NOT the game of the century part 2...

[DK II]

I know I won't be going out of my way to see loser state play the elephants.

Oh, I am SO looking forward to EPSN hyping the heck out the "game of the century" during every bowl game they broadcast over the next month.

Sorry, NCAA D1 College football Bowl subdivision...if nothing else, this year (and everyone over the past 5 has shown) it is time for a tournament.

[Sickman]

Alabama played 3 top 25 teams and went 2-1. Oklahoma State played 7 top 25 teams and went 6-1. Alabama was second in their own division, let alone conference. OK ST won their conference. So, obviously Alabama deserved to be in the "Championship Game" huh?

Boise State...don't need to say more.

They claim that they won't have a tournament because it would take away from the "tradition" of the bowl games. Analysts suggest that they won't have one because they would lose money. There is a way to keep the "tradition" of the bowl games and continue to make a shit ton of money. Unfortunately, the outside the box thinkers don't work for the NCAA. Kind of ironic huh?

[vx]

But but but ....

The regular season is like a playoff and every game counts. That's what the BCS honks tell us anyways. Only, if the regular season really was like a playoff then Alabama would be eliminated by having already lost to LSU and if Alabama wins GOTC 2, then that makes GOTC 1 not mean a thing.

Would love to hear the BCS honks try and spin this one.

[swarm]

I wouldn't want to see OK State vs. LSU. Who was ranked where when OK State beat them means very little to me. Poll numbers are just opinions and in no way accurate.

I much prefer Alabama vs. LSU in a re-match. Both teams send a ton of guys to the pro's every year.

I believe they are the best 2 teams in the country.

[stu]

Couldn't agree more on this topic.

Once the bowl season begins, I've so lost interest in college football. My school (JMU) actually participates in a playoff, of all things, to determine a champion. Call me old-fashioned, but that seems to make a lot of sense.

The thing is, the FBS leaves so much money on the table by NOT having a playoff. Just think of the revenue they could generate with a national championship playoff.

Oh wait...that makes way too much sense.

[Crimson Cross]

Honestly they need a Playoff system and remove the Computer Rankings & Coaches Voting in the current system. The Coaches should have nothing to do with deciding their own Teams fate and allow for a True Champion to be determined. I'd rather watch the other bowl games like Temple vs. Wyoming, Ohio vs. Utah State to FIU vs. Marshal over this years Championship game...

[vx]

Dec 6, 2011 13:28:22 GMT -5 Swarm said:

I wouldn't want to see OK State vs. LSU. Who was ranked where when OK State beat them means very little to me. Poll numbers are just opinions and in no way accurate.

I much prefer Alabama vs. LSU in a re-match. Both teams send a ton of guys to the pro's every year.

I believe they are the best 2 teams in the country.

It's not when they beat them. It's now.
Okie State went 5-0 against teams who finished in the Final BCS Top 25. Bama 2-1.
Every single argument that has been made in SEC favor the last 5 years falls in favor of Okie State. Stronger SOS. More top 25 teams played and beaten.
The only argument in favor of Alabama is they have the better loss.
Digest that for a minute. They got in because they have the better loss.
Imagine the joke the Super Bowl would be if that is how the participants were selected.

[swarm]

I'm not in agreement with how the BCS works I just don't get caught up in it. In MI country the Big Ten Title is king and it's earned with legit W's and L's. Not the NC game which is based on opinions. I'd prefer to see a tournament too.

But until we have that we have the BCS and it's job is to match the top 2 teams against each other at the end of the year. Away from the fray, from the perspective of a hardcore football fan/super amateur scout, Alabama is the much better team than OK State. Better coaching, better players. The NC is supposed to feature the top 2 teams in the country. Regardless of how they got it, they got it right. That's what is important imo.

[graymar]

Dec 6, 2011 13:52:22 GMT -5 vx said:

Dec 6, 2011 13:28:22 GMT -5 Swarm said:

I wouldn't want to see OK State vs. LSU. Who was ranked where when OK State beat them means very little to me. Poll numbers are just opinions and in no way accurate.

I much prefer Alabama vs. LSU in a re-match. Both teams send a ton of guys to the pro's every year.

I believe they are the best 2 teams in the country.

It's not when they beat them. It's now.
Okie State went 5-0 against teams who finished in the Final BCS Top 25. Bama 2-1.
Every single argument that has been made in SEC favor the last 5 years falls in favor of Okie State. Stronger SOS. More top 25 teams played and beaten.
The only argument in favor of Alabama is they have the better loss.
Digest that for a minute. They got in because they have the better loss.
Imagine the joke the Super Bowl would be if that is how the participants were selected.

Maybe I'm a bit off...but I'm only seeing 4 top 25 BCS teams that OS played; Texas; Baylor; Kansas State & Oklahoma. These are ALL conferance games.

Alabama played 4 LSU; Auburn; Arkansas; PennState PS was OUT of conferance.

ALA only loss was by 3 points in OT to the #1 team.

Against the top teams OS outscored them 193-105 or 1.8 times the Opp score. Ala was 113-48 for 2.4 times the opp scores including the loss.

OS top 25 Opp were 35-13. Ala's were 38-10.

ALA lost to the only team ranked above them while OS lost to an unranked team. As to Ala having the better loss...well, yes...they did...but that is the way college football has always been.

I am more in the camp of Swarm..the BCS is the hand we are dealt...given the BCS system...they made the right decision...though I think OS is a strong team as well.

espn.go.com/college-football/rankings

[graymar]

As to the 'better loss' theory...if OS had not lost to an unranked team...they would be ranked above Ala.

Alternatively, if Stanford had had not lost by 23 to #5 Oregan...or had only lost by, say, 3 points...OS would not be in the conversation.

The quality of the loss matters.