BCS lineup set

[Biggin]

I'm not gonna make a case for VT being in the Sugar...it came down to ticket sales and fan bases plain and simple...i'll take it


but I will add that if you're gonna talk about schedules, let's go ahead and point out that Alabama only has 3 wins over teams with winning records....


so...uh....there's that...

and VT has one win over a ranked team.

I love how people mention that, because its false.

Penn State-winning record
Arkansas-winning record
Auburn-winning record
Georgia Southern-winning record

But because Vandy is 6-6 and UT (who dismantled the co-Big East champ by 3 TDs) is 5-7, somehow Bama's schedule is weak.

Bama beat six teams with non-losing records.
Bama beat three ranked teams.
Bama has a better win than OSU.
Bama has a better loss than OSU.

[Biggin]

IMO LSU are the National Champions, regardless of the outcome. Bama beat one team worth a crap this season, didn't win their division or conference, but somehow they get another shot.

This whole thing seems a lot like the '06 season. That year everyone thought that OSU and Michigan were by far the two best teams in the country. Luckily UF slid by Michigan at the very end, and proved to the world that the neither OSU or Michigan was worth the hype. I'm not saying the same thing would have happened this year, but we'll never know. Hopefully the Tigers roll in January otherwise there will be another split National Title.(which the BCS was supposed to eliminate)

Arkansas is a top 10 team. Penn State won 9 games. Auburn is ranked. Florida was ranked at one point. Vanderbilt is 6-6 but just RAILED a Wake Forest team by FIVE TDs that beat Florida State. The SEC's 6-6 is not like the Big XII's 6-6.

How many "worth a crap" teams did OSU beat? Two? Three?

You cant give OSU credit for beating Mizzou or TT while downing Alabama for beating Vandy or UF.


and UGA would beat Wisconsin IMO, and smash WVU. Speed owns the Big 10.
Call me what you want, but UGA would not get blown out by OSU or Oregon either. Their defense is too good for that.


Not to mention when the SEC commissioner Mike Slive proposed a plus-1 system, no other conference aside from the ACC (props, at least they were open to it) would even entertain the thought.

So Big XII, PAC-12, Big 10 fans should be pissed at their commissioners and presidents. You can't reject the SEC's idea to fix the system then be pissed when it works out putting the two best teams in the title game.

[red66]

Georgia Southern-winning record

Did you really just base your argument against having a win against only three teams with winning records by saying Georgia Southern has a winning record? Using your logic a 10-2 Georgia Southern team is like a 2-10 SEC team. Not to mention that Georgia Southern team was beat by Appalachian State who VT throttled. But that is beside the point.

The point that I tried to make is that both Alabama and Oklahoma State are deserving and Stanford has the right to throw their name in the pot as well, but not as much as the other two. The ONLY way to settle it is a plus 1 or playoff, but what we have is what we have so we are stuck with it.

[EJ3]

Once again I'm not arguing that either team deserves to be there more than the other. I'm just saying that LSU, having beaten 2 major conference winners badly and outscoring SEC opponents 322-77, has proved enough. If they're not going to play a conference champion that they haven't already beaten, then there shouldn't even be a BCS championship game. They should just be crowned national champs, which is what the AP will do if they haven't already.

[EJ3]

As far as the playoff/+1 scenarios go, here is what I would love to see.

6 teams, all major conference champions, the top 2 BCS rankings get a "bye"

This year would look like this.

Clemson/WVU - Orange bowl
Oregon/Wisconsin - Rose Bowl

Clemson/WVU winner/LSU - Sugar Bowl
Oregon/Wisconsin winner/Ok. State - Fiesta Bowl

The 2 winners would meet in New Orleans for the title(championship locations would rotate like they do currently)

IMO this is a great option. It eliminates all the arguing over all the At-Large crap. If you don't win your conference or don't play in a major conference, you don't qualify. It also would allow the bowls to keep there conference tie-in's for the most part. The only difference is the first round of games would probably have to be played before Christmas or the season would need to be extended by a week.

[red66]

That system would be flawed more than the one we have now. You are telling me that WVU and Clemson deserve a shot at playing for the title more so than Alabama and say a team like Boise State? If there was a system like this I would maybe give a team extra "power points" for winning their conference championship, but I wouldn't make that the only criteria for getting a spot in the playoff. If it were going to go to a playoff system I would like top 8 teams by BCS rankings 1 playing 8, 2 playing 7 and so on. I would much rather have the #9 team having a gripe than the #3 team. I don't see any of that happening though because of the money that is made by the bowls. The only option that I believe is going to be on the table is some sort of plus 1 system, but I really don't see that happening either.

[GC-1]

IMO the cadillac model is a 16 team playoff like the FCS does it. Have the champions from the major conferences with the rest made up of "wild card" teams (high ranked teams that don't win their conferences). Would be one heck of a playoff. I really enjoy watching the FCS playoff, there are some really good games. You could use some of the bowl games for playoff sites and the teams that didn't make the playoffs could top off the bowls.

[Biggin]

Did you really just base your argument against having a win against only three teams with winning records by saying Georgia Southern has a winning record? Using your logic a 10-2 Georgia Southern team is like a 2-10 SEC team. Not to mention that Georgia Southern team was beat by Appalachian State who VT throttled. But that is beside the point.

The point that I tried to make is that both Alabama and Oklahoma State are deserving and Stanford has the right to throw their name in the pot as well, but not as much as the other two. The ONLY way to settle it is a plus 1 or playoff, but what we have is what we have so we are stuck with it.

No, my point was that he posted Alabama defeated three teams with winning records, which was false.

and the SEC commissioner proposed a plus-1 system, yet only the ACC was open to the idea. the rest of the conferences laughed him off.

So Big XII fans need to take it up with Dan Beebe, not Alabama.

[Biggin]

Once again I'm not arguing that either team deserves to be there more than the other. I'm just saying that LSU, having beaten 2 major conference winners badly and outscoring SEC opponents 322-77, has proved enough. If they're not going to play a conference champion that they haven't already beaten, then there shouldn't even be a BCS championship game. They should just be crowned national champs, which is what the AP will do if they haven't already.

LSU outscored their regular season SEC opponents 280-67; Alabama outscored them 271-67.


So it doesn't matter who the second best team is, LSU is so awesome they have already won the title. Gotcha.

If LSU is so awesome and deserve to be champions, they will have no problems beating Alabama again, in New Orleans no less.

[EJ3]

I'm just sayin', they rolled through the SEC, and beat Oregon and WVU ooc. What else do they need to prove.