Printable View
RTR bitches! I'm glad the voters decided to put the TWO best teams in the country play. Who cares about style matchups, let's let the two best teams play each other with all the marbles on the line.
BCS National Title Game:
#1 LSU v #2 Alabama
Fiesta Bowl:
#3 Oklahoma State v. #4 Stanford
Rose Bowl:
#5 Oregon v. #10 Wisconsin
Sugar Bowl:
#11 Virginia Tech v. #13 Michigan
Orange Bowl:
#15 Clemson v. #24 West Virginia
Won't be watching the title game, we all ready know that outcome.
LSU should just get the title, they have already beaten Alabama in their own building, why do they have to do it on a neutral field to get the trophy.
If you don't win your conference, you have no business playing for the national title.
That's exactly what Nick Saban said in 2003 when his LSU Tigers (who won the SEC) had to play an Oklahoma team that had just lost the Big 12 championship to KSU 35-7 for the national title.Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ3
Think they got it right. The two best teams are playing for the national title. So what, if they've already played or if Bama didn't win the conference, these are the two best.
I think Oklahoma State deserved a shot at LSU. The only game they lost was in double overtime on a night they learned that the head basketball coach was killed in a plane crash. They have defeated just as many ranked teams as Alabama and defeated two top ten teams. If this year doesn't make the powers that be want to go to at least a plus 1 system then I don't know what will. LSU/Stanford and Alabama/Oklahoma State with the winners going to the BCS national championship game and there wouldn't be any gripe about who was #1.
I'm not arguing about who the 2 best teams are. I feel the BCS is doing LSU a disservice, they shouldn't have to beat a team twice to be the champs. IMO if they aren't going to play Ok.State, there shouldn't even be a game, just give the title to the Tigers.
I'm not getting into a "who deserves this and that" argument, but I would LOVE to have seen 1) OKST take on LSU and 2) Clemson taking on Michigan instead of VT who Clemson whooped twice and only is there because of such a pancake schedule.
the last game matters, its for a national championship.
oklahoma state did not win a conference championship game either.
source...?Quote:
Originally Posted by GC-1
But they did win their conference championship. You're just being an Alabama homer. If you were an Oklahoma State fan you would be saying Oklahoma State should be in the title game. Both teams are good teams and both teams are deserving. My only gripe about it is that Alabama already had their chance at home and lost because their kicker couldn't make a field goal. The only way to settle it is with a playoff or at least a +1 system that settles it on the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Well, I think the SEC proposed a plus one system maybe last year. I would at least like to see an 8 team playoff. A 16 team playoff like FCS would be a dream.
Bad thing is Clemson was locked into the Orange by winning the ACC. And I'll be the 1st to admit VT didn't deserve a BSC bid, but neither did Michigan. They beat 1 team that was ranked when they played (Nebraska) and lost to an unranked Iowa and then 23 Michigan St. And I could make arguments against Boise too. But I'll take an invite to the sugar as a make up for the Fiesta passing over a one loss VT in 01 for Notre Dame :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Thing is, the system isn't perfect, far from it.
So you wanna penalize Alabama for losing to #1 LSU by a FG in OT and turn around and reward OSU for losing to 6-6 Iowa State?Quote:
Originally Posted by red66
OSU had their shot to play LSU, beat ISU and they are there.
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...
As far as the National Championship is concerned, I feel they got it right. Bama and LSU could beat any other teams any given day this season. The case for OKST is simple, they are good on offense and fast as can be but IDK if they could line up play after play with either LSU or Bama. As far as LSU already beating Bama at home so they should do it again on a neutral feild, Nick Satan is a hard man to beat two times in one season and he also gets over a month to prepare! On the other hand, the Mad Hatter is one heck of a coach and the voodoo blessings have been on the Bayou Bengals from day one. This is a "home" game for the Tigers as well. I lok for it to be another low scoring grind it out type of game! Im pullin for the tigers to win, but either way you cut it its 6 in a row for God's gift to College football the SEC
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)
we know the score of the first LSU-Bama game but the Tide was the the team that played the better game. LSU really escaped with one in that game. Tide left what? 10 points on the field easy?
But LSU, Bama, and Georgia could all probably beat the winner of any other district.Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ3
Georgia would struggle with any of the other conference champs, except maybe WVU.
I'm not seeing UGa beating OSU. I think the Cowboys could handle them. My two cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by cumbousaf
I'm a fan of the SEC and don't mind seeing Bama-LSU again. But my question is the same as so many others: What about the criteria of winning that conference title or even playing in the title game if you're in one of those "automatic qualifier" (More bs, but I'll save that rant for another time.) conferences? The talking heads of the BCS used to go on and on about it. I scratch my head at so many of the decisions of the BS, but this is the system those with money decided to keep. So, NCAA Div. 1 football fans, here we are. And here, we are stuck until the money runs out.
and VT has one win over a ranked team.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcdevil22
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ3
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, my point was that he posted Alabama defeated three teams with winning records, which was false.Quote:
Originally Posted by red66
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.
LSU outscored their regular season SEC opponents 280-67; Alabama outscored them 271-67.Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ3
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.
I'm just sayin', they rolled through the SEC, and beat Oregon and WVU ooc. What else do they need to prove.
A definitive victory over the 2nd best team?Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ3
I don't think the game in November gave us a clear answer to the best team.
That's rich. Spoken like a true Bama idiot. Understandable however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Im an idiot for believing a 9-6 OT victory is hardly a definitive answer to who the best team is? Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotSoSilentBob
Maybe if Alabama had Little Game Bob we woulda got beat by 34 points instead of 6 and we would know Alabama is inferior to LSU.
Well, they did beat bama on their home field, at night. That's no easy task to beat a good team on their home field in a big night game and bama is a very good team. And it may be ones opinion that bama is truly the 2nd best team, but we will never know if OSU could beat either one.
By three points in overtime after Alabama missed four field goals. Yes, thats a convincing win that shows LSU is clearly the better team, despite being outgained in yardage.Quote:
Originally Posted by GC-1
Alabama is playing LSU, at night, in New Orleans.