Official BCS/Bowl Selection Thread

[AUChizad]

Once again, Chizik demonstrated class, and Saban did just the opposite. Water is wet.

You guys realize that Auburn, as much as we, our own fans, have shit all over this dismal season, is the second best win on Alabama's schedule behind Arkansas? Penn State lost to every ranked team they played. Georgia State is D-II. No other team on their schedule had a winning record.

But everyone just KNOWS they are the better team. I mean, Saban, right? The Bear was still coaching there just 30 short years ago. The Big XII is down this year. The SEC is impermeable. What evidence do we have to support that? Well, we just know. Oklahoma, Houston, Baylor, Kansas State, Tex A&M, Oklahoma, Texas. All shit. We know because Oklahoma State beat them all, so they can't be any good.

Anyone find it hilariously ironic that the "S" in BCS stands for series? And the official twitter account for the BCS is, I shit you not, @EveryGameCounts. Should stand for Ballgames Count Sometimes.

I'm fucking done with the BCS. I'm pretty sure the nation (outside of the crimsonnecks in Alabama) are with me.

[Townhallsavoy]

You'll still watch it.  And you'll still be excited when Auburn has a chance to get into the BCS. 

They have us by the balls.  Nothing we're willing to do about it.

[AUTiger1]

Troy Calhoun is a complete dumbass, Okie St at #5.  Fucking 5th?  Really?  Doug Marrone and Gary Pinkel are dumbass too.  David Shaw is a homer that voted his team 3rd and I would expect as much.   

[AUChizad]

Actually, I probably won't. I'll be arriving to a clusterfucked New Orleans airport on January 9th returning from my honeymoon. Definitely won't have to put up with the bullshit build-up that we heard for

THE GREATEST GAME EVER TO BE PLAYED
Which will no doubt be 1000 times more nauseating than it was the first time around. Like a six week old McRib. It was bad enough when it went down the first time, but when it comes back up it will be even more disgusting.

[AUChizad]

Arkansas lost to LSU AND Alabama. Aren't they more deserving by nonexistant poll voters' logic?

[AUChizad]

Boise had one loss and their best win was beating the SEC East champions and goes to the Maaco bowl.

Bama had one loss and their best win was beating the #3 SEC West team and goes to the National Championship.

Figure that out.

[RWS]

Boise had one loss and their best win was beating the SEC East champions and goes to the Maaco bowl.

Bama had one loss and their best win was beating the #3 SEC West team and goes to the National Championship.

Figure that out.

The biggest problem with your reasoning is you want pump up other teams wins, while forgiving who they lost to, while holding Alabama's loss against them and multiplying it. That has been the biggest flaw in your logic (and others) since we started talking about it.

Boise lost to a then unranked TCU. TCU also lost to Baylor and Southern Methodist. Southern. Methodist. That shit is going to leave a mark, and it's not that impressive. To further compound the issue, TCU is now only ranked 18th.

Now, let's talk about the SEC East champions UGA. Their biggest wins this season were over then ranked #20 AU and #23 Ga Tech. I can almost guarantee you that Michigan St is going to fuck them up too in the bowl game.

Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country, who has not lost to anybody. And to further that, LSU has a perfect BCS rating. Oh, and that worthless third team in the SEC Arkansas that Alabama beat? They've only been beaten by #1 and #2, and have a better SOS than Stanford, Oregon, Boise, and Wisconsin. Isn't SOS what you guys have been harping on? While those losses still count against them, it softens the blow. Same logic that still has AU at #25.

[AUChizad]

Boise lost to a then unranked TCU. TCU also lost to Baylor and Southern Methodist. Southern. Methodist. That shit is going to leave a mark, and it's not that impressive. To further compound the issue, TCU is now only ranked 18th.

There's that circular logic again. "We know TCU's not any good because they're only ranked 18th!"

You don't really believe that a team should be measured more by comparing their single losses than comparing their multiple quality wins. It suits your belief that Alabama deserves to live out its birthright.

The two Alabama schools went undefeated, but before that?

Florida lost to Ole Miss. Ole. Miss.

The year before LSU lost to a five loss unranked Arkansas, and a five loss Kentucky. Ken.Tuc.Key.

Need I continue?

[RWS]

There's that circular logic again. "We know TCU's not any good because they're only ranked 18th!"

You don't really believe that a team should be measured more by comparing their single losses than comparing their multiple quality wins. It suits your belief that Alabama deserves to live out its birthright.

Well then how do we know ISU isn't better than LSU? How do we know that UAB isn't better than OSU? How do you know that Penn State isn't good enough to play for the championship? You had no problem knocking Arkansas to show that Alabama only had one decent win that wasn't really quality, but you're going to be an advocate for #18 TCU? You don't even make sense from one post to the next, because you're trying so desperately to beat a round peg into a square hole.

When you have multiple "quality wins" but then shit the bed and blow a 17 point lead against ISU, then what does it all mean? How much does the SOS matter when you blow it against a really shitty team? Does it mean you only consider the wins and ignore the loss to ISU? I mean fuck, if that's the logic you are going to apply to all teams, then Alabama losing to LSU is most certainly excuseable, right?

