ROLL TIDE !!!!

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by cruzthepug

West Virginia won their conference, Clemson won their conference, Southern Miss even won their conference, does that mean they deserve a shot the the national championship, don't think so. Granted OK St. had a great year but the loss to Iowa St. cost them, if Alabama's loss would have been to Miss. St. (same record as Iowa St.) they wouldn't be playing in the championship game.

You can't make that scenario though because did Alabama still lose to LSU? If that's the case they have 2 loses and it wouldn't matter but if they beat LSU and lost to Miss St at the end of the year they would be out. It almost has nothing to do with losing to a specific team but rather when you lose to a team because Stanford could have the same complaint. The standards you have would put Stanford in front of OK St since they only lost to Oregon. The point isn't if WV, Clemson, or Southern Miss deserve to be in the championship but when you have several one lose teams at the top their will be controversy. LSU was the only sure team to be in the championship game after that you have 3 teams that all think the deserve a shot because they all have one lose but Alabama lost first.

[mymizunosrock]

Originally Posted by cruzthepug

West Virginia won their conference, Clemson won their conference, Southern Miss even won their conference, does that mean they deserve a shot the the national championship, don't think so. Granted OK St. had a great year but the loss to Iowa St. cost them, if Alabama's loss would have been to Miss. St. (same record as Iowa St.) they wouldn't be playing in the championship game.

If OSU lost 2 or 3 games and still won the conference like those teams, we would not be having this debate . Falling over the line to win your conference and missing the National Bowl game by a bees dick are 2 different things. I do wish your team good luck though. They are going to need it. I'll be quietly going to for LSU. I have a mate who is an LSU fan so I hope his team gets it done.

[cruzthepug]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

You can't make that scenario though because did Alabama still lose to LSU? If that's the case they have 2 loses and it wouldn't matter but if they beat LSU and lost to Miss St at the end of the year they would be out. It almost has nothing to do with losing to a specific team but rather when you lose to a team because Stanford could have the same complaint. The standards you have would put Stanford in front of OK St since they only lost to Oregon. The point isn't if WV, Clemson, or Southern Miss deserve to be in the championship but when you have several one lose teams at the top their will be controversy. LSU was the only sure team to be in the championship game after that you have 3 teams that all think the deserve a shot because they all have one lose but Alabama lost first.

Under the Alabama loss to Miss St, team "X" would have been number 1 and Alabama would only have one loss. Valid point about several 1 loss teams and until there is some type of playoff, there will always be this discussion. Rarely will there be 2 undefeated teams from the major conferences to match up for the chamionship.

As a Alabama fan I was prepared not to make the game, if Ok St jumped Bama the last weekend and wouldn't have felt like Bama got screwed, because like everyone is saying, they had their chance. But if Ok St would have taken care of business againt Iowa St we wouldn't be having this discussion, so, they had their chance too and really a much easier chance.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by cruzthepug

Under the Alabama loss to Miss St, team "X" would have been number 1 and Alabama would only have one loss. Valid point about several 1 loss teams and until there is some type of playoff, there will always be this discussion. Rarely will there be 2 undefeated teams from the major conferences to match up for the chamionship.

As a Alabama fan I was prepared not to make the game, if Ok St jumped Bama the last weekend and wouldn't have felt like Bama got screwed, because like everyone is saying, they had their chance. But if Ok St would have taken care of business againt Iowa St we wouldn't be having this discussion, so, they had their chance too and really a much easier chance.

