

If you really subscribe to the fact that only conference champs should play for the title, then you also subscribe to the fact that IF we ever get an 8 team playoff, it could only be conference champs.  That's total crap and it would completely destroy any and every conference in college football.  Who would want to play in the SEC, win 10 games, and be left out of an 8 team playoff so 7-5 West Virginia can represent the Big East?  Nobody.

People who understand the concept of competition.  That's who.

Who would want to play in the National League East where you could win 90 games and still be left out of the playoffs because Philly won 110 and the division?  Milwaukee gets to go and they only won 84 games.  San Diego gets to go because they won 96.  Arizona gets to go as wildcard after wining 92.  But waaaaahhhhh.. Your team beat Milwaukee six times.  You should go ahead of them!!  Waaahhhhh.  Fuck off.   

Who would want to play in the NCAA Tournament when you could win 20 games and still get bumped if your RPI was lower than another team -- say, isn't Alabama's SOS lower than OK State's? -- or you could get bumped because some conferences get automatic bids?

Who would want to play in the NFC East and win nine games but still miss the playoffs because the Saints won 11 and the Falcons won 10?  You don't get to go, but seven win Seattle does.  Waaaahhhhh.  Not fair.  Rematch!!1!

Because people are apparently retarded fucking monkeys it seems the least deserving team in the BCS top five may get a second chance.  It shouldn't count and if I were a Bama fan (thank GOD I'm not) I'd be ashamed to be given a pass for shitting my own bed like they did.  Rematch my ass.  Bullshit.

[Token]

Who would want to play in the National League East where you could win 90 games and still be left out of the playoffs because Philly won 110 and the division? 

Baseball has a wild card....which means if you win 90 games and finish second, you still get a chance to play for the championship.  Dumbass.

Who would want to play in the NCAA Tournament when you could win 25 games and still get bumped if your RPI was lower than another team -- say, isn't Alabama's SOS lower than OK State's? -- or you could get bumped because some conferences get automatic bids?

64 team playoff bracket vs 8 team playoff bracket.  Holy shit that's a perfect comparison.

Who would want to play in the NFC East and win nine games but still miss the playoffs because the Saints won 11 and the Falcons won 10?  You don't get to go, but seven win Seattle does.  Waaaahhhhh.  Not fair.  Rematch!!1!

Those are the rules of the NFL.  That's what you don't get.  Piss and moan all you want, there isn't a rule that keeps the #2 team out of the BCS.  Say it isn't fair, say Bama fans are the ones whining about rules that don't exist.  It is what it is and if Bama finishes #2 at the end, they'll play.  If they don't, then they won't.

Because people are apparently retarded fucking monkeys it seems the least deserving team in the BCS top five may get a second chance.  It shouldn't count and if I were a Bama fan (thank GOD I'm not) I'd be ashamed to be given a pass for shitting my own bed like they did.  Rematch my ass.  Bullshit.

Yeah, because losing to the #1 ranked team is shitting the bed, while losing to lower/unranked teams is totally fine.

[Kaos]

Baseball has a wild card....which means if you win 90 games and finish second, you still get a chance to play for the championship.  Dumbass.

Not if two teams in another division won more.  You'd still be sitting your 90-win ass at home behind a team that won less than you did.  DumbASS.

64 team playoff bracket vs 8 team playoff bracket.  Holy shit that's a perfect comparison.

Does the number of teams matter?  You're bitching because you said nobody would want to play in a league where somebody might have fewer wins and still get to play for the title.  Well fuck a monkey.  You could have more wins than Butler, but the Buttles make the tournament because they win the Friar League tournament.  And you could sit your happy ass at home watching the Buttles make a run to the title. 

Those are the rules of the NFL.  That's what you don't get.  Piss and moan all you want, there isn't a rule that keeps the #2 team out of the BCS.  Say it isn't fair, say Bama fans are the ones whining about rules that don't exist.  It is what it is and if Bama finishes #2 at the end, they'll play.  If they don't, then they won't.

Never said there was a rule, deaf one.  Only that all the hoorah-boorah about Bama "deserving" anything is nothing but horseshit.  Pure unadulterated equine fecal matter.  Second best?  Who the fuck says?  All you've proven is that you're NOT the best.  A do-over is ignorant.

Yeah, because losing to the #1 ranked team is shitting the bed, while losing to lower/unranked teams is totally fine.

Obtuse.  You are it.  Had a chance. Blew it.  Loss is a loss.  Doesn't matter by how much or how long it took.  We KNOW how Bama fared against LSU.  Time to find out how another team will.  Simple concept. 

In a way I hope you do get your fucking "rematch"  because it will go a long fucking way to cementing your national perception as a bunch of assclowns.  Near universal hate.   As it should be.