Why I Hate The BCS Even More Tonight

[Hawkigizer]

Ok, well if that's the case then you can't really use the "Bama didn't win their conference argument" anymore because you've just endorsed putting a non-conference winner in the title game.

Also, it should be pointed out that OK State didn't have to play a conference title game which could have obviously helped our hurt their cause (I'm assuming they would have played Nebraska had the original Big 12 still been intact).

No, I can still use that argument because we're talking about what actually happened this season, not some theoretical question where I already stated there is no "correct" answer. You posed a question that no matter the answer, you could spin it to try to help your argument. Whoever would make the championship in your theoretical case would not have a legitimate argument...Alabama would just have a better argument than they do now. But as it is now, in reality, Oklahoma State has a better case than Alabama...at least in my opinion.

[Pedro Cerrano]

No, I can still use that argument because we're talking about what actually happened this season, not some theoretical question where I already stated there is no "correct" answer. You posed a question that no matter the answer, you could spin it to try to help your argument. Whoever would make the championship in your theoretical case would not have a legitimate argument...Alabama would just have a better argument than they do now. But as it is now, in reality, Oklahoma State has a better case than Alabama...at least in my opinion.

I'm not spinning anything. Prior to the game there was a legitimate shot that Oklahoma would win, they aren't some push over. My hypothetical had a real good chance of happening, I didn't just pull it out of thin air. The bottom line is, you endorse putting Stanford in the title game but "feel funny" about it, whereas with Alabama you're quite indignant about them getting in.

[CrimsonTribe]

Yeah, I'm with you here somewhat. I actually don't necessarily think LSU is undoubtedly the better team based on the eye test. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Alabama beat them in the championship. But based on what already happened on the field, we have to assume LSU is better and thus eliminate Bama from the running. Without a playoff system, that's what we're left with...which is why I think Oklahoma St deserves the shot because it hasn't been determined on the field if they are better than LSU or not. It's all screwy, either way.

I feel for OSU, I really do. The systems sucks when it comes to a situation like this. Most years it works itself out, but this year it didn't. But the way this system works is that once the season is over, they evaluate the teams and decide who the best two are to play in the championship game. They looked at schedules, wins, losses, etc., and they decided that Alabama was the second best team in the country. They played a tough enough schedule, got enough good wins, didn't lose to any mediocre teams, and played neck and neck with the best team in the country. OSU played a tougher schedule, had more good wins, but lost to Iowa Freaking State. That's basically what did it. Does it suck that it has to come down to subjective judgments? Yes. Do I enjoy defending Alabama against people who are actually mad at the system? Hell no. I understand that Alabama lost to LSU, but I don't think they should be held to a different standard than the other one loss teams because of it. And frankly, I think it was factored into the voting because otherwise it would not have been so close.

[CrimsonTribe]

I wouldn't be much more thrilled with OSU' date=' and even less so with Stanford. But OSU did at least win their conference, and is not a team LSU already beat. I still think LSU should be the champion right now, and let OSU and Alabama play for a consolation prize. But based on what the college football establishment tells us in order to prop up the BCS over a playoff, I could at least understand LSU/OSU.[/quote']

So really, you're just ticked at the system and you're taking it out on Alabama. Got it.

[ledzepp8]

It is though. As has been stated in this thread, if any other one-loss team had handled their business, they'd be playing in New Orleans instead of Alabama. Every game DID matter.

What sense does this make though? How is it fair? You're basically, "Ok Alabama lost, all the rest of you teams need to go undefeated to get in the title game over them". That's clearly unfair. And now we're forcing LSU to beat someone they've already beaten in order to win the title.

[Birds of B'more]

So really, you're just ticked at the system and you're taking it out on Alabama. Got it.

Alabama is just the latest to either benefit, or be hurt, by a system that doesn't work. Stop taking it so personally.

