A Playoff Is Coming
by Year2 on Jan 10, 2012 11:04 AM EST
in SEC Football
Email
PrintIf I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: the SEC has won the current BCS system.
After Auburn got left out of the title game 2004, SEC partisans relentlessly pushed the idea that it was ludicrous to exclude the champion from the nation's best conference if it was one of the worthy candidates. The first big test of whether that politicking worked came two years later, when Florida edged by Michigan to get to go to Glendale. The Gators' blowout win over Ohio State cemented the point that was made. I thought at the time that the point was that "most deserving" won out over "best".
We saw this year that the point was "when in doubt, go with the SEC team". Alabama was the "best" argument to Oklahoma State's "most deserving", and the Cowboys ended up in the Fiesta Bowl. Alabama's dominant performance last night only further proved the point. No one disputed that LSU belonged in the game; now, almost no one disputes that the Crimson Tide is the rightful national champ.
Last night, the BCS system as we know it reached its logical conclusion. Sure, it depended on one crazy, random night in Iowa, but the point is clearer than ever. The system as presently constructed favors the SEC. When circumstances line up just right, the SEC can put two teams in the national championship game despite controversy. When the SEC does get two teams in the game, it can prove conclusively enough that the controversy was for naught and no one else really did belong after all. S-E-C, S-E-C, S-E-C, indeed.
That is why the system is going to change. It has to. It favors one conference disproportionately over the others.
What precisely the college football national championship is has evolved over the decades, gaining more importance with each passing year. The BCS, along with its predecessors the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, made it the primary focal point of the season in the most formal of ways. Gone are the days when different polls picked different champions and folks just focused on which one of them selected their team as best. College football has a two-team playoff, and it matters intensely who plays and wins in it.
The seismic shifts in the sport over the last year and a half are all about consolidating power and money across college football. The rest of collegiate sports are largely just along for the ride. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany might care most about preserving the Rose Bowl, but he's a part of a small and dwindling number of people like that. I would guess that a lot of his constituency cares more about the national championship than the Rose Bowl, which means that after a lot of rhetoric and posturing, he'll end up signing his conference on to a plus one.
The SEC and ACC have been on board with a plus one since 2008. The Big 12 is now up for it too. Larry Scott says he doesn't have an official opinion on one yet, but he's the least pro-status quo commissioner of them all. The Big East doesn't have the power to raise any serious opposition if it wanted to, and the non-AQ conferences are going to be for anything that gives them more money (as a playoff probably would) and keeps the power conferences from breaking off into their own division.
The BCS as we know it has two more years to live. The current contract runs out after the 2013-14 bowls. I feel more confident than ever in saying that after that point, college football will have a four-team playoff to end the season.
138 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The incredible (incredulous?) irony of the BCS meeting going on today
Is the quote that came out of it: “In what ever new system we design, we must retain the importance of the regular season”
Bull. Shit. The regular season didn’t mean a thing this year – the undefeated conference champion had to beat the SEC East team and then play the ostensible “Division Wild Card” to be crowned champion. Mockery. We’ve witnessed the high watermark of college football – the place where the wave broke and rolled back out.
I'm not going to a country that confuses itself with poultry. Never.
by Bourbon_Meyer on Jan 10, 2012 11:22 AM EST reply actions 5 recs
Couldn't agree more
The regular season was just about meaningless this year. If we have a 4-team playoff, it will have just as much meaning as it always had.
Hit me up on Google+
by jd is legend on Jan 10, 2012 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
ummmmmm you've been drinking haven't you?
Had Okie St not lost to a shitty Iowa St team after being up by 27 (i think) in the 3rd quarter we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And had Stanford not lost 2 games and Oregon not laid eggs and had Clempson not shit the bed and had VT not totally sucked and had Wisconsin not pissed themselves (do you see where I’m going with this?)
The regular season meant so much more this season. Probably more than any other. In a playoff, some of these teams that lost 2 games would get a shot at the title. Oh and so would have Alabama…You know that team that just took LSU to the woodshed. But to me a 2 loss team getting a shot is 100000 times worse than Alabama losing a game they should have won in the 1st place and due to the list of teams already mentioning wetting the bed, Bama got a chance to redeem themselves.
Go ahead and stand on the soap box and claim that last nights game was a travesty. I bet it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Lets be honest though, in the end no team, outside of Alabama, could have beaten LSU all season and no team in all of college football could have beaten Alabama last night.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
by bammer on Jan 10, 2012 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Getting the facts straight could only help your argument.
Had Okie St not lost to a shitty Iowa St team after being up by 27 (i think) in the 3rd quarter we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And had Stanford not lost 2 games and Oregon not laid eggs and had Clempson not shit the bed and had VT not totally sucked and had Wisconsin not pissed themselves (do you see where I’m going with this?)
Oklahoma St was up 17 and committed 4 turnovers to flip the score. (Echoes of what we saw last night with LSU: when they don’t win the turnover battle, their offense is actually kind of anemic.) Stanford only lost once in the regular season. Oregon didn’t lay eggs, they were beaten by arguably better teams in LSU and USC. Wisconsin losing to Ohio St was throwing up on itself a bit, but their other two losses were to Oregon, Pac-12 champion, and Michigan St., Big Ten runner-up and victor over the SEC runner-up.
Now, that may not make your argument wrong, but it’s a lot less clear cut than you’d like it to be.
I bet it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Lets be honest though, in the end no team, outside of Alabama, could have beaten LSU all season
See above. Did you know that the only teams LSU did not win the turnover battle against all season were Alabama (twice), Northwestern St., and Western Kentucky? They had a great team, to be sure, but it definitely puts their dominance in perspective. A lot of it was just chance.
and no team in all of college football could have beaten Alabama last night.
Sure would have been fun to see a team with an offense try. David Shaw still may have tried to let his kicker rather than the #1 draft pick win it, but both he and Gundy (and Kelly) would have actually provided a game.
by Nashville on Jan 11, 2012 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't buy the "let's see a team with an offense" argument.
LSU and Bama both averaged around 40 points per game this season (at least going into last nights game). Sure they weren’t pass happy or run cute looking plays or anything, but they got points on the board and the defense took care of business. It seems like people don’t think offenses aren’t good if they aren’t flashy. Sure LSU’s offense looked atrocious last night, but I’d say a pretty good bit of it had to do with Bama’s D. Sure Bama couldn’t get into the end zone very well, but I’ve got to give LSU credit for tightening up in the red zone area.
OSU might have scored some touchdowns, but LSU and Bama would have definitely put some points up on them, and there’s no way OSU would come close to their season averages against either team.
I thought it was pretty evident, especially after the OSU/Stanford game, that the top two teams were in the NC game.
See below abt top two teams vs two most deserving teams
There is no question that LSU and Alabama’s defenses ranked among the best in the country. Alabama’s was probably the best since USC 2008 and before that Miami 2001.
But you really couldn’t foresee a scenario in which Andrew Luck or Brandon Weeden caused some significant headaches for Alabama? I grant that LSU might have allowed some field goals where those teams would have allowed touchdowns on defense, but Alabama played such a light schedule this year that we really don’t have a clue how well it actually holds up against an elite offense. LSU’s offensive numbers were good on the year, but from the very first game of the year they relied heavily on turnovers and special teams points. It’s offense showed great numbers because it was constantly being set-up in great position.
