Bcs - wtf 2011

[longknocker]

Originally Posted by OLS

Yep, judgin by the final AP top 25 rankings, it's a tie, basically.

Bama has 2 wins, OK St has 4
Bama's combined rankings of their 2 equal 32..divided by 2 is 15.5
OK St. combined rankings of their 4 equal 69..divided by 4 is 17.25

So bama has wins over higher average ranked opponents, OK state has more
actual wins against top 25 teams. Considering the arguments being made here
and there, this element is kind of telling and kind of useless. It shows that OK
St. did in fact play a higher ranked schedule, but bama did demolish their foes
rather convincingly and had no business screwing the pooch in front of their own
fans. When it came down to it, it WAS style points, after all. That was not supposed
to be a factor...hmm. It is sad to me because UA and LSU fans are going to be glued
to the screens. But after waiting 5 weeks for the show, I think very few outsiders
will care to watch. Some might, who knows.

I say OK State deserved the chance to play LSU.

I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad?

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Rizzle, what is your response to the fact that Alabama had an easier road to their 1 loss record, that they played an easier schedule...?

It is unfortunate, because you are biased, but it would be interesting to see what your thoughts & all the SEC crowd's thoughts would be if the situation was reversed. If we were talking about USC and Oregon or Texas and Oklahoma in a rematch and Alabama or another SEC team with a loss to a 6-6 SEC team, but having played a tougher schedule. That SEC team having beat more ranked teams, won their conference Championship ect.. That mentioned loss being just days after the school lost 2 coaches in a horrific plane crash ect....

I wonder if your thoughts on the subject would be the same. See, that is where I think that my not having a dog in this hunt, but looking at this objectively(what I feel is objective?) and thinking I'm getting the shaft on seeing the "right game" for the BCS Championship.

Here are my thoughts, and they're pretty simple, really. When we lost the LSU game, I said we're out of it. Done. Like dinner. Game over. Nobody's fault but ours. And if everyone else would have held up their end of the bargain there would be no arguing over it, we wouldn't even be in the conversation. But they didn't. Stanford loses. Oregon loses. Oklahoma State went out and lost to a 6-6 team and then their crowning achievement was beating an Oklahoma team that finished with three losses? Why is that impressive? All those teams had to do was win and you wouldn't hear a peep from me because it was our fault that we lost.

And really, to try and put this "tragedy" into the equation is cheap and a sickening attempt by the media to try and garner manufactrured sympathy. What about the tornadoes that came through Alabama and damn near demolished Tuscaloosa, killed hundreds of people, including a football player's girlfriend, or the death of one our starters right before the season started? I don't recall hearing any of the pundits mentioning those "tragedies" when it came time to cast votes. That's just classless, IMO, andthose people should be ashamed of themselves.

Now, let's say OK State had won out, or Stanford. My "bias" would tell me that I think we're still a better team, but we wouldn't have a chance to prove it. So we'd probably head to the Sugar Bowl wondering about what might have been. And hoping that we get a chance to get back there again someday.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by longknocker

I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad?

Doesn't really matter. Ok State deserves the opportunity to try moreso than Alabama. Alabama had their shot at LSU and came up short. Now, with that being said, I think Alabama wins the rematch.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Yes, big Utah fan....

If not for the BCS, there would be no BCS games....it would be back to the regional games, pitting conference champions, conference tie ins ect... Kind of like all the other bowls now.... But because Utah has been invited to the dance twice and won 2 BCS bowl games...that does not mean I don't think the system is broken.

Utah is in the "haves" now....they're in the PAC12, I still think the system is broken.

What I meant by that, and I think you would agree, is if it were not for the BCS system, Utah would have been relegated to playing in some also ran bowl out in Idaho on blue turf or something. At least the BCS gave a shot to play with "the haves" on a stage they had never been able to play on before.

I'm not saying the system isn't broken, but it is, for the most part, doing what it was designed to do. the travesty to the whole damn thing, is it has made ALL the other bowls, including the non-championship BCS bowls, totally irrelevant, and typically boring.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

You keep coming back to this as if it is somehow relevant, IMO it is not. I don't know who is better. I know they played....and one team won and one team lost and that is that....

I could not care less if the masses would say the better team didn't win the game....who cares? They played the game and there was a winner and a loser, you move on from there.

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - LSU > Alabama

It IS relevant for the basis of this whole freaking conversation, IMO.

My part in this converstion has nothing to do with the fact that LSU > Alabama. I'm saying that just because Alabama isn't number 1 doesn't mean they can't be number 2. And for the BCS championship game, that is all that matters.

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - Alabama > Oklahoma State

[OLS]

Originally Posted by longknocker

I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad?

