"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business..."

[RWS]

4. The top two teams don't necessarily have to be the "best" two teams based off of whatever criteria it is you're using that automatically disqualifies OSU, Stanford, VT, or Houston.

And get off your #3 already, that is beyond stupid and completely missing the point.

The criteria I'm using to disqualify OSU, Stanford, etc, is the BCS selection process. You know, that thing that is used to decide who plays in the championship game. Crazy concept, I know, but it's all I have to go on. Like I said before, if that process comes out next week with OSU as the second team in the NCG and Alabama gets left out, well then tought luck. That's all we have to go by, so whatever.

The only reason point #3 was brought up was for those thinking a playoff would solve rematch issues.

[RWS]

That's not true, why just the other day Trent Richardson said that Alabama was the goodest team in the conference.

He said gooder. Not gooderer.

[Kaos]

Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.

Your logic makes no sense.

It certainly doesn't fucking mean they fucking are, you goat licking toolbag.

[AUChizad]

Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country. Nobody is disputing that LSU is the best team in the country right now. Just because Alabama lost to the best, doesn't necessarily mean that Alabama can't be the second best team. I don't know how that could be any clearer. The system puts the best team against the second best team.

Your logic makes no sense.

Well then, it's decided. They're the second best team. Game over. We know unequivocally who the best team is, and we know unequivocally who the 2nd best team is. No need to play it on the field. That's exactly what you're saying. The purpose is not to crown a champion, it's to let the #1 best team and #2 2nd best team play each other just to confirm what everyone knew to begin with, that team A is #1 and team B is #2. Even if they already proved it once so we can really really know it.

No chance that it's OSU who lost gasp also due to field goals in gasssssp DOUBLE overtime! Why are they even playing football? Everyone knows who #1 & #2 are and it's not them.

The criteria I'm using to disqualify OSU, Stanford, etc, is the BCS selection process. You know, that thing that is used to decide who plays in the championship game. Crazy concept, I know, but it's all I have to go on. Like I said before, if that process comes out next week with OSU as the second team in the NCG and Alabama gets left out, well then tought luck. That's all we have to go by, so whatever.

Your argument is that they are beyond a doubt the two BEST teams. In fact, it's 100% scientific fact that LSU is #1, and Bama is #2. Bama could only possibly have lost to LSU. And LSU cannot possibly lose to anyone, including Bama.

No shit the BCS has to take #1 and #2. The whole debate is over who should be #2? Should it be a team that already played #1 and lost? Or should it be a team that hasn't been afforded that opportunity yet? It seriously blows my mind that this is such a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

The only reason point #3 was brought up was for those thinking a playoff would solve rematch issues.

No. No, they didn't. Again, you failed to grasp the point. It's already been explained to you. The problem with the rematch is not that we have to see the same game twice. It's that another team who didn't get to prove they could beat the #1 team doesn't get a chance. In a 4 team playoff, at least it's slightly more fair in that those other two teams at least have a chance to prove they're the best team in the country. Six team playoff even more fair. The more teams, the fairer the system.

[RWS]

It seriously blows my mind that this is such a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

That's what I said around page 4.

It's sad when OSU's coach even says Alabama is better, but you can't fathom it. Like I've said a hojillion times; if the system determines that OSU is better and should go, then they go. If it determines that Alabama is better than OSU, then they go. And that's the standard we use to decide who rightfully goes. Whether they have already played or not. You could debate infinitely as to which team would win if OSU played Alabama. Moot point.

Unless you know of some other system currently in use right now in FBS football, other than the BCS.

[Token]

My problem with most of the arguments that I've heard, is most of you are willing to punish team A for losing to the undefeated #1 team, but you're not willing to punish team B for losing to a shitty 6-5 team.  Did Alabama have a shot at being undefeated and playing in the BCS championship game?  Yes.  I agree that if they wanted in the BCS game without question, they should have handled their business.  But every other team ALSO had the same opportunity.  It's almost like some of you are refusing to acknowledge that fact.  All Oklahoma State had to do was handle their business....but they lost to a Iowa State.  All Stanford had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Oregon.  All Oklahoma had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Baylor. 

The one and only thing that I agree with in the argument keeping Alabama out of the BCS?  It isn't fair to tell LSU to beat Alabama twice for the trophy, but Alabama only has to beat LSU once.  I agree.  But it also isn't fair to keep Alabama out because they lost to an undefeated team when the other teams in discussion lost to worse teams. 

The only way to fix this mess is with a small playoff.  BUT....teams would still have to battle for the 8 spots, and most likely, the "who's #2" argument would simply shift to "who's #8". 

[Godfather]

That's what I said around page 4.

It's sad when OSU's coach even says Alabama is better, but you can't fathom it. Like I've said a hojillion times; if the system determines that OSU is better and should go, then they go. If it determines that Alabama is better than OSU, then they go. And that's the standard we use to decide who rightfully goes. Whether they have already played or not. You could debate infinitely as to which team would win if OSU played Alabama. Moot point.