No
because I don’t think either of their offensive lines could handle our pass rush, and Dre Kirkpatrick could reasonably take away Blackmon. Claiborne could too, though they may be the only ones.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
because I don’t think either of their offensive lines could handle our pass rush
Stanford’s two 1st round draft choices on the offensive line couldn’t handle Alabama’s pass rush?
My guess is that they would be two of the only teams that could handle Alabama’s rush, Stanford because of Luck + O-Line, Oklahoma St more so due to scheme. In 13 games, Stanford allowed 11 sacks and Oklahoma St allowed 12. I think they’d be all right.
Um LSU will probably put at least 2 OL in the draft this year as well...
And Stanford never EVER even came close to seeing a defense like Bama has all year. Closest was maybe and i say MAYBE USC.
And again you are forgetting Arkansas. A team that put up elite offensive type numbers all year…until they played Alabama.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
Fair point on LSU's OLine
Now…where would you say Jordan Jefferson ranks among QBs to be drafted? He doesn’t….Ohhh. Well then, that clarifies why it was so easy to get pressure on Monday night.
Stanford faced three teams who averaged more sacks a game than did Alabama: Oregon (.9), USC (.19), Cal (+.15). Andrew Luck, who called pretty much an NFL offense this season, was responsible for quarterbacking the offense with the fewest negative yardage plays in the country. He would have done just fine.
OSU may have been more of an issue, though probably not by much. They faced (and beat) two teams with more sacks/game than had Alabama: TAMU (1.61), OU (.77).
Arkansas was a very good team, but calling them an elite offense is a bit much. They scored 29 against KSU. Oklahoma St scored 52.
and they scored 14 on Bama...
Why are you only pointing to sacks? the amount of sacks a defense has is not indicative to their ability to pressure the QB. I know its a flashy number, like how many points you score per game, but that doesn’t mean your defense or offense was good.
And the fact that Alabama leads the country in pretty much EVERY major defensive category is all we need to show that the Bama D is head over heels better (thanks to the bro below) than any defense fielded by any team this year.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
No because I don’t think either of their offensive lines could handle our pass rush, and Dre Kirkpatrick could reasonably take away Blackmon. Claiborne could too, though they may be the only ones.
by J Tadpole on Jan 11, 2012 5:58 AM CST
I don’t make these things up you know.
the amount of sacks a defense has is not indicative to their ability to pressure the QB.
Please share with us some of your hidden QB pressure statistics. For the record, Arkansas let up 29 sacks on the year, which is more than 2x both Stanford and OkSt’s total.
And the fact that Alabama leads the country in pretty much EVERY major defensive category is all we need to show that the Bama D is head over heels better (thanks to the bro below) than any defense fielded by any team this year.
And if they had played more than one team that ranked in the top 85 in total offense this year we could get a better sense of just how valid a number that was.
being silly is fun ain't it? At least thats what my 3 year old says..i said pass rush...I said nothing about sacks.
I don’t make these things up you know.
Les Miles even admitted that he was afraid to put J. Lee into the game due to the amount of pressure JJ was under. So if LSU’s O-line was as good as Stanfords or OSU’s and we made their ass quit, what makes you think we wouldn’t do the same to Stanford or OSU? BTW teams who throw the ball a lot against Bama never win. go look at the stats on our last 4 loses….
Please share with us some of your hidden QB pressure statistics. For the record, Arkansas let up 29 sacks on the year, which is more than 2x both Stanford and OkSt’s total.
Go read any answer by Saban when he gets asked about sacks. The goal of the Bama D is to pressure the QB and force him to make a decision under duress. If we get the sack than great but that isn’t the goal of our D. YOu’ll see this same approach in the NFL. If you can force a QB to make a pass a second before he wants to or to a WR who isn’t open then you’ve done your job.
And if they had played more than one team that ranked in the top 85 in total offense this year we could get a better sense of just how valid a number that was.
And if OSU or Stanford had played more than one team that fielded a serviceable D this year we could get a better sence of just how valid a number that was..(see what I did there?)
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
To be perfectly accurate
You said pressure the QB. See, right here:
amount of sacks a defense has is not indicative to their ability to pressure the QB.
What I was responding to was J Tadpole’s comment, which I identified as such:
No because I don’t think either of their offensive lines could handle our pass rush, and Dre Kirkpatrick could reasonably take away Blackmon. Claiborne could too, though they may be the only ones.
by J Tadpole on Jan 11, 2012 5:58 AM CST
So if LSU’s O-line was as good as Stanfords or OSU’s
LSU’s OLine probably was not as good. They allowed 22 sacks on the year.
BTW teams who throw the ball a lot against Bama never win. go look at the stats on our last 4 loses….
Again, this is academic, but good thing Stanford is also a phenomenal rushing team
Go read any answer by Saban when he gets asked about sacks. The goal of the Bama D is to pressure the QB and force him to make a decision under duress.
That’s a fair point. And it’s useful to keep in mind when evaluating sacks recorded by Alabama. But neither Stanford nor OkSt played Alabama so it’s not much use for evaluating the relative strength of their OLines against defenses that may be very concerned about recording sacks. And again, the QBs we are talking about are well, well above replacement.
And if OSU or Stanford had played more than one team that fielded a serviceable D this year we could get a better sence of just how valid a number that was..(see what I did there?)
I think you thought that by simply replacing words you were showing me up. But, I actually cited a statistic, so for your reversal to be true you would need to be able to demonstrate Stanford/OkSt did not play more than a single defense ranked in the top 85. I’ll let you check it out: www.cfbstats.com
How many top 25 defenses did they play?
Imma hang up an lissen.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Depends which Stats.
just looking at the Big XII and Pac-12 members, Oklahoma State’s best opponents on defense were Stanford, Texas and Oklahoma.
Stanford 21.9 Points/Game (30th) 88.38 yds/game (4th)
Oklahoma 22.1 points/game (31st) 376.2 yds/gm (55th)
Texas 22.2 points/game (33rd) 306.11 yards/game (11th).
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure where you're getting that 88.38 y/game for Stanford
When I look, I see they allowed 341/game on 5.45/play which is good enough for 28th in total defense and 59th in YPP defense.
I had too many tabs open for checking different categories.
that’s my bad. You are correct.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
That's ok though.
Because Mississippi State is 84, LSU is 86 and Arkansas is 29.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Well...
Number one, I didn’t beg a question but that’s a common misuse of the phrase. To answer your question, five if you look at total defense by yards allowed, five in points allowed, and four if you prefer S&P+. I only counted LSU once in those calculations.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Would it help if I highlighted what my actual question was?
How many Top 25 Offenses did Alabama play?
The answer is none on the basis of total offense and one on the basis of scoring offense.
Yards per play
still has padded stats in it. S&P+ doesn’t.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Which category in Total Offense are you using?
Points/Game? avg yards per game?
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
What total offense ranking?
