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

MTrain said:
I bet if vt ran the table and gts only loss was to them y'all would change your tune
Click to expand...

I bet if it was two Big 11 teams, all the SEC fans clamoring for a rematch would change their tune

oh wait, that already happened and they were all against it
 
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...

Yes it does, and it happens so frequently that I really no longer care about pro boxing. In fact, I have no clue who the current reigning heavyweight champ is though I used to follow the sport fairly closely. Similarly, if there is a LSU vs. Bama rematch for the championship I really won't care enough to watch it.

If everyone is that sure that LSU & Bama are #1 & #2 they should at least play a best 2 out of 3 series. As it is shaping up, LSU could have a better overall record, with a win over Bama, all while playing a tougher schedule; but Bama could be the national champ :rolleyes:.
 
I dont know ,I just remember once when we won the ACC and caught hell from Ga fans since they beat us.I dont want a rematch but if they are the best then we see the best play it off.
 
NatiJacket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
jts1207 said:
So Alabama gets another shot. They couldnt beat LSU at their own house, so they get another chance? Maybe when they lose theyll give them a third shot at LSU just to make sure all the bases are covered. I think its horse öööö!
Click to expand...

Well, who goes? Let's look at each conference.

- PAC10: Stanford lost to Oregon, who LSU killed.
- ACC: VT lost to Clemson, who lost to the #2 team in the SEC East.
- BIG 12: Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State. Iowa State. Iowa State. If they beat Oklahoma, they still have a chance, but if you're choosing between a one-loss team that lost to an 11-0 team vs. one that lost to a 6-5 team, which would you choose?
- Big 10; Two loss teams, and Alabama beat Penn State.
- Big East: blah....

Oklahoma State has the only legit argument, especially if they beat Oklahoma. Even then, their loss is to a 6-5 team and Alabama took #1 to OT.

If Alabama loses to Auburn, we've still got a chance. But if they win out, they've got a legit argument.
 
GTBlazer said:
if the first game was at LSU...Id agree...if I thought Bama was the 2nd best team In the country I'd agree...

If that wasnt the same argument they used to not match up Ohio State/Michigan a few years ago-Id agree........

If the first match up wasnt one of the most boring god awful match ups ive ever seen--I might want to watch it again...

go ahead and talk about how awesome a great defensive match up is....bull öööö..other teams score on these teams--why cant they on eachother??

öööö Bama.......they lost at home-send Houston in their place.I know a lot of you will watch it because its the bcs national title game--öööö that bullshit....id rather watch the carquest bowl-without knowing whos in it......bama/lsu rematch is like making another "Sex and the City"..the second one is going to suck just as bad as the first.
Click to expand...

Bama gives up 8.83 points/game. LSU gives up 10.58. Defense wins championships.
 
18in32 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I think if LSU loses then Oklahoma State is in the BCS game. They would get bumped to #1 in the computers, for sure. You could even see Stanford squeaking in there.
 
I was always a proponent of a rule mandating that in order to play for the MNC, you have to win your conference. Not so sure about that after this year. If you had said rule you could potentially find yourself choosing from the following teams for the MNC:

UGA, Oklahoma, Clemson, some Big East team, MSU/Wisc, UCLA

Now, what's the likelihood of the above 6 teams being Conference Champs? Slim to none. But it illustrates the point as to why a rule like this won't work.

I'm with Blazer, send Houston (assuming the beat Southern Miss).
 
TechPhi97 said:
No, I think if LSU loses then Oklahoma State is in the BCS game. They would get bumped to #1 in the computers, for sure. You could even see Stanford squeaking in there.
Click to expand...

The human polls are going to make the difference, not the computers. LSU would likely still be #1 (#2 at worst) in the computers even if they lost to UGA.
 
Even though this is different, It reminds me a lot of 1996 when FSU beat Florida in the regular season and then had to turn around and play them again for the National Championship and lost the game. Lots of people argued they shouldn't have to play twice. I kind of agree with that. National Championship games based on a vote in system should not be rematches period. Under a playoff system, fine, but not this one.
 
