-
"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the National Championship Game"
-Nick Saban 2003
There are questions as to the veracity of the quote.
It was sited in a Wikipedia article (that bammers have since removed, but was there last night) that referenced:
Burwell, Bryan (2003-12-08), Saban Ready for Oklahoma, St. Louis Daily Dispatch
Apparently their online archives don't go that far back.
OSU fans are apparently contacting Mr. Burwell to confirm or deny.
http://www.orangepower.com/threads/twit-world-lights-up-on-saban-quote-of-2003.133613/
-
"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the National Championship Game"
-Nick Saban 2003
There are questions as to the veracity of the quote.
It was sited in a Wikipedia article (that bammers have since removed, but was there last night) that referenced:
Burwell, Bryan (2003-12-08), Saban Ready for Oklahoma, St. Louis Daily Dispatch
Apparently their online archives don't go that far back.
OSU fans are apparently contacting Mr. Burwell to confirm or deny.
http://www.orangepower.com/threads/twit-world-lights-up-on-saban-quote-of-2003.133613/
I hate to do it but I just can't subscibe to that logic. If the 2 best teams are in the same conference or further more the same division, only 1 of them CAN possibly win the conference. 1 team has to be the lesser of the two in regards to the conf title, but its still possible that they can both be the 2 best teams in the country. The objective of the BCS is still to pit the 2 best teams in the country against each other. Taking off my orange glasses, right now - I think LSU and Bama are the 2 best. And yes, regardless of that fact, I would hate a rematch.
With Oklahoma it was a little different. They got blasted in their loss. And it was not to the number 1 team in the country either. This year is just a very rare and strange situation.
-
I hate to do it but I just can't subscibe to that logic. If the 2 best teams are in the same conference or further more the same division, only 1 of them CAN possibly win the conference. 1 team has to be the lesser of the two in regards to the conf title, but its still possible that they can both be the 2 best teams in the country. The objective of the BCS is still to pit the 2 best teams in the country against each other. Taking off my orange glasses, right now - I think LSU and Bama are the 2 best. And yes, regardless of that fact, I would hate a rematch.
With Oklahoma it was a little different. They got blasted in their loss. And it was not to the number 1 team in the country either. This year is just a very rare and strange situation.
I would argue that because of that very fact, the #1 and #2 teams should never be from the same conference after the season has played out.
In order to win your conference, you have to emerge with the best record over other teams in your conference in the closest thing to a fair playoff system we have: the conference championships. The SEC in particular is set up so that you have to play everyone in your division head-to-head, and then the "best" team from the other division. If you can't win your division, then you shouldn't be the national champion, because you had your shot, and were eliminated.
We've already seen this movie. We know how it ends. We have not seen OSU-LSU. Period.
-
I would argue that because of that very fact, the #1 and #2 teams should never be from the same conference after the season has played out.
In order to win your conference, you have to emerge with the best record over other teams in your conference in the closest thing to a fair playoff system we have: the conference championships. The SEC in particular is set up so that you have to play everyone in your division head-to-head, and then the "best" team from the other division. If you can't win your division, then you shouldn't be the national champion, because you had your shot, and were eliminated.
We've already seen this movie. We know how it ends. We have not seen OSU-LSU. Period.
^^^^THIS^^^^
-
I would argue that because of that very fact, the #1 and #2 teams should never be from the same conference after the season has played out.
In order to win your conference, you have to emerge with the best record over other teams in your conference in the closest thing to a fair playoff system we have: the conference championships. The SEC in particular is set up so that you have to play everyone in your division head-to-head, and then the "best" team from the other division. If you can't win your division, then you shouldn't be the national champion, because you had your shot, and were eliminated.
We've already seen this movie. We know how it ends. We have not seen OSU-LSU. Period.
I would probably agree with you 100%, iron clad IF Bama's one loss wasn't by 3 points, in OT to the #1 team in the country and the conf champion (assuming they beat UGA). Like I said, its just a weird phenomenon.
-
I would argue that because of that very fact, the #1 and #2 teams should never be from the same conference after the season has played out.
In order to win your conference, you have to emerge with the best record over other teams in your conference in the closest thing to a fair playoff system we have: the conference championships. The SEC in particular is set up so that you have to play everyone in your division head-to-head, and then the "best" team from the other division. If you can't win your division, then you shouldn't be the national champion, because you had your shot, and were eliminated.
We've already seen this movie. We know how it ends. We have not seen OSU-LSU. Period.
If you can't win your confrence you shouldn't be able to play in the BCS championship.
-
"If you can't win your confrence you shouldn't be able to play in the BCS championship." -Jumbo 2011
-
I would argue that because of that very fact, the #1 and #2 teams should never be from the same conference after the season has played out.
In order to win your conference, you have to emerge with the best record over other teams in your conference in the closest thing to a fair playoff system we have: the conference championships. The SEC in particular is set up so that you have to play everyone in your division head-to-head, and then the "best" team from the other division. If you can't win your division, then you shouldn't be the national champion, because you had your shot, and were eliminated.
We've already seen this movie. We know how it ends. We have not seen OSU-LSU. Period.
Agree.
-
I wish Auburn fans would follow my lead and pay zero attention to the BCS this year. Auburn's not in it so I don't care.
If they (the BCS/Media/Etc.) want a "rematch" fine. Don't care. Not watching.
I'm more concerned about Auburn's lack of push on the defensive line, the swinging gate offensive line, the shoddy QB play, and Trooper Taylor making more of an ass out of himself than am I with anything going on in Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, Boise, or Stillwater.
/rant
-
If there is a rematch, IMO LSU beats the shit out of em this time. Think back to AU/USCe last year in the SEC Championship game.
-
If there is a rematch, IMO LSU beats the shit out of em this time. Think back to AU/USCe last year in the SEC Championship game.
I don't know about the shit, but I do believe LSU wins. not to mention it might as well be their home stadium.
-
I don't know about the shit, but I do believe LSU wins. not to mention it might as well be their home stadium.
Idk, I kinda think LSU puts the hammer down this time too. I saw a team this last Friday that basically mucked around for a quarter and then decided to get serious. Once this happened, LSU looked crazy good. I know that the Hogs D is nowhere close to bamas but its almost like LSU is just toying with people because they are bored.
-
Idk, I kinda think LSU puts the hammer down this time too. I saw a team this last Friday that basically mucked around for a quarter and then decided to get serious. Once this happened, LSU looked crazy good. I know that the Hogs D is nowhere close to bamas but its almost like LSU is just toying with people because they are bored.
Plus this time bammer will have to deal with Jordan Jefferson the entire game. Say what you want to about him, but he is pretty damn good. Friday was his first interception of the year. And yes I know he missed some games to start the season but he had thrown many passes before finally gettting picked off.
-
Honey Badger is just sick. Don't know if I can watch the Second Greatest Game Ever To Be Played.
-
Honey Badger is just sick. Don't know if I can watch the Second Greatest Game Ever To Be Played.
Kinda takes away all the build up from the first one doesn't it.
-
Honey Badger is just sick. Don't know if I can watch the Second Greatest Game Ever To Be Played.
That dude has some serious get-up. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran a 4.0 to 4.1 40 as fast as he ran that kickoff back against Arkansas.
-
That dude has some serious get-up. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran a 4.0 to 4.1 40 as fast as he ran that kickoff back against Arkansas.
Your employer obviously doesnt drug test.
-
Your employer obviously doesnt drug test.
One word.........Synthetic.
-
I would probably agree with you 100%, iron clad IF Bama's one loss wasn't by 3 points, in OT to the #1 team in the country and the conf champion (assuming they beat UGA). Like I said, its just a weird phenomenon.
Irrelevant.
By adopting that position you have declared unequivlocally that there is no scenario in which Iowa State beats Alabama in Ames or Oregon beats Alabama in Tuscaloosa or Georgia Tech beats Alabama in Atlanta any other team in the country beats Alabama in any other venue.
Since those games were not played you cannot state that for certain. The only things we know for a fact are:
LSU can beat Alabama. Did that.
Unless you can somehow prove that Alabama would absolutely, undisputably not lose to ISU, OU or GT then your entire supposition is invalid.
Games aren't played on paper. Got to go with what's played on the field. Alabama had a chance at home. Doesn't matter what the score was, they didn't get the job done.
Next.
-
I think LSU wins simply because of George Jefferson moving on up to the starting spot again. He was the difference in that first game and he looked pretty damn good this past Friday.
-
Irrelevant.
By adopting that position you have declared unequivlocally that there is no scenario in which Iowa State beats Alabama in Ames or Oregon beats Alabama in Tuscaloosa or Georgia Tech beats Alabama in Atlanta any other team in the country beats Alabama in any other venue.
Since those games were not played you cannot state that for certain. The only things we know for a fact are:
LSU can beat Alabama. Did that.
Unless you can somehow prove that Alabama would absolutely, undisputably not lose to ISU, OU or GT then your entire supposition is invalid.
Games aren't played on paper. Got to go with what's played on the field. Alabama had a chance at home. Doesn't matter what the score was, they didn't get the job done.
Next.
Agree, not saying I can prove it. But in my opinion (and thats what polls are really), no one else in the country can beat Bama aside from LSU. If they were playing anyone BUT LSU, I know where my money would go in Vegas. Just my opinion.
-
I think LSU wins simply because of George Jefferson moving on up to the starting spot again. He was the difference in that first game and he looked pretty damn good this past Friday.
(http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/02/10/cover.jpg)
-
(http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/02/10/cover.jpg)
Fucking zebras
-
Fucking zebras
I don't think the refs cost us that game.. I think they...hey, wait......you were talking about......damn, why is it always about race with you people.
-
Irrelevant.
By adopting that position you have declared unequivlocally that there is no scenario in which Iowa State beats Alabama in Ames or Oregon beats Alabama in Tuscaloosa or Georgia Tech beats Alabama in Atlanta any other team in the country beats Alabama in any other venue.
Since those games were not played you cannot state that for certain. The only things we know for a fact are:
LSU can beat Alabama. Did that.
Unless you can somehow prove that Alabama would absolutely, undisputably not lose to ISU, OU or GT then your entire supposition is invalid.
Games aren't played on paper. Got to go with what's played on the field. Alabama had a chance at home. Doesn't matter what the score was, they didn't get the job done.
Next.
It's like you're in my head.
-
I know that none of you will agree with me, and I'm fine with that, but I'm going to put my opinion out at least once.
If ANY team from any major conference is undefeated (for argument's sake I don't consider Houston in that category), then I would absolutely say that they deserve to play against LSU in the BCS. If Oklahoma State stays undefeated? They should play. If Stanford stays undefeated? They should play.
They didn't. They lost to teams who weren't ranked #1. Oklahoma State lost to a shitty Iowa State team that will likely finish 6-6. Stanford at least lost to a highly ranked team, but it was a highly ranked team who got their ass pounded by the only team Alabama lost to. Virginia Tech? Lost to a 3 loss team. Can you really say that either of those teams have a better 1 loss than Alabama?
There isn't a rule that says Alabama can't play without winning their division. Nebraska and Oklahoma have already done it. Quite frankly, that's the only reason this is even a discussion....because Alabama is in the same division with LSU. If you can get past conference titles and rematches (which you should because those stipulations aren't in the rules), Alabama has the strongest statement to be the #2 team.
What I wish would happen is a 4 team playoff between Alabama, VT, Oklahoma State and Stanford.....assuming VT and OSU remain as 1 loss teams after this weekend. But that's not going to happen, and like it or not, the top 2 teams this time next week will likely be LSU and Alabama.
But I don't blame yall for being pissed. Not because your hated rival is getting a chance to play for the BCS. But because IF they get in next week, you're going to have to hear an ungodly amount of bullshit from dumbass Alabama fans talking shit about Auburn not getting in as undefeated in 2004, but Bama gets in with one loss. It's a fucking retarded comment, and because of that, I'm sure there will be a fucking retarded Alabama smack shirt printed up soon after.
Now, call me biased or whatever. But there isn't one of you who honestly believes Alabama isn't the 2nd best team in college football. You might say it, but you don't believe it.
-
Now, call me biased or whatever. But there isn't one of you who honestly believes Alabama isn't the 2nd best team in college football. You might say it, but you don't believe it.
I don't believe they are.
Got no basis to believe as much.
-
I don't believe they are.
Got no basis to believe as much.
Who do you think is #2?
-
Who do you think is #2?
Anybody but Alabama.
-
I know that none of you will agree with me, and I'm fine with that, but I'm going to put my opinion out at least once.
If ANY team from any major conference is undefeated (for argument's sake I don't consider Houston in that category), then I would absolutely say that they deserve to play against LSU in the BCS. If Oklahoma State stays undefeated? They should play. If Stanford stays undefeated? They should play.
They didn't. They lost to teams who weren't ranked #1. Oklahoma State lost to a shitty Iowa State team that will likely finish 6-6. Stanford at least lost to a highly ranked team, but it was a highly ranked team who got their ass pounded by the only team Alabama lost to. Virginia Tech? Lost to a 3 loss team. Can you really say that either of those teams have a better 1 loss than Alabama?
There isn't a rule that says Alabama can't play without winning their division. Nebraska and Oklahoma have already done it. Quite frankly, that's the only reason this is even a discussion....because Alabama is in the same division with LSU. If you can get past conference titles and rematches (which you should because those stipulations aren't in the rules), Alabama has the strongest statement to be the #2 team.
