Great, but long article, about pumping up the SEC bias

[AgMarauder04]

The only way to end SEC dominance is to beat their representative in the national title game. I believe that Florida State is set up well to take down Alabama should those teams make it that far.

Beat the SEC when it counts and ESPN will have a far tougher time claiming that conference is dominant.

Hope I don't get us drummed out of the conference for this, but I would love to see FSU take down Bama. I'm a little tired of it myself. I think FSU has the best shot in awhile, although Winston will probably REALLY struggle against them.

 

[Ric Flair]

The notion that Oklahoma State was a "great" team that year is simple nonsense. They had a good offense that would have been chewed up by a top-flight SEC defense. The Big 12 had quit playing defense, remember that? They had a lot of teams putting up Tecmo Bowl stats. So that offense had never really been tested. My view is that if it had been, they would have struggled.

You claim they were a better team than Alabama. I think you're dreaming. But let's assume they played head to head on a neutral field in a bowl game. Who do you think would have won? Do you really think that given a month to prepare, Nick Saban couldn't have come up with a way to shut down Oklahoma State's offense?

I think Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma State easily.

I also think Oklahoma State should have been the other team playing in the championship game.

In the BCS system, it is not about who is better - it's about who deserves it more. Oklahoma State's production and success outweighed Alabama's and they deserved to be in the game.

I think that's semantics. The team that's better is the team that deserves it more. The goal is to identify the best teams and then to match them up to determine the very best team. So by admitting that "Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma State easily," you just conceded the argument.

 

[Landlord]

I think that's semantics. The team that's better is the team that deserves it more. The goal is to identify the best teams and then to match them up to determine the very best team. So by admitting that "Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma State easily," you just conceded the argument.

It's not semantics - it's entirely different. Declaring who is a better team is an arbitrary exercise in guess work with no scientific or quantifiable way of proving it. Declaring who has the more deserving resume is much more easily defined and actually bases a decision on a body of work and not just on majority opinion.

 

[Ric Flair]

I think that's semantics. The team that's better is the team that deserves it more. The goal is to identify the best teams and then to match them up to determine the very best team. So by admitting that "Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma State easily," you just conceded the argument.

It's not semantics - it's entirely different. Declaring who is a better team is an arbitrary exercise in guess work with no scientific or quantifiable way of proving it. Declaring who has the more deserving resume is much more easily defined and actually bases a decision on a body of work and not just on majority opinion.

It's entirely semantics. Choosing the "better team" or the team with the "better resume" are both subjective determinations. And the whole purpose of looking to see who has the better resume is because that's one factor in determining which is the better team. The goal is to match up the two best teams so you can determine who the very best team is.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Alabama may have been the better team that year over Oklahoma State. The biggest issue that the writer/coaches/BCS computers is that they allowed a team that wasn't good enough to win their own division let alone conference to play for a title over a team that won their conference outright.

This was the same argument that people made with Nebraska in 2001 when they got smoked by Colorado and didn't even play in the CCG. So if it wasn't right in 2001, how was it right in 2011?

 

[Landlord]

It's entirely semantics. Choosing the "better team" or the team with the "better resume" are both subjective determinations. And the whole purpose of looking to see who has the better resume is because that's one factor in determining which is the better team. The goal is to match up the two best teams so you can determine who the very best team is.

Sure, but I will submit to you that before the championship game was played, there was no objective or substantiated basis to conclude that Alabama was a better team OR had a better resume than Oklahoma State.

 

[Ric Flair]

Alabama may have been the better team that year over Oklahoma State. The biggest issue that the writer/coaches/BCS computers is that they allowed a team that wasn't good enough to win their own division let alone conference to play for a title over a team that won their conference outright.

This was the same argument that people made with Nebraska in 2001 when they got smoked by Colorado and didn't even play in the CCG. So if it wasn't right in 2001, how was it right in 2011?

It's the same argument, no doubt. But it's still unsettled. There's no rule in place that you have to win or even play in a conference championship game to be eligible for the national championship game. Should there be? Who knows. But there isn't one. Is it right to allow such a team to play in that game? Since there's no rule to prevent it, I don't see the issue. The goal is to match up the best two teams. If one of those is a team that didn't win its conference or even play in the title game, then so be it.

It's entirely semantics. Choosing the "better team" or the team with the "better resume" are both subjective determinations. And the whole purpose of looking to see who has the better resume is because that's one factor in determining which is the better team. The goal is to match up the two best teams so you can determine who the very best team is.

Sure, but I will submit to you that before the championship game was played, there was no objective or substantiated basis to conclude that Alabama was a better team OR had a better resume than Oklahoma State.

Nor was there an objective basis to conclude that Oklahoma State was the better team. That's the point. It's a subjective determination.

And the fact that Alabama dominated that game on its way to the national title shows that the voters, computers and BCS got it right. You even admit that Alabama would have dominated Oklahoma State if they had played. That's the ultimate measure of which team is better, not looking at who they played, their margins of victory, etc. The national title game should match up the two best teams in the country. You've conceded that one of those was not Oklahoma State. That ends the debate.

 

[AZRaiderH8r]

In addition to those blue-blood schools, you MUST have a base of contenders, from every conference, who can on a minimum once a decade challenge for their conference title, and occasionally break their way into the national conversation:

Arizona State

Fixed.

UofA being the only Pac school to never go to the Rose Bowl, I'm fine with them forever being irrelevant. Go Devils!

 

[Redux]

So conference championships are worthless? You dont need o e to play for a National title, just an ESPN endorsement. What a great era of college football this will become. Jesus, 3 of 4 playodff teams may be SEC and tfree will be ok with it since ESPN said their the best.

