LSU vs Alabama Part 2

[trickblue]

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.

Throw the rankings out... they are biased...

Alabama had LSU at HOME... and lost...

They should get in line for another shot...

 

[2much2soon]

This kinda went off the radar last year, but its back...

BCS lawsuit

 

[tyke1doe]

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

Why?

Because they're the second-best team in the nation, which should have beaten the No. 1 team in the nation.

Alabama didn't lose to the Iowa State's on its schedule. OSU had its chance by winning two games against two beatable teams. OSU didn't.

 

[tyke1doe]

Throw the rankings out... they are biased...

Alabama had LSU at HOME... and lost...

They should get in line for another shot...

They did get in line. After they lost, they "fell behind" other teams, who had the chance to take advantage of their schedule and vault to the front of the line.

Stanford had its chance. And they lost to Oregon.

Oregon had its chance. And they lost to USC.

OSU had its chance. And they lost to Iowa State.

So now Alabama gets its chance again.

 

[tyke1doe]

Well, wouldn't that be the same for OSU if they had vaulted over Alabama to play for the BCS Championship?

Your argument cuts both ways.

Be that as it may, I'll tell you why I raised the comparison. It's because that's the system we have to work with. And the BCS ranking is supposed to pit the No. 1 team vs. the No. 2 team in the country for the right to claim the National Championship.

If Alabama is No. 2 at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they lost to LSU in the regular season. The system that determines the two teams for the BCS Championship gave us Alabama and LSU, despite their having played previously, just as the NFL system gives us a means to pit the best two teams in respective conferences. It doesn't matter if the Cowboys played the Giants twice in the regular season. The playoff system is the process we use to determine who moves on and who goes home. So too does the BCS ranking.

 

[Hoofbite]

They did get in line. After they lost, they "fell behind" other teams, who had the chance to take advantage of their schedule and vault to the front of the line

Stanford had its chance. And they lost to Oregon.

Oregon had its chance. And they lost to USC.

OSU had its chance. And they lost to Iowa State.

So now Alabama gets its chance again.

This is a pretty cheesy "chance".

Go undefeated or don't even get a "chance".

Different standards for different schools.

If LSU, BAMA and OSU were all undefeated or 1-loss teams, OSU wouldn't go.

I think Bama would have jumped Boise if Boise were undefeated.

In one scenario, you have two 1-loss teams (one of which has weaker backing) getting the nod over another 1-loss team and in the other you have two 1-loss teams getting the nod over an undefeated.

All while currently putting a 1-loss over with weaker support over another 1-loss.

It's just foolish. The whole system. ABQ posted about OSU having better support for going but they aren't. It's basically disregarding the formula for the sake of getting the more desirable matchup.

It's a dishonest system at best and more likely a scheme to keep money, talent and power within the AQ conferences.

I can't believe such a flawed system is actually taken seriously.

However, as I have said I think Alabama rationally deserves to go because I don't think you can penalize a #2 for losing to #1. How do you penalize a team for losing (especially in the way they did) in a game they should be expected to lose? If Alabama was considered better than OSU, STAN and ORE before that week, how does losing to a team better than all of them change that opinion?

But, if you're going to use the "system" and claim it's legitimate, I don't think you can put Bama in if OSU truly has a stronger strength of schedule, more wins against ranked opponents and a conference title because the "system" is supposed to rank teams according to those aspects.

In this case, the BCS is hoarding their cake, eating it too and laughing at everyone else for not having any. They're selectively touting these aspects to knock on small schools and then selectively ignoring them to get the matchup they want.

I'm convinced the entire system was developed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. It's a scheme, they make no attempts to hide it and don't care if people know it.

 

[tyke1doe]

Had its shot?

Yes, had its shot. They beat Iowa State. They're in the BCS game.

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.

It does in this sense. The BCS is designed to pit No. 1 vs. No. 2. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. If No. 1 vs. No. 2 is the same matchup and the BCS rankings indicate so, then that's who plays for the BCS Championship.

The only point regarding the Giants and Pats is that the regular season match doesn't matter when it comes to the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl pits the best team from the AFC vs. the best team from the NFC. Whether one beat the other in the regular season is irrelevant in and of itself.

Therein lies the comparison.