I'm not a fan of any of the teams so I'm not upset Alabama got in the championship game. I did want to see OK St because of their offense and see how they would do against LSU. I think the taking care of business argument is more that Bama had their chance to beat LSU and couldn't do it. The problem with that argument is even if Bama beat LSU we'd almost certainly be getting the same game because LSU would have gotten back to number 2. People that are not fans of the SEC, Bama, or LSU obviously want to see something different then 2 teams playing each other again. Plus the first outcome wasn't all the exciting because it more boiled down to Bama kickers not being able to make field goals. Everyone says it was a defensive battle and the defenses did play well but Bama could have won easily. It's not like LSU blocked a bunch of them and fought their way to a win. Regardless I hope this game turns out to be different and if Bama and OK St win then we can listen to the "who's the real national champion" comments.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Bloodbath? What BCS game involved a SEC school and a Big 12 school that was a blood bath? Bama beat Texas by 16 when Colt McCoy got hurt so I wouldn't call that a blood bath. Outside of that I think Florida beat Oklahoma by 10, LSU beat Oklahoma by 7, and Nebraska beat Tenn by 10 so I'm not sure what's the knock on the big 12 unless you're confusing it with the Big 10 because those games were ugly.

As for everyone is saying Bama had their chance and so did every one else. I agree but what if Ok St or Stanford lost early in the season and Bama lost late in the season guess what Bama is out. I'm not knocking Bama but thats a flaw of the BCS which will probably never be corrected and it's a shame for any team to be penalized on when they lose.

You're right... maybe "bloodbath" was the wrong word.  How about "dismantling"?  In 2003, Oklahoma scored over 600 points.  In 2008, they scored over 700.  In each of their games against SEC defenses - which they were simply supposed to overwhelm - they scored 14.  What kept those games from becoming a bloodbath was the fact that Oklahoma actually had a decent defense.  I'm not sure what the Tennessee game is you are talking about.  Their BCS title came at the expense of FSU.

The knock is that every year, all we hear about is how Big 12 offenses are so awesome that no one can stay on the field with them.  I've been told that the only reason SEC defenses are so good is that they play against crappy SEC offenses, and conversely, that the only reason that Big 12 defenses look so bad statistically is because they play against the incredibly skilled, virtually unstoppable offenses of the Big 12.  Yet, in BCS Championship games, the immovable object always dismantles the irresistible force.  It's not just the BCS either.  In 2005, when Alabama went to the Cotton Bowl against Texas Tech, all I heard from Tech fans was how their amazing offense was going to hang 40 on our defense.

Alabama won that game 13-10.

I've watched LSU and Oklahoma State play, and I simply think that the match-up would be a mismatch.  Oklahoma State couldn't stop Iowa State's offense, so I can't begin to imagine them being able to deal with LSU's four-headed hydra at running back.

As for Alabama's loss and its timing, I don't think it's really an issue unless you're talking about 1978.

Alabama lost to the number one team in the country by a field goal in overtime.  Oklahoma State lost to an unranked, 6-6 team and Stanford got boatraced by the same Oregon that was boatraced by LSU in the season opener.  Now, if Alabama had lost by a couple of touchdowns to LSU, or had gotten beat by Vanderbilt or Mississippi State, I could see your point.

[dhanson]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

I like they way division 2 does it but that would probably be a little much and more travel expenses involved.

i don't understand why there couldn't be a system like this (or the FCS playoffs). here's the DII national championship bracket .

24 teams get into the playoffs. 6 ncaa DI conferences have a championship game. those 6 would automatically make the playoffs (which would mean northern illinois would make the playoffs as the only team not in the top 25). from there, the next best 18 teams would make the playoffs (based off poll rankings) and teams are seeded. this would be the only controversial part of the entire playoff system since 8 teams get a bye the first round (you could eliminate that entire debate by accepting the top 32 teams, get rid of the byes and make it a full 5 round tournament). seedings would either be based entirely off rankings or the 6 auto-qualifying teams would get the bye, which actually makes your conference games mean something. arguments about those teams playing weaker opponents don't seem as relevant in a playoff system.

concerns over cost never seem to matter much. sure, some schools are going to post losses, but the vast majority make money . given that some of the playoffs would occur during winter break, missing classes/travel wouldn't be as big of a concern (although, i'm not sure it is much of a concern as it is). if DII teams can muster up the cash to make the games, i see no reason why a DI school wouldn't be able to.

[Leftygolfer]

Originally Posted by cruzthepug

If that's the case there's no need for a championship game, because no other teams belong either. Crown LSU the champions since they are the only undefeated team and let's move on to next year.