Oh HELL no.....like I said, I feel no stress, LSU is in the game. I am just picking apart BCS
arguments in a thread I made so that I could do it without offending the pure SEC crowd in a
thread that Michael created. I understand how I come off over there, I didn't want to throw
salt in it. No I just believe that by the pure logic of wins and losses, that bama has a less solid
case than OKSt. They would get mauled in the Superdome. bama will not be mauled.

[OLS]

Rizzle, I have finally worn you to a nub, post No. 62 is absolutely perfect in it's reasoning and result.
See my post in No. 66 to prove that I also get it...sort of.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by OLS

Oh HELL no.....like I said, I feel no stress, LSU is in the game. I am just picking apart BCS
arguments in a thread I made so that I could do it without offending the pure SEC crowd in a
thread that Michael created. I understand how I come off over there, I didn't want to throw
salt in it. No I just believe that by the pure logic of wins and losses, that bama has a less solid
case than OKSt. They would get mauled in the Superdome. bama will not be mauled.

Bad, I know I'm a dumb Bama fan, but explain that to me, please.

[OLS]

You'd have to read what I wrote in the SEC thread to get the total picture, but in a nutshell, and using the 'Kid's'
reasoning to bash with, on paper, Kid states that both teams have 4 top 25 wins. On a actual piece of paper,
Bama has 2 top 25 wins. Those top 25 'week of' stats are written DOWN somewhere, but they are not relevant
to the argument here at season's end. No one in their right mind can call beating Florida in 2011 a top 25 win. I know
that there is a note somehwere on paper that says it is, but it's not. OKSt has 4 top 25 FINAL STANDINGS wins,
Bama has two. It's True, it's just irrelevant. Person says "I have a dog"...no, you have a Chihuahua. Sure, the
DNA says it's a dog, but you and I know it's a rat in a collar.

So yeah, it sounds funny to say that I KNOW LSU would roll right over OK St and not roll right over Bama, but
knowing that does not mean that it is fair to OK St as it stands now. Are the two best teams in the country
poised to play for it all. Yes. But what happens if Bama wins? Is the argument over? For me, yes, I will do as
I promised and congratulate the fans of the winner. But for many people who follow football, it's 1-1.
If OK state is in that game and LSU wins, game over. If OK state wins, game over, same deal. No one can
say $hi+, the best team won. So there are subtelties that tell me the wrong team is in the game against us,
but nothing tells me that the 1 and 2 aren't playing each other.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Here are my thoughts, and they're pretty simple, really. When we lost the LSU game, I said we're out of it. Done. Like dinner. Game over. Nobody's fault but ours. And if everyone else would have held up their end of the bargain there would be no arguing over it, we wouldn't even be in the conversation. But they didn't. Stanford loses. Oregon loses. Oklahoma State went out and lost to a 6-6 team and then their crowning achievement was beating an Oklahoma team that finished with three losses? Why is that impressive? All those teams had to do was win and you wouldn't hear a peep from me because it was our fault that we lost.

And really, to try and put this "tragedy" into the equation is cheap and a sickening attempt by the media to try and garner manufactrured sympathy. What about the tornadoes that came through Alabama and damn near demolished Tuscaloosa, killed hundreds of people, including a football player's girlfriend, or the death of one our starters right before the season started? I don't recall hearing any of the pundits mentioning those "tragedies" when it came time to cast votes. That's just classless, IMO, andthose people should be ashamed of themselves.

Now, let's say OK State had won out, or Stanford. My "bias" would tell me that I think we're still a better team, but we wouldn't have a chance to prove it. So we'd probably head to the Sugar Bowl wondering about what might have been. And hoping that we get a chance to get back there again someday.

That really skirted the real question, but again, I feel you are so biased, I thought it would be difficult at best. No big deal....

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by OLS

Rizzle, I have finally worn you to a nub, post No. 62 is absolutely perfect in it's reasoning and result.
See my post in No. 66 to prove that I also get it...sort of.

Actually, Brad, if you paid attention, that's what I said all along. I just added to it that I still thought we should have won the game and took exception to your "superior depth and balance" statement. And I provided facts to back up that argument--something you seem to appreciate. All you would have ever had to have said, and I would totally agree with, is that our kicking game sucks and cost us the game. And it may cost us the next one.

So no, you haven't worn me to a nub. You just weren't paying attention to what I was saying because you were hell bent on trying to yank my chain and somehow paint me, and any other Bama fan, as a bunch of lunatics. which we may very well be, but that's another story all together.