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.

So? That's the system. Besides, the SEC is the better conference as suggested by, what, five national championships in a row. And Alabama had a top recruiting class. Of course, they're going to be ranked higher.

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.

But they didn't start the same. I don't see what relevance that has in this discussion. Teams must be ranked. That's part of the system.

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.

But we have to determine by some method who is better. And the way we do that is by the BCS ranking. Bama has one loss; OSU has one loss. Bama lost to the No. 1 team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked team now 6-6.

Based on the evidence we have available, we can say that Alabama is better than OSU.

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

I'm sorry. Where does it say in the BCS criteria that one must win a Conference Championship to play for the BCS Championships?

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

I've given you the only proof everyone else used to determine that Alabama should play LSU for the BCS championship.

 

[Hoofbite]

Well, wouldn't that be the same for OSU if they had vaulted over Alabama to play for the BCS Championship?

Your argument cuts both ways.

No it wouldn't be if OSU has the SOS, conference title and more ranked wins under it's belt.

Be that as it may, I'll tell you why I raised the comparison. It's because that's the system we have to work with. And the BCS ranking is supposed to pit the No. 1 team vs. the No. 2 team in the country for the right to claim the National Championship.

It's supposed to pit those teams based partly on a mathematical formula that doesn't watch the games or even care how the outcomes occurred, but only that they occurred. In such a situation, what we view on the field (and largely what people are basing their opinions on BAMA > OSU) shouldn't matter. And I'm not just talking about the computer polls. What rationale voter could look at these statistics and disregard them?

If Alabama is No. 2 at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they lost to LSU in the regular season. The system that determines the two teams for the BCS Championship gave us Alabama and LSU, despite their having played previously, just as the NFL system gives us a means to pit the best two teams in respective conferences. It doesn't matter if the Cowboys played the Giants twice in the regular season. The playoff system is the process we use to determine who moves on and who goes home. So too does the BCS ranking.

But the playoff system is consistent so you don't have to worry about someone getting jobbed. The rules are concrete regarding playoff berths and progression. At the beginning of the season, you know exactly what to do to get to the playoffs.

The BCS is completely the opposite in that the rankings are largely subjective and rarely consistent from team-to-team. At the beginning of the season, you have no clue what you have to do to get to the title game.

They really couldn't be any further apart in terms of legitimacy.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is a pretty cheesy "chance".

Go undefeated or don't even get a "chance".

Different standards for different schools.

Not cheesy at all. That's what's involved in a system of ranking.

If LSU, BAMA and OSU were all undefeated or 1-loss teams, OSU wouldn't go.

Right, because LSU and BAMA were ranked higher than OSU.

It's just foolish. The whole system. ABQ posted about OSU having better support for going but they aren't. It's basically disregarding the formula for the sake of getting the more desirable matchup.

It's a dishonest system at best and more likely a scheme to keep money, talent and power within the AQ conferences.

I can't believe such a flawed system is actually taken seriously.

Well, until it's changed, that's the system we work with.

However, as I have said I think Alabama rationally deserves to go because I don't think you can penalize a #2 for losing to #1. How do you penalize a team for losing (especially in the way they did) in a game they should be expected to lose? If Alabama was considered better than OSU, STAN and ORE before that week, how does losing to a team better than all of them change that opinion?

But, if you're going to use the "system" and claim it's legitimate, I don't think you can put Bama in if OSU truly has a stronger strength of schedule, more wins against ranked opponents and a conference title because the "system" is supposed to rank teams according to those aspects.

Because they lost to an unranked team, that's why. BAMA and OSU have to play who's on their schedule. But if you don't beat the teams you're supposed to, then you drop in the polls.

Had Alabama lost to a lesser team on their schedule, they would have dropped. And rightfully so.

Who you lose to is also considered in the overall ranking.

In this case, the BCS is hoarding their cake, eating it too and laughing at everyone else for not having any. They're selectively touting these aspects to knock on small schools and then selectively ignoring them to get the matchup they want.

I'm convinced the entire system was developed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. It's a scheme, they make no attempts to hide it and don't care if people know it.

Well, that's another argument. I think we should have a playoff among the top four teams. Until that time comes (which I think it will eventually) we have to go with the system we have.

