LSU vs Alabama Part 2

[tyke1doe]

Yeah, so? The fact of the matter is that if OSU and Alabama would have started off even in the pre-season points that make up the BCS rankings, OSU would be ranked higher right now. Bama had their shot. They blew it. OSU is getting screwed.

Had its shot?

So the Giants shouldn't have played the Patriots in the Super Bowl because they lost the Patriots at home on the final game of the 2007 season?

The BCS Championship Game is a game unto itself. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. The best teams are supposed to play in that game.

And LSU and Alabama are the two best teams.

The fact that Alabama lost to LSU should have no impact whatsoever on whether they play them again. Alabama lost by three points to the best team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked Iowa State.

OSU doesn't belong in the BCS Championship Game. They had their shot. They blew it.

 

[Cythim]

I am assuming nothing. I am saying that if both Bama and OSU started from the same place to begin with, Bama would not be ranked higher. OSU has strength of schedule, strength of conference and an extra game played against a ranked opponent and a BCS Conference Championship over Bama.

as·sume/əˈso͞om/
Verb:
Suppose to be the case, without proof

The things you listed are arguments for their case but not proof that it would happen. OSU lost twice as much ground in the polls losing to ISU than Bama did losing to LSU. This is what matters and what kept OSU out of the NC game.

 

[CATCH17]

The BCS is sickening.

I'm not an OSU fan and maybe LSU and Bama are the two best teams. But we will never know for sure. Remember a few years ago when the big debate was should Ohio State and Michigan have a rematch of the that years version of the game of the century? Everyone was so sure they were the two best teams. Turns out, that neither of them may have belonged in the title game. lol

I don't really believe this, but for all we know, LSU and Bama are are ther 2nd and 3rd best because neither played OSU. OSU should maybe should not have played Iowa St the week of that major tradgedy. They blew it though.

The majority of the media was just sooo sure Ohio State and Michigan were just a cut above and then both of them got whacked in their bowl games.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Had its shot?

So the Giants shouldn't have played the Patriots in the Super Bowl because they lost the Patriots at home on the final game of the 2007 season?

Seriously? The Giants and the Pats are in the NFL and guess what, they have a playoff system. Because of this, your example has no relevance to the BCS.

The BCS Championship Game is a game unto itself. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. The best teams are supposed to play in that game.

And LSU and Alabama are the two best teams.

How can you say this when OSU started at #9 and Bama started at #2? If both started equal, Bama would not be ranked higher. This was baked from the start if you accept that most of the writers started out from the position that Alabama was better.

The spread we are talking about here is a difference of about 428 points from the start of the season, between Alabama and OSU. Today, the spread is like 20 pts. This is all based on what people thought at the beginning of the season. If both those teams had started from the same point, OSU would be ranked higher.

Lastly, you can't know if they are better or not. They haven't played. A few seasons ago, Bama was better then Utah until they played. Oklahoma was better then Boise St. until they played. That's not a statement you can support factually.

The fact that Alabama lost to LSU should have no impact whatsoever on whether they play them again. Alabama lost by three points to the best team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked Iowa State.

It absolutely should because 1, it's a loss and two, it prevents them from winning a Conference Championship which should also be considered.

OSU doesn't belong in the BCS Championship Game. They had their shot. They blew it.

You have yet to provide any proof of this statement IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

as·sume/əˈso͞om/
Verb:
Suppose to be the case, without proof

The things you listed are arguments for their case but not proof that it would happen. OSU lost twice as much ground in the polls losing to ISU than Bama did losing to LSU. This is what matters and what kept OSU out of the NC game.

Perhaps, but they made up much, much, more then that based on where they started from and where they are at today.

I did not assume anything. You may do that if you wish but the reality here is that you don't know if Bama or LSU can beat OSU because they have not played. You do, however, know that OSU had much more ground to make up in order to play for a NC then did Bama. Bama is ranked higher today only because they started so much higher. That initial ranking is based entirely on opinion and that is not proof.

 

[DFWJC]

You are making an assumption that cannot be proven. OSU had their shot and blew it against a 6-6 team. They are getting what they deserve.

With all of the tragic deaths in the athletic department the week of that game, many wonder if OSU should have even played.

