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

oh... that's an interesting way of doing things. I think you're better off removing the extra week and sticking with 16.
 
jacket1515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oklahoma State was #1 by a significant margin when they were undefeated, and they'll get a lot of those computer "votes" if everyone has one loss, especially because they will have beaten Oklahoma. The computers have Oklahoma at 5, KState at 6, and Baylor at 13 - the Big 12 is getting too much weight.

Anyway, the human polls definitely matter as well. If LSU loses, I think you see some shuffling where voters can't say "Alabama's only loss was to LSU in overtime." Now, people would definitely want to have two different conferences in there, and they may be swayed by OK State beating Oklahoma to have them jump VT or Stanford, or both.
 
GTDan21 said:
The way I see it the point of conferences is to decide a champion, then the top two champions get together and play since there are not nearly enough games (12 games with 120 teams) to eliminate the conference factor. Because there is currently a 2-team playoff as opposed to a larger one (I think 8 would be ideal, but that's for another place) the two teams that should get invited to the playoff are the two best conference champions. This obviously means LSU and ???? this year.

Is it perfect? No, but I think the phrasing in your topic is off. I see the BCSCG as a way to decide the best team in the country, not invite the top two teams. Most of the time these things are one in the same, but there is a slight difference. So I think the quote that applies is "How can you be the best team in the country if you are not the best team in your conference?".
Click to expand...

This.

Because all the rationale and anecdotal examples of which team lost to which other team and by how much are all still ways to form opinions of which teams are best because we don't have enough inter-conference play to decide with any certainty.

If we want to take a step back towards pure opinion poll champions then we should just go back to the old bowl system and vote at the end.
 
How would you feel about removing conference championships and letting the top 2 from each in? (as crazy as it is)
 
QuadF said:
How would you feel about removing conference championships and letting the top 2 from each in? (as crazy as it is)
Click to expand...

The whole reason they expanded the conferences was to get the conference championship games.

If you remove the conference championship then all conferences need to downsize so all teams play each other once. And I would be thrilled if that happened, but it won't in the era of super-conferences.
 
As several people have already said, the BCSCG is not about matching up who everyone thinks the best two teams are. It's about deciding WHO IS NUMBER ONE. Alabama had their shot. They blew it. I have no problem with a rematch, I just do not agree with going to the title game without winning your conference. In fact, had Oregon won out after losing to LSU, I'd be fine with a rematch between those 2.

My biggest problem with this situation is that there are other 1-loss teams besides Bama that are more deserving. If VT/Ok St both lose their next games, then I say send Houston to the championship. If Houston also loses, then and only then would I be okay with Alabama getting another shot, because nobody else would deserve it.
 
lonestarjacket said:
The whole reason they expanded the conferences was to get the conference championship games.

If you remove the conference championship then all conferences need to downsize so all teams play each other once. And I would be thrilled if that happened, but it won't in the era of super-conferences.
Click to expand...

why would they all need to play each other? divisions could stay intact.
 
I hope uga wins just so This thread gets double relevant

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
We've played this game before.

The last time we heard this fit-pitching, it was 2006 and the whiners lost when Michigan was voted downwards to keep them out of a national championship 1v2 rematch with Ohio State. There was griping everywhere about how the two best teams should play (except in SEC country of course). Nevermind how the two best teams of the decade were separated by just a few points, and there was no clear 3rd team in line.

Then, the two best teams of the decade got whipped in both their bowl games. The bitching stopped overnight, and the silence was golden.
 
Flywheel said:
We've played this game before.

The last time we heard this fit-pitching, it was 2006 and the whiners lost when Michigan was voted downwards to keep them out of a national championship 1v2 rematch with Ohio State. There was griping everywhere about how the two best teams should play (except in SEC country of course). Nevermind how the two best teams of the decade were separated by just a few points, and there was no clear 3rd team in line.

Then, the two best teams of the decade got whipped in both their bowl games. The bitching stopped overnight, and the silence was golden.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The point is to find the best team. If you want a playoff, this is what we have. A conference playoff. If Alabama lost to LSU in the first round of a playoff would they be advanced just because they are better? Assuming they win Saturday, LSU is the best in the SEC. Take the best from another conference and let's see how they match up.
 
QuadF said:
why would they all need to play each other? divisions could stay intact.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are not getting. If you have a conference with no way of determining a champion of that conference, either through a championship game or complete inter-conference play, then you do not have a conference. You have two mini-conferences ( divisions) that happen to play a few games between them each year.

Again, the whole point of conference expansion was to get the revenue from a championship game.
 
Flywheel said:
We've played this game before.

The last time we heard this fit-pitching, it was 2006 and the whiners lost when Michigan was voted downwards to keep them out of a national championship 1v2 rematch with Ohio State. There was griping everywhere about how the two best teams should play (except in SEC country of course). Nevermind how the two best teams of the decade were separated by just a few points, and there was no clear 3rd team in line.

Then, the two best teams of the decade got whipped in both their bowl games. The bitching stopped overnight, and the silence was golden.
Click to expand...

Piling on.

And so we see the flaw in assuming current opinion of which two teams are best is accurate when both of them played similar schedules. Consensus opinion of the two best teams was wrong then and may be wrong this year as well.
 
lonestarjacket said:
Piling on.

And so we see the flaw in assuming current opinion of which two teams are best is accurate when both of them played similar schedules. Consensus opinion of the two best teams was wrong then and may be wrong this year as well.
Click to expand...

It's almost always wrong. The eyeball test fails. That's why we play games. If the eyeball test worked, USC with Matt Leinhart and Reggie Bush should have won the 2005/6 BCS title by 50 points. I agree that the 2 best teams should play for the title, but if the *apparent* 2 best teams have already played, then another conference champ should get a shot at the winner, just so we can be sure we were right about who the two best teams even were. Because we should know by now how bad we all are at predicting these things.

To give Bama the rematch is to (1.) openly admit you only care about $$$ from rabid Bama fans, like letting Pryor play in a bowl game after cheating, (2.) pretend the first matchup, which was sh___y football, didn't happen, and (3.) deny the rest of football a chance to settle it on the field. If you hadn't noticed, Bama's best win is over Arkansas, whose best win is over who? Texas A&M?
 
Last edited:
BarrelORum said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is hard to beat a team twice in same year.If you see the playoffs in HS you see the same trend as well as some of the rematches in College.LSU beat Mississippi in regular season in 59 and lost to them in the Sugar Bowl by wide margin.Hope they dont do this but money talks.
 
Yeah know this has been kicked around but look at the time Bama will have (extra week) to prepare for LSU.LSU plays for SEC title and runs risks of getting folks hurt and Bama sits on the sidelines waiting for the blood to flow.Not saying LSU will not be rested for NC but they do run risk of getting somebody hurt while Bama sits .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top