Pure yards per game? Awful metric. Lots of teams pad stats against patsies. That’s why I like the efficiency metrics that remove garbage time and adjust for opponent strength.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Is 85 a typo? Because every SEC West team but Ole Miss ranked better than 85 in Yards/Game.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Top 85 positions in total offense
It’s a bit of an argument tactic to cut it off at 85th because LSU was 86th. But that doesn’t weaken my point much.
And which of their receivers
would be able to get open against us? Arkansas has four guys projected to play in the NFL , and LSU has the Randle/Shepard/Beckham combo. Neither team could get open against Bama.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
how many catches and for how many yards did all those players
from both teams have combined against Alabama? I bet it ain’t much.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
Too lazy to add up individual numbers
but Bama gave up only 209 yards passing and 5.1 YPA to Arkansas (they average over 300 and 8.3), and LSU threw for 144 yards total in two games for a whopping 4.2 YPA.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
I don’t think Tyler Wilson is quite at Andrew Luck’s level, or even Brandon Weeden’s, which is the most critical piece.
I am getting a bit off track here in that there is no scenario in which an Oklahoma St vs Alabama game would have occurred unless a +1 existed. Although I enjoy the what if scenarios, I just want to reiterate that the only claim I’ll defend to the end is that Oklahoma St was a more deserving candidate for Monday’s game than was Alabama based on the evidence of the season.
The offense/defense comparisons above are just marginal discussions around the central issue.
again this is a total BS statement
I just want to reiterate that the only claim I’ll defend to the end is that Oklahoma St was a more deserving candidate for Monday’s game than was Alabama based on the evidence of the season.
Each team had one loss…Okie St to #90something Iowa St and Alabama to #1 LSU
Take everything else out of the equation and there is no logical statement that could be made where OSU “deserved” a damn thing over Alabama.
You can point to all the supposed ranked teams that OSU played but none of those teams were anywhere near the caliber of LSU and Bama played them twice..
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
So from your
Each team had one loss…Okie St to #90something Iowa St and Alabama to #1 LSU
So, from your perspective, OkSt and Alabama were both 0-1 on the year. Which is why the only thing we need to consider is to whom they lost.
I’m more interested in the 11 wins.
Take everything else out of the equation and there is no logical statement that could be made where OSU "deserved" a damn thing over Alabama.
This is emotion, not logic.
You can point to all the supposed ranked teams that OSU played but none of those teams were anywhere near the caliber of LSU and Bama played them twice..
And lost the first time. During the regular season. When it’s supposed to count.
So, from your perspective, OkSt and Alabama were both 0-1 on the year. Which is why the only thing we need to consider is to whom they lost.
I’m more interested in the 11 wins.
OHHHH so you don’t want to look at stats that don’t support your argument. Well played. Sure we can compare wins. The problem is no matter the ranking you put in front of Texas, OU, K-state or Baylor that doesn’t mean they were a quality team. All those won by offense. Bama actually plays both Offense AND defense. An ananomly to Big 12 teams.
Bama didn’t play very tough schedule but the teams we played we destoryed..Something that can not be said for OSU.
This is emotion, not logic
Um no it’s logic. If both teams have identical records you look at both wins AND loses. I’ve already compared wins and I don’t see that big of a decided advantage to OSU. If you compare loses though OSU has a laughable claim to the NC game.
And lost the first time. During the regular season. When it’s supposed to count
It did count but OSU and everyone else didn’t (couldn’t) hold serve. All they had to do was win….against piss poor competition. Don’t like it? Go bitch to Gundy and ask him how he lost to IOWA ST after being up by 17? Bama on the other hand won when everyone else decided to shit the bed.
Monday night Alabama proved to the world it was the best team. We lost a game we shouldn’t have…So did OSU but sorry bros..Your loss trumps all your “wins” combined.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
HAHAHA
The offense/defense comparisons above are just marginal discussions around the central issue.
the only claim I’ll defend to the end is that Oklahoma St was a more deserving candidate for Monday’s game than was Alabama based on the evidence of the season.
Read: I’ll continue to believe what I want to believe regardless of any logic to the contrary. I will refuse to acknowledge that the SEC #3 solidified Bama’s argument by beating the B12 #2 much more soundly than Oklahoma State did. I will continue to believe that one point wins are as hood as 20 point wins. Now leave me alone.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Read: I’ll continue to believe what I want to believe regardless of any logic to the contrary. I will refuse to acknowledge that the SEC #3 solidified Bama’s argument by beating the B12 #2 much more soundly than Oklahoma State did. I will continue to believe that one point wins are as hood as 20 point wins. Now leave me alone.
Read: I have difficulty separating arguments regarding what could have actually occurred from arguments that concern hypothetical scenarios.
Real Argument: Oklahoma St and Alabama were vying for the second spot in the MNC game. OSU had in its corner: a conference championship, an equivalent record against a better schedule, an 0-0 record against its possible opponent. Alabama had in its corner: an 0-1 record where they tried real hard against its possible opponent and…yep that was pretty much its only argument.
Not Real Argument: Oklahoma St or Stanford have offense enough to challenge Alabama’s defense.
Clear on all that now?
The second discussion, though academic, is of interest to me. But I don’t care that much because the answer to it would not totally destroy the legitimacy of the CFB BCS bowl process. The way the first one was answered has.
What?
So opponent-adjusted advanced statistics don’t matter, but winning a conference that didn’t have either of the two statistically best teams in it does.
Alabama had in its corner: an 0-1 record where they tried real hard against its possible opponent and…yep that was pretty much its only argument.
So, we are ignoring that Alabama has by far the single best win as well as the best loss. Kansas State came within an eyelash of winning the conference in Stillwater on 11/5, the same day that LSU squeaked out their upset to claim the conference. Arkansas just smoked K-State on a neutral field. They also beat TAMU by a hair more than Okie State did. Two games against common opponents should be enough to demonstrate that Arky is at least as good (actually better in this case) as Okie State if we’re ignoring stats, shouldn’t it? Since Bama and LSU each beat Arkansas by exactly 24 points each, it’s obvious that Bama and LSU must be appreciably better than Okie State.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
You're not clear on what you are arguing
You keep citing things that indicate that Bama’s team is the best. I haven’t really disputed that (in fact I said the same when I pointed out that they’d be favored against, probably, anyone) except to say that it has been inflated by playing a pretty weak schedule and that there are several possible +1 opponents out there who are hardly shrinking violets and who are actually capable of challenging Bama’s D.
The argument between Alabama and OkSt in the National Championship game is not an argument between two equally accomplished conference champions, only one of whom can be chosen. It’s an argument between someone who lost their division and conference and a team who didn’t. Bama’s candidacy would make sense if there were no suitable alternatives. There were.
by Nashville on Jan 11, 2012 1:15 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Except the rules are specifically written
to allow TWO teams from the conference to play in the game with neither winning their conference, the only possible way to get three SEC teams in. Doesn’t seem that the ones who wrote the rules gave a damn about conference titles.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
I can't believe I missed this the first time through.
So, we are ignoring that Alabama has by far the single best win as well as the best loss
What are you talking about? Prior to the bowl games OSU had several superior wins. Alabama’s best was Arkansas and then….Penn St? Vanderbilt? Florida? OSU had OU, K-State, Baylor, Texas, etc.