I have no idea if they are better than Bama (I kind of think Bama would have the edge) but the fact that they played and beat more ranked teams than Bama and ended up with the same record, once again shows the idiocy of the BCS. it should would have been nice to see them settle it on the actual field instead of in the polls.

Is it better than year ago? Certainly. But by now you know my take on a non-playoff champion, so I won't go into that again.

 

[Doomsday101]

Perhaps, but they made up much, much, more then that based on where they started from and where they are at today.

I did not assume anything. You may do that if you wish but the reality here is that you don't know if Bama or LSU can beat OSU because they have not played. You do, however, know that OSU had much more ground to make up in order to play for a NC then did Bama. Bama is ranked higher today only because they started so much higher. That initial ranking is based entirely on opinion and that is not proof.

I agree. There is no way any of us know what the true outcome of a game between Bama or LSU vs OSU. We could take a guess that Bama would win or LSU would win but that is all it is.

These debate will continue year in and year out until a system is put in place that allows the winners to be determined on the field

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree. There is no way any of us know what the true outcome of a game between Bama or LSU vs OSU. We could take a guess that Bama would win or LSU would win but that is all it is.

These debate will continue year in and year out until a system is put in place that allows the winners to be determined on the field

It's true. It's a shame really. I hope it gets resolved soon.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Had its shot?

So the Giants shouldn't have played the Patriots in the Super Bowl because they lost the Patriots at home on the final game of the 2007 season?

The BCS Championship Game is a game unto itself. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. The best teams are supposed to play in that game.

And LSU and Alabama are the two best teams.

The fact that Alabama lost to LSU should have no impact whatsoever on whether they play them again. Alabama lost by three points to the best team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked Iowa State.

OSU doesn't belong in the BCS Championship Game. They had their shot. They blew it.

You're a Bama fan, aren't you?

 

[davidl]

Monday, Big 12 athletic directors voted in a straw poll to get behind the idea of a plus-one format that would allow four teams to compete for the national title. Such a format would have allowed USC to play for the national title in 2003, Auburn to play for it in 2004, Texas to play for it in 2008 and Oklahoma State -- which finished behind No. 2 Alabama by the slimmest of margins in the BCS standings -- to play for the title this season. If the league's presidents choose to agree with their athletic directors, the Big 12's support would be a huge step forward. The Big 12 was one of several leagues that blocked SEC commissioner Mike Slive's 2008 proposal for a four-team, seeded tournament. The ACC was the only conference that supported the plan.

 

[Cythim]

Perhaps, but they made up much, much, more then that based on where they started from and where they are at today.

I did not assume anything. You may do that if you wish but the reality here is that you don't know if Bama or LSU can beat OSU because they have not played. You do, however, know that OSU had much more ground to make up in order to play for a NC then did Bama. Bama is ranked higher today only because they started so much higher. That initial ranking is based entirely on opinion and that is not proof.

The ground OSU made up in the polls is a direct result of other teams losing games. It is irrelevant to which team is better and deserves to be in the NC game. Bama is ranked higher because they are perceived to be the better team. You are making an assumption that initial ranking determines final ranking yet OSU was able to jump Stanford even though they started off ranked lower and Virginia Tech was ahead of OSU even though VT started the season ranked lower.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The ground OSU made up in the polls is a direct result of other teams losing games. It is irrelevant to which team is better and deserves to be in the NC game. Bama is ranked higher because they are perceived to be the better team. You are making an assumption that initial ranking determines final ranking yet OSU was able to jump Stanford even though they started off ranked lower and Virginia Tech was ahead of OSU even though VT started the season ranked lower.

This is a simple thing to solve. If Bama had started at #9 and OSU started at #2, would Bama have been able to overtake OSU?

 

[Cythim]

This is a simple thing to solve. If Bama had started at #9 and OSU started at #2, would Bama have been able to overtake OSU?

Yes, they would have.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes, they would have.

Even with the advantage in nearly all the areas that the rankings are supposedly built upon?

OSU has strength of schedule, strength of conference and an extra game played against a ranked opponent and a BCS Conference Championship over Bama.

If this statement is true, I don't think it's some wild assumption that OSU would be ranked ahead of Alabama.

