bigkahuna;992283 wrote:Damn, I thought we had a loop hole.

Kind of Ironic though isn't? The team that wins the conference doesn't get to play for the NC but the 2 teams who didn't win the conference do.

Skyhook79;992494 wrote:Kind of Ironic though isn't? The team that wins the conference doesn't get to play for the NC but the 2 teams who didn't win the conference do.

If Georgia wasn't terrible, this could happen. LSU will beat Georgia by 3 TD's and we'll have to watch two teams who can barely make a field goal go at it in the NCG. Yippee!

sleeper;992501 wrote:If Georgia wasn't terrible, this could happen. LSU will beat Georgia by 3 TD's and we'll have to watch two teams who can barely make a field goal go at it in the NCG. Yippee!

Maybe but LSU did lose a game to Kentucky last time they won the NC.

karen lotz;992263 wrote:No. if two teams from the same conference finish 1 and 2 but don't win the conference, that conference will have 3 teams in the BCS

How fucked up is the BCS when the two teams they say are #1 and #2 can't even win their own conference? (assuming Georgia wins, which is unlikely but possible)

FatHobbit;992517 wrote:How ****ed up is the BCS when the two teams they say are #1 and #2 can't even win their own conference? (assuming Georgia wins, which is unlikely but possible)

Eh, it could mean there are better teams at the top of said conference than at the top of other conferences. And that is supported by the fact that at least half of the major conferences are going to have 2-loss champs, while the possibility remains that all conference champs this year could end up with two losses.

Also, there are always comparisons to the NCAA basketball tourney. You don't see overwhelming complaints when two or three teams from the Big East or ACC are seeded as #1s. And the #1/#2 from the same conference doesn't ever really become an issue until people put it in the context of a championship rematch. Do you think the top six slots in the poll (or top 11) should be locked down by conference champs, regardless of all variables?

enigmaax;992536 wrote:Eh, it could mean there are better teams at the top of said conference than at the top of other conferences. And that is supported by the fact that at least half of the major conferences are going to have 2-loss champs, while the possibility remains that all conference champs this year could end up with two losses.

Do you think the top six slots in the poll (or top 11) should be locked down by conference champs, regardless of all variables?

I don't think you should be able to play for the national title if you didn't win your own conference. That just seems silly to me. Alabama is the best team in the country if they win, but not the best team in their own conference?

enigmaax;992536 wrote:Also, there are always comparisons to the NCAA basketball tourney. You don't see overwhelming complaints when two or three teams from the Big East or ACC are seeded as #1s. And the #1/#2 from the same conference doesn't ever really become an issue until people put it in the context of a championship rematch.

I don't think it's as big of a deal in the tournament because you still have to win quite a few games to be champ.

FatHobbit;992592 wrote:I don't think you should be able to play for the national title if you didn't win your own conference. That just seems silly to me. Alabama is the best team in the country if they win, but not the best team in their own conference?

For starters, all conferences aren't equal. You know it and anyone who denies it is lying. And I'm not trying to start the SEC debate, but you can take any major conference and find anywhere from 8-12 teams who are better than whatever champ the Sun Belt throws out there. Starting with a general statement that not winning your conference means you are not better than a conference winner just doesn't work for obvious reasons.

Second, in the SEC example, if Georgia beats LSU then Georgia, LSU, and Alabama all have 1 loss to conference teams. Yeah, Georgia won that one game, but also didn't have to play any of the other top three teams to get to that game in the first place. Nobody thinks Georgia is the best team in the country. Nobody is going to think Oregon is the best team in the country with 2 losses and the 1 loss team from that conference isn't a champ either. If Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma, they'll be co-champs with 2 losses. Is that really better than two non-champs with 1 loss?

You just paint yourself into a corner by acting as though it is so simple as to use a conference championship as a pre-requisite. If conferences were based on competitive equality from top to bottom and the top teams were always perfect, maybe it'd work. Otherwise, it is just one more variable to be considered - not the be all or end all that starts the conversation.

I don't think it's as big of a deal in the tournament because you still have to win quite a few games to be champ.