What I wish would happen is a 4 team playoff between Alabama, VT, Oklahoma State and Stanford.....assuming VT and OSU remain as 1 loss teams after this weekend. But that's not going to happen, and like it or not, the top 2 teams this time next week will likely be LSU and Alabama.
But I don't blame yall for being pissed. Not because your hated rival is getting a chance to play for the BCS. But because IF they get in next week, you're going to have to hear an ungodly amount of bullshit from dumbass Alabama fans talking shit about Auburn not getting in as undefeated in 2004, but Bama gets in with one loss. It's a fucking retarded comment, and because of that, I'm sure there will be a fucking retarded Alabama smack shirt printed up soon after.
Now, call me biased or whatever. But there isn't one of you who honestly believes Alabama isn't the 2nd best team in college football. You might say it, but you don't believe it.
Fuck you...you can't trap me bammer.
-
Who do you think is #2?
Any one loss team that didn't already lose to LSU.
-
Any one loss team that didn't already lose to LSU.
So, Alabama's loss to LSU is less than OSU's loss to ISU? ? Stanford's loss to Oregon? Va Tech's loss to Clemson? Last I checked, LSU was #1. For those screaming about this is why we need a playoff (not that I'm opposed to it), in a playoff scenario, would Alabama not play LSU again at some point anyway? If the two best teams in the nation happened to have played during the regular season, but they're still the two best teams in the nation at the end of the season, then what's your point? The purpose of the BCS is for the two best teams in the nation as determined by the BCS standings to play.
-
"We're the elite team in the league right now. LSU is good, but we're gooder." -- Alabama's Trent Richardson on CBS, making the case for a Crimson Tide-LSU rematch.
-
"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the National Championship Game" -Nick Saban 2003
"Who's the best two teams? That's the question. If the decision gets made on that, I'll be fine with that. If it gets made on some of this other stuff, that's not fair. It's not fair to the players, and it wouldn't be fair to their players either (...unless it is). It wouldn't be fair to anybody (...unless it is)." - nick sabbin 2011.
I wonder what he would've said if "anyone who didn't win their Division?" Oh that's right, it doesn't matter since it's his team that did neither.
-
I would argue that because of that very fact, the #1 and #2 teams should never be from the same conference after the season has played out.
In order to win your conference, you have to emerge with the best record over other teams in your conference in the closest thing to a fair playoff system we have: the conference championships. The SEC in particular is set up so that you have to play everyone in your division head-to-head, and then the "best" team from the other division. If you can't win your division, then you shouldn't be the national champion, because you had your shot, and were eliminated.
"Eliminated" suggests that there is some sort of bracket going on. The system that we have now doesn't utilize any form of elimination. Rather, it ranks teams based upon win-loss record, point differential in wins/losses, strength of schedule, etc.
Of course, the human polls may or may not take into account those factors, but generally speaking, the voters are supposed to consider everything they've seen in order to determine how the teams should rank. Being "eliminated" by having one loss doesn't mean you can't be ranked #1 or #2.
Considering that you can lose any given game during the regular season and still be ranked first or second, I don't see why we should treat the conference championship games (or a team's inability to reach the conference championship game) differently than any other game. Especially in a situation such as this, where the team not going to the conference championship is in the same division as the #1 team in the nation.
There is no logic in stating that Alabama should be viewed as a less worthy team simply because it's not going to the SEC championship game; their record is still their record, and their quality wins are still quality wins. If we had a playoff system with brackets that organized games according to who won their conferences, then your idea would make sense. But as it stands now with the voting and computer systems, all that matters is the win-loss record and how the team compares statistically to others.
-
Like everything else follow the mighty dollar, that is why there will be a rematch. Never mind that they have already beaten Bama, never mind that there is no doubt that LSU has by far proved numerous times that they are the best team this year.
To be honest, there should not even be a BCS championship game, LSU has already proven that they are the best team. Don't agree with that? Well let's see they beat Bama in the regular season and they beat Oregon in the regular season. They don't need to play OSU or Stanford because they are not any good they both have one losses that were not to LSU. That is basically the point the pollsters are making. Polls they are opinions who ever gets it right? This is just another reason that there should be a play off but there is not one so Bama will get another shot. In my opinion, which yes probably is biased, they do not deserve it. They already lost. I don't give a shit what the score was a L is a L. If Oregon had one loss they would not deserve to play them again either.
There are years when an extra game is needed to determine who the best is, usually when two teams have not played one another so they prove it on the field. There are years when there are more than two teams that are in question and one gets left out. This year is neither, one team in the country has proven every Saturday on the field that they can and have beaten the other team in front of them.
-
Oh yeah, forgot to mention a rematch is inevitable. Bama and LSU you are NFL teams so them playing again is normal. They do it every year.
-
"Eliminated" suggests that there is some sort of bracket going on. The system that we have now doesn't utilize any form of elimination. Rather, it ranks teams based upon win-loss record, point differential in wins/losses, strength of schedule, etc.
Of course, the human polls may or may not take into account those factors, but generally speaking, the voters are supposed to consider everything they've seen in order to determine how the teams should rank. Being "eliminated" by having one loss doesn't mean you can't be ranked #1 or #2.
Considering that you can lose any given game during the regular season and still be ranked first or second, I don't see why we should treat the conference championship games (or a team's inability to reach the conference championship game) differently than any other game. Especially in a situation such as this, where the team not going to the conference championship is in the same division as the #1 team in the nation.
There is no logic in stating that Alabama should be viewed as a less worthy team simply because it's not going to the SEC championship game; their record is still their record, and their quality wins are still quality wins. If we had a playoff system with brackets that organized games according to who won their conferences, then your idea would make sense. But as it stands now with the voting and computer systems, all that matters is the win-loss record and how the team compares statistically to others.
Listen just because you threw a fucking ring into a volcano, doesn't give you any right to impose your BCS bullshit logic on me. bama sucks! Go take a walk.
-
So here is a realistic question and the problem I have with a rematch. If bama wins they win the BCS title, even though the series is now tied 1-1, something doesn't seem right about that. Whatever though.
-
Listen just because you threw a fucking ring into a volcano, doesn't give you any right to impose your BCS bullshit logic on me. bama sucks! Go take a walk.
At least I'm not snapping pictures of men's junk.
-
I think Alabama is the best team to oppose LSU in the BCSCG based upon the failure of all others. My team grew game by game into an unbeatable force last season and this season has just been flawed. I look forward to seeing the two most talented teams match up again because I want to see the best possible game. I realize Auburn could never get a mulligan like this from the haters, we all know it. And in a twisted sort of way this plays to some degree as to why I am a lifelong Auburn fan.
-
Who do you think is #2?
That's the big question. I may be the only barner on here who agrees with token.
Don't confuse that with me wanting a rematch. Because I do not. But if you ask objectively who the best two teams in the country are, I would answer bama and lsu.
How anyone can think Osu is more deserving is beyond me. They lost to Iowa fuckin state.
-
How anyone can think Osu is more deserving is beyond me. They lost to Iowa fuckin state.
They considered rescheduling that game due to the airplane crash the day before - a bit distracted that week
-
Any one loss team that didn't already lose to LSU.
Cookie. You get one.
-
So, Alabama's loss to LSU is less than OSU's loss to ISU? ? Stanford's loss to Oregon? Va Tech's loss to Clemson? Last I checked, LSU was #1. For those screaming about this is why we need a playoff (not that I'm opposed to it), in a playoff scenario, would Alabama not play LSU again at some point anyway? If the two best teams in the nation happened to have played during the regular season, but they're still the two best teams in the nation at the end of the season, then what's your point? The purpose of the BCS is for the two best teams in the nation as determined by the BCS standings to play.
Blah, blah, blah. Bleat, bleat, bleat.
STUPID fucking argument.
We already KNOW LSU can beat Alabama. The rest is irrelevant. We don't KNOW how they'd fare against the rest. It's not a matter of being "less" you fucking goat fucking doughnut dumpster.
-
Cookie. You get one.
What if Osu loses to OU?
-
What if Osu loses to OU?
If that happens then Houston.
-
If that happens then Houston.
Regardless of conference talk, rematch, it being our hated rival....do you really think houston is the 2nd best team in the country? Honestly?
-
Regardless of conference talk, rematch, it being our hated rival....do you really think houston is the 2nd best team in the country? Honestly?
I couldn't say. Haven't seen them play LSU yet. So I'd have to rank them ahead of a team that already has and failed.
-
So here is a realistic question and the problem I have with a rematch. If bama wins they win the BCS title, even though the series is now tied 1-1, something doesn't seem right about that. Whatever though.
AND LSU will be SEC Champions and Bama will not have won their division.
AND LSU will be 13-1 and Bama will be 12-1
AND as a "reward" for winning...
THE GREATEST GAME EVER TO BE PLAYED
...they have to beat Bama twice to be national champions. Bama just has to be 1-1 against LSU.
AND LSU will have won in Alabama's house, while the "ok for real this time" game will be on a "neutral site".
AND LSU will have done all of this with a substantially stronger Strength of Schedule.
But Bama will be National Champions and LSU will be outsiders looking in.
How anyone can think that's fair or rational is seriously beyond me.
-
Blah, blah, blah. Bleat, bleat, bleat.
STUPID fucking argument.
We already KNOW LSU can beat Alabama. The rest is irrelevant. We don't KNOW how they'd fare against the rest. It's not a matter of being "less" you fucking goat fucking doughnut dumpster.
The purpose of the BCS system is to put the two best teams, as determined by the BCS system, in the championship game. Make up whatever rule or stipulation that doesn't exist that you like. The fact that LSU beat Alabama doesn't change the fact that, with that said, Alabama can STILL be the second best team in the country at the end of the season. That's what this situation comes down to. It just so happens that the only team Alabama lost to is the only team that is better than them. If we were talking about who should be #1, LSU obviously would, and has won that argument. The BCS isn't trying to rank Alabama #1. There is no stipulation saying that if a team loses to another team during the regular season, that those teams cannot play again in the NCG. Even if we had a playoff system, these two teams could (probably would) meet somewhere in the bracketology at some point, as would be the case with numerous other teams that played each other during the regular season.
If LSU loses to UGA and only slides to #2, how angry are you going to be? You won't give a shit. All it boils down to is that you do not want to see Alabama play in the NCG. The fact that you would rather see Houston in it before Bama is a great example of that.
LSU beat Alabama. That does not mean Alabama can't be the second best in the country. I don't understand why that is so difficult.
-
If you can get past conference titles and rematches (which you should because those stipulations aren't in the rules), Alabama has the strongest statement to be the #2 team.
If you can get past the assassination, Lincoln enjoyed the play.
If you can get past the sex (vaginal, anal, oral or otherwise), Jenna Jameson is a virgin.
If you can get past the multiple child rapes, Jerry Sandusky would make a great babysitter.
-
At least I'm not snapping pictures of men's junk.
i think snaggle's BLI just got called out.
-
How anyone can think that's fair or rational is seriously beyond me.
How fair would it be if AU were in Alabama's shoes in this situation? Pretty fucking fair, I bet. Kaos most certainly wouldn't be campaigning for a Houston team that hasn't played a ranked team all season.
It's the same thing with all fanbases, everywhere else. Same goes with a bad call. It's cool as long as it benefits your team. Not so much when it doesn't, or it benefits a rival.
-
"If you can't win your confrence you shouldn't be able to play in the BCS championship." -Jumbo 2011
You complete me.
-
If you can't win your conference you shouldn't be able to play in the BCS championship.
I edited and stole this. It has bumper sticker potential in orange and blue.
-
So, Alabama's loss to LSU is less than OSU's loss to ISU? ? Stanford's loss to Oregon? Va Tech's loss to Clemson? Last I checked, LSU was #1. For those screaming about this is why we need a playoff (not that I'm opposed to it), in a playoff scenario, would Alabama not play LSU again at some point anyway? If the two best teams in the nation happened to have played during the regular season, but they're still the two best teams in the nation at the end of the season, then what's your point? The purpose of the BCS is for the two best teams in the nation as determined by the BCS standings to play.
Any one loss OR undefeated D1 team THAT HASN'T ALREADY PROVED THEY'RE NOT UP TO THE TASK OF BEATING LSU!!!!!!!!!!!! NO SECOND CHANCES!!!!!!
-
RWS, in 2006 Everbody on the face of the planet, well at least all the ones screaming for a rematch now (see same fucking idiots thread) believed with all their hearts that tOSU and Meechigan were head and shoulders above the rest of the country.
In 2004 they all believed OU was the deserving opponent for USC.
Just because the CFB world group think believes it, doesn't make it true. AND we have evidence, hard evidence that Bammer aint up to snuff with LSU.
-
i think snaggle's BLI just got called out.
My Bacon Lettuce & .....iPod? Iraq? Iran? Itching powder?
-
My Bacon Lettuce & .....iPod? Iraq? Iran? Itching powder?
Yea not sure he caught the nekid Sandusky locker room filming reference I made at him on Saturday
-
RWS, in 2006 Everbody on the face of the planet, well at least all the ones screaming for a rematch now (see same fucking idiots thread) believed with all their hearts that tOSU and Meechigan were head and shoulders above the rest of the country.
In 2004 they all believed OU was the deserving opponent for USC.
Just because the CFB world group think believes it, doesn't make it true. AND we have evidence, hard evidence that Bammer aint up to snuff with LSU.
It doesn't matter. The BCS puts the two top teams in the championship game. There is no rule that says you can't have a rematch of a regular season game. Having a playoff system would more so almost guarantee such rematches somewhere along the line, for that matter, yet some people say we need a playoff. But oh, we can't have rematches. How the fuck would that work? According to your thinking, that would fuck it up more.