The only real assumption is that the system isn't so flawed that it would ignore the foundations of it's existence by putting Alabama ahead of OSU.

You can't just say those are arguments for OSU getting a higher ranking if they had started out on equal terms because those are the arguments that the rankings are supposed to be based on.

Unless you want to claim that the BCS system is so disgustingly flawed and biased, there is no other conclusion.

 

[trickblue]

They aren't getting what they deserve. No one is in the flawed system. I think Alabama is the better team and I would enjoy seeing a matchup of Alabama(#2) vs. OSU(#3) in a playoff game that determines who plays against the winner of LSU(#1) vs. Stanford(#4). Then we would be getting what we deserve.

I would much rather argue which teams should be #4 than which ones should be #2.

Alabama had their shot... at home... they lost... case closed...

They don't deserve a second chance at the expense of other one loss teams...

 

[trickblue]

Had its shot?

So the Giants shouldn't have played the Patriots in the Super Bowl because they lost the Patriots at home on the final game of the 2007 season?

The BCS Championship Game is a game unto itself. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. The best teams are supposed to play in that game.

And LSU and Alabama are the two best teams.

The fact that Alabama lost to LSU should have no impact whatsoever on whether they play them again. Alabama lost by three points to the best team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked Iowa State.

OSU doesn't belong in the BCS Championship Game. They had their shot. They blew it.

Alabama HAD their shot... at home... and lost... why do they get two when other one-loss teams get none?

 

[Hoofbite]

Had its shot?

So the Giants shouldn't have played the Patriots in the Super Bowl because they lost the Patriots at home on the final game of the 2007 season?

The BCS Championship Game is a game unto itself. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. The best teams are supposed to play in that game.

And LSU and Alabama are the two best teams.

The fact that Alabama lost to LSU should have no impact whatsoever on whether they play them again. Alabama lost by three points to the best team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked Iowa State.

OSU doesn't belong in the BCS Championship Game. They had their shot. They blew it.

Two different scenarios.

The Giants beat all the other possible contenders in their conference. They weren't just handed a pass to the Superbowl, they won their way into the Superbowl.

 

[Cythim]

Two different scenarios.

The Giants beat all the other possible contenders in their conference. They weren't just handed a pass to the Superbowl, they won their way into the Superbowl.

How about losing twice to the Cowboys and getting a 3rd shot all or nothing? The NFL isn't "fair", but fans accept it the way it is. There lies the difference between the two.

 

[Hoofbite]

Alabama had their shot... at home... they lost... case closed...

They don't deserve a second chance at the expense of other one loss teams...

They deserve what previous #2 ranked teams have been afforded.

If they're the #2 in the land, they deserve a title shot regardless of what has previously happened.

Now, whether or not their #2 ranking is deserved is whole different issue and in light of seeing the fact that OSU had some stronger support for that #2 spot, I'm not sold Alabama did deserve that rank.

Personally, I never thought the previous game should have ended either team's title chance.

If #2 loses to #1, how can #2 be ranked any less than they previously were. They weren't beaten by lesser ranked team. Similarly, if #1 loses to #2 I don't see how #1 falls any further than #2.

In this respect, the system actually worked but the intent of it working is completely disingenuous. It worked not because people really believe that Alabama is unanimously the #2 but because that's what the BCS wanted. 2/3rds of the ranking is based on OPINION and LOYALTIES. I don't believe for one second that the voters act with the best intent.

 

[Hoofbite]

How about losing twice to the Cowboys and getting a 3rd shot all or nothing? The NFL isn't "fair", but fans accept it the way it is. There lies the difference between the two.

The NFL is as "fair" as anyone could ever make a system. It has no opinion, just records and outcomes.

I don't see why people are trying to compare a system based completely on performance and outcomes with a system that is nearly entirely based on popularity and perception.

Using the Cowboys as the example is pretty misguided. You'd be better off by citing the 11-5 Patriots who didn't make the playoffs or by citing last year when a 7-9 team went to the playoffs while two 10-win teams sat home.

And that's aside from the fact that the Giants WON THEIR WAY to the 3rd game with Dallas. They beat the Bucs and then went to Dallas.