Arkansas just smoked K-State on a neutral field. They also beat TAMU by a hair more than Okie State did. Two games against common opponents should be enough to demonstrate that Arky is at least as good (actually better in this case) as Okie State if we’re ignoring stats, shouldn’t it?
Including wins that occurred after bowl selection took place are not additive to the discussion of which team, based on their performance in the regular season, deserved to be in the National Championship game.
Nonetheless, I would certainly expect to see OSU favored if they played Arkansas.
Kansas State came within an eyelash of winning the conference in Stillwater on 11/5, the same day that LSU squeaked out their upset to claim the conference.
Read: Yes yes, I know Oklahoma St won on the same day Alabama lost. On field results aren’t nearly as important as the narrative, however, so we’ll just keep pushing that along.
Sorry.
Prior to the bowl games OSU had several superior wins.
The 24 point win over Arkansas was by far the best win between the two teams. Arkansas finished the regular season ranked higher than anyone Okie Lite beat. The closest OSU came to that win was either the Baylor or Oklahoma games (whichever three loss team you find more appealing- the one that got blown out by TAMU or the one that lost to TTU), or the nail biter over KSU.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Actually, the closest Bama came to OSU's best win
Was beating Arkansas by 24. The final computer poll had Ark at 5 and OU at 7. I’d say the 10 point margin in favor of OSU does more than enough to make up the difference.
Which computer poll?
There are more than one, you know. And anyone who thinks that Oklahoma team minus Broyles is the seventh best team in the country, well, I’d like some of what they’re smoking.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Well
I guess it’s a good thing we have human voters that actually consider margin of victory, etc. to restore some order. Besides, we can use hindsight bias in this case because we are deciding whether or not to vindicate the voters who voted Bama in. Based on the fact that Bama stomped LSU, Arky stomped K State, and Okie State barely beat Stanford (who was stomped by Oregon who was stomped by LSU) I’d say the right decision was made. I’m not a huge believer in transitive stuff, but I think after all the dust has settled we know the following:
Bama>LSU
LSU>Oregon
Oregon>Stanford
Stanford=Okie St.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Here's another victory chain for you
Oklahoma St > Oklahoma
Oklahoma > Iowa St.
!= Iowa St > Oklahoma St.
Which clearly means that we witnessed something impossible on 11/5. Or maybe that’s just the approximate worth of a victory chain.
Likewise, to believe that LSU is definitively better than Oregon you need to believe that they will have a +3 turnover margin every time. If you think there’s any chance that won’t happen, you need to look at stats beyond just the score, in which you find that Oregon statistically outplayed LSU, both at the half, and at the end of the game, though they were very closely matched.
Yeah
because turnovers are accidental. LSU dominated that category all year. Look, I’m done with this. You have admitted that you believe Bama to be better than Okie State but less deserving of a spot in the title game. So essentially, you would have preferred to see two lesser teams play for a title while the best team sat out. Keep on shoveling that shit, maybe you’ll drown.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
I would have preferred the selection process, the regular season, to work as intended
because turnovers are accidental
Yeah. Hey since you’ve figured everything else out why not tell us why LSU didn’t hit the turnover button on Monday night? You love yourself some advanced stats so maybe you should spend a bit more time on Football Outsiders googling ‘fluck,’ or Fumble Luck.
Turnovers are like football leverage. Relying on them introduces the potential for extreme rewards, but as soon as that margin is called and the TO battle flips, you sink real quick, e.g. Monday night, the first time LSU didn’t win the TO battle or at least break even against an AQ team.
So essentially, you would have preferred to see two lesser teams play for a title while the best team sat out.
Well. Yeah. It’s not my fault the (likely) best team dirtied its diapers during the one game in its season that mattered. Take your medicine and get better for next year.
Keep on shoveling that shit, maybe you’ll drown.
I’m sure I’ll be able to find a Bama grad to get me out. I’ll just tell him Bear Bryant’s fedora Nick Saban’s polo shirt is somewhere in there.
Look, I’m done with this.
I’m sorry that I have to do my job and can’t throw up an answer in real time to every single thing that you post.
Have a nice night.
worse bed shitting wetting or whatever you want to call it?
OSU losing to Iowa St or Bama losing to LSU?
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
There are two ways to look at it
The way that favors Alabama is that Oklahoma St is (should be) such an obviously superior team to Iowa St that losing to them is, basically, disqualifying.
The way that favors Oklahoma St. is that LSU was so clearly the only game between Bama and the SEC / National Title games due to deference to the SEC that it was virtually a single game season, and if you can’t win the only game that matters in the regular season, then you don’t belong in the most prestigious postseason bowl.
Their losses are just one half of the equation, and so I hate to consider it in isolation especially with respect to the titles, honors that OkSt did accrue. I don’t do that, which is why I have no trouble arguing for OkSt. But if I did, I would have to concede that OkSt’s loss was worse.
OK State was number 1 in Turnover Margin.
And LSU was number do. But, LSU only turned the ball over 10 times I believe, while OK State gave up 23. Eventhough OK State did a great job all year, I expect them to break even or cough it up one more time than LSU.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
Which of your d-backs
Could cover both Stanford’s TEs and receivers?
LBs are Bama’s clearest strength. OkSt’s scheme would take at least one off of the field, or risk having an LB cover a WR.
When the QB is as accurate as Luck or Weeden, you don’t necessarily need to be “open” to make a reception.
by Nashville on Jan 11, 2012 12:15 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Seriously, have you ever seen Bama play defense?
We have the best defensive back field in the country. Only LSU’s can compare. Barron can cover TE’s and WR’s. CJ Mosely is our cover LB in the nickel. Dre would take away your #1 WR. Our base D is a 3-4 but we play a lot of nickel and Dime packages. Our Defense is designed to stop the run from the inside out on early downs, and force offenses into 3rd and longs. We mix up coverages with man to man and zone. What Okie St saw most of the year was nothing close to the looks that bama would show them.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
Have you ever heard of Dre Kirkpatrick?
If not, watch the beginning of the NFL Draft in April. You won’t have to watch for long.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
If he can cover three players at once
Then he deserves every $ he’ll receive. But until he does that, I’ll ask you again, “which of your d-backs could cover both Stanford’s TEs and receivers?” Remember, they line-up in a three TE set with one WR all the time. In fact, 20-25% of their offense runs out of that.
Well
we also have DeQuan Menzie, who will be drafted as well (right now projected around the third), Robert Lester who led the NCAA in INTs last year, Mark Barron who is a first team All-American and first round prospect, and Demarcus Milliner who was a five star in his own right and will be looking to show NFL scouts he can be the number one guy next year. Your delusion is amusing- Arkansas and LSU have much better receivers than you do.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
First, I am not Stanford. Or Oklahoma St.
Second, we, meaning you and I, are not discussing Arkansas or LSU’s receivers.
Third, Arkansas’ OL was significantly worse than was Stanford’s and Oklahoma St’s. This is visible not just in sacks allowed but also in Rushing Yds and RYPA.