Perfect.  The system sucks.  I would love to love college football the way I do the NFL.  But until there is a fair way most years I am very disinterested after the regular season.

And any argument about cost or caring for students is rediculous.  Look at the new conferences are lining up.  Boise St in the big east?   They could give a shit about students.  They care about making money.  But the funny thing is the could make more money having a play off and using there corp sponsor names on the playoff games.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by bwdial

You're right... maybe "bloodbath" was the wrong word.  How about "dismantling"?  In 2003, Oklahoma scored over 600 points.  In 2008, they scored over 700.  In each of their games against SEC defenses - which they were simply supposed to overwhelm - they scored 14.  What kept those games from becoming a bloodbath was the fact that Oklahoma actually had a decent defense.  I'm not sure what the Tennessee game is you are talking about.  Their BCS title came at the expense of FSU.

The knock is that every year, all we hear about is how Big 12 offenses are so awesome that no one can stay on the field with them.  I've been told that the only reason SEC defenses are so good is that they play against crappy SEC offenses, and conversely, that the only reason that Big 12 defenses look so bad statistically is because they play against the incredibly skilled, virtually unstoppable offenses of the Big 12.  Yet, in BCS Championship games, the immovable object always dismantles the irresistible force.  It's not just the BCS either.  In 2005, when Alabama went to the Cotton Bowl against Texas Tech, all I heard from Tech fans was how their amazing offense was going to hang 40 on our defense.

Alabama won that game 13-10.

I've watched LSU and Oklahoma State play, and I simply think that the match-up would be a mismatch.  Oklahoma State couldn't stop Iowa State's offense, so I can't begin to imagine them being able to deal with LSU's four-headed hydra at running back.

As for Alabama's loss and its timing, I don't think it's really an issue unless you're talking about 1978.

Alabama lost to the number one team in the country by a field goal in overtime.  Oklahoma State lost to an unranked, 6-6 team and Stanford got boatraced by the same Oregon that was boatraced by LSU in the season opener.  Now, if Alabama had lost by a couple of touchdowns to LSU, or had gotten beat by Vanderbilt or Mississippi State, I could see your point.

I said BCS Games meaning all bowls and Nebraska beat Tenn in the Fiesta Bowl in 2000. You brought up an interesting point about Bama beating Texas Tech in 2005 because in 2006 Bama lost to.... Oklahoma State in the independence bowl. Granted that has no bearing for what is going on now and neither does them playing Texas Tech in 2005. Now them losing to LSU before Ok St and Stanford lost has a lot to do with them being in the championship game. If Bama lost to LSU after OK St and Stanford lost there is no way they are playing in the championship game because they wouldn't have enough games to get back to number 2. As for OK St being able to stop LSU I don't think they could either but I'm more interested in if LSU can stop OK St offense especially since LSU's offense can sputter at times. You're a Bama fan so I understand your argument but another point to you saying when they lost doesn't matter remember when Ohio State and Michigan were 1 and 2? Michigan lost at OSU by a field goal and Florida jumped Michigan to get into the championship game. When you have 3 top tier team that lose 1 game this will be the outcome someone will get in and everyone else will say they don't belong. As I said before I'm not a fan of any of the top 4 teams but I just hope this game is different from the first because although you call it a defensive battle I call it Bama has bad kickers and should have won that game easily. I wish Bama luck and if they win I look forward to the who's the real national champion arguments.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