Unless you know of some other system currently in use right now in FBS football, other than the BCS.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to discuss what system is already in place.  All of us here know that this all a foregone conclusion your mighty tahd will play LSU a second time for all the marbles.  There is nothing any of us can do to change that.  The argument is that is it fair for bama to be able to receive that second shot, do they deserve it? based on a subjective criteria.

Token no one is discounting the losses the other teams had, I am simply pointing out though that you cannot base bama being #2 because you say they are.  If we are judging by SOS then why not OKSU?  It would be the same argument if everyone had no loses, the difference in this case is your one loss is to a team that you already played and lost to....so whats the point? You already lost to them, so if you beat them then it should be a split championship.

[AUChizad]

My problem with most of the arguments that I've heard, is most of you are willing to punish team A for losing to the undefeated #1 team, but you're not willing to punish team B for losing to a shitty 6-5 team.  Did Alabama have a shot at being undefeated and playing in the BCS championship game?  Yes.  I agree that if they wanted in the BCS game without question, they should have handled their business.  But every other team ALSO had the same opportunity.  It's almost like some of you are refusing to acknowledge that fact.  All Oklahoma State had to do was handle their business....but they lost to a Iowa State.  All Stanford had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Oregon.  All Oklahoma had to do was handle their business....but they lost to Baylor. 

They did not have "the same opportunity". They had the opportunity to beat other teams, and yes, failed.

They did not have the opportunity to beat the sole unbeaten undisputed #1 team in the country. Bama did.

The one and only thing that I agree with in the argument keeping Alabama out of the BCS?  It isn't fair to tell LSU to beat Alabama twice for the trophy, but Alabama only has to beat LSU once.  I agree.  But it also isn't fair to keep Alabama out because they lost to an undefeated team when the other teams in discussion lost to worse teams. 

Way way way more fair to give the other teams a crack at #1 than to let the national championship be a split, and the team who lost at home, but won on a neutral field won "the real time".

The only way to fix this mess is with a small playoff.  BUT....teams would still have to battle for the 8 spots, and most likely, the "who's #2" argument would simply shift to "who's #8".

Probably. But with each team added, the margin of error goes down. In an 8 team playoff, you're NOT going to have a situation like this where only one team earned their shot, and they have to face a team that didn't earn it any more than anyone else, while the others have no shot at the title game. If you can't make the 8 teams, you don't have a legitimate gripe as the best team in the country. In a 4 team, or even +1 3 team playoff, you're substantially reducing the likelihood of eliminating a team that could truly prove themselves as the best.

[War Eagle!!!]

My problem with most of the arguments that I've heard, is most of you are willing to punish team A for losing to the undefeated #1 team, but you're not willing to punish team B for losing to a shitty 6-5 team. 

Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.

[JR4AU]

Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.

Pretty simple shit really.  It's not rocket surgery.

[Vandy Vol]

Way way way more fair to give the other teams a crack at #1 than to let the national championship be a split, and the team who lost at home, but won on a neutral field won "the real time".

Honey badger don't care what's "fair;" honey badger wants to see the #1 and #2 teams, as determined by human voters and computer systems, compete in the BCS national championship.

That's it and that's all.  If #1 has already played #2 during the regular season, honey badger don't give a shit.  Honey badger will eat your written proposals for a no-rematch playoff system with double elimination and gold stars for honorable mentions for "fairness," then shit it back out in the form of a fire breathing wildcat that defecates magma.

Don't like it?  Take it up with honey badger, also known as the BCS.  Until you defeat honey badger in an epic duel utilizing only trees and dildos as weapons, honey badger will put whoever it wants into the national championship, rematch or not.

[Townhallsavoy]

Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.

Who is Team B? 

So we decide to implement a new clause that states that if the #2 team has not won their conference and has already lost to the #1 team, they cannot play for the national championship.  (This clause does not exist as of yet.)

Who then deserves to play the #1 team in the country?  #3?  Any one loss team that won their conference? 

And how do we determine who the best one-loss team is?  Subjective voting?  Isn't that where we are right now?  A huge issue with voters ranking Alabama #2 to play in the BCSCG when they don't deserve it?

[Token]

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to discuss what system is already in place.  All of us here know that this all a foregone conclusion your mighty tahd will play LSU a second time for all the marbles.  There is nothing any of us can do to change that.  The argument is that is it fair for bama to be able to receive that second shot, do they deserve it? based on a subjective criteria.

Token no one is discounting the losses the other teams had, I am simply pointing out though that you cannot base bama being #2 because you say they are.  If we are judging by SOS then why not OKSU?  It would be the same argument if everyone had no loses, the difference in this case is your one loss is to a team that you already played and lost to....so whats the point? You already lost to them, so if you beat them then it should be a split championship.

Thing is, I'm not saying Bama is #2 because I said so.  I'm saying that Bama should be in the championship game because the BCS says so.  But even if I were saying they are number 2 because I said so, I haven't seen a single argument yet against Bama being #2 that doesn't use the same (because I said so) logic.