 

[tyke1doe]

No it wouldn't be if OSU has the SOS, conference title and more ranked wins under it's belt.

But losing to an unranked team factors into the ranking also, which is why Alabama didn't drop too far after its loss to LSU.

It's supposed to pit those teams based partly on a mathematical formula that doesn't watch the games or even care how the outcomes occurred, but only that they occurred. In such a situation, what we view on the field (and largely what people are basing their opinions on BAMA > OSU) shouldn't matter. And I'm not just talking about the computer polls. What rationale voter could look at these statistics and disregard them?

You said partly. What's the other part? Human observation?

But the playoff system is consistent so you don't have to worry about someone getting jobbed. The rules are concrete regarding playoff berths and progression. At the beginning of the season, you know exactly what to do to get to the playoffs.

And OSU didn't know that it had to beat Iowa State to get into the BCS Championship Game?

Be that as it may, as long as you have a rating system (regardless if we go to a playoff system), you're going to have an element of "subjectivity" to the process. Assuming we go to a playoff system among, let's say, the best four teams. Do you think that the fifth-ranked team isn't going to make the same arguments or have the same complaints if it finishes with one loss and the other three teams above it finishes with one loss too?

The BCS is completely the opposite in that the rankings are largely subjective and rarely consistent from team-to-team. At the beginning of the season, you have no clue what you have to do to get to the title game.

They really couldn't be any further apart in terms of legitimacy.

That may be true, but I don't see where OSU can complain. They were ranked No. 2. They merely had to beat Iowa State and Oklahoma and they would be in the BCS Championship Game. They loss to Iowa State, an unranked team. Let me say that again. They loss to Iowa State.

Yet, Alabama loses by three points to the No. 1 team, and that in overtime. And they don't let LSU score a touchdown, an LSU team that has put up 40 plus on Oregon, Georgia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Auburn and Florida.

Alabama's loss is more impressive than OSU's loss to an unranked team.

 

[Cythim]

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.

How many teams does Alabama need to go through to win their way to a rematch? There is no system available when 120 teams are present that will allow for an outcome without opinion.

 

[Hoofbite]

How many teams does Alabama need to go through to win their way to a rematch? There is no system available when 120 teams are present that will allow for an outcome without opinion.

Yes, because the only option would be to include every college football team in the nation in a playoff system..........just as the NFL does.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, they would have.

And you can prove this because I am saying that they would not have. I am open to seeing how you justify your conclusion.

 

[CATCH17]

I'd be happy with just a plus 1.


My ideal situation would be an 8 team playoff or a 6 team playoff and the #1 and #2 ranked teams get a bye.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

It's completely fair. They won their way into the playoffs and in the playoffs, they won their way into the Championship and in the Championship, they won out. What is not fair about that? It is not as if they were voted into the Championship by an Eastern Heavy Voting Block.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'd be happy with just a plus 1.


My ideal situation would be an 8 team playoff or a 6 team playoff and the #1 and #2 ranked teams get a bye.

I agree. I think that would be a system the vast majority could buy into.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'd be happy with just a plus 1.


My ideal situation would be an 8 team playoff or a 6 team playoff and the #1 and #2 ranked teams get a bye.

That appears better but as long as you have a "ranking" system you're going to have controversy or claims of "unfairness."

Let's apply the same situation from this year. Should OSU get a bye or Alabama? How about Stanford since they have one loss also?

Does the complaint become because of an extra game, Alabama has an unfair advantage?

The system is better with a playoff. But I don't think the perceptions of "unfairness" disappear.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, had its shot. They beat Iowa State. They're in the BCS game.

I don't know what you are doing here. You are quoting your own quote and arguing it's content with yourself? I don't know. I will simply say that Bama had an opportunity to beat LSU and failed. They had their shot. OSU has not played LSU and they should get an opportunity to do so.

It does in this sense. The BCS is designed to pit No. 1 vs. No. 2. It doesn't matter if the teams played in the regular season. If No. 1 vs. No. 2 is the same matchup and the BCS rankings indicate so, then that's who plays for the BCS Championship.

There is no logical way that Alabama should be number 2.