I said BCS Games meaning all bowls and Nebraska beat Tenn in the Fiesta Bowl in 2000. You brought up an interesting point about Bama beating Texas Tech in 2005 because in 2006 Bama lost to.... Oklahoma State in the independence bowl. Granted that has no bearing for what is going on now and neither does them playing Texas Tech in 2005. Now them losing to LSU before Ok St and Stanford lost has a lot to do with them being in the championship game. If Bama lost to LSU after OK St and Stanford lost there is no way they are playing in the championship game because they wouldn't have enough games to get back to number 2. As for OK St being able to stop LSU I don't think they could either but I'm more interested in if LSU can stop OK St offense especially since LSU's offense can sputter at times. You're a Bama fan so I understand your argument but another point to you saying when they lost doesn't matter remember when Ohio State and Michigan were 1 and 2? Michigan lost at OSU by a field goal and Florida jumped Michigan to get into the championship game. When you have 3 top tier team that lose 1 game this will be the outcome someone will get in and everyone else will say they don't belong. As I said before I'm not a fan of any of the top 4 teams but I just hope this game is different from the first because although you call it a defensive battle I call it Bama has bad kickers and should have won that game easily. I wish Bama luck and if they win I look forward to the who's the real national champion arguments.

The Michigan/Ohio State is kind of like what happened to Alabama.  We lost by a field goal and dropped to third.  Oklahoma State jumped us into second.  But they crapped the bed against an unranked Iowa State team.

You're right on the money about the first game.  I think this one will be a little "looser", but it's still going to be lights out defense.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by bwdial

The Michigan/Ohio State is kind of like what happened to Alabama.  We lost by a field goal and dropped to third.  Oklahoma State jumped us into second.  But they crapped the bed against an unranked Iowa State team.

You're right on the money about the first game.  I think this one will be a little "looser", but it's still going to be lights out defense.

The BIG difference is that was the last game of the season for Michigan so they couldn't play their way back to number 2. If Bama lost to LSU with a game to go they wouldn't be playing for the national championship. It is what it is and no one will be happy until they find a system that is like a playoff.

[cruzthepug]

When Bama lost to LSU there was a 99% chance they were out of the championship game. There were a lot of cards that had to fall just right for them to get back in. With all the other games turning out with the same results, if Ok St, Stanford and Bama had all lost the same weekend, we would have the same standings.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

The BIG difference is that was the last game of the season for Michigan so they couldn't play their way back to number 2. If Bama lost to LSU with a game to go they wouldn't be playing for the national championship. It is what it is and no one will be happy until they find a system that is like a playoff.

Funny that... since former SEC commissioner Mike Slive suggested a plus one system in a meeting of BCS commissioners a few years ago.  The only support for the plan came from the ACC.
The Big Ten, PAC 10 and Big 12 commissioners didn't even want to discuss it.  I guess Oklahoma State should thank Dan Bebee for where they find themselves now.

Personally, I think that a plus one - basically a four team playoff -  is the best solution.  Of course, people will still complain if their team is ranked fifth, but if you take it to eight, nine and ten are going to complain.  If it's 16 teams, 17 through 20 will whine about being excluded.  People point to the FCS playoffs as a shining example, but I view them more as a cautionary tale.  They've grown over the years to a present 20 teams (out of 126), and I have little doubt that they will expand further.  There just aren't that many teams in any given year that deserve a chance to play for a national championship.  A plus one system could be integrated into the current system by having Alabama and Oklahoma State play each other in the Fiesta Bowl and LSU and Stanford play each other in the Orange Bowl, with the winners meeting in New Orleans for the BCS Championship Game.  The system could continue to rotate as it has to this point.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by bwdial

Funny that... since former SEC commissioner Mike Slive suggested a plus one system in a meeting of BCS commissioners a few years ago.  The only support for the plan came from the ACC.

The Big Ten, PAC 10 and Big 12 commissioners didn't even want to discuss it.  I guess Oklahoma State should thank Dan Bebee for where they find themselves now.

Personally, I think that a plus one - basically a four team playoff -  is the best solution.  Of course, people will still complain if their team is ranked fifth, but if you take it to eight, nine and ten are going to complain.  If it's 16 teams, 17 through 20 will whine about being excluded.  People point to the FCS playoffs as a shining example, but I view them more as a cautionary tale.  They've grown over the years to a present 20 teams (out of 126), and I have little doubt that they will expand further.  There just aren't that many teams in any given year that deserve a chance to play for a national championship.  A plus one system could be integrated into the current system by having Alabama and Oklahoma State play each other in the Fiesta Bowl and LSU and Stanford play each other in the Orange Bowl, with the winners meeting in New Orleans for the BCS Championship Game.  The system could continue to rotate as it has to this point.