But so what? Why are six games at the end of the year more important than 18 league games you played over the course of the year, or the 27-30 total games? Why even let non-conference champs in the tournament if you have to be the best in your conference in order to be considered the best overall?

enigmaax;992621 wrote:


But so what? Why are six games at the end of the year more important than 18 league games you played over the course of the year, or the 27-30 total games? Why even let non-conference champs in the tournament if you have to be the best in your conference in order to be considered the best overall?

How well you perform in the 18 game league schedule and 30+ game totals are what determine if you get in the tournament so they are important. The 6 games you play in the tourney are more important because those 6 games are all played on a neutral court against other teams who did well in their 18 game league schedule and 30 overall games. What should be eliminated is those conference tournaments which are there to garner more money and thats it.

Skyhook79;992795 wrote:How well you perform in the 18 game league schedule and 30+ game totals are what determine if you get in the tournament so they are important.

Two problems with this if you are using the "conference champ" line to determine a national champion. First, performing "well" doesn't matter, it is winning the league that matters. Second, since most conferences either don't recognize the regular season champ as "champion" or at the minimum, don't use the regular season standings to determine its autobid to the championship tournament, there still is no true value in winning your conference as it relates to competing for a national title.

What should be eliminated is those conference tournaments which are there to garner more money and thats it.

That and allowing teams into the tourney who haven't won their conference?

The 6 games you play in the tourney are more important because those 6 games are all played on a neutral court against other teams who did well in their 18 game league schedule and 30 overall games.

And the BCS title game is played on a neutral field between two teams who "did well" in their league/overall games during the regular season. The talk was about needing to win your conference to be the best. It isn't a prerequisite.

I would have no problem with the NCAA mens basketball tourney only taking regular season champions (OF EVERY CONF) for the tournament ( I believe that was the original format) as long as everyone played everyone the same amt times within the their league and there are no split divisions with in the conference. That would eliminate these money grabbing Conf tournaments and teams being careful who and where they schedule their ooc opponents and these bias "selection committees" choices and reasons.
On the same hand College Football should do the same in determining their Champion. There are 11 D-1A conferences it would not take long to make a playoff out of that.

enigmaax;992621 wrote:For starters, all conferences aren't equal. You know it and anyone who denies it is lying. And I'm not trying to start the SEC debate, but you can take any major conference and find anywhere from 8-12 teams who are better than whatever champ the Sun Belt throws out there. Starting with a general statement that not winning your conference means you are not better than a conference winner just doesn't work for obvious reasons.

If we're trying to find the best team in the country, shouldn't they be the best team in their conference? I agree the SEC is better than the Sun belt (or any comparable conference) but the Sun belt isn't really sending anyone to the title game anyway.

enigmaax;992621 wrote:Second, in the SEC example, if Georgia beats LSU then Georgia, LSU, and Alabama all have 1 loss to conference teams. Yeah, Georgia won that one game, but also didn't have to play any of the other top three teams to get to that game in the first place. Nobody thinks Georgia is the best team in the country.

In your scenario Georgia is the SEC champ. I don't care what people think, they would have won the SEC.

enigmaax;992621 wrote:Nobody is going to think Oregon is the best team in the country with 2 losses and the 1 loss team from that conference isn't a champ either. If Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma, they'll be co-champs with 2 losses. Is that really better than two non-champs with 1 loss?

IMO it is better to have a 2 loss conference champ than a 1 loss team who wasn't even good enough to play for the conference title.

enigmaax;992621 wrote:You just paint yourself into a corner by acting as though it is so simple as to use a conference championship as a pre-requisite. If conferences were based on competitive equality from top to bottom and the top teams were always perfect, maybe it'd work. Otherwise, it is just one more variable to be considered - not the be all or end all that starts the conversation.

I agree that conferences aren't equal, but before we declare the SEC (or any conference) king, I want them to at least knock off another conference champion in the title game. In 2006 I though Michigan deserved a second shot at the title because everyone KNEW Ohio State was unbeatable and that Michigan was the #2 team in the country. After the bowl games it was obvious that both teams were highly over rated. I thought it was crap that the polls were manipulated to drop Michigan out of the #2 slot when they didn't play, but in retrospect it was absolutely the right thing to do. I still think it's the right thing this year even though everyone is 100% positive that Alabama and LSU are #1 and #2. (even though Bama would be #1 if they could only kick a field goal or two)

enigmaax;992621 wrote:But so what? Why are six games at the end of the year more important than 18 league games you played over the course of the year, or the 27-30 total games? Why even let non-conference champs in the tournament if you have to be the best in your conference in order to be considered the best overall?

