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

[Redux]

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

Every game counts. I get that. But the computers arent supposed to see margin of win so that doesnt matter. They are also sipposed to favor champions. Not favor the team the #1 already beat in the preseason. Had this happened in any other league outrage would have ensued. Just sickens me that we will never know in this case who was the best. Now our resolution of a 4 team playoff will still favor the SEC. HANDS DOWN should it no be the top 4 champions playing for the title?

 

[Landlord]

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....s_football_team

Here's a really simple solution to this - do you think Nebraska should have played in the national championship game in 2001?

 

[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....s_football_team

Here's a really simple solution to this - do you think Nebraska should have played in the national championship game in 2001?

No, probably not. But the circumstances that year were similar those those in 2011, where it was clear who the #1 team in the country was and there was a difference of opinion with respect to who the #2 team was. I don't think Nebraska was the second best team in the country that year. But it's unclear who was.

Both OSU and Alabama had one loss. Alabama's was a close call to the #1 team in the country. Oklahoma State's was to Iowa State. Which loss was worse? Which team had more impressive wins?

It's about which team is better, not about who has the more impressive resume. We're picking the better football team, not hiring an accountant.

 

[Landlord]

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....s_football_team

Here's a really simple solution to this - do you think Nebraska should have played in the national championship game in 2001?

No, probably not. But the circumstances that year were similar those those in 2011, where it was clear who the #1 team in the country was and there was a difference of opinion with respect to who the #2 team was. I don't think Nebraska was the second best team in the country that year. But it's unclear who was.

Both OSU and Alabama had one loss. Alabama's was a close call to the #1 team in the country. Oklahoma State's was to Iowa State. Which loss was worse? Which team had more impressive wins?

It's about which team is better, not about who has the more impressive resume. We're picking the better football team, not hiring an accountant.

The situations are, by your own admission, nearly the exact same on all major points - if you didn't think Nebraska should have played for it, it's hard to think Alabama should have. LSU was unanimously #1 by virtue of winning every game, and more than one team with an argument for #2. Oklahoma State had a worse loss (the day after several members of their administration died in a tragic plane crash), but also had definitely equal wins and probably better wins, along with a conference championship.

All other things being essentially equal, a conference champion is better and more deserving than a non-division and non-conference champion.

 

[Saunders]

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.

Just like those top flight SEC defenses have chewed up the mediocre A&M and Mizzou teams...

....

Oh.

 

[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....s_football_team

Here's a really simple solution to this - do you think Nebraska should have played in the national championship game in 2001?

No, probably not. But the circumstances that year were similar those those in 2011, where it was clear who the #1 team in the country was and there was a difference of opinion with respect to who the #2 team was. I don't think Nebraska was the second best team in the country that year. But it's unclear who was.

Both OSU and Alabama had one loss. Alabama's was a close call to the #1 team in the country. Oklahoma State's was to Iowa State. Which loss was worse? Which team had more impressive wins?

It's about which team is better, not about who has the more impressive resume. We're picking the better football team, not hiring an accountant.

The situations are, by your own admission, nearly the exact same on all major points - if you didn't think Nebraska should have played for it, it's hard to think Alabama should have. LSU was unanimously #1 by virtue of winning every game, and more than one team with an argument for #2. Oklahoma State had a worse loss (the day after several members of their administration died in a tragic plane crash), but also had definitely equal wins and probably better wins, along with a conference championship.

All other things being essentially equal, a conference champion is better and more deserving than a non-division and non-conference champion.

You're building too many assumptions into that statement. I think Alabama's team in 2011 was better than Nebraska's in 2001. So that's not a valid comparison.

And all other things were not essentially equal in 2011. Alabama was the better team. The voters and computers realized that. Their decision was vindicated when Alabama rolled LSU to win the national championship.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The SEC has a legacy going back to the beginnings of college football. For awhile, they got whipped by the Midwest and Iron Belt teams. They got stronger without the help of ESPN or biased pollsters, using what some here consider the "unfair" advantage of living in a mild climate where football is still a huge part of the culture from Pee-Wee on up. They got where they are via football meritocracy. And the money that comes with it.

It works both ways. If you don't like the SEC, go out and whip their a$$. Nebraska didn't, so a lot of this whining is unbecoming. One of these days we will whip their a$$. It will be fun.

Pollsters and sports pundits do get lazy and go with the brand names. The Nebraskas, Oklahomas, Michigans and USCs consistently get over-rated, too.

I'm not crazy about the conflict of interest in all our media, but ESPN's narrative will be the narrative that's good for business, and if you want to reach a national audience beyond the fanbase that means rooting for underdogs and promoting the possibility of an upset. We will tune into ESPN wanting to see Alabama lose. ESPN wins either way. When I watch ESPN I see them selling a good story. I don't see them rooting for an SEC win. Business wise, they simply need the SEC to be the big dog everyone is gunning for, and that's probably a safe bet for the next ten years.

I've also seen plenty of breathless ESPN coverage of Oregon. And Stanford. Teams that also went out and earned the attention. If you think ESPN fawned more over Alabama's facilities than it did Oregon's, I think you're working too hard to support your theory.

