LSU-Alabama set for rematch in National Title Game

[BwareDWare94 723]

So Oklahoma State can't play down to a lesser team on the EXACT SAME DAY that their school has been hit with a major tragedy, one in which many of the football players probably knew the two coaches who died because athletic departments are like that? Give me a fucking break. I understand the computers won't take that into consideration, but still. People need to back the fuck off on that. It's putting football above life and that's not OK at all.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

So Oklahoma State can't play down to a lesser team on the EXACT SAME DAY that their school has been hit with a major tragedy, one in which many of the football players probably knew the two coaches who died because athletic departments are like that? Give me a fucking break. I understand the computers won't take that into consideration, but still. People need to back the fuck off on that. It's putting football above life and that's not OK at all.

Let me first off say, college football is fucked up. I'd like to see things changed myself so things like this don't happen...or not happen as much. But to you Mr. Thanatos, you sir are obviously not in favor of seeing the best two teams in the country playing each other..am I right? Or are you trying to say that Okie State is better than Alabama? Because either way, you're wrong in your thinking, clearly. And to you Bware...if Okie State really put life above football, they would've cancelled the game to mourn the loss. Let's not be naive and say they weren't putting football either. Football is football, life is life...let's not mix the two so that we can benefit the other.

Edited December 5, 2011 by BlackMamba

[Sarge+ 3,436]

So Oklahoma State can't play down to a lesser team on the EXACT SAME DAY that their school has been hit with a major tragedy, one in which many of the football players probably knew the two coaches who died because athletic departments are like that? Give me a fucking break. I understand the computers won't take that into consideration, but still. People need to back the fuck off on that. It's putting football above life and that's not OK at all.

 

Brett Favre had one of the best statistical games of his entire career the night after his FATHER died. That argument is null and void.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Let first off say, college football is fucked up. I'd like to see things changed myself so things like this don't happen...or not happen as much. But to you Mr. Thanatos, you sir are obviously not in favor of seeing the best two teams in the country playing each other..am I right?

 

The two best teams as ranked by the humans and the coaches. The two best teams according to the computers are Oklahoma State and LSU.

 

Why is Bama a better team than Okie State? Okie State is 6-0 against ranked teams, Bama is 2-1. Okie State has the harder schedule, the better strength of victory, which as far as tiebreakers go is ranked above strength of defeat, which is what you and all other Bama fans are arguing eliminates Okie State. Strength of defeat isn't even a tiebreaker in most sports. Strength of victory is ahead of it in every sport that I know of.

 

Bama has the softer schedule, the softer strength of victory, they didn't even win their own division, must less their own conference, and yet, somehow, we assume Bama is the better team because they hung with LSU, in Bama's home stadium, on the Tigers worst day and that makes them better than a team that hasn't even played LSU yet. Good teams do trip up. Look at Nawlins. The Saints lost to the Rams 31-21. Yet no one is arguing that the Giants are a better team than the Saints even though the Giants just lost to the best team in the league by 3 points.

 

The main point, however, is regardless which team is #2 in the nation, Bama should not get a 2nd chance at LSU. It makes the first game meaningless. So while I'd argue that Okie State has a legitimate argument for being #2, in the end, that does not matter to me. What matters is Bama already lost to LSU and LSU should not have to beat them again. Stanford should play in the NCG over Bama, as well as Okie State.

 

As Mathias so aptly put it: Rematches are stupid.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Glad you've decided that on paper and OK State doesn't have to go to all the trouble of playing a game to actually find out.

 

You're acting like there has never been a big upset in the history of college football.

 

The point is not how good OK State is, that doesn't matter. If you think Stanford is better, then put them in the NCG. The point is, if you let Bama play, and Bama wins, there's a split national championship, despite how the BCS people will try to spin it.

 

Does LSU win handily if Stanford or OK State plays against them? Probably. Is that an argument against setting up that matchup so we can find out? No, not when Alabama has already lost.

 

Basically what you are saying is that LSU already beat the 2nd best team in the country... so let's just give them the #3 team just because we haven't seen it yet....