Finally, and this is why you need to check some of your confidence until the game is actually played (I wish!), Tyler Wilson (or Jordan Jefferson) is not even close to Andrew Luck or Brandon Weeden. He completed fewer passes at a lesser rate for fewer yards per attempt than did either of the other two.
Bullshit.
Tyler Wilson is not as different from those two as you would like to believe. Kid will be a very solid NFL prospect when he comes out. Tweeden especially is a product of a system and Blackmon.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
exactly..
Put Wilson, AJ, Brantly, or Murray in a pass happy spread offense like OSU and they would put up HUGE numbers. All QB’s in those systems do. Its also why most typically fail miserably in the NFL or never get drafted at all.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
No.
Weeden attempted over 10 passes more per game than did Wilson. Despite this, he had both a higher completion % and higher YPA than did Wilson.
Luck attempted about the same number of passes but had a significantly higher completion % and YPA.
Weeden:
Comp %: 72.3
YPA: 8.4
Att/G: 43.4
Wilson:
Comp %: 63.2
YPA: 8.3
Att/G: 33.7
Luck:
Comp %: 71.3
YPA: 8.7
Att/G: 31.1
or better put...
have you ever heard of a QB playing within a offensive system that allows him to make a lot plays, pad the stats but hes actually not a very good QB?
I can name a ton of QB’s that fit this definition and im sure that Tweededn fits this bill.
Now Luck is a great QB and is better than Wilson. But you act as if Wilson is some POS QB who can’t throw…which he isnt.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
I think Weeden is better than a simple system QB, but I’ll add that Wilson is much closer to him than he is to Luck.
I view the difference as between elite and just very good. Having a completion % that is 9 basis points better while also maintaining a higher YPA on a benchmark that is itself quite high is really, really difficult to do.
Moreover, it’s not like Oklahoma St was passing on 70% of its plays. It averaged 60% pass compared to Arkansas’ 53% pass. (Stanford was 44.6% pass.) So the OkSt “system” is not quite the Air Raid.
Me too.
I view the difference as between elite and just very good.
Bama is elite, OSU is very good.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Have you watched any Big XII football in the past few years?
Outside of Texas (this year) and Oklahoma (on average) what the Big XII teams calls defense is a vanilla nickel zone then have the DBs try to break on the floated passes to either break them up or pick them off. The pass numbers are greatly blown out of proportion when comparing an offense from the SEC to that of the Big XII.
If Wilson or Murray (GA) were playing vs Big XII teams they would have larger pass numbers. In the Cotton Bowl, Arkansas did play a Big XII team that is one of the better Big XII defensive teams and Wilson had a better completion pct. The Hogs were able to run on KSU so they didn’t have to pass as much as vs SEC teams.
"I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."
In the Cotton Bowl, Arkansas did play a Big XII team that is one of the better Big XII defensive teams and Wilson had a better completion pct. The Hogs were able to run on KSU so they didn’t have to pass as much as vs SEC teams.
Just want to make clear that you have acknowledged they’re among the better Big XII defenses.
Here are Wilson and Weeden’s respective stats for their games against K-State. I’m not going to include raw yardage because that is distorted by offensive philosophies. (Also, as many others have insisted, Wilson compiled this record throwing to better receivers than did Weeden):
Wilson:
Att: 31
Comp %: 64.5 (which is an improvement on the season)
YPA: 7.0 (which is not an improvement on the season)
Weeden:
Att: 46
Comp %: 78.3 (which is also an improvement on the season)
YPA: 10.9 (also an improvement on the season)
So, same defense. Weeden has a completion % that is 14 percentage points higher while averaging 3.9 more YPA, which if you’re counting is >50% more than Wilson’s YPA.
In fact, Wilson, throwing to better receivers keep in mind, managed a completion % above 70% just twice: Southwestern Missouri State and Mississippi St.
Weeden performed the feat seven times: Arizona, Tulsa, TAMU, Kansas, K. State, Texas Tech, Iowa St.
These stats do not do much to prove that Weeden and Wilson are equal talents. With another year, Wilson might indeed grow into similar numbers, but since we’re talking about this year’s teams, I don’t think there’s much doubt about whom you’d want under center.
Good points.
It doesn’t change that Weeden and Ok State outperformed against K State when compared to Arkansas. But I would point that Kansas State is ranked 102nd against the pass. and 72nd in Total Defense. Weeden also had a higher rating depsite throwing 2 interceptions.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 13, 2012 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
True true
If he wanted, he could also point to the game against their other common opponent TAMU, who tied for 14th in the country in YPP defense. Wilson looks better in that comparison, though not enough to make up the gap.
He had a 58.8% completion rate but 10.0 YPA on 51 attempts. Weeden, by contrast, had a 78.3%(!) completion rate but only a 7.3 YPA on 60 attempts, which makes a bit more sense given his astronomical completion %.
This game is also a good comparison point because of how both teams had to come back to win. Wilson’s QB rating is better, but if memory serves, this is the game where Blackmon was walking into the end zone and then proceeded to fumble it out the back for a touchback. That additional touchdown on Weeden’s statsheet would probably have made up the difference.
Interesting
that you are not posting any comments on post on the stats about Alabama’s defense.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 13, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Okay
I read the post.
I think what I like most about Year2’s analysis there is that he didn’t restrict his survey of defenses to National Championship outfits. As I said somewhere else on this thread, USC’s 2008 defense was just about as dominant as Alabama’s. I think they went into their Rose Bowl game allowing about 7 ppg (against a more difficult schedule than Alabama played: 4 ranked teams, including #10 Oregon, whom they held to only 10 points and #9 tOSU to 3 points) and through three quarters had held Penn St’s #4 or #5 offense to 7 points.
All of that said, it wasn’t enough to give them an undefeated season nor even a shot at the National Championship. Nor even the #1 total defense (though they had a better YPP avg than TCU, who was #1) or #1 rushing defense, both of which Alabama achieved this year.
But if you were interpreting my criticisms of Alabama’s selection to play LSU with criticism of their defense or overall ability, I can assure you that I wasn’t.
Yeah I am in agreement with you there.
It’s really the completeness of Alabama’s strengths that are overwhelming. I would like to have seen Oklahoma State against LSU or even Alabama in a plus 1 format, but they are both so good. Alabama does have a pulse on offense. They aren’t great, but LSU was able to tighten up and keep them out of the end zone most of the night. I would have been really interesting to see LSU or Alabama vs OK State, or Stanford.
But I would imagine that he result would be a bit more like LSU-Oregon or LSU-WVU.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 16, 2012 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
Got to Agree with Tadpole that Tyler Wilson is a pretty good QB.
Also, when you lose your best RB, Knile Davis, rushing stats are going to slump slightly.
Look, Stanford or Ok State may have better Offensive lines, but I do think Tyler Wilson is a really good QB.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 11, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and
LSU and Arkansas receivers are relevant to the discussion since they are better than Stanford’s and , y’know, you’re asking who’s going to cover them. Hint: if Bama covered receivers better than youre, they would cover yours too.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
OK...
