"how can you play for NC when you can't win your conference"

blazer, i dont want to see it again either. if it was up to me, VT or even stanford woud be in the game. but i'm just trying to identify which two teams (LSU and ?) should LOGICALLY be in the NC game. and why this argument (thread title) holds water or not.
 
I just wanna ööööing troll....

maybe get banned or something
 
MTrain said:
Perhaps i misunderstood your argument. I htought you were trying to say that bama isn't even the 2nd best team in the sec- thus even dumber for having them in the national title game. which is a joke of an argument no matter how you try to polish that turd.
Click to expand...

Isn't Bama the #3 SEC team Bowl selection wise? I thought if LSU wins the SEC Championship and goes to the BCS Championship that UGA would automatically go to the Sugar Bowl as SEC #2, leaving Bama as a BCS Bowl eligible team (SEC #3). Is that correct?
 
a conference cannot have 3 BCS teams--or so ive heard

BUT then..how can they say that lsu and bama would still play for nat title even if Georgia wins--if Bama and LSU are 2 bids and GA gets the automatic bid
 
So what happens to the Sugar Bowl if a SEC team can't go there because 2 are going to BCS Championship? Does UGA get screwed all the way down to the Chicken Bowl?
 
there's a loophole where 3 can go if a team (or two) get pulled into the national title game
 
andrew said:
So in your opinion, if LSU loses on Saturday there should not be an SEC team in the BCS title game?
Click to expand...

Yes, but there's a reason this won't happen. The way I see it, conferences decide their champions however they want and then the BCS pulls in the top two of those to play. It is up to the SEC to say who the best in their conference is and the BCS goes from there. If you want to discuss the best way for conferences to decide a champion that's a separate issue, but the process is more playoff-like if the conferences decide their champion and then the BCS takes the top two of those.

Think of the SECCG as round 1 of a playoff. If LSU lost in round 1 of a playoff would you advance them anyway? If so we're taking a step back from a playoff-type system and going back to an essentially round-robin deal.
 
aeromech said:
Isn't Bama the #3 SEC team Bowl selection wise? I thought if LSU wins the SEC Championship and goes to the BCS Championship that UGA would automatically go to the Sugar Bowl as SEC #2, leaving Bama as a BCS Bowl eligible team (SEC #3). Is that correct?
Click to expand...
wrong, with LSU and Bama in the title game, there will be no SEC team at the Sugar Bowl
 
Isn't there a limit that only 2 from a conference can be in BCS bowls?

The primary issue, I think, is that allowing 2 teams from the same conference to compete for the national championship will move us further from an unbiased playoff system, and further into the biased voting system that cares only about tv ratings, money, and sec speed.
 
A couple of things:

SEC Championship game winner, if not playing for the national title game, goes to the Sugar Bowl. There is no rule where the Sugar Bowl is obliged to take the SECCG loser if the winner is playing in the MNC.

If there are two non-championship teams from the same conference as #1 and #2 in the BCS, then their conference gets 3 BCS bids. That's the only way it can happen, and it's like that because the BCS is primarily designed to pit #1 vs. #2.
 
So let me get this straight... if UGA beats LSU, then LSU and Alabama would play in the nat'l championship even though neither won their conference? WTF is the point of the conference championship in that case? Why play the games at all if winning the only thing that's decided on the field doesn't mean anything when it comes to being nat'l champions? What the heck is the point of playing any games if its just 'how great we think your athletes are' that determines championships? Let's award the championship in the preseason and play the rest for fun, like the AP used to do its final poll before the bowls. Same thing.
 
Does it piss you off when two fighters fight each other for the heavyweight title over and over again and never give anyone else a chance of winning the belt?
 
I'd say the conference championship games this year are less meaningful than conference basketball tournaments are most years. The argument that the regular season functions as a playoff has shown itself to be very weak. We need a real playoff, with either 8 teams or 16.
 
I didn't read most of the posts here, so sorry if I reiterate a point, but it's definitely possible that the nation's two best teams are in the same conference. The problem is that with this system, we don't exactly know who they are. I think this year it goes without saying that LSU is in the top two, if not the best, but I don't think Alabama is #2 since they already played at home and still managed to lose.

Someone else deserves the shot more than Bama.
 
There isn't enough interconference play for their to be two teams from he same conference as decidely the best teams in the country. A conference could have a couple of really good teams that beat each other up but could still win a MNC game. All of the bowl games should have two different conferences represented. A SEC-SEC MNC game would tell us nothing about how the top SEC champ compares with the other top teams in the country. Is a one loss Alabama really better than a one loss OSU, Stanford or VT? I have no idea, and neither do any of the pollsters. What I do know though is that the Alabama is not the best team in the south. Let the best team in one region play the best team from another.
 
beej67 said:
Does it piss you off when two fighters fight each other for the heavyweight title over and over again and never give anyone else a chance of winning the belt?
Click to expand...

What pisses me off in boxing is roughly the same thing as what pisses me off in CFB... that a bunch of guys with narrow economic interests decide which athletes compete against one another instead of deciding it in the ring/on the field. I can see arguments for and against a playoff, but under no circumstances should actual game results be ignored bc we think the better team slipped up and we want to give them another chance. This ain't no pansy-NBA best-of-7 thing. LSU's got a chance; if they an egg, too bad. I'll take Oregon vs VT any day.
 
I bet if vt ran the table and gts only loss was to them y'all would change your tune
 
Hey MTrain,
beej67 said:
Does it piss you off when two fighters fight each other for the heavyweight title over and over again and never give anyone else a chance of winning the belt?
Click to expand...
This is the same thing.

There isn't enough information to know that Oklahoma or Ok State wouldn't beat LSU. Bama might well honestly deserve the #2 spot, but we don't know for sure until we see LSU play a 1 loss from another conference.
 
beej67 said:
Hey MTrain,

This is the same thing.

There isn't enough information to know that Oklahoma or Ok State wouldn't beat LSU. Bama might well honestly deserve the #2 spot, but we don't know for sure until we see LSU play a 1 loss from another conference.
Click to expand...


If deep down I felt they were the two best and the fights were good I wouldn't mind. I get your point tho. öööö everyone for blowing it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top