 

LMAO. What a joke.

 

and nobody would have complained because everyone would have had their fair shot, but under the current system the BCS shut everyone out

 

They DID have a shot... Acting like OK State couldn't be in Alabama's spot right now is a JOKE. THey had their chance... They blew it. They don't get my sympathy.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Basically what you are saying is that LSU already beat the 2nd best team in the country... so let's just give them the #3 team just because we haven't seen it yet....

 

No? I'm pointing out that the main point of the argument is Bama doesn't deserve a second shot because why do they get the title if they split the series with LSU and LSU is half a game ahead?

 

Ok State has the harder schedule, they are 6-0 against ranked teams. We don't do strength of defeat as a tiebreaker, so why was it used here? Strength of victory goes to OK State. Strength of schedule? OK State. Team that hasn't already lost to LSU and so wouldn't cause a clusterfuck if they do beat LSU? OK State.

 

Bama also had their chance and they blew it. They all had their chances to make a knock-down argument and they ALL blew it. So it should go to tiebreakers, and OK State should win the tiebreakers, but because of name recognition, we have the fans and coaches picking Bama.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Thanatos19

[Eefluxx 113]

First off, as a Bama fan I am happy to see the Tide get a rematch.

 

Do I think it's fair to OK State? No I don't but it is what it is.

 

This season (like other previous seasons) gives even more reason for a playoff system. However I don't think it should be 6 or 8 or 16 teams.

 

Let #1 play #4 and let #2 play #3 in whatever bowl game they happen to get. The NCAA can get this done and they know it. Then after those games are played it would be easier to figure out #1 and #2 for BCS National Championship game two weeks later in whatever bowl is supposed to have it that year.

 

Everyone makes money and even more money, there is no bullshit about who should get in, and we have something of a modicum playoff system.

 

Boise State doesn't cry when they go undefeated and get left out unless they just can't impress enough people to get into the top 4 and everyone makes money. (Did I mention everyone makes money? since that seems to be the reason the NCAA doesn't want a playoff)

 

As for which bowl games get the 1 and 4 and the 2 and 3?

 

For instance this year the Sugar Bowl would get 1 and 4 since LSU is 1 and they won the SEC championship game.

 

Bama would get an at large Bowl (Fiesta, Orange, Rose, whatever) to play #3.

 

If say USC was #2 they would get to play in the Rose Bowl against #3 (see what I am saying here?)

 

Any thoughts?

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

That still doesn't solve everyone's bitching. They're bitching about the rankings. I'm sure all these people will be "WAHH, WHY WASN'T #5 GIVEN THE #4 SPOT!?!? BOO HOO".

[Eefluxx 113]

That still doesn't solve everyone's bitching. They're bitching about the rankings. I'm sure all these people will be "WAHH, WHY WASN'T #5 GIVEN THE #4 SPOT!?!? BOO HOO".

 

Nothing will solve everyone's bitching, but it will solve alot of bitching

[oochymp 2,393]

That still doesn't solve everyone's bitching. They're bitching about the rankings. I'm sure all these people will be "WAHH, WHY WASN'T #5 GIVEN THE #4 SPOT!?!? BOO HOO".

but wouldn't you rather have the argument over the 4/5 teams (or 8/9) rather than the 2/3 teams?

[Thanatos 2,847]

but wouldn't you rather have the argument over the 4/5 teams (or 8/9) rather than the 2/3 teams?

 

Exactly. I don't think anyone here would argue that the more teams given a shot, the better it is for college football.

 

4 is not enough, but it's one hell of a step in the right direction.

 

Just look at this year. Top 4 are LSU, Alabama, OK State, and Stanford. I think those really are the top 4 teams in the nation. So this year, at least, if all 4 were given a shot, then I'd be satisfied.

 

What I hope happens now is that LSU destroys Bama and OK State destroys Stanford, or vice versa. I just want more and more arguments for why the BCS is just so screwed up right now.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Thanatos19

[rzb+ 367]

I find this hilarious.. and a bit discomforting.. especially some of these comments.

