BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm cutting out your text because despite it being a very good post, I need the character count. ;)

If the team at #1 was not LSU, though (say, for example, West Virginia had beaten them and ran the table to finish #1), would you still say Oklahoma State should go over LSU? Or do you think Alabama is the #2 team but shouldn't get to go specifically because of who is #1?

I think the BCS is ridiculous, personally. I think any team in I-A who finishes the season undefeated (and untied, when that mattered), wins their bowl game, and is not ineligible because of NCAA violations should be considered at worst co-champions. Boise State, Utah, Auburn a few years back, Tulane, etc., all have shares of national titles in the past decade or so in my book. The fact that these schools won't claim them disappoints me. And I think, if it were up to me, I'd put Oklahoma State in the title game. But I think that the one thing they have right is that Alabama is the #2 team in the country, and if it weren't for the fact that the #1 is a team they lost to, there'd be no complaints at all. Same thing if Florida had lost in the '05 SEC championship game after USC had already gotten beaten by UCLA.

Consider the alternative to your critique of "every game matters" : what if every other team in the nation had two losses? Should LSU and Alabama still not have a rematch even though there's no doubt at all in that scenario who should be #1 and #2? How about if everyone has three losses? Obviously, these are hypothetical, but the point is that it is ridiculously easy to construct a scenario where the "every game matters" mantra is simply impossible to uphold no matter what. Which, of course, is why a playoff is the best answer -- because any scenario where a team can not play for a championship is not one that deserves to award something called a championship in the first place.

The BCS' stated purpose (as opposed to the real purpose, financial enrichment of the big boys), is to pair up the #1 and #2 teams. Period. Not to protect the notion that every game matters, to determine the best matchup or the fairest one, just to get the team considered #1 and the team considered #2 and play them against each other. And they actually got that part right this time, no matter how much I dislike that.

As far as the last question, if Alabama beats LSU, as far as I am concerned LSU won the title in the regular season and I hope the AP at least gives them a share of the championship. My ultimate doomsday scenario would be something like Florida losing at LSU in the regular season, beating them in Atlanta in the SEC CG, and then a rematch in Miami (or flip it so LSU loses at Florida and has the rematch at the Sugar Bowl). If Alabama had come onto Florida's schedule a year earlier, there could have been a similar scenario there. Unfortunately, as a Florida fan I know that's not happening any time soon, since the team sucks specifically and the SEC East sucks in general.

I agree that there should be a playoff but everyone should be allowed to have a chance to win it all. Even if they are from a smaller conference like the Sun Belt. Then you can prove that teams like Boise don't deserve a chance to win it all.

Rather than go point by point again, I'll just say that if it were up to me and we had to have a single "national championship" game, I'd personally pick LSU and Oklahoma State. If I was asked to pick the #1 and #2 teams in the country, I'd choose LSU and Alabama. I suppose when it comes down, I'm glad they went with the rematch because it jibes with my personal view that calling the BCS game a "national championship" in the first place is absurd. If nothing else, maybe now the other conferences will at least listen when the SEC proposes a plus one format again (as they did in 2008, and only the ACC was in favor; the other conferences didn't even want to discuss it).

From what I read, the SEC has changed their mind since they are realizing that the current system benefits them greatly...especially if the 2 teams only in the BCS is lifted....then the SEC bias in the preseason polls will allow for more SEC teams to make BCS bowls. I mean, South Carolina is ranked number 10 in the country....for the love of what is holy how do you lose your best offensive player and your QB and still get a top 10 ranking without beating anyone worth mentioning after it happened?????

especially if the 2 teams only in the BCS is lifted....then the SEC bias in the preseason polls will allow for more SEC teams to make BCS bowls. I mean, South Carolina is ranked number 10 in the country....for the love of what is holy how do you lose your best offensive player and your QB and still get a top 10 ranking without beating anyone worth mentioning after it happened?????

I'm confused, how do preseason rankings affect BCS bowls? As for the SEC bias, South Carolina is ranked behind 4 other two loss teams and ended the season with a nice win against Clemson. The human polls have them lower than the BCS rankings do. If any team is overrated in the polls, it's Michigan State.

Last edited by Arthur Monay at 12/14/2011 7:25:54 PM

Preseason polls determine a ton! They shouldn't come out with them until the 8th week. I'll use my alma mater for example. OU is ranked #1 preseason. They were one of if not the highest ranked 2 loss teams even though they were thrashed by injuries. Finished at #19 which might be about right, but they were lingering when they probably shouldn't have been because of the preseason hype. Use Arkansas for an example. They beat 2 teams with winning records all season and they are ranked #6? How do they deserve that ranking? Yes their losses are against #1 and #2, however they got blown out in both games and played a lot of mediocre teams very close. Tell me who they beat to deserve their ranking?

At least MSU has a lot more quality wins. South Carolina beat Georgia and Clemson, two teams that barely inside the top 20. They lost to Auburn....of course Auburn is another example! They beat SC but should have lost to Utah State! Their preseason rank has allowed them to hang on even though they have lost 5 games that made them look really really really bad. Heck they went down to the wire with .500 and sub .500 teams.

I don't see it with either of your examples: OU or Arkansas. I think their ranking is pretty spot-on. Nearly every non-biased computer metric agrees. Oklahoma is actually under-ranked according to the data. Let's take the logic of your previous statement a little further: the fact that Oklahoma State's loss was to Iowa State and 'Bama's was to LSU isn't nearly as important as the fact that 'Bama's preseason ranking was higher than OSU's. Neither does it matter that the top 3 teams in the SEC are much better than the top 3 in the Big 12. Preseason rankings biased voters into putting Alabama ahead of Oklahoma State.

Sound ridiculous? It does to me.

Who has Arkansas beat to deserve their ranking? You never answered that because there are only 2 teams with winning records that they have beat. You think Arkansas would have won the big 12? That's laughable. Usually the number 6 team in the country has actually done something. In fact, OSU has a better wins resume than any team in the SEC other than LSU. Yes they lost to ISU, bad loss, but who has Bama proven their worth against? Arkansas that's it. You can try to count Penn State but come on... When the best thing on your resume is a loss, that is a bit ridiculous.

You are an A&M fan, you know first hand how bad the preseason rankings are.

As for OU, if you would have read my post it said that now #19 is about right, but not for most of the season.

You talk about computers, but those "non-biased" computers take into consideration the rankings of the teams when they compute their data. Some of those computers take into consideration the rank of the team at the time that the game is played and some take the final rank of the team played at the end of the season. The input data has to come from somewhere.