Another BCS rant

Alabama had THREE victories over top 25 opponents, Oklahoma State had SEVEN! LSU did not get a first down in the entire first half of the SEC championship game versus a Georgia team that lost to Boise State. Stellar offenses, no, great defenses, yes.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

Alabama had THREE victories over top 25 opponents, Oklahoma State had SEVEN! LSU did not get a first down in the entire first half of the SEC championship game versus a Georgia team that lost to Boise State. Stellar offenses, no, great defenses, yes.

The total number of wins vs. ranked opponents actually means nothing at all... Regardless of rank, these 7 teams still aren't all that great, and to make your argument worse, only 4 of those teams finished the season ranked.. When a top 5 team beats a lower ranked team, then all they've really done is beat a team that they should have beaten.. I could say the same for the 3 ranked teams that Bama beat(only 2 are currently ranked)...If you're the 3rd best team in the country, playing a 10th ranked team is really no different than playing an unranked one..

Basically, when facing teams ranked lower than themselves, OSU was 11-1. And in the same scenario, Alabama was 11-0. And none of Alabama's games under this scenario were even close..

[vintagetoppsguy]

If the Big 12 would have had a conference championship game this year, we wouldn't even be discussing this. OSU would have won that game and earned ehough points to be number 2. That's a fact.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If the Big 12 would have had a conference championship game this year, we wouldn't even be discussing this. OSU would have won that game and earned ehough points to be number 2. That's a fact.

Yeah, thank God they don't put 6-6 teams in Conference championship games(if the Big 12 had one)..

[vintagetoppsguy]

It wouldn't have been a 6-6 team playing for the conference championship. If it were still set up like last year (and the many years past), it would have been #8 K-State (10-2) representing the Big 12 North vs. #3 OSU (11-1) representing the Big 12 South. I feel sure OSU would have beaten K-State (as they did earlier in the season). If so, it would have moved OSU into #2. Do you disagree?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It wouldn't have been a 6-6 team playing for the conference championship. If it were still set up like last year, it would have been #8 K-State (10-2) representing the BIg 12 North vs. #3 OSU (11-1) representing the Big 12 South. I feel sure OSU would have beaten K-State (as they did earlier in the season). If so, it would have moved OSU into #2. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree, it probably would've moved them up. But then I would be claiming that the BCS got it wrong, because Alabama is the 2nd best team in the country, regardless of anything else, by far....

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Alabama is the 2nd best team in the country, regardless of anything else, by far....

I disagree, but let's revisit this thread on January 10th

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If the Big 12 would have had a conference championship game this year, we wouldn't even be discussing this. OSU would have won that game and earned ehough points to be number 2. That's a fact.

I have to agree with you. I also think that if a team is in a conference with a championship game, they have to play in, and win it. That would nullify the end-of-season skewing that allowed Alabama to crawl back into the #2 spot. If such a rule were in place, I doubt anyone would have complained about the resulting OSU-LSU championship game, except Alabama, who would argue that OSU got in simply because their conference did NOT have a championship game.

Still, I think the best team in the country won the final deciding game of the year.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have to agree with you. I also think that if a team is in a conference with a championship game, they have to play in, and win it. That would nullify the end-of-season skewing that allowed Alabama to crawl back into the #2 spot. If such a rule were in place, I doubt anyone would have complained about the resulting OSU-LSU championship game, except Alabama, who would argue that OSU got in simply because their conference did NOT have a championship game.

Still, I think the best team in the country won the final deciding game of the year.

Now, since you think that the best team in the country won(which is the ultimate goal, isn't it?). Then wouldn't that point out a major flaw in such proposed rule?

The NCG should be the TWO BEST TEAMS, regardless of anything else. If they start doing a plus-one, then things will be more clear. But if they don't, no rules should be needed to dictate the two teams, other than being the top two teams in the ranking...

[dstraate]

The very fact that we are having this discussion proves the BCS is garbage.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by novakjr

The NCG should be the TWO BEST TEAMS, regardless of anything else.

This statement is correct, however how can you (or anybody else) say who is number one or number two without a playoff system? It's all OPINION. I stand behind my earlier statment that it is ridiculous that LSU had to beat Bama twice to be the National Champions, but Bama only had to beat LSU once.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This statement is correct, however how can you (or anybody else) say who is number one or number two without a playoff system? It's all OPINION. I stand behind my earlier statment that it is ridiculous that LSU had to beat Bama twice to be the National Champions, but Bama only had to beat LSU once.

You mean a playoff system like March Madness, that guarantees the best two teams in the nation play in the championship?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Now, since you think that the best team in the country won(which is the ultimate goal, isn't it?). Then wouldn't that point out a major flaw in such proposed rule?

The NCG should be the TWO BEST TEAMS, regardless of anything else. If they start doing a plus-one, then things will be more clear. But if they don't, no rules should be needed to dictate the two teams, other than being the top two teams in the ranking...

No. Yes, Alabama was the best team at the end of the year, but were they the best team over the course of the year? That's why I mentioned the 'skewing'. If all games counted equally, then I don't think Alabama would have played in the title game.

The best team in the country at the end of the season could have started off 0-4, then improved drastically (changed q.b.'s, etc.) - do they deserve to be in the title game? Not in my opinion. And if you lose a big game earlier in the year that will determine whether or not you get to play in your conference's title game, then you didn't have the overall season that earns you a BCS title game berth. Just my opinion.

I feel the same way about Wild Cards in the various pro sports - many times the Wild Card team is the best team at the end of the season, and is steamrolling along with momentum when the playoffs hit. Is it fair? Not in my thinking, but I understand those who disagree.