 

People yell, kick, and scream for playoffs yet when there's a rematch in the National Championship.. they're okay with it. Uh, what? This was easily the dumbest move the BCS could have made.

 

But how about this.. Why don't we just abolish conferences all together if this rematch is okay? What's the point of them having to play one another during the season if they both get a shot at the title anyways? The whole point of it was to see who the better team was.. and we did. LSU won IN ALABAMA. Sure, it was a tight game.. but there were plenty of close games this season. OK State went into overtime in their loss too.. should they get a quick rematch or does every game count only for them?

 

I want the SEC to win the BCS National Championship just as much as any other fan of the SEC.. but I definitely don't want it to be like this. What have we proven if we play each other in the big game? Absolutely nothing, especially when the same game was final earlier in the season. I see this game every year.. give me something that is dying in the regular season; teams from two powerhouse conferences proving who's the best. I hope LSU hangs 50 on Alabama just to spite the BCS for this garbage.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

The SEC doesn't have anything to prove to anybody. It's won 5 national titles in a row and 7 of 13. They've proven enough. This is just the 2 best teams in the country playing each other.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The SEC doesn't have anything to prove to anybody. It's won 5 national titles in a row and 7 of 13. They've proven enough. This is just the 2 best teams in the country playing each other.

 

Can you please tell my why Bama is better than Okie State? Serious question. The only reason I've ever heard is that Okie State lost to Iowa State. Okay, so they had a bad game. Their strength of victory is better, the strength of schedule is harder. Is Bama assumed to be better because they're Bama?

 

And again, the problem isn't necessarily that Bama isn't #2, it's the absolute clusterfuck that will result if Bama beats LSU. In my eyes, they are not national champions, it's split between LSU and Bama, for reason we have already gone over four or five times and no one has answered them either.

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

Can you please tell my why Bama is better than Okie State? Serious question. The only reason I've ever heard is that Okie State lost to Iowa State. Okay, so they had a bad game. Their strength of victory is better, the strength of schedule is harder. Is Bama assumed to be better because they're Bama?

Oh my fucking christ... you Okie State supporters just don't get it, huh?

 

First of all, the ranked opponents Okie State has played are Texas, Baylor, K-State, and OU. Those teams aren't exactly world beaters. Hell, even despite having big expectations, Oklahoma were major underachievers this year.

 

If Alabama had to play those teams, they'd wreck their shit.

 

Also, why are you playing down the loss to Iowa State so much? If you want a spot in the NCG, it's best not to lose to a MUCH inferior opponent such as ISU. Losing to a team like that is inexcusable.

 

Lastly, how 'bout this for a comparison... while Okie State is one of the top ranked offenses (you know, playing in that conference where defense is non-existent) Alabama is the top ranked defense and has a pretty damn good running game to go along with it. And as we've seen in the past a great SEC defense ALWAYS beats a powerhouse offense from the Big 12. But fuck it, you'll take the passing game and no defense over the top defense in the nation and dominant rushing attack, wouldn't you, Thanatos? lmao.

 

And again, the problem isn't necessarily that Bama isn't #2, it's the absolute clusterfuck that will result if Bama beats LSU. In my eyes, they are not national champions, it's split between LSU and Bama, for reason we have already gone over four or five times and no one has answered them either.

Did the Pats get a share of the Lombardi trophy when they went 16-0 (which included a victory on the Giants' turf) and went on to lose to the Giants in the SB?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

Did the Pats get a share of the Lombardi trophy when they went 16-0 (which included a victory on the Giants' turf) and went on to lose to the Giants in the SB?

 

Oh, wow. Do you not know anything about NCAAF or....

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Can you please tell my why Bama is better than Okie State? Serious question. The only reason I've ever heard is that Okie State lost to Iowa State. Okay, so they had a bad game. Their strength of victory is better, the strength of schedule is harder. Is Bama assumed to be better because they're Bama?