The problem is you are picking and choosing what standards you want to apply to which teams, those standards that you don't want to apply, and then those standards that don't exist that you want to insert into the system so you can put a round peg in a square hole. I haven't said shit about anything being Alabama's "birthright". Like I said before, if the system said OSU was going to play for it all, then so be it. If this same exact scenario played out and put AU into the NCG, then you would be just fine with it. Nothing to see here. The system is working! Whatever benefits YOUR team is A-OK. 

Bottom line is you're simply butthurt that it benefited your rival and puts them in a position to win the NC this year. 

[War Eagle!!!]

Well then how do we know ISU isn't better than LSU? How do we know that UAB isn't better than OSU? How do you know that Penn State isn't good enough to play for the championship? You had no problem knocking Arkansas to show that Alabama only had one decent win that wasn't really quality, but you're going to be an advocate for #18 TCU? You don't even make sense from one post to the next, because you're trying so desperately to beat a round peg into a square hole.

When you have multiple "quality wins" but then shit the bed and blow a 17 point lead against ISU, then what does it all mean? How much does the SOS matter when you blow it against a really shitty team? Does it mean you only consider the wins and ignore the loss to ISU? I mean fuck, if that's the logic you are going to apply to all teams, then Alabama losing to LSU is most certainly excuseable, right?

The problem is you are picking and choosing what standards you want to apply to which teams, those standards that you don't want to apply, and then those standards that don't exist that you want to insert into the system so you can put a round peg in a square hole. I haven't said shit about anything being Alabama's "birthright". Like I said before, if the system said OSU was going to play for it all, then so be it. If this same exact scenario played out and put AU into the NCG, then you would be just fine with it. Nothing to see here. The system is working! Whatever benefits YOUR team is A-OK. 

Bottom line is you're simply butthurt that it benefited your rival and puts them in a position to win the NC this year.

You're a dumb ass...

And make stupid fucking arguments...

[CCTAU]

Well then how do we know ISU isn't better than LSU? How do we know that UAB isn't better than OSU?

Because they haven't played, dumbass.

[RWS]

You're a dumb ass...

And make stupid fucking arguments...

Chizad is the one that opened the door for it.

It's not that difficult to understand when you use all of the factors.

#8 Boise State A) had one loss, and B) does not have a particularly strong SOS. That loss to an unranked TCU team who C) has a not so great SOS, and D) has losses than include one particularly shitty team, is going to leave a mark.

The Maaco Bowl gets the first pick of Mountain West teams not eligible for a BCS bowl. Due to Boise St being in the MWC and how the qualification process works for some conferences, including the WAC, Boise isn't eligible for an automatic BCS bid this season (obviously they could have gone to the NCG if they were ranked #1 or #2). Boise went to the Maaco Bowl last year as well, had the same record as this season, and were actually ranked higher last year.

Bama only lost to the #1 team in the country. Losing to the #1 team in the country is better than losing to an unranked team. Which is the same logic some people cannot seem to comprehend when talking about Bama and OSU.

[RWS]

Because they haven't played, dumbass.

Exactly.

So, by that reasoning, why can't ISU play LSU for the NC? If we don't know because they haven't played, how is it fair that ISU doesn't get a chance? Remember, we're picking and choosing what rules to apply, and we're doing it with the goal of excluding Alabama from the championship game.

That reasoning just doesn't work with what we use right now. Not that the system we have now is perfect by any means, but it provides some level of order. 

[War Eagle!!!]

Exactly.

So, by that reasoning, why can't ISU play LSU for the NC?

Because they lost fucking 5 or 6 other games dip shit...It can't be that hard to understand...

I can't fucking believe I am arguing with you...

[Godfather]

Bama only lost to the #1 team in the country. Losing to the #1 team in the country is better than losing to an unranked team. Which is the same logic some people cannot seem to comprehend when talking about Bama and OSU.

Actually you fail again...and fail at what Chizad is pointing out to you.

You keep bringing up the one loss...OSU and bammer both have one loss.  What he is trying to point out was that their totally body of work was better than bammers so given the fact that each team has one loss what should count more? Who they lost to? or their overall body of work?

[War Eagle!!!]

Actually you fail again...and fail at what Chizad is pointing out to you.

You keep bringing up the one loss...OSU and bammer both have one loss.  What he is trying to point out was that their totally body of work was better than bammers so given the fact that each team has one loss what should count more? Who they lost to? or their overall body of work?

Not only that, but damn...we know, that LSU can beat Alabama. We have no clue about OSU. The only alike teams are Texas A&M and Arkansas. By RWS' argument, Arkansas barely beat A&M, Alabama beat Arkansas and OSU beat A&M...therefor; Alabama is automatically better than OSU...

[CCTAU]

Well then how do we know ISU isn't better than LSU? How do we know that UAB isn't better than OSU?

Because they haven't played, dumbass.

OMG. Let me add,

BUT BAMMER AND LSU HAVE ALREADY PLAYED! BAMMER LOST!


THAT is why we can say they do not deserve to play again.

[RWS]

Actually you fail again...and fail at what Chizad is pointing out to you.

You keep bringing up the one loss...OSU and bammer both have one loss.  What he is trying to point out was that their totally body of work was better than bammers so given the fact that each team has one loss what should count more? Who they lost to? or their overall body of work?

I see the point. The counterpoint is, why shouldn't you be penalized for losing to a shitty team?

[Kaos]

I see the point. The counterpoint is, why shouldn't you be penalized for losing to a shitty team?

[djsimp]

Wow.......just wow. No words can explain how sick that is.......but funny at the same time.