Rematch hypocrisy?

[alarson]

Add to that- if OSU had lost to the number one ranked team in the country on November 5th, and had Alabama lost to the number 30 (or whatever) ranked team in the country on November 23rd, it's even more likely that OSU would be in the championship game.

I really don't think OSU got that badly hosed.

Why should the date of the loss matter? That's part of the problem with the human polls.

And its not just about who lost but who you beat. If OSU was playing samford or citadel or georgia southern that week (like the SEC, including alabama, was doing) instead of Iowa State, they'd still be undefeated.

[Tre4ISU]

Why should the date of the loss matter? That's part of the problem with the human polls.

And its not just about who lost but who you beat. If OSU was playing samford or citadel or georgia southern that week (like the SEC, including alabama, was doing) instead of Iowa State, they'd still be undefeated.

Another good point. OSU played one more conference game.

[alarson]

Holy **** you came out and said it. That is my whole entire point. You Bama backers want to judge the season on one fricking game. That is ridiculous. You don't want to look at the whole season which is what we should be looking at. Bama had no wins as good as OSU. Not arguable. They didn't have near the positive body of work. They took their one loss and lined it up as a better loss than OSU. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that this NC has been decided by 8% of the games played by these teams this year. That is utter stupidity.

To your ridiculous question that is so much more irrelevant than what you claimed is irrelevant, the Big 12 would win at least half those games.

Completely agree. Its like saying if Houston had won all their games, but lost to LSU instead of Southern Miss , they should be on equal standing with Alabama and greater than Okie State(or if Boise had won all their games except their opener with Georgia, they should be greater than OSU, because Georgia>ISU), despite the fact that they have nowhere near the body of work.

[VeloClone]

And my point is that it's silly to try and compare the middle or the bottom of conferences. Kansas and Ole Miss both stink, but which one stinks less? It's irrelevant.

You want to compare conference strength? Look at the top 4 or 5 teams (or 3 or 4...I don't care). How do those teams match up?

If the top of the Big 12 is OKSt. (Top 5), KSU (Top 10), OU (Top 20) and Baylor (Top 20), and you compare it to LSU (Top 5), Alabama (Top 5), Arkansas, (Top 10), and Georgia (Top 20).

Which of those games would you expect the Big 12 to win?

Doesn't that make more sense than trying to match up who wins between Texas Tech and Kentucky?

Okie State beat all three of those other three. Did 'Bama even play the other three in their conference?

If the top 4 is all that really matters, why not just have a 4 team conference and than play Sisters of the Poor OOC for the other 9 games.

[Ficklone02]

I count 4 teams that Bama played with records better than ISU: Penn St, Arkansas, LSU, and Auburn. Three more (Florida, Vandy, MSU) had the same record.

And remember, Bama BEAT all of those teams (except LSU).

If the BCS scores favored OKSt., then Bama shouldn't complain either. But as a lot of commentators have mentioned today, it matters who you lose to. Championship-caliber teams don't lose those games like OKSt. did.

So you're saying teams should schedule all cupcakes because it doesn't matter who you beat? Whatever fits espn's argument for the outcome they want is what they will argue. It matters who you beat, and OSU beat more good teams than Alabama did.

[Tre4ISU]

So you're saying teams should schedule all cupcakes because it doesn't matter who you beat? Whatever fits espn's argument for the outcome they want is what they will argue. It matters who you beat, and OSU beat more good teams than Alabama did.

As a Michigan fan (I'm sorry, they probably shouldn't be in the BCS) I remember vividly the 2006 season. The SEC side would take every chance they got to compare wins and OVERALL bodies of work. In the end, they were correct in doing so. The main problem I have is that the voters this time around took the exact opposite route in determining things. That is a big problem. There has to be some sort of consistency in how things are viewed. IMO, right now, I would say voters should be comprised of people recruited by the NCAA. Real experts, or at least people who do not find themselves compromised. I am talking about people not in the mainstream media. I am talking about a Brent Blum. Perhaps some ordinary Joes who follow the football world closely. These people should be made confidential. This shouldn't come down to Craig James and Gary Pinkel. Craig James is an almost convicted murderer of hookers and Pinkel doesn't know the alphabet. The voters should combine to make up 1/2 of the BCS and computers the other half. I do not want a playoff because there hasn't ever been 4 teams that deserve a shot at the title. It is seldom that the top two aren't cut and dried. The whole issue is that people are biased at some level. I try not to be but if you replace OSU with ISU, I would be. Replace Bama with Michigan and I would be. Somehow we need more competent voters.