 

And again, the problem isn't necessarily that Bama isn't #2, it's the absolute clusterfuck that will result if Bama beats LSU. In my eyes, they are not national champions, it's split between LSU and Bama, for reason we have already gone over four or five times and no one has answered them either.

 

Because I view both LSU and Bama's defense as ungodly. I don't think anyone can beat either one of them..except each other. That's why I think Bama is the only team deserving of facing LSU.

 

And no, it's not a split. Whoever wins the national title is the national champion. I mean, if you want to consider it a split, then have at it, that's your decision. But there will be no split officially.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Because I view both LSU and Bama's defense as ungodly. I don't think anyone can beat either one of them..except each other. That's why I think Bama is the only team deserving of facing LSU.

 

And no, it's not a split. Whoever wins the national title is the national champion. I mean, if you want to consider it a split, then have at it, that's your decision. But there will be no split officially.

 

2003 disagrees. A split national champion is a possibility if Bama wins.

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

Oh, wow. Do you not know anything about NCAAF or....

Pretty sure I do.

 

Just thought I'd throw out some random NFL-related examples since Thanatos was previously doing it in this thread.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

2003 disagrees. A split national champion is a possibility if Bama wins.

 

The formula changed after that. It is no longer possible to have a split champion. The winner of the BCS national championship is the champion.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

The formula changed after that. It is no longer possible to have a split champion. The winner of the BCS national championship is the champion.

 

Tell me how that's fair to LSU then, if Alabama wins in January.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Tell me how that's fair to LSU then, if Alabama wins in January.

 

The same way it's fair if a team beats a team it lost to in the regular season in their conference title? It happens. Les Miles himself said he'd be honored to face Bama again. I guarantee you there will be no bitching from LSU if they lose the game.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Oh my fucking christ... you Okie State supporters just don't get it, huh?

 

First of all, the ranked opponents Okie State has played are Texas, Baylor, K-State, and OU. Those teams aren't exactly world beaters. Hell, even despite having big expectations, Oklahoma were major underachievers this year.

 

If Alabama had to play those teams, they'd wreck their shit.

 

Also, why are you playing down the loss to Iowa State so much? If you want a spot in the NCG, it's best not to lose to a MUCH inferior opponent such as ISU. Losing to a team like that is inexcusable.

 

Lastly, how 'bout this for a comparison... while Okie State is one of the top ranked offenses (you know, playing in that conference where defense is non-existent) Alabama is the top ranked defense and has a pretty damn good running game to go along with it. And as we've seen in the past a great SEC defense ALWAYS beats a powerhouse offense from the Big 12. But fuck it, you'll take the passing game and no defense over the top defense in the nation and dominant rushing attack, wouldn't you, Thanatos? lmao.

 

Why are you so insistent on using strength of their lone defeats to rank each team, rather than their 11 wins? The 11 wins give us a much better picture of who they are, not to mention strength of defeat isn't used as a tiebreaker. Good teams mess up. The Saints lost to the Rams for crying out loud. It happens, but it shouldn't used as a tiebreaker because it makes more sense to look at the teams they beat, since there are far more of them, than the teams that each one lost to, since there is only one for both of them.

 

You act like it's not possible for a team with a bad defense, little rushing game, and a great passing game to go anywhere, lol. Joke's on you, bud, there are plenty of teams that are doing this. But obviously since we've seen in the past that an SEC team with a powerhouse defense, (and Bama's soft strength of schedule obviously has no effect on how good their defensive rankings are, [/sarcasm]) has beaten a Big-12 team, then it can never be the case that a Big-12 team could win. Since, ya know, it normally isn't the case. Your argument is seriously one of the dumbest I've heard for this, congratulations.

 

Anyway, glad you've decided all this on paper so we don't have to bother having a game. Bama does not deserve a second shot at LSU, not when there are other teams that have had harder schedules with the same record, merely because the "experts" say they wouldn't give us, (being the fans of NCAA football) as good of a football game. THAT is the point.

 

I'm not an Okie State supporter. Quit putting words in my mouth. I am a fan of NCAA football, and in that interest, I would rather see OK State or Stanford play LSU, rather than Bama, since Bama *already* lost to them.

