I hate when people do this...but here goes...
Me too, but...
Not the point. The point is that we don't know that LSU is better than OSU, or any other one loss team. However, we know for a fact that LSU is better than Alabama.
So then why is it only OSU and not VT, Stanford, or Boise St?
Again, not the point. Alabama shit the bed too. Why now are they more deserving to have a second chance?
Because the teams ahead of and closely surrounding them all imploded against teams who were ranked below them.
Yep. Because they have not played LSU. No one knows how the LSU V. Tech game would end up. We know how LSU and Alabama has ended.
We also don't know how OSU, Stanford, Houston or Boise would do against LSU. Should LSU have to play all of them to be crowned champs? I mean, that's never been the process before.
Bad point. This is like saying that we shouldn't have a play-off because there would be rematches. Not at all. This game is for the conference championship where everyone plays a very similar schedule. Both teams have one loss in conference. It doesn't matter who the loss is to, because it is the CONFERENCE championship. If Alabama and OSU had both played played similar schedules and both lost to LSU , then yes, at that point they are equal.
It doesn't matter if they played similar teams. VT and Clemson have already played this game on the field, and Clemson was the better team. So now you're saying that it's fair that after getting a 20 point beating by Clemson in the regular season, VT should be able to play them again in the conference championship game and be crowned conference champs if they win, although the teams would be 1-1 against each other? But it's a shamockery if the exact same thing happens in the BCS game? Hop off the fence.
Also, using that logic, if Auburn and Clemson are paired in the Chik-Fil-a Bowl, shouldn't they cancel the game and give the trophy to Clemson? I mean, that game has already been played this season and we know who the better team is.
This is where I would agree with you. At this point, Alabama has as much claim as anyone. I don't think you should play for the national championship if you don't win your conference. Period. That should be the criteria for playing in the championship game. You win the conference that you play in. Period. If you don't win that. You shouldn't get to play.
Bad news, we still don't agree. I simply brought up the point that Stanford didn't win their division in the event that OSU and VT shit the bed this weekend, because I'm certain some people would declare that Stanford was more deserving that Bama without thinking about it. There is no way that I will ever agree that any highly ranked team should be left out of post season to assure a worse team a spot because they won a weaker division.
If you really subscribe to the fact that only conference champs should play for the title, then you also subscribe to the fact that IF we ever get an 8 team playoff, it could only be conference champs. That's total crap and it would completely destroy any and every conference in college football. Who would want to play in the SEC, win 10 games, and be left out of an 8 team playoff so 7-5 West Virginia can represent the Big East? Nobody.