[jbhtexas]

Why should the date of the loss matter? That's part of the problem with the human polls.

The other problem with human polls is jackarses like Les Miles. He voted KSU at 17, while voting Michigan at 8. Seriously??? How obvious does it have to be that he was trying to shaft the Big 12.

[Mizzoulander]

Holy **** you came out and said it. That is my whole entire point. You Bama backers want to judge the season on one fricking game. That is ridiculous. You don't want to look at the whole season which is what we should be looking at. Bama had no wins as good as OSU. Not arguable. They didn't have near the positive body of work. They took their one loss and lined it up as a better loss than OSU. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that this NC has been decided by 8% of the games played by these teams this year. That is utter stupidity.

To your ridiculous question that is so much more irrelevant than what you claimed is irrelevant, the Big 12 would win at least half those games.

So let's look at the whole season. I'm seeing that OKSt. beat 3 teams that are still ranked right now: KSU, OU, and Baylor.

Alabama also beat 3 teams that are still ranked: Arkansas, Auburn, and Penn St.

You're saying that OKSt. had the best win (KSU, I'm assuming) by 7 points and it's "not arguable." I'm saying you're full of **** and a 24-point win over Arkansas (ranked higher than KSU) is at LEAST as good as anything OKSt has done.

Is a win over 5-7 Texas Tech better than a win over 5-7 Kentucky? Is Alabama's 48-7 win over Kent State better than OKSt.'s 37-0 win over the same team? Is that REALLY how you want to want to decide the national championship?

The overall body of work between OKSt. and Alabama is similar in most respects. And when that is the case, then the small "8%" differences are the deciding factor. In this case, a loss to LSU versus a loss to ISU.

[Palmer]

So let's look at the whole season. I'm seeing that OKSt. beat 3 teams that are still ranked right now: KSU, OU, and Baylor.

Alabama also beat 3 teams that are still ranked: Arkansas, Auburn, and Penn St.

You're saying that OKSt. had the best win (KSU, I'm assuming) by 7 points and it's "not arguable." I'm saying you're full of **** and a 24-point win over Arkansas (ranked higher than KSU) is at LEAST as good as anything OKSt has done.

Is a win over 5-7 Texas Tech better than a win over 5-7 Kentucky? Is Alabama's 48-7 win over Kent State better than OKSt.'s 37-0 win over the same team? Is that REALLY how you want to want to decide the national championship?

The overall body of work between OKSt. and Alabama is similar in most respects. And when that is the case, then the small "8%" differences are the deciding factor. In this case, a loss to LSU versus a loss to ISU.

Go away you freaking twit.

[IowaSTATCyclone]

It is very, very simple:

Unlike a NFL playoff system the BCS is a selection process. When winnowing down (by vote and computer) to the two "best" teams out of 120, there is a serious flaw in the selection process if:

The process can't account for the golden opportunity to eliminate viable teams in regular season (or conference title) head-to-head matchups.

In other words, any time a viable candidate for the National Title game defeats an opponent on the field, that losing opponent has lost its claim to the title game. If Oregon had won all of its games following the loss to LSU, it still should not have been considered for the national title game (or, at minimum, it should be put at the very bottom of the BCS 1-loss team bucket).

It is silly to put an in-game incentive on losing to the #1 team, but that is exactly what Alabama received in its home loss missed field goal festival.

In other words, if you go undefeated and are the #1 team in the country, you have eliminated 12 teams already: the dozen you have already beaten on the field, even if that includes the theoretical #2 and #3 (or whatever) qualifier.

One loss, of any sort (whether to the #2 in the country or an unranked foe) should not knock a team from the title game. Didn't #2 Florida go on to win a NC after a terrible loss to an unranked foe? Oh yeah. They emblazoned Tim Tebow's speech on the stadium for that one...

And that was a home loss to -22 point dog Ole Miss for the Gators.

The only argument in favor of Alabama is that they are, somehow a "more complete one loss team" or that their loss is of "higher quality" or something.

I understand that argument. Really, I do. I think it is very possible that Alabama might beat OSU if they played head-to-head.

But the point is this: we already know that LSU is a better team than Alabama. It's been proven on a scoreboard - in Tuscaloosa!

If 'Bama was in the East and, say, lost to Georgia and didn't make it to the SEC title game, I would have less problem with them playing LSU for the NC now.

But I only see this as an opportunity to split the National Title - Alabama can win half of it in Louisiana in January. The other half they already lost at home.