 

[Redux]

The fact that LSU won the SEC in 2011 gave them the right to play for a national title. So by the same token Okie State should have earned that same right via winning the Big 12. The difference was that LSU played a conf. Title game and went undefeated

So claiming that Alabama deserved to be there simply because they steamrolled LSU the second go around does nothing to support there participation in said game. Nobody knew that would happen, hence the desire for the rematch. On the other hand Okie beat Stanford that also won its conference therefore finishing the year with a more impressive resume win wise than Alabama and ultimately LSU. MY opinion, you dont have to share it.

 

[Ric Flair]

The fact that LSU won the SEC in 2011 gave them the right to play for a national title. So by the same token Okie State should have earned that same right via winning the Big 12. The difference was that LSU played a conf. Title game and went undefeated

So claiming that Alabama deserved to be there simply because they steamrolled LSU the second go around does nothing to support there participation in said game. Nobody knew that would happen, hence the desire for the rematch. On the other hand Okie beat Stanford that also won its conference therefore finishing the year with a more impressive resume win wise than Alabama and ultimately LSU. MY opinion, you dont have to share it.

I don't.

 

[Redux]

I really wish a truly unbiased fornat could be put in place for this 4 team playoff. The comittee votes on the top 4 champions based off of record and accomplishments, not just name brand. But I get the feeling the firrst playoff will look like this:

Alabama #1 vs #4 Ohio State in Atlanta

Oregon #2 vs #3 LSU in Orlando

 

[Mavric]

I really wish a truly unbiased fornat could be put in place for this 4 team playoff. The comittee votes on the top 4 champions based off of record and accomplishments, not just name brand. But I get the feeling the firrst playoff will look like this:

Alabama #1 vs #4 Ohio State in Atlanta

Oregon #2 vs #3 LSU in Orlando

You lost me here. You're expecting people who vote to be unbiased, which is impossible. And are you talking the top 4 conference champions? That likely does not include LSU or Oregon.

 

[Saunders]

I really wish a truly unbiased fornat could be put in place for this 4 team playoff. The comittee votes on the top 4 champions based off of record and accomplishments, not just name brand. But I get the feeling the firrst playoff will look like this:

Alabama #1 vs #4 Ohio State in Atlanta

Oregon #2 vs #3 LSU in Orlando

You lost me here. You're expecting people who vote to be unbiased, which is impossible. And are you talking the top 4 conference champions? That likely does not include LSU or Oregon.

He's talking next year, and I agree with him.

Any system that doesn't use conference champions exclusively, is flawed.

 

[Mavric]

I really wish a truly unbiased fornat could be put in place for this 4 team playoff. The comittee votes on the top 4 champions based off of record and accomplishments, not just name brand. But I get the feeling the firrst playoff will look like this:

Alabama #1 vs #4 Ohio State in Atlanta

Oregon #2 vs #3 LSU in Orlando

You lost me here. You're expecting people who vote to be unbiased, which is impossible. And are you talking the top 4 conference champions? That likely does not include LSU or Oregon.

He's talking next year, and I agree with him.

Any system that doesn't use conference champions exclusively, is flawed.

But if it's only conference champions, you can't have both Alabama and LSU.

I'm not in favor of only using conference champions. It should be a big factor but not to the exclusion of everyone else. It is not at all hard to have two of the best four teams in the nation in the same conference.

Of course, I'm in favor of an 8 team playoff that includes any conference champion in the Top 12 and fill in the rest so there's that.

 

[Saunders]

I really wish a truly unbiased fornat could be put in place for this 4 team playoff. The comittee votes on the top 4 champions based off of record and accomplishments, not just name brand. But I get the feeling the firrst playoff will look like this:

Alabama #1 vs #4 Ohio State in Atlanta

Oregon #2 vs #3 LSU in Orlando

You lost me here. You're expecting people who vote to be unbiased, which is impossible. And are you talking the top 4 conference champions? That likely does not include LSU or Oregon.

He's talking next year, and I agree with him.

Any system that doesn't use conference champions exclusively, is flawed.

But if it's only conference champions, you can't have both Alabama and LSU.

I'm not in favor of only using conference champions. It should be a big factor but not to the exclusion of everyone else. It is not at all hard to have two of the best four teams in the nation in the same conference.

Of course, I'm in favor of an 8 team playoff that includes any conference champion in the Top 12 and fill in the rest so there's that.

He's saying that he fears that next year will be LSU, Bama, OSU, and and Oregon all playing games in the South. That's not what he wants.

As for the conference champs, you're using guesswork to justify putting two teams in otherwise. If you don't make it, you lost a game, and you have no valid argument. If not, I guarantee you'll see 2 SEC teams each year, based on exactly the type of stuff the OP was talking about.

 

[AgMarauder04]

Any system that doesn't use conference champions, exclusively, is flawed.

Uhhh...false? Way False.

Let's use a theoretical. What if Wisconsin and Ohio State are undefeated, except for OSU beating Wisky. They don't go to the CCG. Let's say Ohio State beats a 9-3 Meatchicken. You know have OHio State at 13-0 and Wiksy at 11-1.Now, let's say the other 4, ACC, PAC, SEC, B12 all self cannibalize and you have Champions coming out of those with records like 9-3 or 9-4 (depending on if that conference has a CCG). Are you telling me that a 11-1 Wisky, who is probably a top 5 team, is less deserving than a 9-4 Alabama or a 9-3 Oklahoma?</div>