To match that offensive set Bama would probably match it with a base 3-4 look. Which is perfect for us. CJ Mosely and Mark Barron would probably match up with the top two TE’s while Dre Kirkpatrick would be man on man with the WR with Lester over the top. The third LB would be picked up by Jarrel Harris our other cover LB. This leaves out Mike LB and Jack LB plus possibly another CB to either play run, blitz or even play zone coverage…
Any questions?
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
You know
they couldn’t run with Stanford’s honkies.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Tongue in cheek comments are always appreciated
Of course the risk for Bama fans isn’t that Ertz, Toilolo, and Fleener would outrun Kirkpatrick, et al., but simply that they’d give them a piggyback ride all the way to paydirt.
Three 6’6"+ players who can block, catch, run, earn YAC, and after contact would be a big problem for DBs, no matter how talented. And assuming Owusu was healthy, no certain thing this year, there would be a threat over the top. Which is to completely ignore the 1,300 yard rusher running behind one of the country’s best OLs. And the QB who can completes passes even when the receivers are ‘covered.’
Again, not to take anything away from Alabama’s historically good defense, but it is a real shame they weren’t tested more than once.
By the way
I think you may be severely overrating Stanford’s offense and their team as a whole. Oklahoma State fares better in those lists, but still falls behind Bama and LSU on the overall rating because their defense isn’t championship level.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
that awkward moment when stats and logic completely destroy your argument.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
The funny thing is
that if you look at those stats, AJ McCarron may be one of the most criminally underrated players in college football this year.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Oklahoma St was up 17 and committed 4 turnovers to flip the score. (Echoes of what we saw last night with LSU: when they don’t win the turnover battle, their offense is actually kind of anemic.) Stanford only lost once in the regular season. Oregon didn’t lay eggs, they were beaten by arguably better teams in LSU and USC. Wisconsin losing to Ohio St was throwing up on itself a bit, but their other two losses were to Oregon, Pac-12 champion, and Michigan St., Big Ten runner-up and victor over the SEC runner-up.
Oregon losing two games is laying eggs..If you deserve a shot a National Championship you win at least one of those games. If you don’t? so sorry…
Wisky lost to a overhyped Mich St team and Ohio St. ’nough said.
Again, had Okie St not completely shitted, pissed AND thrown up all over themselves against lowly Iowa St then all this talking back and forth about who deserved a shot wouldn’t be. You can’t lose at home to #1092029033848, while up 17 and actually think you deserve a shot over a team that also lost at home but to the #1 team in the country. Those two things are not equal.
See above. Did you know that the only teams LSU did not win the turnover battle against all season were Alabama (twice), Northwestern St., and Western Kentucky?
So before the game everyone was hailing LSU as maybe the greatest team ever in college football…Bama goes in and beats the ever loving shit out of them and now it was just chance? Sorry man that doesn’t compute. No one wants to admit just how good this Bama team really was. We lost a game. So the Eff what? Tebow and UF lost to Ole Miss in ’08 but no one takes anything away from them. The first game in Nov should have been a blowout just like every other game Bama played in. Thems the truths..
Sure would have been fun to see a team with an offense try. David Shaw still may have tried to let his kicker rather than the #1 draft pick win it, but both he and Gundy (and Kelly) would have actually provided a game.
Says who? Alabama completely shut down Arkansas ( a team that put up HUGE numbers against the better Big 12 D’s) and made them look like little girls..LSU firmly look care of Oregon..They may have scored a few TD’s but lets be honest neither of those teams defenses would have been able to stop Bama. Trent would have ran for 200+ and we would have scored 40.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
Something about rules
Unless they restrict the coming playoff to conference champs, it won’t be long before the SEC has two (or maybe even three) teams in the playoff, and then the moaning of the also-rans will start up all over again.
I’d say that it’s not so much that the BCS “favors” the SEC as that it reveals the superiority of the conference.
At least things will get settled in that system
We just don’t know now. Seems easy to say that Okie St wouldn’t have been able to manage against Bama or LSU, but no one gave the Gators a shot against Ohio St in ’06 either, and, well 41-14.
I'm not going to a country that confuses itself with poultry. Never.
by Bourbon_Meyer on Jan 10, 2012 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
With Trent Richardson,
Alabama would have scored at will on Okie State’s meager defense.
And if you can even show a glimmer of a doubt that Alabama’s defense is the best, then you’re deluded.
by Durdens Wrath on Jan 10, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Don't try to argue with trolls
it only encourages them…
"Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body."
― Seneca
as a person who is neutral
I think you need to reassess what a troll is. Debating an issue with facts and opinion isn’t trolling.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 10, 2012 6:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
No doubt.
Bourbon makes a point (a good one in my opinion) with out insulting any person or team in any way shape of form, but because his opinion differs from Durden or NJbammer, he is a deluded troll?
by Jumpn_JackFlash on Jan 10, 2012 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
Even with a four-team playoff...
At the end of the regular season, the BCS top four were LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Stanford, which would have left out Oregon, who had won the Pac-12 and BEATEN STANFORD. Every system leaves someone out who “deserves” to be there, or at least can make a case for it.
"You play fast! You play strong! You go out there and dominate the man you're playing against, and you make his ass quit! That's our trademark! That's our M.O.... as a team! That's what people know us as!" - Coach Nick Saban before the 2008 LSU game.
by 12NationalChampionships on Jan 10, 2012 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
there it is folks...
lets just go to 8 teams..no wait that means some lowly Boise St type school will get left…So lets go 16 that way Clempson or whoever may be the ACC champs get their shot too…Cause you know we’ve become a society where being fair and right are opposites. Lets do this…lets hand out trophies to every team. We can have the “Most improved” “Best Attitute” and the “Tried Really Hard” trophy given to the Big East champs..That way everyone wins!!!
Point is if you go +1 some one will bitch. I say keep it as it is cause guess what Its working. Alabama was the best team. It was obvious. You may not like how we got there but it doesn’t change the fact Alabama was head over heels better than everyone else.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
by bammer on Jan 10, 2012 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think you should look up when "head over heels" is used
You probably mean head and shoulders….
In all kinds of weather we'll all stick together
no worries
I’m sure “head over heels” is an accurate way to describe how Bama fans feel about that team!
In all kinds of weather we'll all stick together
If you're going to do it...
You have to include EVERY conference champion… it helps reward teams for a great regular season by giving them an easier game, and actually gives everyone a theoretical chance.
Plus 1
that’s as far as this whole playoff notion should go in College Football or else let’s just go ahead and hand it over to the National Wussy League and complain about how football keeps getting more and more suck
Brent Pease for UF!
I agree,
If people can honestly say a plus 1 is where is stops, ok. But how long before we are at 8 teams because the year before the 5th best team got left out and cryed all the way home. So, now we move it to 16 and more people can now stick their hands in the cookie jar that has become a college basketball playoff for college football.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
If you believe they can keep the system as-is indefinitely, then they sure can keep the new system as only a four-team playoff indefinitely. If you don’t think they can keep any particular system set indefinitely, then things were never going to remain as they are anyway.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Wait, so
are you saying that an 8 team or 16 team playoff is coming? I’m no sure I follow?
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
It would be nice to have football from September to January 1st without the month-long break
so I’ll take a 16 team playoff. I’ve said it before, either do something with the non-AQs that allows them a chance, or break them out of the system.