I'll put it another way: when your best argument is "our one loss didn't suck as bad as yours did" and their best argument is "we defeated a higher number of quality opponents," I don't see how the scale ends up tipping in your favor.

Maybe I'll let Gary Pinkel explain it to me...

[Tre4ISU]

So let's look at the whole season. I'm seeing that OKSt. beat 3 teams that are still ranked right now: KSU, OU, and Baylor.

Alabama also beat 3 teams that are still ranked: Arkansas, Auburn, and Penn St.

You're saying that OKSt. had the best win (KSU, I'm assuming) by 7 points and it's "not arguable." I'm saying you're full of **** and a 24-point win over Arkansas (ranked higher than KSU) is at LEAST as good as anything OKSt has done.

Is a win over 5-7 Texas Tech better than a win over 5-7 Kentucky? Is Alabama's 48-7 win over Kent State better than OKSt.'s 37-0 win over the same team? Is that REALLY how you want to want to decide the national championship?

The overall body of work between OKSt. and Alabama is similar in most respects. And when that is the case, then the small "8%" differences are the deciding factor. In this case, a loss to LSU versus a loss to ISU.

Holy hell. No. Demolishing OU is their best win. Bama didn't have to play 2 of the better teams in their conference. They played neither Georgia or South Carolina. Auburn and PSU, neither one are as good as Baylor.

[Mizzoulander]

As a Michigan fan (I'm sorry, they probably shouldn't be in the BCS) I remember vividly the 2006 season. The SEC side would take every chance they got to compare wins and OVERALL bodies of work. In the end, they were correct in doing so. The main problem I have is that the voters this time around took the exact opposite route in determining things. That is a big problem. There has to be some sort of consistency in how things are viewed. IMO, right now, I would say voters should be comprised of people recruited by the NCAA. Real experts, or at least people who do not find themselves compromised. I am talking about people not in the mainstream media. I am talking about a Brent Blum. Perhaps some ordinary Joes who follow the football world closely. These people should be made confidential. This shouldn't come down to Craig James and Gary Pinkel. Craig James is an almost convicted murderer of hookers and Pinkel doesn't know the alphabet. The voters should combine to make up 1/2 of the BCS and computers the other half. I do not want a playoff because there hasn't ever been 4 teams that deserve a shot at the title. It is seldom that the top two aren't cut and dried. The whole issue is that people are biased at some level. I try not to be but if you replace OSU with ISU, I would be. Replace Bama with Michigan and I would be. Somehow we need more competent voters.

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense.

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

[Tre4ISU]

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense.

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy but it's not realistic.

[VeloClone]

OR...

You can just win all your games and avoid this nonsense.

Seriously. No team with a loss has room to complain. You want a shot at the title? Show up for every game.

You'll never get a panel of "experts" who won't be accused of conspiracy the first time somebody's team gets left out.

Michigan's path to the NCG in 2006 was clear. Beat tOSU, and they were in. Same with OKSt. this year, and with Bama. When you lose, you throw your fate into the hands of the jury (so to speak).

So don't lose.

Yeah, you keep saying that. But we are talking about which team that did lose should go. In case you hadn't noticed there is only one 1 loss team in the NCG.

And it is perfectly appropriate to say that they screwed the pooch when they are extremely inconsistent from year to year on what a team has to do to be that team with a loss that goes.

[brentblum]

As a Michigan fan (I'm sorry, they probably shouldn't be in the BCS) I remember vividly the 2006 season. The SEC side would take every chance they got to compare wins and OVERALL bodies of work. In the end, they were correct in doing so. The main problem I have is that the voters this time around took the exact opposite route in determining things. That is a big problem. There has to be some sort of consistency in how things are viewed. IMO, right now, I would say voters should be comprised of people recruited by the NCAA. Real experts, or at least people who do not find themselves compromised. I am talking about people not in the mainstream media. I am talking about a Brent Blum. Perhaps some ordinary Joes who follow the football world closely. These people should be made confidential. This shouldn't come down to Craig James and Gary Pinkel. Craig James is an almost convicted murderer of hookers and Pinkel doesn't know the alphabet. The voters should combine to make up 1/2 of the BCS and computers the other half. I do not want a playoff because there hasn't ever been 4 teams that deserve a shot at the title. It is seldom that the top two aren't cut and dried. The whole issue is that people are biased at some level. I try not to be but if you replace OSU with ISU, I would be. Replace Bama with Michigan and I would be. Somehow we need more competent voters.

Thanks!