The six games at the end of the year are more important because they are against other teams that have had a decent season. Beating up the cupcakes in your conference just gets you in the tournament. Then you have to win/luck your way into the title.

FatHobbit;992959 wrote:If we're trying to find the best team in the country, shouldn't they be the best team in their conference? I agree the SEC is better than the Sun belt (or any comparable conference) but the Sun belt isn't really sending anyone to the title game anyway.

I don't think the one game between Georgia and LSU means LSU isn't the best team in the conference. The championship game between divisions is just another game. If Georgia wins, three teams have 1 conference loss and LSU still has beaten way better teams than anyone else - in their conference or when compared to any other conference champion. So once you have that out of the way, you're looking for the second best team and no, Alabama's loss to the #1 team doesn't mean that they can't possibly be #2.

IMO it is better to have a 2 loss conference champ than a 1 loss team who wasn't even good enough to play for the conference title.

Now you're just getting so far from having the "best" teams that there's no point in talking about it. The obvious example of a flaw in this thinking is comparing Oregon to Alabama. They both played #1 and lost, Alabama's showing was much better. Oregon then went on and lost another game but just because they aren't in #1's conference they get a mulligan in the comparison?

I agree that conferences aren't equal, but before we declare the SEC (or any conference) king, I want them to at least knock off another conference champion in the title game. In 2006 I though Michigan deserved a second shot at the title because everyone KNEW Ohio State was unbeatable and that Michigan was the #2 team in the country. After the bowl games it was obvious that both teams were highly over rated. I thought it was crap that the polls were manipulated to drop Michigan out of the #2 slot when they didn't play, but in retrospect it was absolutely the right thing to do. I still think it's the right thing this year even though everyone is 100% positive that Alabama and LSU are #1 and #2. (even though Bama would be #1 if they could only kick a field goal or two)

Florida had a better resume than Michigan. They had better wins. That was the right move. I've already said that I'd give an edge to Oklahoma State over Alabama, so if Ok State is left out, I wouldn't agree with it (though I also don't think it would be some great injustice - there's still a strong case for Alabama). My main point is that making that decision based exclusivley on 1) we don't want a rematch or 2) we don't want two teams from the same conference or 3) you should have to be a conference champ is just wrong. It isn't as simple as any of those elements and none of those really has anything to do with evaluating the teams.

I think there's more to it than "Alabama only lost by 3 to #1", but I understand why some voters would look at that result and consider Alabama to be deserving. Whether we like it or not, the selection process is based on a collection of observations about performance. Alabama may (and does) look more impressive to a large number of voters. To arbitrarily say, "well, I think they are better, but I'm going to eliminate them for (insert reason mentioned above)" just doens't make any sense.

enigmaax;993029 wrote:The championship game between divisions is just another game.

IMHO the championship game is to find the best team in the conference. Isn't that the point of having a championship game? If there are three teams with one loss, and one of them wins the game they don't split the trophy. They have one conference champ.

I will concede that Alabama is probably better than Georgia, but if by some miracle Georgia beats LSU we won't really know. That is a problem with only playing one game at a non neutral site. It doesn't really determine who the best team is, just who played the best that day.

enigmaax;993029 wrote:Now you're just getting so far from having the "best" teams that there's no point in talking about it. The obvious example of a flaw in this thinking is comparing Oregon to Alabama. They both played #1 and lost, Alabama's showing was much better. Oregon then went on and lost another game but just because they aren't in #1's conference they get a mulligan in the comparison?

I will also admit this is a flaw in my theory. Oregon doesn't deserve a rematch anymore than Alabama.

enigmaax;993029 wrote:Florida had a better resume than Michigan. They had better wins. That was the right move.