Nobody is ranking Alabama #1. LSU is the unanimous #1. With it's only loss to #1 LSU, Alabama can most certainly be the second best. The two best teams play in the championship game, whether they played a regular season game or not. It isn't like this is the first time.
From OSU's coach even:
"Alabama lost to what would be the No. 1 team in the country and Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State, so in our situation, if I was doing it fair, I don't know how I could put us in front of them right now," Gundy said.
Following the theory you and Kaos have, then we need to get rid of rankings period. We don't know how ISU would fare against LSU, so why can't they have a shot? They beat a #2 team. Kansas State hasn't played Southern Miss, so how can Kasas State be ranked higher? How do you KNOW that Southern Miss isn't better? How do you KNOW that South Carolina is better than Wisconsin? How do you KNOW that Oklahoma is better than TCU? You're basically picking out the parts you don't like, modifying some parts, then making up some parts of the BCS selection process to create a cookie cutter situation so you can affect the outcome of 1 team's placement in the rankings. Makes no sense for the rest of the system? Doesn't matter. By God, Bama cannot be allowed to play.
The system is what it is, and it's the same system everybody else in FBS plays in. It's all we have to go by. It's the same system that created the matchups that you speak of. Of course, just because the college football world thinks it doesn't make it true. Anything can happen, as exhibited by the current situation we're in. However, it's what we have to work with. This is the system everybody has to go by.
-
It doesn't matter. The BCS puts the two top teams in the championship game. There is no rule that says you can't have a rematch of a regular season game. Having a playoff system would more so almost guarantee such rematches somewhere along the line, for that matter, yet some people say we need a playoff. But oh, we can't have rematches. How the fuck would that work? According to your thinking, that would fuck it up more.
Nobody is ranking Alabama #1. LSU is the unanimous #1. With it's only loss to #1 LSU, Alabama can most certainly be the second best. The two best teams play in the championship game, whether they played a regular season game or not. It isn't like this is the first time.
From OSU's coach even:
Following the theory you and Kaos have, then we need to get rid of rankings period. We don't know how ISU would fare against LSU, so why can't they have a shot? They beat a #2 team. Kansas State hasn't played Southern Miss, so how can Kasas State be ranked higher? How do you KNOW that Southern Miss isn't better? How do you KNOW that South Carolina is better than Wisconsin? How do you KNOW that Oklahoma is better than TCU? You're basically picking out the parts you don't like, modifying some parts, then making up some parts of the BCS selection process to create a cookie cutter situation so you can affect the outcome of 1 team's placement in the rankings. Makes no sense for the rest of the system? Doesn't matter. By God, Bama cannot be allowed to play.
The system is what it is, and it's the same system everybody else in FBS plays in. It's all we have to go by. It's the same system that created the matchups that you speak of. Of course, just because the college football world thinks it doesn't make it true. Anything can happen, as exhibited by the current situation we're in. However, it's what we have to work with. This is the system everybody has to go by.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/258qhr7.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKkbs1y1Oc
-
It doesn't matter. The BCS puts the two top teams in the championship game. There is no rule that says you can't have a rematch of a regular season game. Having a playoff system would more so almost guarantee such rematches somewhere along the line, for that matter, yet some people say we need a playoff. But oh, we can't have rematches. How the fuck would that work? According to your thinking, that would fuck it up more.
Nobody is ranking Alabama #1. LSU is the unanimous #1. With it's only loss to #1 LSU, Alabama can most certainly be the second best. The two best teams play in the championship game, whether they played a regular season game or not. It isn't like this is the first time.
From OSU's coach even:
Following the theory you and Kaos have, then we need to get rid of rankings period. We don't know how ISU would fare against LSU, so why can't they have a shot? They beat a #2 team. Kansas State hasn't played Southern Miss, so how can Kasas State be ranked higher? How do you KNOW that Southern Miss isn't better? How do you KNOW that South Carolina is better than Wisconsin? How do you KNOW that Oklahoma is better than TCU? You're basically picking out the parts you don't like, modifying some parts, then making up some parts of the BCS selection process to create a cookie cutter situation so you can affect the outcome of 1 team's placement in the rankings. Makes no sense for the rest of the system? Doesn't matter. By God, Bama cannot be allowed to play.
The system is what it is, and it's the same system everybody else in FBS plays in. It's all we have to go by. It's the same system that created the matchups that you speak of. Of course, just because the college football world thinks it doesn't make it true. Anything can happen, as exhibited by the current situation we're in. However, it's what we have to work with. This is the system everybody has to go by.
You fucking blabbermouth dumbass.
The only point is that we KNOW what Bama did against LSU on its home field. It fucking LOST. Anything else to that argument is extraneous. We know what happened there. That's proven. The rest of your babbling shit is fucking worthless.
Go fuck a goat.
-
You fucking blabbermouth dumbass.
The only point is that we KNOW what Bama did against LSU on its home field. It fucking LOST. Anything else to that argument is extraneous. We know what happened there. That's proven. The rest of your babbling shit is fucking worthless.
Go fuck a goat.
So, let's give ISU a chance at LSU. Why not? They haven't already played this season, and they beat OSU, the team you want LSU to play. We have hard evidence that ISU is better than OSU. Plain as day. I mean, if you're going to throw the system out the window, throw it out the window.
-
So, let's give ISU a chance at LSU. Why not? They haven't already played this season, and they beat OSU, the team you want LSU to play. We have hard evidence that ISU is better than OSU. Plain as day. I mean, if you're going to throw the system out the window, throw it out the window.
They would smoke LSU.
Chizik's players.
-
You fucking blabbermouth dumbass.
The only point is that we KNOW what Bama did against LSU on its home field. It fucking LOST. Anything else to that argument is extraneous. We know what happened there. That's proven. The rest of your babbling shit is fucking worthless.
Go fuck a goat.
To play a little devil's advocate, why does Alabama losing to LSU automatically NOT make them the #2 in the country? Losing to LSU and being the #2 team in the country aren't mutually exclusive. If LSU is indeed the #1 team in the country, logically wouldn't the #2 team lose to them?
-
To play a little devil's advocate, why does Alabama losing to LSU automatically NOT make them the #2 in the country? Losing to LSU and being the #2 team in the country aren't mutually exclusive. If LSU is indeed the #1 team in the country, logically wouldn't the #2 team lose to them?
This has been part of my point all along. Nobody is voting Alabama #1. LSU is undisputed. Alabama lost to them. Which means Alabama can still be the second best team in the country, as determined by the system. That system puts the best two teams, as determined by it, in the championship game. That system has no rule about rematches.
-
So, let's give ISU a chance at LSU. Why not? They haven't already played this season, and they beat OSU, the team you want LSU to play. We have hard evidence that ISU is better than OSU. Plain as day. I mean, if you're going to throw the system out the window, throw it out the window.
Don't really care, but this is a fail argument. ISU obviously would not play they are 6-5.
You really shouldn't be arguing about this RWS, it is all subjective. Is bammer the #2 team in the country? Is OKSU? Not sure they both have 1 loss, does it matter who it was to? You say it does, I say OKSU had a bad game with a lot going on surrounding them. Does that mean they deserve to play anymore than bama? Don't know. See all subjective.
What Kaos is saying is not subjective, bama lost to LSU. Your argument is that well bama is ranked number #2 its not like they should be #1. Bottom line there is controversy surrounding the rematch. You don't want controversy, y'all should have won the game. You really have no argument.
Add to the fact that your loss was at home and OKSU was on the road? does that change things? Don't know. We will never know.
-
This has been part of my point all along. Nobody is voting Alabama #1. LSU is undisputed. Alabama lost to them. Which means Alabama can still be the second best team in the country, as determined by the system. That system puts the best two teams, as determined by it, in the championship game. That system has no rule about rematches.
Don't confuse my stance with me wanting you there. I, in no way, want your asses in that game. I don't like rematches. I don't like that you get to sit home this Saturday while LSU has to earn it by beating a hot UGA team.
BUT....if we are throwing out all the "in season fake bracket, round robins" that people have invented, throwing out the non existing conf title rules that people have invented, throwing out the non existing rematch clause that has appeared from nowhere - if you take away all of that, look behind the hype and smoke and mirrors, and look objectively at who the 2 BEST TEAMS are in the country, that is how I am coming up with LSU and BAMA. No one behind Bama, IMHO, would come within a TD of LSU. Oregon was/is a top 5-7 team and LSU obliterated them with ease. That was without Jefferson and in the 1st game of the year.
Arkansas was the #3 team in the country (or next in line using the logic of why Bama should not be #2 in this thread), and LSU could have hung 60 on them had they wanted to. At the time, Arky was "NEXT IN LINE", just like VT, OSU and Stanford are now. Sure, its conjecture to think those 3 aren't with a TD of LSU, but so is saying that those 3 are a better FB team than Bama. I look at Bama and LSU as 1a and 1b at this point. That game could have went either way. If Bama had half a kicker, it would have. That game was THAT close.
Frankly, I hope Bama gets dissed and OSU makes it and gets throttled by LSU. That way Bama gets left out AND it proves my point. Win win. I really think if anyone but Bama plays LSU, it is USC/OU 2004 all over again.
-
Don't really care, but this is a fail argument. ISU obviously would not play they are 6-5.
You really shouldn't be arguing about this RWS, it is all subjective. Is bammer the #2 team in the country? Is OKSU? Not sure they both have 1 loss, does it matter who it was to? You say it does, I say OKSU had a bad game with a lot going on surrounding them. Does that mean they deserve to play anymore than bama? Don't know. See all subjective.
What Kaos is saying is not subjective, bama lost to LSU. Your argument is that well bama is ranked number #2 its not like they should be #1. Bottom line there is controversy surrounding the rematch. You don't want controversy, y'all should have won the game. You really have no argument.
My argument is: When #2 loses to #1, then someone else should be #2 and see if they knock the king off the mountain since the first#2 was unable to, and at home no less.
-
Don't really care, but this is a fail argument. ISU obviously would not play they are 6-5.
You really shouldn't be arguing about this RWS, it is all subjective. Is bammer the #2 team in the country? Is OKSU? Not sure they both have 1 loss, does it matter who it was to? You say it does, I say OKSU had a bad game with a lot going on surrounding them. Does that mean they deserve to play anymore than bama? Don't know. See all subjective.
What Kaos is saying is not subjective, bama lost to LSU. Your argument is that well bama is ranked number #2 its not like they should be #1. Bottom line there is controversy surrounding the rematch. You don't want controversy, y'all should have won the game. You really have no argument.
Add to the fact that your loss was at home and OKSU was on the road? does that change things? Don't know. We will never know.
And what I am saying is, why does losing to LSU automatically not qualify you to be #2? If LSU is #1, they would beat the #2 team, no?
-
And what I am saying is, why does losing to LSU automatically not qualify you to be #2? If LSU is #1, they would beat the #2 team, no?
It qualifies you to have already had your shot, and failed as well.
-
And what I am saying is, why does losing to LSU automatically not qualify you to be #2? If LSU is #1, they would beat the #2 team, no?
Yes but that is only because they played each other. OKSU did not get a chance to play LSU to see how they would have fared. If both teams have one loss how can you honestly say that one team is better than the other if they haven't played. We know that LSU is better than bama, they played the game...LSU won. So why replay it? Why not just give LSU the trophy? If bama beats LSU does that make them better? Nope puts the series at 1-1 so then do they deserve to call themselves champs?
-
Why shouldn't Alabama play?
Because I don't care about the BCS. I want to see a playoff and failing that I want to see common sense and fairness.
If LSU and Alabama play again and Alabama wins then they become national champions. So we are saying that the LSU loss in the Superdome counts more than the Alabama loss in Tuscaloosa? If they play again and LSU wins what have we proven? That LSU can beat a team that they have already beaten once. Where is the fairness and common sense in either of those scenarios? Same thing if Oregon was the one that might be playing against LSU.
Now if LSU plays Okie State or Va Tech and they beat the pants off of them, so what? At least we got to see someone new in there.
-
My argument is: When #2 loses to #1, then someone else should be #2 and see if they knock the king off the mountain since the first#2 was unable to, and at home no less.
Ummm yeah, in a tournament. Or a bracket.
Just because someone couldn't knock the king off the mountain doesn't mean they AREN'T still the best contendor out there. You guys have made this a round robin. All the teams that you want to prop up there as the #1 contendor ALSO have 1 loss. And probably have less chance to knock the king off, than the first guy who tried.
-
do they deserve to call themselves champs?
Apparently, they already are....they're gooder.
-
To play a little devil's advocate, why does Alabama losing to LSU automatically NOT make them the #2 in the country? Losing to LSU and being the #2 team in the country aren't mutually exclusive. If LSU is indeed the #1 team in the country, logically wouldn't the #2 team lose to them?
AWESOME!!
Auburn is number two! We lost to Alabama, too. That makes us automatically #2.
Suck on THAT bitches.
-
Don't confuse my stance with me wanting you there. I, in no way, want your asses in that game. I don't like rematches. I don't like that you get to sit home this Saturday while LSU has to earn it by beating a hot UGA team.
BUT....if we are throwing out all the "in season fake bracket, round robins" that people have invented, throwing out the non existing conf title rules that people have invented, throwing out the non existing rematch clause that has appeared from nowhere - if you take away all of that, look behind the hype and smoke and mirrors, and look objectively at who the 2 BEST TEAMS are in the country, that is how I am coming up with LSU and BAMA. No one behind Bama, IMHO, would come within a TD of LSU. Oregon was/is a top 5-7 team and LSU obliterated them with ease. That was without Jefferson and in the 1st game of the year.