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Jan 10, 2012 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
So it would just be the 16 teams playing after the season is over?
One of the main arguements i’ve seen for a 16 playoff is it allows non-conference champs another chance. I don’t care either way because i’m not sure how I feel about a playoff and my team came out on the plus side in this case.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
There'd probably be a splinter system
kinda like the NIT to the NCAA tourney. It might be bowls, it might be its own little tournament. But yeah, I’m fine with just the conference champs + a few at larges and 4 weeks of playoff football.
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Jan 10, 2012 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
There will always be someone unhappy because there team gets left out.
I don’t think it’s far that the big 12 doesn’t play a conference championship game but yet who ever is declared champion gets a few more weeks to prep and one less week to worry about injuries.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
Meh, Bama just won the BCS championship without winning their conference
any rule requiring a conference championship would also need to require that the teams playing in the title game actually won their conference championship, which would auto-disqualify our current national champions. Although that would be troll-worthy enough for an entire decade of Finebaum, I don’t think that is a good direction for the BCS to turn to in its tweaking.
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Jan 10, 2012 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
Why would the rules act retro-actively?
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
It wouldn't, but it would keep a future situation like this year from happening
Also, it would be known as the “Bama rule”, which would taint this season’s championship.
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Jan 10, 2012 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
lol ok,
Nothing will taint this season for me. I get people are mad, but I promise you if it was Florida you’d be just as happy. Regardless, it may HELP prevent this excate thing to happen again but it wouldn’t stop even dumber things from happening. Like I said you can’t make everyone happy someone will always be left out in the cold with their fans screaming “boycott the 16 team playoff!! we are the real champs!!”
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
16 is way too many.
If a non-AQ team is deserving of a shot at the NC, then rules could be put in place to fit them into the plus one format. I definitely think they’d need some form of SOS to be considered though. It’d be stupid for a Sunbelt team to not play a BCS team and go undefeated and be put in there.
My issue with going more than the plus one is that there really aren’t any more than about 4 teams that deserve consideration for the NC game. The top 4 can sometimes be disputed, but once you get much more past that, it’s really just teams that blew their opportunities.
And as for conference champions. Typically I would say that only conference champions deserve to go to the NC, but if they top 2 teams are in the same conference, only one can win the conference. Oklahoma should have never gone to the NC game a few years ago when they lost to Kansas St. or whoever it was.
Why does it matter if a team "deserves" it?
it doesn’t taint the championship game if Bama has to run through NIU and Oregon on the way to the title. And if NIU wins, then doesn’t that mean that they deserved it? The current system is so arbitrary that people throw the label “deserved” on things, but how do you really prove that?
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Jan 10, 2012 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
No they wouldn't deserve it.
Take the NCAA tournament for instance. Say an 8 or 9 seed ends up winning it all. Were they truly the best team that season or did they just get hot the last 5 or so games that they played?
Even though Bama didn’t win their conference, what they did in the regular season did matter to get them in the title game. Just because you win the C-USA or some other conference means you deserve a shot at the NC.
4 teams is plenty. Any team past that lost their shot. The max I would ever want is to make a playoff of the teams in the BCS games. Even then, Virginia Tech and Clemson would have had no business being considered for the NC.
Butler was 1 win away from winning it all in the past two years
if they had pulled either off, then yes, they would’ve deserved it. It doesn’t matter who is the best. “Best” isn’t definable. How can you say Alabama was the best this year? They didn’t win their conference and they lost at home. That doesn’t sound very best to me.
Weoejuwejhdjwe!
Twitter
by Chekhov's Spread Gun Option on Jan 10, 2012 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
Well, then who's the best?
I assume you have it narrowed down to either LSU or okie lite?
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
You can't make it that simple.
They lost in overtime by a field goal to the team that went to the NC game. If they were in any other conference, they would have won. They just happened to be in the same conference as the other team in the NC game.
As to the playoff stuff. So you are saying that as long as a team does just enough to make the tournament and then has a hot streak at the end, then they deserve the title? Only the top 4 or so in the country deserve a shot at the title. The rest didn’t do enough in the regular season.
by jsholt969 on Jan 10, 2012 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I have routinely read...
…that the NCAA Men in Suits (Men in Suites?) who attend conferences at fancy hotels and discuss these subjects are concerned that the four-team playoff will mushroom to eight teams and then sixteen. That might be the deal-breaker.
But I still think it is more likely than ever before. People are S-I-C-K, sick, sick, sick of the current joke of a system. The power-brokers are more favorably disposed towards a change than in the past. To look forward to an alteration of the current madness is no longer a completely utopian outlook.
I think the other conferences will not allow the current format which has results in SEC, SEC, SEC, SEC, SEC……
So yeah, you’re probably right
"Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body."
― Seneca
Okie State did not have a "most deserving" argument.
No one who loses to 6-7 Iowa State does.
A team should get to the championship based on its own merits. The only justification for putting OSU into the NC game was “LSU and Alabama already played” – which is obviously not their “own merits”.
by dxf04 on Jan 10, 2012 7:02 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is wrong
Most Deserving != The Best, or at least not to my mind, and up until it involved Alabama, I’d wager that most folks, even SEC fans, felt the same way. (Sorry UGA 2007! Timing just isn’t your thing!)
USC was arguably the best team in the country when they lost at home to Stanford in 2007 and almost certainly in 2008 when they lost on the road at Oregon St., but guess what, apparently simply being the best isn’t actually enough as should have been the case this year.
Oklahoma St had an identical record against a significantly more difficult schedule, an undisputed conference championship, and hadn’t already lost to the team they were scheduled to play. Any one of these factors should have disqualified Alabama from playing in the MNC game in OkSt’s favor, not because Bama was not the best team, but because they f***ed up and squandered – or should have squandered – a team for the ages during the regular season…at home.
That’s the real problem with Bama fans right now and one of the things I think Year2 was getting at (or not. I don’t want to put words in his mouth). They were more than happy to torch the process so long as it benefitted their team. I’ll get my crocodile tears ready for when it comes around and bites them in the a**.
Or benefits your team.
What you don’t seem to want to understand, is Bama fans are in spot were they have to defend a system that is broken. What do you want us to do? Return the trophy?
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
My two teams are Cal and Vanderbilt
Which makes me about as impartial an observer to the BCS as it gets.
is Bama fans are in spot were they have to defend a system that is broken.
I don’t necessarily blame them for advocating as they did, but they most certainly were not defending the system. They were so concerned with collecting their 600th national championship or whatever it is now that they put all of their energy into gaming the system rather than accepting its results.
This year Alabama was basically a Boise St. It’s not Bama’s fault that the schedule worked out this way in the SEC, but that’s Boise’s excuse too and no one gives them slack on it. They had a single game season with LSU and everyone knew it after about week 3. And so how did Bama perform? They went out and pooped all over themselves. Is that really more impressive than Oklahoma St’s loss? If it is, it’s not by much.
Pooped all over themselves?