There's no reason to get personal about it--but garbage in, garbage out.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by OLS

I agree with what you say here, Greg, but another Bama fan was making a case in the SEC thread
that said basically, "look, here are the teams that bama and OKST played, and here is their ranking
AT THAT TIME, blablabla..." and my first thought was, wait, you would put early season rankings up
as (partial) proof of the solidity of a team? It's A WAY of doing it, but it's not a GOOD way. Everyone knows
pre-season rankings aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and anything prior to week 4-5 is
nearly useless. So I found that particular argument weak, but it might certainly help this person
make a point, just not what I would call a good point.
.

I read that argument, but it was so ridiculous….as were previous comments, I considered the source, as well as my being ask to leave by said person and figured there was no reason to punch holes in it.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

As of Monday December 5, 2011 - Alabama > Oklahoma State

Because they have not played, your saying that is purely assumption. Again, it is why we play the games....

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

That really skirted the real question, but again, I feel you are so biased, I thought it would be difficult at best. No big deal....

Sorry, EJ, I thought Ianswered the question directly. I felt we were out of it. Period. If we were on the outside looking in, I would blame us for our shortcomings, not try to discredit someone else for theirs.

I don't know how to answer it any other way.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by longknocker

I Agree It's Close, But Do You "Really" Think OK State Could Play LSU To A Tie In Regulation, Brad?

Greg, the point isn't if people "think" they could play with LSU....it is giving them the chance to show they can. Alabama had that chance at home and lost.

There are MANY, MANY games every year that teams win, that NOBODY thought they could... It isn't as if Oklahoma State is some also ran Pitt team that people are saying should get a shot....

[OLS]

To me in the end it's a freak of scheduling. Bama is nearly stuck in that they are playing the teams the conference
SAYS they are going to play. And it is a fluke that suddenly UF is shite and Auburn is coming off a NC season and
is basically stripped and Ole Miss's coach is floating in the bowl and UT can't catch a break. It is also a fluke
that Baylor has a magician playing QB and suddenly Baylor is a good win. But make no mistake, either team's schedule
is tough given full participation by their opponents. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bama rolled
through weak opposition, so did OK St. Bama did it with what I consider to be superior coaching and players and likely
by bigger numbers, and EASILY more media hype and darling treatment. So what seems clear-cut to the bama fan is not
clear to people on the outside of that bubble.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Because they have not played, your saying that is purely assumption. Again, it is why we play the games....

Then get it scheduled. I would love to wipe the field with T Boone's boys.

I've got a really good article I'll post in a few after I find it. You guys know that the SEC proposed a +1 system already and that the ACC was the only conference to agree, right? We already tried to remedy this. Problem is, nobody screams foul about it until they're directly affected.

It'll all change after the contract runs out in 2013. God can only hope they somehow get it right. But for the next two years we're stuck with it.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Sorry, EJ, I thought Ianswered the question directly. I felt we were out of it. Period. If we were on the outside looking in, I would blame us for our shortcomings, not try to discredit someone else for theirs.

I don't know how to answer it any other way.

The question is/was....if we were talking about Alabama being held out by 2 PAC12 teams, one that didn't win their conference, a rematch, better strength of schedule by Alabama ect....would you have the same argument, yea....the pollsters think they are better, so even though we played a tougher schedule, beat more ranked teams and won our conference.....they should get the rematch....

I find it hard to believe that you would think it was "fair".... Like everyone else, you would be forced to live with it....but I have a sneaking feeling you would be making these same arguments....

Who knows, maybe not....

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Then get it scheduled. I would love to wipe the field with T Boone's boys.

I've got a really good article I'll post in a few after I find it. You guys know that the SEC proposed a +1 system already and that the ACC was the only conference to agree, right? We already tried to remedy this. Problem is, nobody screams foul about it until they're directly affected.

It'll all change after the contract runs out in 2013. God can only hope they somehow get it right. But for the next two years we're stuck with it.

I read that article, it was pretty good....and you're right, nobody came to the table to support the idea...

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

The question is/was....if we were talking about Alabama being held out by 2 PAC12 teams, one that didn't win their conference, a rematch, better strength of schedule by Alabama ect....would you have the same argument, yea....the pollsters think they are better, so even though we played a tougher schedule, beat more ranked teams and won our conference.....they should get the rematch....

I find it hard to believe that you would think it was "fair".... Like everyone else, you would be forced to live with it....but I have a sneaking feeling you would be making these same arguments....

Who knows, maybe not....

Understand your point completely. It may not be "fair", but it is what we have. Life isn't fair. And if we're trying to discredit teams based on the whole strenght of schedule, etc, argument, you can't. Because all the rankings are subjective anyway. It's all somebody's opinion.

However, I can tell you this -- you'll never get me, or any other SEC fans, to agree that BIG 12 is a stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. That dog ain't hunting with us. So, nyah...