 

Did the Pats get a share of the Lombardi trophy when they went 16-0 (which included a victory on the Giants' turf) and went on to lose to the Giants in the SB?

 

Totally different situation which doesn't work if you actually think about the analogy, (something that is probably hard for you to do, I know, but just bear with me here).

 

Let's look at the two different situations. First off, the NFL- we had a playoff system which resulted in choosing both New York and the Pats to play each other. The Patriots received a massive advantage from their perfect regular season- homefield, all the way through. The Giants received a large disadvantage- they had to fight through to the Super Bowl on the road, and play one more game.

 

The Giants proved they deserved another shot because they won their conference, and the Patriots won theirs. This would be more akin to a scenario where LSU and Bama were in different divisions of the SEC, played each other in the regular season and then had a rematch in the SEC Championship game.

 

If the BCS were in charge of the NFL, the Giants and the Patriots would not have played, we would simply take the #1 seeds from each conference and have them play the Superbowl, without bothering with playoffs. How can this not bother you? Would people have really picked the Cardinals and Steelers to play back in 2008? Or even the Packers last year? Did you know that the #1 seeds almost never both make it to the Superbowl? Because the teams that people *think* are the best, *on paper* almost always turn out not to be so, come January.

 

So tell me, what advantage does LSU get because they beat Bama earlier in the year? Nothing. The game was completely and totally meaningless. Not to mention they are in the same conference- division, if we're going to bring an NFL analogy into it. This is like the Ravens and the Steelers playing in the Superbowl. Even if the Ravens and the Steelers were the two best teams, it doesn't matter: they are in the same division, and so they cannot both play in the Superbowl. One or the other will be eliminated. The same thing *should* have happened, LSU has eliminated Bama. You don't get to have both the Ravens and the Steelers play for the national title at the NFL level, and you shouldn't have two SEC teams, regardless of who they are, or even if they are #1 and #2 in the nation, play for the national title at the collegiate level.

 

The best analogy I can think of is this: the NFL playoff coordinators looked at that last game in the regular season, where the Pats beat the Giants 38-35, (interesting that another so-far perfect team also just beat the Giants 38-35, but I digress), and decided to pick those two teams to play in the Superbowl because the Giants came the closest to defeating New England, ignoring the other 5 losses of New York, and ignoring the other NFC teams, because *of that one game.*

 

It's absolute bullshit, it should not be happening, and people are right to be mad. Note that my team is from the SEC, the Auburn Tigers, I firmly believe we are the best conference in the NCAA and I still don't think we should have two SEC teams playing each other for the title.

 

This might be a better analogy. It's like this:

Green Bay, (still undefeated), and Detroit play in the divisional round of the playoffs and it's a great game, decided in double OT. The Pack beats the Lions to move on to the conference championship. They destroy their opponent in it, whoever it ends up being.

 

Instead of playing the AFC champion, the coordinators decide that Detroit is the better football team than anyone in the AFC, because the AFC was just too soft this year and decides to have a rematch in the Superbowl between GB and Detroit because those are "the two best teams in the nation," and Detroit was the only team to "hang with the Packers."

 

The point is that Bama doesn't get a second shot- they are in the same "division" as LSU. They have been eliminated by LSU. So someone else plays for the title against LSU, even *if* most "experts" think that Bama, (Detroit in our analogy), is a better team than whoever won the AFC. We've had this happen quite a few times, actually. I believe the year the Colts won the Superbowl, everyone was saying that whoever won the AFC title game was going to win the Superbowl, because Rex Grossman and the Bears had somehow won the NFC. It's probably true, the Patriots were probably a better team than the Bears that year, but it didn't matter because *they had been eliminated already.* They didn't decide to have a rematch between New England and Indy because the "experts" said both teams were better than Chicago- even though this was probably true.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Thanatos19

[Vin+ 3,121]

It's gonna be awesome when Bama beats LSU like they should have had fail kicking not been fail.