The bottom line remains, every other team had the same opportunity as Alabama.  Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oklahoma and Boise State all had opportunities AFTER Alabama lost to earn their way into the game, but they didn't.  So the right thing to do is reward them because they had the luxury to not play the #1 team in the regular season?  Oregon was the ONLY team who I believe had a legitimate argument to play in it, but they fucked the duck against USC....also AFTER Alabama lost to LSU.



 

 

[Token]

Not at all. You are punishing team A not because they lost...you are punishing them because they already lost to the 1 team they would have to play for the national championship. Team B has not played LSU yet so it can not be determined if they are better.

So then, we'll reward the team who doesn't have to beat #1 in regular season?  That seems much more fair.

[Token]

Probably. But with each team added, the margin of error goes down. In an 8 team playoff, you're NOT going to have a situation like this where only one team earned their shot, and they have to face a team that didn't earn it any more than anyone else, while the others have no shot at the title game. If you can't make the 8 teams, you don't have a legitimate gripe as the best team in the country. In a 4 team, or even +1 3 team playoff, you're substantially reducing the likelihood of eliminating a team that could truly prove themselves as the best.

Ok, as it stands now.  Tell me why a 2 loss Arkansas team deserves a spot but a 2 loss Oregon doesn't. 

[JR4AU]

Who is Team B? 

So we decide to implement a new clause that states that if the #2 team has not won their conference and has already lost to the #1 team, they cannot play for the national championship.  (This clause does not exist as of yet.)

It only has to exist in the voter's minds.  It doesn't have to be a written rule.  If after all the regular seasons, and championship games are concluded, the voters simply said "Fuck it, bammer already lost to LSU, I want to see Ok. State take a shot, I'm voting bammer #3" that's ok, and should, IMHO, be the consensus.

[Godfather]

But even if I were saying they are number 2 because I said so, I haven't seen a single argument yet against Bama being #2 that doesn't use the same (because I said so) logic.

I told you that my logic was based on SOS, isn't that why we were denied in 04. Oklahoma State has four wins against teams in the Top 25 of the BCS standings, and would have a fifth by beating the Sooners, while Alabama has only two.

again though I haven't said that bama shouldn't be #2, I am simply asking the question is it fair for them to have a rematch?

[Townhallsavoy]

I told you that my logic was based on SOS, isn't that why we were denied in 04. Oklahoma State has four wins against teams in the Top 25 of the BCS standings, and would have a fifth by beating the Sooners, while Alabama has only two.

again though I haven't said that bama shouldn't be #2, I am simply asking the question is it fair for them to have a rematch?

If that's the question - The answer is a wholehearted no. 

They didn't do anything to deserve it except lose in a close game to LSU.  It's how Charlie Fucking FatFuck Weiss kept his job at Notre Dame so long.  He had a respectable loss against THE ALPHA-OMEGA USC FOOTBALL TEAM IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL UNIVERSAL MULTIVERSE NEUTRINO HISTORY........who eventually lost to Texas. 

But the problem here is that "deserve" doesn't factor into the equation.  The system that's in place would allow voters to still vote Alabama #1 if they wanted to.  They could say, "Haha fuck LSU let's vote Alabama #1 right now anyway." 

No one could question them.  The voters are allowed to vote based on who they think is the best.  Unless there's some list of guidelines I've never seen.

[Vandy Vol]

No one could question them.  The voters are allowed to vote based on who they think is the best.  Unless there's some list of guidelines I've never seen.

That's what I was going to say earlier:  I have no idea whether they receive any sort of guidelines, but part of me wonders if they do.  This would make it slightly more objective, although it would still be largely subjective.

I would be interested to see what, if any, guidelines they do have.  Afterall, they have some "guidelines" in the algorithms that the computer ranking systems use (win/loss, SOS, etc.)., and maybe those same guidelines are used in instructions for voters.

Of course, the voters could still ignore the guidelines, vote Prairie View as #1 in the nation, then scream obscenities during their pre-game conferences and publicly detail how they rape emus and kill children.  I mean, it's happened before.

...or not.  Point being, even with guidelines, the human vote is subjective to a large degree.  Usually those subjective opinions are premised upon objective facts such as win/loss, SOS, etc., but yes, there are times when politics (or psychopathic rogues) can make the human vote unreasonably subjective.

[Token]

It only has to exist in the voter's minds.  It doesn't have to be a written rule.  If after all the regular seasons, and championship games are concluded, the voters simply said "Fuck it, bammer already lost to LSU, I want to see Ok. State take a shot, I'm voting bammer #3" that's ok, and should, IMHO, be the consensus.

So you are saying that 91% of college football coaches, the guys who you constantly remind us know 100000000000000 times more about football than us monday morning armchairs,  are absolutely wrong for voting Alabama as the #2 team in college football.  Right? 

Because you guys keeping pointing at the media, like it's some type of ESPN orgy to have a rematch, but not a word is said about the voting of 33% of the equation?

Oklahoma State had a shot, and they shit the bed AGAINST AND UNRANKED 6-5 TEAM.  But hey, that shouldn't matter, because they didn't have LSU on their schedule.