Arkansas was the #3 team in the country (or next in line using the logic of why Bama should not be #2 in this thread), and LSU could have hung 60 on them had they wanted to. At the time, Arky was "NEXT IN LINE", just like VT, OSU and Stanford are now. Sure, its conjecture to think those 3 aren't with a TD of LSU, but so is saying that those 3 are a better FB team than Bama. I look at Bama and LSU as 1a and 1b at this point. That game could have went either way. If Bama had half a kicker, it would have. That game was THAT close.
Frankly, I hope Bama gets dissed and OSU makes it and gets throttled by LSU. That way Bama gets left out AND it proves my point. Win win. I really think if anyone but Bama plays LSU, it is USC/OU 2004 all over again.
Again this is a subjective argument...in your mind you think they are better, but they have not played one another so how do you know? We know un-subjectively (word?) that LSU is better than bama they beat them on the field. So again why have a rematch.
-
Godfather's point about it being subjective is spot on. Good Gawd I want a playoff. Settle this shit on the field.
Do I personally think LSU and Bama are the two best teams? Yes. But my opinion means exactly squat. In 04', we argued that Auburn's SOS was far superior to that of USC or OU's. It was. Didn't matter. The talking heads wanted the money game from day 1 and the results were pathetic. To use a Bama reference...in 92' there was no reason to play the game in Newawlins. The U was a double digit favorite..had dey swagga' on and it was only a matter of naming the score. The U got bitch slapped by the greatest defense since the 2011 Tahd.
Settle this shit on the field
Oh, and for any of those coaches/administrators who argue about how extending the season for a playoff would be too much of a burden, blah, blah, blah....Texas High Schools just finished the 3rd week of playoffs. To win it all....you have to win 6 games. Yep, 10 week season and 6 playoff games.
-
My Bacon Lettuce & .....iPod? Iraq? Iran? Itching powder?
i'm full of fail, lately.
-
Yes but that is only because they played each other. OKSU did not get a chance to play LSU to see how they would have fared. If both teams have one loss how can you honestly say that one team is better than the other if they haven't played. We know that LSU is better than bama, they played the game...LSU won. So why replay it? Why not just give LSU the trophy? If bama beats LSU does that make them better? Nope puts the series at 1-1 so then do they deserve to call themselves champs?
I don't want a rematch. I really really don't. I don't want their ilk to even have the chance to scream out "14!!!" from the trailer tops in January. But Bama could not have lost to LSU any closer. Missed FG's and OT. I am not sure how much closer one can get to a win without actually getting it. Maybe a missed xtra point to end a game or something. In the end, the way the system works is based on an educated opinion of who you think are the 2 best teams in the country, not a round robin or who deserves what based on a previous matchup. That's just my perspective.
The 1-1 point you bring up is very valid though and that's where I agree. The system is flawed. A playoff would fix that, as Sani just eluded to.
-
Oh, and for any of those coaches/administrators who argue about how extending the season for a playoff would be too much of a burden, blah, blah, blah....Texas High Schools just finished the 3rd week of playoffs. To win it all....you have to win 6 games. Yep, 10 week season and 6 playoff games.
It has never been about that, that was just an excuse they used, to justify. Actually haven't heard that in awhile because that argument was nixed due to the fact that Div II has a playoff.
-
Don't really care, but this is a fail argument. ISU obviously would not play they are 6-5.
But in the alternate universe, there is no system to regulate who should be there by who they've played, wins/losses, voters in any polls, computers, etc. That's my point. A strawman argument has been made based on a rule that does not exist. It's throwing the system totally out the window, and creating a system custom tailored to keep Alabama out of the NCG in this one scenario. That's why I said if you're throwing the system out the window, throw it out the fucking window. If you're going to make up a rule and insert it here, change that rule, leave that rule, take out that other rule, then you're not going by the system we have in place. You're not going by any system, except some concoction that has been created.
This alternate system is predicated on the fact that Alabama had their shot and lost, but OSU hasn't played LSU, therefore OSU should now play LSU for the championship. But wait, we don't care about anything else except the fact that LSU and Alabama already played. But OSU lost to ISU. We know that ISU is better than OSU, and in this system nothing else matters except if you already played LSU or not. And in that system, if ISU beat OSU, then why couldn't they play LSU? Since logically we know ISU is better than who "should" be the #2 team (OSU), and ISU hasn't played LSU, so who is to say ISU isn't the better team?
This is what you get into when you make up a bunch of shit that doesn't exist, and apply the logic of a system that doesn't exist that is customized to handle one situation and one situation only.
-
My only problem with this is...IF Alabama ends up at #2 and gets the rematch of
THE GREATEST GAME EVER TO BE PLAYED
and just suppose for a moment they win it with a late field goal...or even in OT. That makes them 1-1 vs LSU. How does that make you #1? Can LSU say, let's make it the best of 3? No.
-
The 1-1 point you bring up is very valid though and that's where I agree. The system is flawed. A playoff would fix that, as Sani just eluded to.
A playoff would potentially create rematches of games played during the regular season. NO FUCKING REMATCHES!!!!!11!!
-
Don't confuse my stance with me wanting you there. I, in no way, want your asses in that game. I don't like rematches. I don't like that you get to sit home this Saturday while LSU has to earn it by beating a hot UGA team.
BUT....if we are throwing out all the "in season fake bracket, round robins" that people have invented, throwing out the non existing conf title rules that people have invented, throwing out the non existing rematch clause that has appeared from nowhere - if you take away all of that, look behind the hype and smoke and mirrors, and look objectively at who the 2 BEST TEAMS are in the country, that is how I am coming up with LSU and BAMA. No one behind Bama, IMHO, would come within a TD of LSU. Oregon was/is a top 5-7 team and LSU obliterated them with ease. That was without Jefferson and in the 1st game of the year.
Arkansas was the #3 team in the country (or next in line using the logic of why Bama should not be #2 in this thread), and LSU could have hung 60 on them had they wanted to. At the time, Arky was "NEXT IN LINE", just like VT, OSU and Stanford are now. Sure, its conjecture to think those 3 aren't with a TD of LSU, but so is saying that those 3 are a better FB team than Bama. I look at Bama and LSU as 1a and 1b at this point. That game could have went either way. If Bama had half a kicker, it would have. That game was THAT close.
Frankly, I hope Bama gets dissed and OSU makes it and gets throttled by LSU. That way Bama gets left out AND it proves my point. Win win. I really think if anyone but Bama plays LSU, it is USC/OU 2004 all over again.
I understand you don't want us there. I don't think anybody here wants us there. Which is fine, because alot of our fanbase is fucking annoying and are morons, and will say/do/wear stupid shit. And I'm with you on that. However, it has acted as blinders to some. Like I've said before, if OSU beats Oklahoma by 30 points or something and the BCS says they play LSU, hey, I'm cool with that. Because that's the system we have to work with. And really, them blowing the doors off OK could happen. But if they lose, and the talk switches to Houston should play in the NCG, I'm going to fucking laugh.
-
Why shouldn't Alabama play?
Because I don't care about the BCS. I want to see a playoff and failing that I want to see common sense and fairness.
If LSU and Alabama play again and Alabama wins then they become national champions. So we are saying that the LSU loss in the Superdome counts more than the Alabama loss in Tuscaloosa? If they play again and LSU wins what have we proven? That LSU can beat a team that they have already beaten once. Where is the fairness and common sense in either of those scenarios? Same thing if Oregon was the one that might be playing against LSU.
Now if LSU plays Okie State or Va Tech and they beat the pants off of them, so what? At least we got to see someone new in there.
Ed Zachery. There's no way in hell it's "fair" to tell LSU "Ok, now this time it REALLY counts."
-
I don't want a rematch. I really really don't. I don't want their ilk to even have the chance to scream out "14!!!" from the trailer tops in January. But Bama could not have lost to LSU any closer. Missed FG's and OT. I am not sure how much closer one can get to a win without actually getting it. Maybe a missed xtra point to end a game or something. In the end, the way the system works is based on an educated opinion of who you think are the 2 best teams in the country, not a round robin or who deserves what based on a previous matchup. That's just my perspective.
The 1-1 point you bring up is very valid though and that's where I agree. The system is flawed. A playoff would fix that, as Sani just eluded to.
It's Snaggle...don't get the two confused, one has no balls and the other likes young womenz.
Again though a loss is a loss on their home field. You saying that they are the best team is subjective. Was OKSU loss to ISU on the road in double overtime with a tragedy affecting them worse? I have no idea.
-
A playoff would potentially create rematches of games played during the regular season. NO FUCKING REMATCHES!!!!!11!!
No, if the system is different, then I understand and accept rematches. All you hear from purist is how big the regular season is in college football. How the regular season IS the playoff. Now Bammer wants everyone to say "the regular season IS the playoffs, unless it's not"
Bammers started chirping about a rematch well before the game. A sure sign you're a loser. Looking for a second chance before you've taken your first shot.
-
It's Snaggle...don't get the two confused, one has no balls and the other likes young womenz.
Again though a loss is a loss on their home field. You saying that they are the best team is subjective. Was OKSU loss to ISU on the road in double overtime with a tragedy affecting them worse? I have no idea.
I'll toss this between the crack of yo ass.
-
It's Snaggle...don't get the two confused, one has no balls and the other likes young womenz.
Again though a loss is a loss on their home field. You saying that they are the best team is subjective. Was OKSU loss to ISU on the road in double overtime with a tragedy affecting them worse? I have no idea.
Agree....I mean, I can personally say I think Bama is the 2nd best team, but I can see the argument either way. I think you and I are both more in the middle. Whether it is Bama or OSU, I can see the argument from BOTH sides. Bama is deserving. So is OSU. Most though, are taking one hellbent side or another. A lot of my stance is based off the fact that I can logically see how someone can think Bama is #2. I can also see how someone would think OSU is #2, just not as much.
-
Don't really care, but this is a fail argument. ISU obviously would not play they are 6-5.
You really shouldn't be arguing about this RWS, it is all subjective. Is bammer the #2 team in the country? Is OKSU? Not sure they both have 1 loss, does it matter who it was to? You say it does, I say OKSU had a bad game with a lot going on surrounding them. Does that mean they deserve to play anymore than bama? Don't know. See all subjective.
What Kaos is saying is not subjective, bama lost to LSU. Your argument is that well bama is ranked number #2 its not like they should be #1. Bottom line there is controversy surrounding the rematch. You don't want controversy, y'all should have won the game. You really have no argument.
Add to the fact that your loss was at home and OKSU was on the road? does that change things? Don't know. We will never know.
Ummm, yeah........
/thread
-
Ummm, yeah........
/thread
But you can turn that mirror right back around at OSU. They beat ISU, and this isn't even being discussed. But the way it has setup, its all subjective.
-
I'm not in the middle. I don't give a shit, I wish it were VTech and Okie St after the bs coming from both the LSU and bammer fan base last season. Wait.......if I were to say I did want a LSU and bama rematch, can I still get a possible earthquake too?
-
But you can turn that mirror right back around at OSU. They beat ISU, and this isn't even being discussed. But the way it has setup, its all subjective.
Not what he has in bold, his entire post is what I am screaming.
-
I'm not in the middle. I don't give a shit, I wish it were VTech and Okie St after the bs coming from both the LSU and bammer fan base last season. Wait.......if I were to say I did want a LSU and bama rematch, can I still get a possible earthquake too?
Yeah, I just wanted us to beat Bama, Arky to beat LSU and UGA to beat Arky so no one from the SEC would be in it.
-
A playoff would potentially create rematches of games played during the regular season. NO FUCKING REMATCHES!!!!!11!!
See? This is the stupid kind of logically devoid bullshit that proves YOU'RE the one floundering for justification for your predetermined preferred outcome.
IF there was a playoff (which there's not), OSU & Bama (and LSU, and if it's an 8-team playoff then also Virginia Tech, and Stanford, and Houston, and Oregon, and Arkansas) would have a fair shake the championship. In a tournament setting, they can play 7 games each like baseball or basketball finals for all I care. We don't have that. The best teams don't get to compete. Just two do. Two based on subjective opinions. And money. Mostly money.
And you guys want to talk about made up stipulations. Isn't the whole thing vague as shit? Isn't the only thing that's clear is that the purpose of the thing is to add an extra game besides just the other four BCS bowls to determine an "uncontested" national champion? Yes, you have to take the #1 & #2 teams, but A) I don't think whoever came up with that had this kind of scenario in mind in which this much favoritism would be shown to the loser of a head-to-head match-up that they'd actually get a second shot, while others with the same record against a stronger SOS don't even get to try once, and B) as mentioned before #1 & #2 is completely subjective. You can tell me til you're blue in the face that Alabama is beyond a shadow of a doubt better that LSU and Alabama are the two best schools, and I will maintain for eternity that the only thing we know with that degree of certainty is that LSU > Bama, as proven on the field. EVERYTHING else is speculation based on talking heads, their agendas, and the almighty dollar. Houston deserves a shot far more than Bama does, even with the lesser competition they have faced, because THEY DIDN'T ALREADY LOSE AGAINST #1. They could beat Green Bay for all we know, and they'll never get the chance to prove it. Alabama did get the chance to prove they were the best team, and they blew it.
-
Yeah, I just wanted us to beat Bama, Arky to beat LSU and UGA to beat Arky so no one from the SEC would be in it.