I honestly didn't follow Florida at all that year. Michigan was a solid #2 in the polls (which makes sense when you barely lose to #1 on #1's home field) The pollsters obviously manipulated the polls to prevent the rematch. In hind sight (without even paying attention to Florida's schedule or wins) this was the right move because they both were hammered in their bowl games.

enigmaax;993029 wrote: My main point is that making that decision based exclusivley on 1) we don't want a rematch or 2) we don't want two teams from the same conference or 3) you should have to be a conference champ is just wrong. It isn't as simple as any of those elements and none of those really has anything to do with evaluating the teams.

to your points above

1.) I definitely do not want a rematch. If they already played, then I believe another team deserves a shot.
2.) I'm indifferent here sorta
3.) I do believe to be national champs (the best team in the nation) you should first be the best team in your conference. (The basketball reference is different IMO because then you have to win the tournament which is a completely different animal.)

enigmaax;993029 wrote:I think there's more to it than "Alabama only lost by 3 to #1", but I understand why some voters would look at that result and consider Alabama to be deserving. Whether we like it or not, the selection process is based on a collection of observations about performance. Alabama may (and does) look more impressive to a large number of voters. To arbitrarily say, "well, I think they are better, but I'm going to eliminate them for (insert reason mentioned above)" just doens't make any sense.

If we have multiple teams who have an argument to be national champs, and one team hasn't already beaten one (or more) of the others, I think that it would be reasonable to remove the losers from the equation. They already proved on the field that they do not deserve to be champs.

I will however concede if Alabama makes the title game with one loss, the other teams did not win all their games so they don't have too much of an argument. All they had to do was beat the teams on their schedule (Iowa State?!?) and they would be there.

No chance Alabama deserves a shot at the title. I wouldn't be upset if LSU lost to Georgia and still got into the title game, but no way Alabama deserves a shot. Place them in the Sugar Bowl against Utah so they can get blown out again.

Page 7 is the longest page to scroll down. Probably should of called each other to debate it instead of typing it.

KnightRyder;992311 wrote:the point i was trying to make is that a rematch of a regular season game being played for the national title isnt uncommon

Your point is completely wrong. It IS uncommon. Typical member of the idiot Seminole fanbase.

ytownfootball;992246 wrote:All three were pathetic. What's your point again?

I know you weren't talking to me, but I can tell you that my point was to show that Knightryder is indeed an FSU fan. No fan of another team would have gotten that defensive of me saying the 'Noles are a joke (even though they won't be relevant again anytime soon).

OSU vs LSU?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

OSU would struggle to beat Oregon and would get crushed like an insect against Alabama.

Zombaypirate;993384 wrote:OSU vs LSU?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

OSU would struggle to beat Oregon and would get crushed like an insect against Alabama.

Reps

Zombaypirate;993384 wrote:OSU vs LSU?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

OSU would struggle to beat Oregon and would get crushed like an insect against Alabama.

Thanks for the insight.

So glad we didn't finish with a top 10 of:

1.LSU
2.Oregon (11-1)
3.West Virginia (11-1)
4.Alabama (11-1)
5.Houston
6.Boise State
7.Stanford(loss to Oregon and USC) Oklahoma State/Oklahoma/Virginia Tech (each w/2 losses)

What other sport decides their Champion with a 5 week wait after the last regular/Conf Championship game is played?
That makes no sense at all. What an awesome playoff we could have in those 5 weeks.

sportswizuhrd;994321 wrote:So glad we didn't finish with a top 10 of:

1.LSU
2.Oregon (11-1)
3.West Virginia (11-1)
4.Alabama (11-1)
5.Houston
6.Boise State
7.Stanford(loss to Oregon and USC) Oklahoma State/Oklahoma/Virginia Tech (each w/2 losses)

Haha. I like what you've created here.

Skyhook79;994480 wrote:What other sport decides their Champion with a 5 week wait after the last regular/Conf Championship game is played?
That makes no sense at all. What an awesome playoff we could have in those 5 weeks.

Good point.

The regular season matters SOOO much that there are 7-14 days in between games but 5 weeks between the last regular/Conference Championship and the NCG. If the regular season is so important and unique, why do they make the the teams wait 5 weeks and out of the weekly routine that made the two teams national title contenders. Like Mike and Mike have said, who would like watching a movie and be forced to wait 5 hours to watch the last 15 minutes?

5 weeks....length of the NFL playoffs w/12 teams. They seem to work.

sportswizuhrd;994711 wrote:Good point.



5 weeks....length of the NFL playoffs w/12 teams. They seem to work.

and that includes a week off before the Super Bowl. It could be done in College very easily and probally garner more money than all these meaningless bowls combined.