I agree with this but I'm guessing the conferences were probably thinking you're taking 2 BCS games away and that will cut down on the money all of them would see. There is almost no perfect solution but I think what you said is a great starting point. Either way each conference wants to assure that at least one of their teams gets top dollar for a BCS bowl and if you use 2 for a playoff X amount of teams would be left out of the pay day.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

I agree with this but I'm guessing the conferences were probably thinking you're taking 2 BCS games away and that will cut down on the money all of them would see. There is almost no perfect solution but I think what you said is a great starting point. Either way each conference wants to assure that at least one of their teams gets top dollar for a BCS bowl and if you use 2 for a playoff X amount of teams would be left out of the pay day.

It's funny because I amended it when I posted the idea on another site.  Have a couple of BCS Semifinal Championship games either hosted by the top seeds or at a neutral site round about New Years.  Then, have the last BCS bowl not extend bids and then have the losers from the semifinal games, with the winners going to the Championship.

[DaSportsGuy]

Originally Posted by shades9323

Different strokes for different folks. We just appreciate football in different ways. The majority of people like to see touchdowns and exciting offensive plays. Very very few can get excited about a game that had 5 field goals and no touchdowns. I doubt LSU would beat OSU by 40.  They would win, but not by that much.  Especially with the lack of competent QB's.

Exactly.

Nobody wants to sit around and watch good defense. That goes for any sport. Nobody wants to watch a 1-0 baseball game. Nobody wants to watch 1-0 hockey games. Nobody wants to watch 75-70 basketball games. And nobody wants to watch 6-3 football games. Well, I take that back. The purists for their respective sport, love to see it. But other than that, the guys sitting out in the outfield want to see homerun balls flying into the seats, the guys in the dawg pound want to see kick returns and 95 yard TD passes, the guys in the court seats want to see dunks and three's, and the guys on the glass want to see pucks flying into the nets.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by DaSportsGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by shades9323

Different strokes for different folks. We just appreciate football in different ways. The majority of people like to see touchdowns and exciting offensive plays. Very very few can get excited about a game that had 5 field goals and no touchdowns. I doubt LSU would beat OSU by 40.  They would win, but not by that much.  Especially with the lack of competent QB's.

Exactly.

Nobody wants to sit around and watch good defense. That goes for any sport. Nobody wants to watch a 1-0 baseball game. Nobody wants to watch 1-0 hockey games. Nobody wants to watch 75-70 basketball games. And nobody wants to watch 6-3 football games. Well, I take that back. The purists for their respective sport, love to see it. But other than that, the guys sitting out in the outfield want to see homerun balls flying into the seats, the guys in the dawg pound want to see kick returns and 95 yard TD passes, the guys in the court seats want to see dunks and three's, and the guys on the glass want to see pucks flying into the nets.

Not sure I'd want to see a 1-0 shutout every game but some of them are very exciting for a true fan.

Everybody wants to see missed tackles, poor coverage, sieve goaltenders etc? I doubt that - I want to see good defense.

[DaSportsGuy]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not sure I'd want to see a 1-0 shutout every game but some of them are very exciting for a true fan.

Everybody wants to see missed tackles, poor coverage, sieve goaltenders etc? I doubt that - I want to see good defense.

I agree. And I'm not saying they want to see poor defense, just big plays on offense and defensive scoring plays.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by DaSportsGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not sure I'd want to see a 1-0 shutout every game but some of them are very exciting for a true fan.

Everybody wants to see missed tackles, poor coverage, sieve goaltenders etc? I doubt that - I want to see good defense.

I agree. And I'm not saying they want to see poor defense, just big plays on offense and defensive scoring plays.

I like big plays when they're earned. A shootout is boring. The NHL and NBA Allstar games for example are virtually unwatchable.