[Hawkigizer]

I'm not spinning anything. Prior to the game there was a legitimate shot that Oklahoma would win, they aren't some push over. My hypothetical had a real good chance of happening, I didn't just pull it out of thin air. The bottom line is, you endorse putting Stanford in the title game but "feel funny" about it, whereas with Alabama you're quite indignant about them getting in.

'

Oh, I'm not debating that it could have happened. I know you didn't pull it out of thin air. And trust me, I was actually debating with myself before that game had your hypothetical actually come true. But it didn't happen. In actuality, OSU destroyed Oklahoma in a win that was probably more impressive than any win Alabama had all season.

I'm indignant because they already lost on the field to LSU. You're leaving out that HUGE difference when comparing all these teams. As I've stated over and over, going soley off the outcome of that game, LSU is better than Alabama...we don't know that for sure about any of the other teams. (Save Oregon)

Say Alabama had the exact same team, but was in a different conference and didn't play LSU, but still went 11-1 and won their conference, (in other words say them and OSU's roles were reversed) I would think Alabama should get the shot.

[ledzepp8]

This obviously isn't definite.

It happens every year, throughout the year. You guys denying it, is kind of comical.

[CrimsonTribe]

Alabama is just the latest to either benefit' date=' or be hurt, by a system that doesn't work. Stop taking it so personally.[/quote']

I'm not taking anything personally. It gets annoying when you start dropping something like a link to a game recap as some sort of rebuttal to a different argument.

[JamesI]

What sense does this make though? How is it fair? You're basically, "Ok Alabama lost, all the rest of you teams need to go undefeated to get in the title game over them". That's clearly unfair. And now we're forcing LSU to beat someone they've already beaten in order to win the title.

Alabama lost to a clearly better team than the other 1 loss candidates.

In my mind, when evaluating teams that lost, the first think I look at is who they lost to. Alabama lost to LSU by 3 in overtime. OSU lost to a bad Iowa State team. OSU only had to beat a bad team to get a shot at the title and failed. Its on them, not the voters.

Now, the system sucks. This is true, but its not Bama's fault they are playing LSU (though LSU legitimately has a gripe here, I'm sure they would rather play OSU)

[Birds of B'more]

I'm not taking anything personally. It gets annoying when you start dropping something like a link to a game recap as some sort of rebuttal to a different argument.

But it's the same argument. We are being told that every week of the college football season is a playoff game. So when one team beats another in this "playoff", by what logic does the team that lost get a rematch in the championship game?

EDIT: Since everyone wants us to believe the regular season is a playoff, then this would be like telling the St. Louis Cardinals this past season that they would have to play the Phillies again in the NLCS, even though they had already beaten them in them NLDS, since the Phillies were obviously the most deserving team on paper. Sorry, Milwaukee Brewers, you should have won more games during the regular season, errrrrr.....early playoff rounds.

[ledzepp8]

But it's the same argument. We are being told that every week of the college football season is a playoff game. So when one team beats another in this "playoff"' date=' by what logic does the team that lost get a rematch in the championship game?

EDIT: Since everyone wants us to believe the regular season is a playoff, then this would be like telling the St. Louis Cardinals this past season that they would have to play the Phillies again in the NLCS, even though they had already beaten them in them NLDS, since the Phillies were obviously the most deserving team on paper. Sorry, Milwaukee Brewers, you should have won more games during the regular season, errrrrr.....early playoff rounds.[/quote']

I made the same baseball analogy earlier in the thread. It went unnoticed...good point though. Great minds think alike

.

[Birds of B'more]

I made the same baseball analogy earlier in the thread. It went unnoticed...good point though. Great minds think alike

.

Yeah, I used baseball simply because that was the most recent example of a playoff. Really you could find an apt analogy just about any year in any other sport.

[mweb]

I took the top 4 in the BCS (from memory, so its possible Stanford was not #4).

A 6-8 team playoff would be better, but 4 is probably easier to achieve.

Stanford is #4; thus, why I said some would complain about that.

[mweb]

BTW, how about USC finishing the regular season 5th in the AP?