Pooping on yourself would be what happened last night. The season has been played out. Bama fans didn’t vote Bama into the Title game. You are wrong, we do have to defend the system. Even after last nights game we still are hearing it. Even you are saying Okie state deserved it more. I don’t like the system we have. I like IDEA of what we have. But you are being just as big a hypocrite as you say Bama fans are being. I would put money on it that if Cal or Vandy were ever put in a postion like this one, you would walk away with the trophy and not feel bad for the Okie state team.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
I'm not disputing the quality of Bama's team. I'm attacking the idea that they could be included over OkSt
Missing 4 field goals, any one of which would have won the game for you, would qualify as a royal screw-up in my book, but the manner in which they lost isn’t as important as the fact that they lost the only game of the regular season that mattered.
Their resume and stats were hardly distinguishable from Boise St’s, yet BSU losing to TCU by fewer points at home represented immediate disqualification while Bama’s loss barely merited a shrug. Why? What’s different about the teams other than their pedigree and the fact that we just know that Bama is better (even though they are)?
Of course Oklahoma St deserved it more. They won their conference outright. They had an identical record against a more difficult schedule. And they hadn’t already lost to LSU.
But so nobody gets their feelers hurt I will insert yet another disclaimer that I think Bama would have been favored against all or almost all teams in the country in a single game. It’s just too bad that on the basis of the evidence of their season they didn’t deserve to be one of the teams in the National Championship game. Or, as I said earlier, Most Deserving != The Best.
Sorry
Neglected this point…
Bama fans didn’t vote Bama into the Title game.
Literally this is true. But you don’t think there was some lobbying going on? In contrast, four of the six computers had Oklahoma St higher.
You're not going to hurt my feelings,
I am simply just a fan of Alabama. That’s it and that’s all. I have far more important things going on to get worked up over what Nashville says. Don’t get me wrong college football is a passion of mine so I do enjoy discussioning it. Now, if you are wanting me to admit that Okie like should have played in the Title game, fine, maybe they should have. But neither you or me had any influnce on that. Sure the computers had Okie lite higher, which means someone somewhere thought it better Bama play. Once again, Bama fans had no say. You can scream at the computer that Okie lite got robbed untill you’re blue in the face. It ain’t gonna change a thing. People want to put the blame on Alabama as if Alabama some how came up with the current system. Or that this has been a one year system failure. This isn’t the first time a team got robbed, it certainly wont be the last.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
Also, since when did the voters care what the fans had to say?
Alabama was lobbying why wouldn’t Coach Saban lobby, but so was Stanford, Okie lite and BSU. It’s like some people want Alabama to feel bad for taking the Trophy home.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
An OT loss
is “pooping themselves?” Because we missed FGs?
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
but because they f***ed up and squandered – or should have squandered – a team for the ages during the regular season…at home.
So using your own logic, if USC lost to Oregon one year and Oregon St another..teams that weren’t nearly on LSU level at the time and much closer to Iowa st AND they didn’t get a shot, how can you argue that Okie St losing to IOWA FREAKING ST means they get theirs? UF got a rematch against FSU in the 90’s. Was that unfair? Admit it. You just don’t like Alabama and that is your motivation. Its OK we won’t hold it against you.
I find it funny that no one wants to admit they really dont want to see the best two teams play for all the marbles. They’d much rather see a lol “fair” game because doggonit Okie St “deserved” a shot. Well guess what…This aint little league. Everypone doesn’t get a trophy and we aren’t concerend about “feelings” here. If Alabama and LSU were the best two teams (and they were) then the BCS got it right.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
A Hundred Pounds Lost
I never made the argument that Most Deserving = The Best.
But, again, the most convincing argument for Okie State in the championship is “LSU and ’Bama already played”… which frankly, isn’t an argument at all, at least an argument for Okie State. As for “f***ked up and squandered”… again, 6-7 Iowa State. As far as Okie State having a significantly more difficult schedule, I’m not sure that’s a claim that’s based in reality (you can quote computers all you want), but it’s not worth arguing about.
by dxf04 on Jan 11, 2012 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And seriously, Bama fans
One can have the opinion that a playoff is a good thing, and use the controversy of this season as an example if they want to without it being an indictment of your team.
Want to use the 1998 season as an example of needing a playoff? That’s fine by me. I doubt many UF fans would mind if you used the 2006 season as an example either.
Please quit acting like every single negative comment about this season is an attack on the football program you support. Besides, if you really believe Bama was that good then I fail to see how a playoff would be a big concern.
by Caban on Jan 10, 2012 7:13 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I'm not taking any personal offense to it.
But you have to understand for the past month Bama fans have heard it from EVERYONE how they don’t deserve to have played in the Title game. Still, right now are hearing it. So, sure some fans are a little bit more touchy about it. Personally I would have like a 4 team playoff this year if it included lSU Bama okie lite and…one more…doesn’t matter because I think the result would have been the same. But we won’t ever know, because the only thing we can base anything off of is the current system which worked in Bama’s favor this year.
"There are 40 rules all Schrute boys must learn by age 5. Rule #17- There are 3 things you never turn your back on--- Bears, men you have wronged, and a dominant male turkey during mating season."
by Aaron.50cal on Jan 10, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just tweak the BCS
Get ride of the extra game which is stupid as all hell. Put in a few rules like you only conference champions are eligible, the AP and Coaches poll don’t start until week 5, and figure out a better formula for the BCS. We’re edging closer and closer to the four super conferences and a playoff just accelerates that.
TV Journalist Chris Hanson is a cockblocker
So it's not possible for the two best teams in the country to be from the same conference?
I’m fine with the rule if there is an exception for circumstances like this year.
I'd prefer alterations rather than a playoff
I’d like the BCS to just pair the top two teams, and leave the other bowls to the free market. With the power conferences consolidating and getting larger, each conference is deeper, thus I see nothing wrong with the following line-up of major bowls (the specifics can be different, but the concept is clear):
Rose bowl: Pac-12 #1 v Big Ten #1
Fiesta Bowl: Big-12 #2 v. Pac-12 #2
Cotton Bowl (Played in Jerry World): Big-12 #1 v. SEC #2
Sugar Bowl: SEC #1 v. Big Ten #2
Orange Bowl: ACC #1 v. Whomever
Championship Game: Overall #1 v Overall #2
2) As for the bcs determinations, there was an idea floated back in 2005 about using a panel of ex-coaches from the power conferences who watch every game involving a top 25 team every week, then talk amongst themselves and determine who the best teams are at the end of the year. I really liked the idea, as it removed the conflict of interest inherent within the coaches poll, and the potential stupidity inherent within the media (I don’t believe simply being around football makes you knowledgeable about football). Unfortunately they tried a mock-panel in 2005 which was the year of USC-Texas, which was about as straight forward a match-up as there ever was. I’d like to combine that panel with the computers to determine the 1-2 match-up (no restrictions on the match-up).
Playoff...
I just help but laugh when I read this in one Cecil Hurts columns :-)
“Here’s a fun thought: Imagine a very possible change in the BCS system to the plus-one format. Then imagine that all four teams in the playoff were from the SEC – an undefeated champion and three one-loss runners-up. Heads would explode in every other region of the country, and what’s even funnier is that it isn’t entirely impossible.”
by Timothy Harris on Jan 11, 2012 6:27 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Team Speed Kills
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