THAT....I can get on board with.
-
Alabama did get the chance to prove they were the best team, and they blew it.
I thought this was an argument over who was #2? And if it is, they did provide some proof they were #2 by losing narrowly to #1 in OT. How much seperation do you think there should be between 1 and 2?
-
Not what he has in bold, his entire post is what I am screaming.
I'm screaming the bold part.
If OSU beat ISU...we STILL don't know for a fact if they can knock off the giant sitting at #1 or not.
We DO know this about another team who will likely go in front of them...and the answer's NO.
-
How much seperation do you think there should be between 1 and 2?
At least a taint's worth
-
No, if the system is different, then I understand and accept rematches.
THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW SAYS THERE CAN BE REMATCHES. And HAS had rematches.
-
I'm screaming the bold part.
If OSU beat ISU...we STILL don't know for a fact if they can knock off the giant sitting at #1 or not.
We DO know this about another team who will likely go in front of them...and the answer's NO.
Chizad, all that really matters in THIS SYSTEM (the bcs) is who do you think the 2nd best team in the country is? I really think this is more of a system problem. We are all trying to use logic in a very flawed system. There are flaws on both sides of the argument. I think GF provides the best argument thus far.
-
THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW SAYS THERE CAN BE REMATCHES. And HAS had rematches.
And I despise it.
-
I'm screaming the bold part.
If OSU beat ISU...we STILL don't know for a fact if they can knock off the giant sitting at #1 or not.
We DO know this about another team who will likely go in front of them...and the answer's NO.
FTW
/thread
lock it down!
-
FTW
/thread
lock it down!
except you guys are using rules that don't exist!
Its a flawed system. Thats the best way to close this entire argument.
-
except you guys are using rules that don't exist!
Its a flawed system. Thats the best way to close this entire argument.
You must have missed this part:
/thread
-
why not just re-work the sec championship game? in most circumstances, the two best SEC teams are represented in each division.
keep it the same way...unless the number 1 and number 2 teams in the bcs come from the same division. let those 2 teams play for the sec championship game. settle it within the conference not the bcs system.
-
THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW SAYS THERE CAN BE REMATCHES. And HAS had rematches.
Never said I agreed with those rematches either. But you are screaming that you deserve to be #2 at the rooftops. Listen...the voters agree with you so it doesn't matter. What I am saying is that there is no way you can say that you are more deserving then OKSU. You can't do it.
I am so sure that if the situation were reversed and OKSU was ranked #2 that you would be ok with it.
-
why not just re-work the sec championship game? in most circumstances, the two best SEC teams are represented in each division.
keep it the same way...unless the number 1 and number 2 teams in the bcs come from the same division. let those 2 teams play for the sec championship game. settle it within the conference not the bcs system.
I almost posted this yesterday, but it would be patently unfair to UGA to keep them out. They weren't a championship level team early, but they've improved, and deserve a shot at LSU.
-
You must have missed this part:
Nice and convenient for you eh?
-
except you guys are using rules that don't exist!
Its a flawed system. Thats the best way to close this entire argument.
I am not using any rules I am using logic. AGAIN there is no substantial evidence that says bama is better then OKSU or vice versa.
-
Chizad, all that really matters in THIS SYSTEM (the bcs) is who do you think the 2nd best team in the country is? I really think this is more of a system problem. We are all trying to use logic in a very flawed system. There are flaws on both sides of the argument. I think GF provides the best argument thus far.
So what you're saying is, we should abandon logic and reason to fit a square peg into the round hole that is "the system". Actually, I wouldn't even call the hole that is "the system" round. More of an amorphous liquidy blob.
YOU say #1 & #2 is the two best teams based on your opinion. I say it's the two best teams based on my opinion, which is based on whether or not they won it on the field. Most voters rank based on where they "feel" the team will be at the end of the season, not based on results from the season at that point. Many of those actually use SOS against teams because "Well, they've got to play Texas in week 11, and there's no way they're getting past them".
We agree, the system is beyond flawed. We disagree on what the "rules" even are in the flawed system, because there really are none. It's chaos.
-
why not just re-work the sec championship game? in most circumstances, the two best SEC teams are represented in each division.
keep it the same way...unless the number 1 and number 2 teams in the bcs come from the same division. let those 2 teams play for the sec championship game. settle it within the conference not the bcs system.
^^^Gets it.^^^
This is essentially the same argument GH & RWS are trying to make.
-
^^^Gets it.^^^
This is essentially the same argument GH & RWS are trying to make.
I am saying there are 2 valid arguments, and because of the structure of the BCS - both are flawed. The system is working as designed which is based a lot off human 'opinion'. Point being, the system is oh so bad. If it worked or were perfect we wouldnt even be having this argument. It reared its ugly head in 2004 and is doing so again now. I wasn't arguing for Bama to be in the title game. I just personally said I thought they were the 2nd best team in the country. Maybe all this is what it will take to get something better.
-
See? This is the stupid kind of logically devoid bullshit that proves YOU'RE the one floundering for justification for your predetermined preferred outcome.
It's not stupid logic.
If you implement a playoff system at the beginning of next season, you go through the regular season. The season ends, so now you have whatever teams that will be in those playoffs. You are going to have teams matched up in those playoffs that already played during the regular season, but will play again in the playoffs, thus giving you rematches all over the place. And from what I gather, your position is NO REMATCHES. Fuck, look at the Packers in the NFL. They played the Eagles, Falcons, Bears, and Steelers in the post-season. They lost to the Falcons and Bears in the regular season. Still made it to the Super Bowl. That is what I'm talking about when I say that a playoff system in the future would not solve a rematch problem; it would actually create more of one.
-
I don't understand how anyone can argue against a rematch using the current system.
It's subjective voting.
The voters think Alabama is #2? The computers rank Alabama high enough to keep them #2?
Rematch. No arguments against it.
If you personally think Alabama is not worthy of being ranked #2, offer an argument against their team. Offer why OSU is better than Alabama besides "Alabama already lost to LSU."
-
At least a taint's worth
Can't have it slipping in the wrong hole.
-
I don't understand how anyone can argue against a rematch using the current system.
It's subjective voting.
The voters think Alabama is #2? The computers rank Alabama high enough to keep them #2?
Rematch. No arguments against it.
If you personally think Alabama is not worthy of being ranked #2, offer an argument against their team. Offer why OSU is better than Alabama besides "Alabama already lost to LSU."
There is no other argument, it is the only argument you need. Also I am not saying that bama doesn't deserve to be #2. I'm simply saying that how can you define that bama is more deserving to be #2 that OKSU. You can't. There is no basis for argument. I can however say that unequivocally that LSU is more gooder than bama. How can I say such things...they played on the field. If bama unbiasedly deserved to be in this game they should have won all their games. Then there would be no argument. Its controversial much like a lot of their championships.
RWS again your argument is fail, you are discussing a playoff system in which we do not have. Yes the NFL plays rematches but they also have a play-off system. If we had a play off system and LSU and bama both went through unscathed I would have no issue. BTW you keep saying there have been BCS rematches, there has never been a BCS game involving two teams that played each other during the regular season.
-
I don't understand how anyone can argue against a rematch using the current system.
It's subjective voting.
The voters think Alabama is #2? The computers rank Alabama high enough to keep them #2?
So what do you do if Okie St. beats OU, and the AP has Bama 2 and computers have Okie St 2. Right now the computers only have Bama at 2 because they have played one more game than Okie St.
-
Interesting take from Matt Hayes at The Sporting News:
7. A subtle message
Look, I’m not one for conspiracies, but I’m beginning to think the coaches are making some interesting moves in their weekly poll.
How else do you explain Virginia Tech, long an afterthought with an ugly home loss to Clemson on its resume, moving up to No. 3 in the latest coaches poll after thumping rival Virginia 38-0 and earning a spot in the ACC championship game.
I realize Alabama is strongly positioned at No. 2 in the coaches poll. But is it possible—again, I’m not a conspiracy guy, per se—the coaches voted up Tech in the hopes the Hokies would rout Clemson, avenge their only loss and give the coaches cover for moving VT all the way to No. 2 to avoid the All-SEC BCS National Championship Game?
I know what you’re thinking: It’s all too George Noory for you. But is it?
-
So what do you do if Okie St. beats OU, and the AP has Bama 2 and computers have Okie St 2. Right now the computers only have Bama at 2 because they have played one more game than Okie St.
AP doesn't matter.
The coaches and Harris poll gets 66% of the vote and the computers the other 33%. Yes there are some other factors involved such as points awarded for 1st place and 2nd place votes, but nonetheless, Bama would win enough of the voting to be number 2.
I'm not arguing that the system is logical or that we are getting the best matchup to determine the best team in college football.
I agree, LSU beat Bama. That game has been decided.
But the system we have - and this is key - totally separates the BCSCG from the results of the regular season. All the BCS cares about is who is voted #1 and #2. And unless you want the voters to blatantly lie about their ranking, they're going to vote Bama as the second best team in the country because they believe that Alabama would beat #3-#120.
Again - it's not right. But it's what we've got right now.
-
Interesting take from Matt Hayes at The Sporting News:
I was talking to a co-worker about something similar yesterday, a huge bama fan by the way. While some are saying that bama has the easiest route the BCSCG since LSU or others still have to play a Championship game, bama also is out of sight out of mind this week; which may hurt them. If Okie State hammers the Sooners, how does this effect the rankings. I mean, voters will have this fresh on their minds while bamas win over Auburn is old news. This has to play in who gets the votes because it has several times in the past and you couple that with many outside the SEC don't want to see a rematch; I think you have a very serious possibility that bama gets jumped in the final poll.
-
Interesting take from Matt Hayes at The Sporting News:
That was part of my (almost**) perfect scenario. Bama having every reason in the world to believe they are headed to New Orleans until the very last BCS rankings come out and they get nudged to #3.
**Perfect would have been Auburn winning the Iron Bowl.
-
(http://www.tigersx.com/saniflush/bbqelephant.jpg)
just sayin'.
-
(http://www.tigersx.com/saniflush/bbqelephant.jpg)
just sayin'.
Good times.
-
bet it tasted like chicken
-
bet it tasted like chicken
It was two LSU guys that did that Saturday.
-
AP doesn't matter.
The coaches and Harris poll gets 66% of the vote and the computers the other 33%. Yes there are some other factors involved such as points awarded for 1st place and 2nd place votes, but nonetheless, Bama would win enough of the voting to be number 2.
I'm not arguing that the system is logical or that we are getting the best matchup to determine the best team in college football.
I agree, LSU beat Bama. That game has been decided.
But the system we have - and this is key - totally separates the BCSCG from the results of the regular season. All the BCS cares about is who is voted #1 and #2. And unless you want the voters to blatantly lie about their ranking, they're going to vote Bama as the second best team in the country because they believe that Alabama would beat #3-#120.
Again - it's not right. But it's what we've got right now.
I meant coaches poll and agree with your assessment. My point was that the human poll and the computer poll will not match. I have already conceded to the rematch really don't care anymore will be rooting for LSU. Hope they get what they deserve
-
I don't want a rematch. I really really don't. I don't want their ilk to even have the chance to scream out "14!!!" from the trailer tops in January. But Bama could not have lost to LSU any closer. Missed FG's and OT. I am not sure how much closer one can get to a win without actually getting it. Maybe a missed xtra point to end a game or something. In the end, the way the system works is based on an educated opinion of who you think are the 2 best teams in the country, not a round robin or who deserves what based on a previous matchup. That's just my perspective.
The 1-1 point you bring up is very valid though and that's where I agree. The system is flawed. A playoff would fix that, as Sani just eluded to.
Well fuck. John Vaughn doinked a couple of field goals against LSU. Let's play that one again.
Back in the 80s, LSU scored late to beat Auburn 7-6. It was a fucking fluke. Let's play that game one more time so Auburn can count that national title.
And fuck. Van Tiffin kicked a field goal he couldn't make three out of four times in 1985. We should play that one again and count the SEC Championship that year.
This entire argument reeks of bullshit. Close only fucking counts in horseshoes. And I don't see any motherfucking horses.
-
Well fuck. John Vaughn doinked a couple of field goals against LSU. Let's play that one again.
Back in the 80s, LSU scored late to beat Auburn 7-6. It was a fucking fluke. Let's play that game one more time so Auburn can count that national title.
And fuck. Van Tiffin kicked a field goal he couldn't make three out of four times in 1985. We should play that one again and count the SEC Championship that year.
This entire argument reeks of bullshit. Close only fucking counts in horseshoes. And I don't see any motherfucking horses.
Its only bullshit because it doesn't mesh with your argument that is purely based off your personal opinion of the team in question. And you know it. You are getting too wrapped up in rematches.
And if we had been the #2 team the year Vaugn missed that FG and LSU #1 at year's end? And that was the only thing seperating us from them? Then hell yes, it would be a legit comparison. But you are rolling apples with oranges here.
Ive already said that the 1-1 scenario is the flaw in the plan as GF mentioned. Its a flawed system. Whoever they stick up there against LSU there is gonna be a con to it.
-
RWS again your argument is fail, you are discussing a playoff system in which we do not have. Yes the NFL plays rematches but they also have a play-off system. If we had a play off system and LSU and bama both went through unscathed I would have no issue. BTW you keep saying there have been BCS rematches, there has never been a BCS game involving two teams that played each other during the regular season.