 

[AgMarauder04]

So conference championships are worthless? You dont need o e to play for a National title, just an ESPN endorsement. What a great era of college football this will become. Jesus, 3 of 4 playodff teams may be SEC and tfree will be ok with it since ESPN said their the best.

Let's not go crazy. Happened once, and a lot of things happened for that to go down. Going into the MNC game, there was only 1 undefeated team. OSU lost late, which is always bad. IT's how the system has always worked. There were a lot more factors than just "ESPN" that sent Alabama to the game.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Alabama may have been the better team that year over Oklahoma State. The biggest issue that the writer/coaches/BCS computers is that they allowed a team that wasn't good enough to win their own division let alone conference to play for a title over a team that won their conference outright.

This was the same argument that people made with Nebraska in 2001 when they got smoked by Colorado and didn't even play in the CCG. So if it wasn't right in 2001, how was it right in 2011?

It's the same argument, no doubt. But it's still unsettled. There's no rule in place that you have to win or even play in a conference championship game to be eligible for the national championship game. Should there be? Who knows. But there isn't one. Is it right to allow such a team to play in that game? Since there's no rule to prevent it, I don't see the issue. The goal is to match up the best two teams. If one of those is a team that didn't win its conference or even play in the title game, then so be it.

It's entirely semantics. Choosing the "better team" or the team with the "better resume" are both subjective determinations. And the whole purpose of looking to see who has the better resume is because that's one factor in determining which is the better team. The goal is to match up the two best teams so you can determine who the very best team is.

Sure, but I will submit to you that before the championship game was played, there was no objective or substantiated basis to conclude that Alabama was a better team OR had a better resume than Oklahoma State.

Nor was there an objective basis to conclude that Oklahoma State was the better team. That's the point. It's a subjective determination.

And the fact that Alabama dominated that game on its way to the national title shows that the voters, computers and BCS got it right. You even admit that Alabama would have dominated Oklahoma State if they had played. That's the ultimate measure of which team is better, not looking at who they played, their margins of victory, etc. The national title game should match up the two best teams in the country. You've conceded that one of those was not Oklahoma State. That ends the debate.

You are suggesting that it would have been Alabama against Oklahoma St. That's not the case. It would/should have been LSU vs OSU. And say what you will but no one knows how that game would have ended up.

And despite how the actual championship game turned out, Alabama was held to 6 points in the first meeting with LSU so making the case that Bama was one of the 2 best teams in the country after that is subjective.

 

[Redux]

I absolutely believe a conference crown should be required to play fo a national championship. Next year when two SEC teams, one that didnt win its division, and two other conference champs play in the playoff and the say Big Ten Champ is left out because 10-2 LSU played a toughr schedule on paper due to meaningless preseason rankings of opponents, we should be ok with that?

The SEC is turning this into NFL crap. Going undefeated is pointless, why injure a starter when you know youre gonna play in the championship already. Gimme a break. Thats why I like college football over NFL. every team strives for perfecion and championships.....except the SEC. No they get a bye because the media says they are still better than the other teams who won more accolades.

I Could care less who you think wouldve won between OkieSt Bama and LSU because the SEC bias robbed us of finding out who truly was the best. What was our reward? A blowout snoozefest that LSU phoned in. There now they are both winners. lsu gets an sec crown anr bama gets another national title. All is right woth the world. Puke......

 

[Ric Flair]

You are suggesting that it would have been Alabama against Oklahoma St. That's not the case. It would/should have been LSU vs OSU. And say what you will but no one knows how that game would have ended up.
And despite how the actual championship game turned out, Alabama was held to 6 points in the first meeting with LSU so making the case that Bama was one of the 2 best teams in the country after that is subjective.

Making the case that either team was better is subjective. I think there's some significant confusion here about what the definition of subjective is.

And I'm not suggesting that it would have been Alabama vs. Oklahoma State. You're again missing the point. I'm saying that in determining which of those teams was the better team and deserved the shot at LSU, it makes sense to try to determine which team would win if they played. If it's likely that Alabama would beat Oklahoma State in a head to head matchup, then it's difficult bordering on impossible to claim that Oklahoma State is the better team and deserves to play LSU.

 

[Ric Flair]

I'm viewing Oklahoma State's schedule from 2011 and having a very difficult time figuring out why people seem to think they were so good.

They lost to Iowa State. They had close calls with Texas, Texas A&M, Kansas State and Stanford. If my math is correct, their defense also gave up almost 27 points per game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Oklahoma_State_Cowboys_football_team

 

[StPaulHusker]

You are suggesting that it would have been Alabama against Oklahoma St. That's not the case. It would/should have been LSU vs OSU. And say what you will but no one knows how that game would have ended up.
And despite how the actual championship game turned out, Alabama was held to 6 points in the first meeting with LSU so making the case that Bama was one of the 2 best teams in the country after that is subjective.

Making the case that either team was better is subjective. I think there's some significant confusion here about what the definition of subjective is.

And I'm not suggesting that it would have been Alabama vs. Oklahoma State. You're again missing the point. I'm saying that in determining which of those teams was the better team and deserved the shot at LSU, it makes sense to try to determine which team would win if they played. If it's likely that Alabama would beat Oklahoma State in a head to head matchup, then it's difficult bordering on impossible to claim that Oklahoma State is the better team and deserves to play LSU.

I am not making a case that one team is better than the other in the case of a head to head matchup. I am stating that a 1 loss conference champion-regardless of their close wins, scoring defense stat, or their one loss to Iowa St that happened on the heels of a tragedy-should have played in the championship game over a team that did not even win their division or conference.