MTrain said:
anyone else sick and tired of hearing this? I feel its a lame semantic argument that sounds nice but really has no bite to it.

the two best teams in the country should play for the title. yes, i'm sorry, i don't want to see it again either but that's most definitely LSU and most likely Bama. common sense says the two best teams should be on the field in the title game. nuff said.
Click to expand...

Amazingly enough, we totally agree on this.
 
jacket1515 said:
I was always a proponent of a rule mandating that in order to play for the MNC, you have to win your conference. Not so sure about that after this year. If you had said rule you could potentially find yourself choosing from the following teams for the MNC:

UGA, Oklahoma, Clemson, some Big East team, MSU/Wisc, UCLA

Now, what's the likelihood of the above 6 teams being Conference Champs? Slim to none. But it illustrates the point as to why a rule like this won't work.

I'm with Blazer, send Houston (assuming the beat Southern Miss).
Click to expand...

So I take it you don't want to see a playoff. Because this is exactly the the type of thing a playoff could produce. And yes I would love to see it happen.
 
The way I see it, the path to the national championship game is fairly simple: win, win big, win in-conference, win out-of-conference, win against good teams, win high-profile games, win yesterday, win today, and look like you can win again tomorrow.

There are two main drawbacks to the current system that I see. First, a team needs a history of winning. It is difficult or impossible to be a historically mediocre or bad team and then unexpectedly go 12-0 and expect to play in the title game. The human voters want 'proven winners'. Essentially, the human voters have a bit of reputation requirement that a team must meet and historically mediocre or bad teams can't meet that requirement without first playing well for a few years. Second, a team needs to have a history of beating good teams. Playing a lot of good teams but only occasionally winning is not sufficient. Consistently beating good teams, but only occasionally playing them is also not sufficient. For the human voters, this is a mix of the reputation requirement and a strength of schedule adjustment. You have to win 'good enough' so to speak.

A playoff would address both drawbacks by giving teams a chance to play themselves into the title game, free from the baggage of their previous seasons' performances and strength of schedule.

One thing to keep in mind about a playoff is that it has drawbacks as well. The biggest one being that the best team may not be crowned as the champion (e.g. is Houston or Boise State really better than LSU or Alabama?).

One thing you have to decide is what constitutes the better team? Is it the team that wins the game, or the team that would win the most often if several games were played? A playoff structure says the best team is the team that wins the game. I think the existing BCS system leans the other way and says the best team is the one we think would win the most often. And that is why a team can play for a national championship without winning its conference.
 
gtyjf1 said:
So I take it you don't want to see a playoff. Because this is exactly the the type of thing a playoff could produce. And yes I would love to see it happen.
Click to expand...

I would love to see a playoff. I just don't think you can do it with conference champions only. Have to have some at-large berths as well.

Basically it should be done the same way the FCS does it, maybe on a smaller scale (12 teams instead of 20).
 
Who was quoted in the title of the thread? Nick Saban?

EDIT: Nick Saban said It in 2003
 
Last edited:
jacket1515 said:
I would love to see a playoff. I just don't think you can do it with conference champions only. Have to have some at-large berths as well.

Basically it should be done the same way the FCS does it, maybe on a smaller scale (12 teams instead of 20).
Click to expand...

a 1 elimination playoff is merely the log base 2 of the competitors. An 8 or 16 team playoff would be the best choices.
 
How exactly do we know LSU or Alabama would beat Stanford or VT, and that they are the best teams? We only know that LSU beat Alabama. Saying that LSU and Alabama are the best teams is pure speculation; saying that LSU is better than Alabama is not.

LSU will be the top team out of the SEC regardless of the SEC Championship Game outcome; we should match them up with the top team from another league.
 
QuadF said:
a 1 elimination playoff is merely the log base 2 of the competitors. An 8 or 16 team playoff would be the best choices.
Click to expand...

Not when you have byes.

FCS is 20 teams, last 8 teams in have to play a "play-in" to get down to 16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top