EXACTLY MY POINT. JR, Kaos, et al are arguing the point of a system that DOES NOT EXIST. They are creating rules that do not exist. They are substituting whatever system they have devised to keep Alabama out of the NCG for the system that we have now. That was my point. And in this system they created, that does not exist, that uses ONLY if/then/else logic to decide who plays in the NCG, ISU could play in the NCG.
-
EXACTLY MY POINT. JR, Kaos, et al are arguing the point of a system that DOES NOT EXIST. They are creating rules that do not exist. They are substituting whatever system they have devised to keep Alabama out of the NCG for the system that we have now. That was my point. And in this system they created, that does not exist, that uses ONLY if/then/else logic to decide who plays in the NCG, ISU could play in the NCG.
I'm not creating any goddam rules you goat fucking asstrap.
I'm saying POINT FUCKING BLANK -- Alabama isn't the second best team in the country for these purposes. They already lost to number one, so we know how that goes. Any other one loss team is better than they are so far as determining who the BEST team in the country might be. Pe-re-fucking-od.
-
Alabama isn't the second best team in the country for these purposes. They already lost to number one, so we know how that goes. Any other one loss team is better than they are so far as determining who the BEST team in the country might be. Pe-re-fucking-od.
Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.
Your logic makes no sense.
-
EXACTLY MY POINT. JR, Kaos, et al are arguing the point of a system that DOES NOT EXIST. They are creating rules that do not exist. They are substituting whatever system they have devised to keep Alabama out of the NCG for the system that we have now. That was my point. And in this system they created, that does not exist, that uses ONLY if/then/else logic to decide who plays in the NCG, ISU could play in the NCG.
So are you. See my previous point. There ARE no rules.
It's all one subjective ball of goo.
-
So are you. See my previous point. There ARE no rules.
It's all one subjective ball of goo.
I'm not making up any point, other than the points I made to show how silly these hypothetical rules are that some of you are creating out of the blue sky. It is very simple:
1. In the system we have now, the system sends the best and second best teams as it determines to the NCG.
2. There is no rule that says a rematch cannot happen.
3. Playoffs in the future would create more rematches of regular season games, if that's what you're specifically trying to avoid.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819686
-
I'm not making up any point, other than the points I made to show how silly these hypothetical rules are that some of you are creating out of the blue sky. It is very simple:
1. In the system we have now, the system sends the best and second best teams as it determines to the NCG.
2. There is no rule that says a rematch cannot happen.
3. Playoffs in the future would create more rematches of regular season games, if that's what you're specifically trying to avoid.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819686
4. The top two teams don't necessarily have to be the "best" two teams based off of whatever criteria it is you're using that automatically disqualifies OSU, Stanford, VT, or Houston.
And get off your #3 already, that is beyond stupid and completely missing the point.
-
EXACTLY MY POINT. JR, Kaos, et al are arguing the point of a system that DOES NOT EXIST. They are creating rules that do not exist. They are substituting whatever system they have devised to keep Alabama out of the NCG for the system that we have now. That was my point. And in this system they created, that does not exist, that uses ONLY if/then/else logic to decide who plays in the NCG, ISU could play in the NCG.
I'm not creating any rules MOE RON...they've played, bammer lost, end of STOW REE. NEXT!
-
Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.
Your logic makes no sense.
Then there's no fucking need to play it at all. Been there, done that, LSU plays UGA for all the marbles, they win, and the BCSCG is cancelled.
-
Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.
Your logic makes no sense.
That's not true, why just the other day Trent Richardson said that Alabama was the goodest team in the conference.
-
4. The top two teams don't necessarily have to be the "best" two teams based off of whatever criteria it is you're using that automatically disqualifies OSU, Stanford, VT, or Houston.
And get off your #3 already, that is beyond stupid and completely missing the point.
The criteria I'm using to disqualify OSU, Stanford, etc, is the BCS selection process. You know, that thing that is used to decide who plays in the championship game. Crazy concept, I know, but it's all I have to go on. Like I said before, if that process comes out next week with OSU as the second team in the NCG and Alabama gets left out, well then tought luck. That's all we have to go by, so whatever.
The only reason point #3 was brought up was for those thinking a playoff would solve rematch issues.
-
That's not true, why just the other day Trent Richardson said that Alabama was the goodest team in the conference.
He said gooder. Not gooderer.
-
Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.
Your logic makes no sense.
It certainly doesn't fucking mean they fucking are, you goat licking toolbag.
-
Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.
Your logic makes no sense.
Well then, it's decided. They're the second best team. Game over. We know unequivocally who the best team is, and we know unequivocally who the 2nd best team is. No need to play it on the field. That's exactly what you're saying. The purpose is not to crown a champion, it's to let the #1 best team and #2 2nd best team play each other just to confirm what everyone knew to begin with, that team A is #1 and team B is #2. Even if they already proved it once so we can really really know it.
No chance that it's OSU who lost gasp also due to field goals in gasssssp DOUBLE overtime! Why are they even playing football? Everyone knows who #1 & #2 are and it's not them.
The criteria I'm using to disqualify OSU, Stanford, etc, is the BCS selection process. You know, that thing that is used to decide who plays in the championship game. Crazy concept, I know, but it's all I have to go on. Like I said before, if that process comes out next week with OSU as the second team in the NCG and Alabama gets left out, well then tought luck. That's all we have to go by, so whatever.
Your argument is that they are beyond a doubt the two BEST teams. In fact, it's 100% scientific fact that LSU is #1, and Bama is #2. Bama could only possibly have lost to LSU. And LSU cannot possibly lose to anyone, including Bama.
No shit the BCS has to take #1 and #2. The whole debate is over who should be #2? Should it be a team that already played #1 and lost? Or should it be a team that hasn't been afforded that opportunity yet? It seriously blows my mind that this is such a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.
The only reason point #3 was brought up was for those thinking a playoff would solve rematch issues.
No. No, they didn't. Again, you failed to grasp the point. It's already been explained to you. The problem with the rematch is not that we have to see the same game twice. It's that another team who didn't get to prove they could beat the #1 team doesn't get a chance. In a 4 team playoff, at least it's slightly more fair in that those other two teams at least have a chance to prove they're the best team in the country. Six team playoff even more fair. The more teams, the fairer the system.
-
It seriously blows my mind that this is such a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.
That's what I said around page 4.
It's sad when OSU's coach even says Alabama is better, but you can't fathom it. Like I've said a hojillion times; if the system determines that OSU is better and should go, then they go. If it determines that Alabama is better than OSU, then they go. And that's the standard we use to decide who rightfully goes. Whether they have already played or not. You could debate infinitely as to which team would win if OSU played Alabama. Moot point.
Unless you know of some other system currently in use right now in FBS football, other than the BCS.
-
My problem with most of the arguments that I've heard, is most of you are willing to punish team A for losing to the undefeated #1 team, but you're not willing to punish team B for losing to a shitty 6-5 team. Did Alabama have a shot at being undefeated and playing in the BCS championship game? Yes. I agree that if they wanted in the BCS game without question, they should have handled their business. But every other team ALSO had the same opportunity. It's almost like some of you are refusing to acknowledge that fact. All Oklahoma State had to do was handle their business....but they lost to a Iowa State. All Stanford had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Oregon. All Oklahoma had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Baylor.
The one and only thing that I agree with in the argument keeping Alabama out of the BCS? It isn't fair to tell LSU to beat Alabama twice for the trophy, but Alabama only has to beat LSU once. I agree. But it also isn't fair to keep Alabama out because they lost to an undefeated team when the other teams in discussion lost to worse teams.
The only way to fix this mess is with a small playoff. BUT....teams would still have to battle for the 8 spots, and most likely, the "who's #2" argument would simply shift to "who's #8".
-
That's what I said around page 4.
It's sad when OSU's coach even says Alabama is better, but you can't fathom it. Like I've said a hojillion times; if the system determines that OSU is better and should go, then they go. If it determines that Alabama is better than OSU, then they go. And that's the standard we use to decide who rightfully goes. Whether they have already played or not. You could debate infinitely as to which team would win if OSU played Alabama. Moot point.
Unless you know of some other system currently in use right now in FBS football, other than the BCS.
The whole purpose of this thread isn't to discuss what system is already in place. All of us here know that this all a foregone conclusion your mighty tahd will play LSU a second time for all the marbles. There is nothing any of us can do to change that. The argument is that is it fair for bama to be able to receive that second shot, do they deserve it? based on a subjective criteria.
Token no one is discounting the losses the other teams had, I am simply pointing out though that you cannot base bama being #2 because you say they are. If we are judging by SOS then why not OKSU? It would be the same argument if everyone had no loses, the difference in this case is your one loss is to a team that you already played and lost to....so whats the point? You already lost to them, so if you beat them then it should be a split championship.
-
My problem with most of the arguments that I've heard, is most of you are willing to punish team A for losing to the undefeated #1 team, but you're not willing to punish team B for losing to a shitty 6-5 team. Did Alabama have a shot at being undefeated and playing in the BCS championship game? Yes. I agree that if they wanted in the BCS game without question, they should have handled their business. But every other team ALSO had the same opportunity. It's almost like some of you are refusing to acknowledge that fact. All Oklahoma State had to do was handle their business....but they lost to a Iowa State. All Stanford had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Oregon. All Oklahoma had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Baylor.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=897jlnmTYqE
They did not have "the same opportunity". They had the opportunity to beat other teams, and yes, failed.
They did not have the opportunity to beat the sole unbeaten undisputed #1 team in the country. Bama did.
The one and only thing that I agree with in the argument keeping Alabama out of the BCS? It isn't fair to tell LSU to beat Alabama twice for the trophy, but Alabama only has to beat LSU once. I agree. But it also isn't fair to keep Alabama out because they lost to an undefeated team when the other teams in discussion lost to worse teams.
Way way way more fair to give the other teams a crack at #1 than to let the national championship be a split, and the team who lost at home, but won on a neutral field won "the real time".
The only way to fix this mess is with a small playoff. BUT....teams would still have to battle for the 8 spots, and most likely, the "who's #2" argument would simply shift to "who's #8".
Probably. But with each team added, the margin of error goes down. In an 8 team playoff, you're NOT going to have a situation like this where only one team earned their shot, and they have to face a team that didn't earn it any more than anyone else, while the others have no shot at the title game. If you can't make the 8 teams, you don't have a legitimate gripe as the best team in the country. In a 4 team, or even +1 3 team playoff, you're substantially reducing the likelihood of eliminating a team that could truly prove themselves as the best.
-
My problem with most of the arguments that I've heard, is most of you are willing to punish team A for losing to the undefeated #1 team, but you're not willing to punish team B for losing to a shitty 6-5 team.
Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.
-
Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.
Pretty simple shit really. It's not rocket surgery.
-
Way way way more fair to give the other teams a crack at #1 than to let the national championship be a split, and the team who lost at home, but won on a neutral field won "the real time".
Honey badger don't care what's "fair;" honey badger wants to see the #1 and #2 teams, as determined by human voters and computer systems, compete in the BCS national championship.
That's it and that's all. If #1 has already played #2 during the regular season, honey badger don't give a shit. Honey badger will eat your written proposals for a no-rematch playoff system with double elimination and gold stars for honorable mentions for "fairness," then shit it back out in the form of a fire breathing wildcat that defecates magma.
Don't like it? Take it up with honey badger, also known as the BCS. Until you defeat honey badger in an epic duel utilizing only trees and dildos as weapons, honey badger will put whoever it wants into the national championship, rematch or not.
-
Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.
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?
-
The whole purpose of this thread isn't to discuss what system is already in place. All of us here know that this all a foregone conclusion your mighty tahd will play LSU a second time for all the marbles. There is nothing any of us can do to change that. The argument is that is it fair for bama to be able to receive that second shot, do they deserve it? based on a subjective criteria.
Token no one is discounting the losses the other teams had, I am simply pointing out though that you cannot base bama being #2 because you say they are. If we are judging by SOS then why not OKSU? It would be the same argument if everyone had no loses, the difference in this case is your one loss is to a team that you already played and lost to....so whats the point? You already lost to them, so if you beat them then it should be a split championship.
Thing is, I'm not saying Bama is #2 because I said so. I'm saying that Bama should be in the championship game because the BCS says so. But even if I were saying they are number 2 because I said so, I haven't seen a single argument yet against Bama being #2 that doesn't use the same (because I said so) logic.
The bottom line remains, every other team had the same opportunity as Alabama. Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oklahoma and Boise State all had opportunities AFTER Alabama lost to earn their way into the game, but they didn't. So the right thing to do is reward them because they had the luxury to not play the #1 team in the regular season? Oregon was the ONLY team who I believe had a legitimate argument to play in it, but they fucked the duck against USC....also AFTER Alabama lost to LSU.
-
Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.
So then, we'll reward the team who doesn't have to beat #1 in regular season? That seems much more fair.
-
Probably. But with each team added, the margin of error goes down. In an 8 team playoff, you're NOT going to have a situation like this where only one team earned their shot, and they have to face a team that didn't earn it any more than anyone else, while the others have no shot at the title game. If you can't make the 8 teams, you don't have a legitimate gripe as the best team in the country. In a 4 team, or even +1 3 team playoff, you're substantially reducing the likelihood of eliminating a team that could truly prove themselves as the best.
Ok, as it stands now. Tell me why a 2 loss Arkansas team deserves a spot but a 2 loss Oregon doesn't.
-
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.)
It only has to exist in the voter's minds. It doesn't have to be a written rule. If after all the regular seasons, and championship games are concluded, the voters simply said "Fuck it, bammer already lost to LSU, I want to see Ok. State take a shot, I'm voting bammer #3" that's ok, and should, IMHO, be the consensus.