Oklahoma State's opponents have a combined record of 81-63 (.563 winning percentage) this season. They played four teams that were ranked in the top 25 at the time of the game, and two of those games—Kansas State, Oklahoma—were against teams in the top 15.

Alabama's opponents combined for an 85-61 record (.582 winning percentage). However, when you take out the game against Georgia Southern, an FCS school, the record dwindles down to 75-59 (.560). Games against None D1 or D2A opponents are supposed to be penalized in the BCS rankings. At least, this was the story the BCS told in the past.

Last week the Tide received every second-place vote and 1,440 points, while Oklahoma State received 1,286 points.

This week, the Tide received 38 second-place votes and 1,418 points and the Cowboys got 22 second-place votes and 1,400 points. Two voters had Oklahoma State fourth.

If we are going to say that we must follow the rules and regs of the BCS, how do you vote OSU 4th? All points of reference, specific to who should be ranked higher (assuming Stanford is being voted 3rd), favor OSU. How is it that voters vote OSU 4th?

If you view this with no bias, OSU should be ranked 2nd over Alabama. That clearly is not happening.

The only point regarding the Giants and Pats is that the regular season match doesn't matter when it comes to the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl pits the best team from the AFC vs. the best team from the NFC. Whether one beat the other in the regular season is irrelevant in and of itself.

Therein lies the comparison.

The NFL or Superbowl doesn't matter at all. They have a playoff system, based on win/loss. There is no comparison at all.

So? That's the system. Besides, the SEC is the better conference as suggested by, what, five national championships in a row. And Alabama had a top recruiting class. Of course, they're going to be ranked higher.

This is not an accurate statement. The SEC is ranked slightly higher then the Big 12 this year but that is because of the human voting. The fact of the matter is that in almost all computer rankings, the Big 12 is ranked higher. It is a stronger conference but, because of the human voting leaning so heavily towards the SEC, the SEC is viewed as stronger. Again, this is all about bias and not about actual play on the field.

But they didn't start the same. I don't see what relevance that has in this discussion. Teams must be ranked. That's part of the system.

It's pretty simple. If you start at #2, you start with more points. If you start at #9, you have fewer points. In order for 9# reach 2, they must accumulate more points or make up more ground.

But we have to determine by some method who is better. And the way we do that is by the BCS ranking. Bama has one loss; OSU has one loss. Bama lost to the No. 1 team in the nation. OSU lost to an unranked team now 6-6.

Yeah, lets talk about that for just a second. Bama lost to LSU already. We already know who the better team is by virtue of play on the field. That's the way it's set up. OSU lost to ISU on the road in a double overtime game on a day when OSU suffers the loss of the Basketball Coach and staff members? You can discount this if you wish but I find it difficult to penalize OSU overly harsh. They lost a game they should have won under very difficult circumstances. LSU lost a game it could have won as well. To me, the stronger statement is the one LSU made. They beat Alabama on the road. OSU lost a game they should have won. If the goal is to create a matchup pitting the two best teams, then how can you say that Alabama should play LSU again? Basically, by saying Bama LSU, you are saying that nobody else is good enough. If you are making that statement without ever providing the chance to prove it on the field, then why are we even playing the games? Might as well crown the champ at the start of the season or after the first LSU/Bama game. This is the height of stupidity by the BCS IMO. It sends the wrong message IMO.

Based on the evidence we have available, we can say that Alabama is better than OSU.

Present the evidence because what I am seeing doesn't prove that at all.

I'm sorry. Where does it say in the BCS criteria that one must win a Conference Championship to play for the BCS Championships?

It says that it should be considered, by the fact that you are playing another game then the teams that have not advanced to a Conference Championship, theoretically facing another ranked opponent. For the record, I never said you had to play in a Conference Championship in order to play for a BCS title. That part is wordsmithing on your part. Find that quote from me and post it. I said that it is supposed to be considered which is true.

I've given you the only proof everyone else used to determine that Alabama should play LSU for the BCS championship.

You've given the only proof you can. I agree with that. However, it does not support Alabama's #2 ranking.

 

[Cythim]

Yes, because the only option would be to include every college football team in the nation in a playoff system..........just as the NFL does.

Right, because that is exactly what I was suggesting

 

[Hoofbite]

Right, because that is exactly what I was suggesting

Then what were you suggesting?