-
But even if I were saying they are number 2 because I said so, I haven't seen a single argument yet against Bama being #2 that doesn't use the same (because I said so) logic.
I told you that my logic was based on SOS, isn't that why we were denied in 04. Oklahoma State has four wins against teams in the Top 25 of the BCS standings, and would have a fifth by beating the Sooners, while Alabama has only two.
again though I haven't said that bama shouldn't be #2, I am simply asking the question is it fair for them to have a rematch?
-
I told you that my logic was based on SOS, isn't that why we were denied in 04. Oklahoma State has four wins against teams in the Top 25 of the BCS standings, and would have a fifth by beating the Sooners, while Alabama has only two.
again though I haven't said that bama shouldn't be #2, I am simply asking the question is it fair for them to have a rematch?
If that's the question - The answer is a wholehearted no.
They didn't do anything to deserve it except lose in a close game to LSU. It's how Charlie Fucking FatFuck Weiss kept his job at Notre Dame so long. He had a respectable loss against THE ALPHA-OMEGA USC FOOTBALL TEAM IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL UNIVERSAL MULTIVERSE NEUTRINO HISTORY........who eventually lost to Texas.
But the problem here is that "deserve" doesn't factor into the equation. The system that's in place would allow voters to still vote Alabama #1 if they wanted to. They could say, "Haha fuck LSU let's vote Alabama #1 right now anyway."
No one could question them. The voters are allowed to vote based on who they think is the best. Unless there's some list of guidelines I've never seen.
-
No one could question them. The voters are allowed to vote based on who they think is the best. Unless there's some list of guidelines I've never seen.
That's what I was going to say earlier: I have no idea whether they receive any sort of guidelines, but part of me wonders if they do. This would make it slightly more objective, although it would still be largely subjective.
I would be interested to see what, if any, guidelines they do have. Afterall, they have some "guidelines" in the algorithms that the computer ranking systems use (win/loss, SOS, etc.)., and maybe those same guidelines are used in instructions for voters.
Of course, the voters could still ignore the guidelines, vote Prairie View as #1 in the nation, then scream obscenities during their pre-game conferences and publicly detail how they rape emus and kill children. I mean, it's happened before.
...or not. Point being, even with guidelines, the human vote is subjective to a large degree. Usually those subjective opinions are premised upon objective facts such as win/loss, SOS, etc., but yes, there are times when politics (or psychopathic rogues) can make the human vote unreasonably subjective.
-
It only has to exist in the voter's minds. It doesn't have to be a written rule. If after all the regular seasons, and championship games are concluded, the voters simply said "Fuck it, bammer already lost to LSU, I want to see Ok. State take a shot, I'm voting bammer #3" that's ok, and should, IMHO, be the consensus.
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.
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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....
-
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...
-
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...
-
haha...I responded to the same question twice....
-
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.
-
I am trying to up my post count and see if I can get the record for most consecutive posts...
-
Damn you Yoda...
-
Damn you Yoda...
My bad
-
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.
-
Did you guys know that there are approximately 50,000 black Jews in America?
Crazy stuff...
-
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.
-
No, really...fifty thousand.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Point is, you can NOT win your division and STILL get to play for the title. Which is what you are bellyaching about. Dumbass.
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.
Yeah, if you can't make a 64 team playoff then you aren't worth a fuck and probably don't deserve to be playing in any type of post season.
Who the fuck says?
The 91% of college coaches, 93% of Harris poll voters and 50% of the computers. I think a shit ton of voters in the AP too.
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.
Well fuck. We know 12 teams who couldn't do it. What is there? 108 teams left? Maybe they'll be finished playing by 2014 so we can see the trophy presentation.
-
Well fuck. We know 12 teams who couldn't do it. What is there? 108 teams left? Maybe they'll be finished playing by 2014 so we can see the trophy presentation.
All 12 should get another shot. Have to be fair. LSU might lose any one of those. You just never know.
As for the trophy presentation? If you fucks lose again, you'll just call for another rematch or award yourself a fucking trophy anyway. Don't know why you'd even want a rematch. Isn't that idiot bastard who made up all your titles still alive? Just ask that numb fuck to conjure up another one and there's no need to even play the games.
-
All 12 should get another shot. Have to be fair. LSU might lose any one of those. You just never know.
As for the trophy presentation? If you fucks lose again, you'll just call for another rematch or award yourself a fucking trophy anyway. Don't know why you'd even want a rematch. Isn't that idiot bastard who made up all your titles still alive? Just ask that numb fuck to conjure up another one and there's no need to even play the games.
Go bust a child molester out of prison. Pervert.
-
The bottom line remains, every other team had the same opportunity as Alabama.
This is exactly why I say go Houston.
-
This is exactly why I say go Houston.
I like your thinking.
The one thing that I can agree on here with Token is the fact that these other teams did have their chance. Hell it was almost sickening to watch CFB the following weeks because after bama lost, everyone else did to. It was like Stanford and Okie State just stepped right outta the way for bama to waltz right back to #2. So, in a sense, they did have their chance but screwed themselves.
-
Again, if y'all dont want controversy you should have won all your games. What in the fuck does a rematch prove?
You had your chance at the king you blew it, time for someone else to try. You keep saying you shouldn't be penalized for playing LSU, well if you had beat them the first time we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Next?
-
Again, if y'all dont want controversy you should have won all your games. What in the fuck does a rematch prove?
You had your chance at the king you blew it, time for someone else to try. You keep saying you shouldn't be penalized for playing LSU, well if you had beat them the first time we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Next?
And I agree with Token and Sani here on 2 points. 1. Those other teams also had their chance. Boise and OSU blew it as well. So did Stanford and VT. If ANY of them go undefeated then we are not even having this argument. So as you have said before, it comes down to opinion - it's subjective. 2. And HOUSTON is really the only one with a beef since it did all it could do. No one else did.
-
2. And HOUSTON is really the only one with a beef since it did all it could do. No one else did.
But if you apply Kaos' view of ONLY going by SOS, as is the argument apparently for putting OSU in over Alabama (other than those two teams have yet to play each other), then Houston fucking fails miserably in that. I think their SOS is like #111 in the Sagarin ratings. The only ranked team they will play this season is #24 Southern Miss this weekend. So, why doesn't everybody just join C-USA, play shitty unranked teams in your division throughout the season, and win out every year? I mean, how is it fair to award them for playing a shitty schedule that would make Ole Miss an 8 win team, while teams in the SEC beat each other to death week in and week out?
The BCS doesn't consider only SOS when figuring placement. It is a blend of factors that decides.
-
But if you apply Kaos' view of ONLY going by SOS, as is the argument apparently for putting OSU in over Alabama (other than those two teams have yet to play each other), then Houston fucking fails miserably in that. I think their SOS is like #111 in the Sagarin ratings. The only ranked team they will play this season is #24 Southern Miss this weekend. So, why doesn't everybody just join C-USA, play shitty unranked teams in your division throughout the season, and win out every year? I mean, how is it fair to award them for playing a shitty schedule that would make Ole Miss an 8 win team, while teams in the SEC beat each other to death week in and week out?
The BCS doesn't consider only SOS when figuring placement. It is a blend of factors that decides.
Use whatever criteria you want, but pick one and let's hear it for fuck's sake.
Excluding LSU:
SOS? - Oklahoma State. Oklahoma. USC. 22 other teams have you beat.
Highest Win %/Most Wins? - Houston. (100%, 13-0 pending win next week).
Excluding Houston? Virginia Tech. (92%, 12-1 pending win next week) Boise, Stanford, and OK State have at least equal claim.
Conference (Division) Champions? There are 12 D-I conferences. That's 12 teams more deserving than you.
No matter the category, you don't deserve it. Besides the fictional made up ESPN talking heads agenda, and again the almighty dollar, which placed you higher at the beginning of the year, which is why you're still here now. In no equitable category are you the more deserving team.
And oh yeah. YOU ALREADY PLAYED LSU AND FUCKING LOST!
That is the only criteria that matters.
-
That is the only criteria that matters.
Except we live in Bizarro World where the only criteria that matters is what way-too-busy coaches think and what pompous-pretentious-douchebag-agenda-driven Harris Poll voters think.
-
Not even sure what everyone's argument is 10 or 11 pages in. But, in the famous words of our very own Token....if you guys want to muscle on through a few more pages, feel free.
-
Not even sure what everyone's argument is 10 or 11 pages in. But, in the famous words of our very own Token....if you guys want to muscle on through a few more pages, feel free.
Tell us another story.
-
Tell us another story.
This one time, at band camp.....
-
But if you apply Kaos' view of ONLY going by SOS, as is the argument apparently for putting OSU in over Alabama (other than those two teams have yet to play each other), then Houston fucking fails miserably in that. I think their SOS is like #111 in the Sagarin ratings. The only ranked team they will play this season is #24 Southern Miss this weekend. So, why doesn't everybody just join C-USA, play shitty unranked teams in your division throughout the season, and win out every year? I mean, how is it fair to award them for playing a shitty schedule that would make Ole Miss an 8 win team, while teams in the SEC beat each other to death week in and week out?
The BCS doesn't consider only SOS when figuring placement. It is a blend of factors that decides.
This is my thing about the SOS. I agree it should play a part, but essentially you are penalizing a team who has done everything it could to be there. If we are all going to unilaterally say that Houston is not good enough to be there then they should move down in division.
I said the same thing to the leghumpers a couple of years ago when Hawaii had that undefeated year and had been shut out of everything. The UGA beat the hell out of them in the bowl game and thus were using that as proof that they did not deserve to be there. I call bullshit on that. They deserved to be there just as much as the ones who were. If the BCS doesn't believe they belong then there should be a concerted effort to have them or any other lower tier programs move down in division.
-
This is my thing about the SOS. I agree it should play a part, but essentially you are penalizing a team who has done everything it could to be there. If we are all going to unilaterally say that Houston is not good enough to be there then they should move down in division.
I said the same thing to the leghumpers a couple of years ago when Hawaii had that undefeated year and had been shut out of everything. The UGA beat the hell out of them in the bowl game and thus were using that as proof that they did not deserve to be there. I call bullshit on that. They deserved to be there just as much as the ones who were. If the BCS doesn't believe they belong then there should be a concerted effort to have them or any other lower tier programs move down in division.
F'n THIS^^^^
With our current system, you can basically take about 60% of the teams in Division 1 and tell them at the start of the season, "You can go out and beat everybody on your schedule 87-2 this year....but you still aren't sniffing the championship game.....but have a great season".
-
And oh yeah. YOU ALREADY PLAYED LSU AND FUCKING LOST!
That is the only criteria that matters.
In Chizad world, maybe. In the real world, with the system we have, what the BCS says is the only criteria that matters. Whether it says Alabama, OSU, Va Tech, Stanford, etc. It is what it is. Like I've said before, if the BCS ends up saying OSU should go, I'm not going to complain one bit. And honestly, that may be more of a reality than some think. I wouldn't complain though, because that's the system we have to work with.
-
In Chizad world, maybe. In the real world, with the system we have, what the BCS says is the only criteria that matters. Whether it says Alabama, OSU, Va Tech, Stanford, etc. It is what it is. Like I've said before, if the BCS ends up saying OSU should go, I'm not going to complain one bit. And honestly, that may be more of a reality than some think. I wouldn't complain though, because that's the system we have to work with.
Your are the most obtuse motherfucker alive.
So are we arguing that the BCS should take #1 & #3?
We're arguing about who deserves to be #2, and for what reason, other than that they are preordained from heaven, does Alabama deserve a second chance to beat LSU before any of the other deserving teams get their first?
You can't. You can just say "because they're #2" all day. Well no shit. That's not even circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be preferred in this case. "Water is wet...because it's wet."
-
F'n THIS^^^^
With our current system, you can basically take about 60% of the teams in Division 1 and tell them at the start of the season, "You can go out and beat everybody on your schedule 87-2 this year....but you still aren't sniffing the championship game.....but have a great season".
A system like that would encourage everybody to play shitty teams all the time, and would encourage decent teams to stay away from other decent teams. Every decent team would be racing every other decent team to sign the shittiest teams to their schedules as quickly as possible, because you won't be factoring SOS into any kind of formula. Then you're going to have a fuckton more undefeated, 1 loss, 2 loss teams. Then that creates that much more of a problem when trying to decide who goes to the championship game, and by the way, you've eliminated SOS out of the equation. So, now instead of having to decide from (hypothetical) two no loss teams, you have to pick from 20. Not sure how that solves the problem.
Do you want to watch shitty football all season long?
-
"Water is wet...because it's wet."
But Jesus Christ on ice skates, it really IS that simple! Fucks sakes, even OSU's head coach said Alabama should be ranked #2. Alabama is #2 because the BCS, which is the system used to determine BCS rankings, says they're #2. If it comes out next week and says OSU is #2, then OSU is #2. Because the BCS says so.
-
A system like that would encourage everybody to play shitty teams all the time, and would encourage decent teams to stay away from other decent teams. Every decent team would be racing every other decent team to sign the shittiest teams to their schedules as quickly as possible, because you won't be factoring SOS into any kind of formula. Then you're going to have a fuckton more undefeated, 1 loss, 2 loss teams. Then that creates that much more of a problem when trying to decide who goes to the championship game, and by the way, you've eliminated SOS out of the equation. So, now instead of having to decide from (hypothetical) two no loss teams, you have to pick from 20. Not sure how that solves the problem.
Do you want to watch shitty football all season long?
Which brings us full circle back to a playoff.
People/voters are dumbasses. I want them out of the equation. Still not right to tell Houston that they do not belong. They have done what they were supposed to do. You also cannot realistically pear down the number of division one teams because no matter how much you trim the number of teams you are still going to have ones that finish at the bottom or have lesser strength of schedule so the only right way to do this is back to the playoff.
-
But Jesus Christ on ice skates, it really IS that simple! Fucks sakes, even OSU's head coach said Alabama should be ranked #2. Alabama is #2 because the BCS, which is the system used to determine BCS rankings, says they're #2. If it comes out next week and says OSU is #2, then OSU is #2. Because the BCS says so.
Fuck me. If you've been arguing for 10 pages as to whether or not the BCS currently has Alabama at #2 or not, you are dumber than I could have imagined.
This would have sufficed.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
The argument is, who should be #2, dipshit.
-
A system like that would encourage everybody to play shitty teams all the time, and would encourage decent teams to stay away from other decent teams. Every decent team would be racing every other decent team to sign the shittiest teams to their schedules as quickly as possible, because you won't be factoring SOS into any kind of formula. Then you're going to have a fuckton more undefeated, 1 loss, 2 loss teams. Then that creates that much more of a problem when trying to decide who goes to the championship game, and by the way, you've eliminated SOS out of the equation. So, now instead of having to decide from (hypothetical) two no loss teams, you have to pick from 20. Not sure how that solves the problem.
Do you want to watch shitty football all season long?
It already happens. Bama played Penn State out of conference. The other 3 opponents were Kent State, North Texas and Georgia Southern. Auburn played Climpsum....Utah State, FAU and Samford. You can go down the list of BCS teams and see pretty much the same thing everywhere. I don't think anyone in the SEC is playing that one big game OOC to prop up their schedule. Those are money games.
-
It already happens. Bama played Penn State out of conference. The other 3 opponents were Kent State, North Texas and Georgia Southern. Auburn played Climpsum....Utah State, FAU and Samford. You can go down the list of BCS teams and see pretty much the same thing everywhere. I don't think anyone in the SEC is playing that one big game OOC to prop up their schedule. Those are money games.
So, why doesn't Alabama just go join C-USA and play a total schedule of shit teams? Why doesn't Arkansas join the Sun Belt conference, and play a total schedule of shit teams? All of the "better" teams could just join separate shitty conferences, not have to play each other, not have to beat each other to death in the SEC every week, and be one of the 20 undefeated teams at the end of the season. And then how are you going to decide which two of those 20 undefeated teams go, because you have effectively eliminated SOS.
-
The argument is, who should be #2, dipshit.
Alabama. Because the BCS says they should be.
Funny how OSU gets all of this credit for having a better SOS than Alabama, but nobody wants to penalize them for losing to a shitty unranked ISU. But by God, Alabama should be penalized for losing to the #1 team in the country. That's great that OSU's SOS is better. But when you lose to ISU, what does it all mean?
-
fudges sakes, even OSU's head coach said Alabama should be ranked #2.
He said "right now." He is setting himself up to motivate his players and say "Now that we've beaten Oklahoma, we should be #2."
It's simple, really. The "playoff" system we have is that teams are divided into conferences. Each conference decides how they determine their champion, and that champion should be compared to the other conference champions to determine the championship game participants. I know that this is not stated in the "rules" of the BCS, but the voters were given more weight in the formula a few years back so they could correct situations like this where the computers fucked it up.
Who's to say bama would have been better than 9-3 in the Big Texas conference anyway? It's considered the best conference this year, and the weekly grind may have been too much for bama to come out unscathed. I don't know if bama could beat Iowa State in Ames, but I know for certain that LSU can beat bama in Tuscaloosa.
-
I don't know if bama could beat Iowa State in Ames, but I know for certain that LSU can beat bama in Tuscaloosa.
Comedy.
This guy knows it.
-
So, why doesn't Alabama just go join C-USA and play a total schedule of shit teams? Why doesn't Arkansas join the Sun Belt conference, and play a total schedule of shit teams? All of the "better" teams could just join separate shitty conferences, not have to play each other, not have to beat each other to death in the SEC every week, and be one of the 20 undefeated teams at the end of the season. And then how are you going to decide which two of those 20 undefeated teams go, because you have effectively eliminated SOS.
Easy, because eventually 100K+ will stop showing up to watch you play La. Tech and Memphis. Because CBS and ESPN will stop awarding multi-million dollah contracts to consistently show Tennessee play Western Kentucky. The SEC and Big 12 and Pac 29 are not going to disban in order to play shitty teams.
-
F'n THIS^^^^
With our current system, you can basically take about 60% of the teams in Division 1 and tell them at the start of the season, "You can go out and beat everybody on your schedule 87-2 this year....but you still aren't sniffing the championship game.....but have a great season".
I don't know why they don't do this. Set the Mtn. West, Sun Belt, WAC, etc up in another Division, have a championship for them, and the Big Boy League consists of about 60 teams that all have a legit shot to win it all.
-
I know that this is not stated in the "rules" of the BCS, but the voters were given more weight in the formula a few years back so they could correct situations like this where the computers fucked it up.
In the coaches poll, OSU is ranked #5, and is behind Va Tech and Stanford. In that poll, LSU has 1,475 points, Alabama 1,411 points, and OSU 1,245. In the Harris Poll, OSU is ranked #5, and is behind Stanford and Va Tech. LSU has 2,875 points, Alabama 2,756 points, and OSU has 2,414. Those two polls comprise 66% of the selection process. So, if you're saying the computers are total bullshit, and the voters are the correction to that bullshit, then cool. But if you're saying the computers should be right, at this point, 4 out of 6 computer models used for placement put Alabama ahead of OSU as well. But the computers, as a whole, only have 33% say in placement anyway. Overall in the BCS, Alabama is at .9551 and OSU is at .8712. That is a pretty sizeable gap.
Who's to say bama would have been better than 9-3 in the Big Texas conference anyway? It's considered the best conference this year, and the weekly grind may have been too much for bama to come out unscathed. I don't know if bama could beat Iowa State in Ames, but I know for certain that LSU can beat bama in Tuscaloosa.
I don't know if OSU could beat Bama, so how can you definitively say that they are better than Alabama? If ISU could beat OSU, I could just say that Bama would beat OSU. I know that Alabama couldn't beat LSU in Tuscaloosa as well, but that doesn't have anything to do with determining whether or not Alabama is the second best team in the country.
Something else I find interesting is, I bet if LSU and Alabama's roles were reversed, you guys would be saying LSU should get a rematch because they proved in a game so close that they're probably the only ones deserving since it was so close. (Translation: They have the best chance of beating Alabama)
-
We just don't like your team and don't want them in the title game. How is this so hard to understand?
-
We just don't like your team and don't want them in the title game. How is this so hard to understand?
Synopsis of the entire thread.
Lock the bitch down NOW.
-
TL; DR
-
Yall still fighting about this?
bammer has always been #2 in my book. /thread
-
Synopsis of the entire thread.
Lock the bitch down NOW.
While true, for the record, I was against it when FSU and UF rematched too. Don't like, never have. Since it's bammer, I have 2 reasons to be against it.
-
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.
A. Unless a coach played against bammer this season, I doubt many have, if any, have seen bammer play.
B. Your reading comprehension is bad. I said it's subjective. There's no rules. If the voters, media or coaches suddenly decide they don't want to see a rematch, and vote bammer down to #3, they can, and it ok. If they simply are of the mindset that they'd like Ok. State to get a shot, so be it.
-
In the coaches poll, OSU is ranked #5, and is behind Va Tech and Stanford. In that poll, LSU has 1,475 points, Alabama 1,411 points, and OSU 1,245. In the Harris Poll, OSU is ranked #5, and is behind Stanford and Va Tech. LSU has 2,875 points, Alabama 2,756 points, and OSU has 2,414. Those two polls comprise 66% of the selection process. So, if you're saying the computers are total bullshit, and the voters are the correction to that bullshit, then cool. But if you're saying the computers should be right, at this point, 4 out of 6 computer models used for placement put Alabama ahead of OSU as well. But the computers, as a whole, only have 33% say in placement anyway. Overall in the BCS, Alabama is at .9551 and OSU is at .8712. That is a pretty sizeable gap.
I don't know if OSU could beat Bama, so how can you definitively say that they are better than Alabama? If ISU could beat OSU, I could just say that Bama would beat OSU. I know that Alabama couldn't beat LSU in Tuscaloosa as well, but that doesn't have anything to do with determining whether or not Alabama is the second best team in the country.
Something else I find interesting is, I bet if LSU and Alabama's roles were reversed, you guys would be saying LSU should get a rematch because they proved in a game so close that they're probably the only ones deserving since it was so close. (Translation: They have the best chance of beating Alabama)
Here is the main difference that we are argueing. The people that want Alabama to have a rematch, want to justify that Alabama is the #2 team in the nation. It's subjective and we can debate why or how or whatever all day long.
What you guys don't see, is the people that don't want a rematch, don't want a rematch for one reason. We want the National Championship to clearly define a national champion. It will do that if either V. Tech, OSU or even Houston play LSU. If Alabama plays LSU, and Alabama wins, there is absolutely zero chance that a clear cut national champion will be crowned...
-
Here is the main difference that we are argueing. The people that want Alabama to have a rematch, want to justify that Alabama is the #2 team in the nation. It's subjective and we can debate why or how or whatever all day long.
What you guys don't see, is the people that don't want a rematch, don't want a rematch for one reason. We want the National Championship to clearly define a national champion. It will do that if either V. Tech, OSU or even Houston play LSU. If Alabama plays LSU, and Alabama wins, there is absolutely zero chance that a clear cut national champion will be crowned...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^FUCKING THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
Here is the main difference that we are argueing. The people that want Alabama to have a rematch, want to justify that Alabama is the #2 team in the nation. It's subjective and we can debate why or how or whatever all day long.
What you guys don't see, is the people that don't want a rematch, don't want a rematch for one reason. We want the National Championship to clearly define a national champion. It will do that if either V. Tech, OSU or even Houston play LSU. If Alabama plays LSU, and Alabama wins, there is absolutely zero chance that a clear cut national champion will be crowned...
I get that, but how is it different if Oklahoma State gets in and gets beat by LSU? We still don't have a clear cut national champion, because Stanford, Boise and Virginia Tech could still finish with one loss. Who says they couldn't beat LSU? Not to mention the undefeated Houston team.
Rarely have we ever had the chance at a clear cut national champion, this year is no different.
-
I get that, but how is it different if Oklahoma State gets in and gets beat by LSU? We still don't have a clear cut national champion, because Stanford, Boise and Virginia Tech could still finish with one loss. Who says they couldn't beat LSU? Not to mention the undefeated Houston team.
Rarely have we ever had the chance at a clear cut national champion, this year is no different.
You have to rank the "equal" teams some way. And that is what the BCS is for. The BCS is designed to have a clear cut champion. Hell, in 2004, there is a clear cut champion even if Auburn finished 14-0. There will NOT be a clear cut champion if ALabama wins, because LSU and Alabama will have split games.
Stanford, Boise, OSU...whoever besides Alabama and Oregon...will be clear cut champions if they beat LSU. That's the deal.
-
BamaBoy McChestTattoo scoffs at LSU's SOS.
@AJMcCarron: LSU didn't have a particularly difficult schedule this season. #justsaying
Pussy deleted the tweet.
-
Did he really tweet that?
SERIOUSLY?
I'm an inch away from giving LSU the glory of glories.
They beat the potential Pac 12 champion in Dallas.
They beat the potential Big East champion in Morgantown.
They beat the best defense of all time in Tuscaloosa.
They pounded the fuck out of Florida, Auburn, and Tennessee.
They treated Ole Miss like they were a middle school team and took a knee with six minutes left in the game.
They pantsed Arkansas when Arkansas was ranked 3rd in the country and supposedly on a rampage to end the season.
AND they're going to more than likely beat Georgia in Atlanta for the SECCG.
I had a bit of hope for AJ McCarron. I thought that maybe he wouldn't be as douchey as McElroy but apparently Greg Fuckmyself taught him well.
-
BamaBoy McChestTattoo scoffs at LSU's SOS.
Pussy deleted the tweet.
What a dumbfuck.
Just looking at Sagarin's ratings, they are 20th in SOS and Alabama is 23rd. I would imagine the other 5 are somewhere in line with that. Hopefully, since staff monitors Tweets/FB, etc, somebody told him he was a dumbfuck and to delete it. If their SOS isn't "all that impressive", then neither is Alabama's. Fail.
-
I saw these two tweets earlier:
@AJMcCarron: You people are right.. LSU didn't have an easy schedule... No clue what I am even talking about right now.
@AJMcCarron: That tweet was so embarrassing that I felt the need to delete it. Wow.
Faggot deleted his Twitter account.
-
I saw these two tweets earlier:
Faggot deleted his Twitter account.
"It was process, aight?" - Nick Saban.
-
I saw these two tweets earlier:
Faggot deleted his Twitter account.
Now I'm wondering if that was his real account. There are a few accounts claiming to be him on Twitter. I didn't see what was on the one you saw, so I don't know.
-
Don't confuse my stance with me wanting you there. I, in no way, want your asses in that game.
I understand you don't want us there. I don't think anybody here wants us there.
All this arguing for naught - one thing that's definite is that RWS won't be there
#whichwaytoturdtown
-
"It was process, aight?" - Nick Saban.
Wonder if Saban gave him a spanking for that stupid shit?