Just putting aside the Bama hat and the biased polls for the moment, do you think a team that has already played the #1 team and lost, that will not even win its division much less its conference, should have a do-over ahead of other conference winners or undefeated teams?
Alan S,
Are you kidding me??? Let’s consider the arguments pro and con rationally –
1. UA didn’t win its division, much less its conference.
True, but only because we happen to be in the same division as the obvious no. 1 team. Is there a rule that the second-best team can’t play in the BCS championship if it happens to be in the same conference as the best team? When did that get adopted?
In fact, there have been cases of other teams that didn’t win their conference going to the BCS.
2. UA looked bad against LSU
UA led much of the game and was tied at the end of regulation. It was only ugly to those fans who don’t appreciate defensive football. Alabama leads the country in nearly every defensive category there is. LSU is second in several. It was a tough game against two of the best defensive teams to ever walk a collegiate football field. (Okay, I’ll admit our field goal attempts were pretty ugly.)
Of course, Big 12 and Pac 12 fans don’t appreciate defense. (Does the Big 12 even play the same sport? It sometimes looks more like Arena Football to me.) Uninformed fans seem to consider a 48 to 47 victory indicative a good team. But teams that allow 47 points don’t win in the SEC. The other team will play defense.
But Alabama also has one of the best offenses in the country. It’s not as “exciting” as some (if “exciting” means long pass plays against inept defenses with constant blown coverages), because we run the ball and take 8 minutes per drive. But that’s because we play teams that have defenses — and still score lots of points because we score nearly every possession.
And BTW, did you see UA vs. AU? Didn’t look like winning ugly to me. The fact is, whoever plays LSU is going to struggle because they’re a great team.
3. Alabama isn’t the second best team. It’s really …
So if Alabama isn’t the second best team, who is? Oklahoma State in only number 5 in the human polls. Virginia Tech was crushed by Clemson (33 – 3 or something like that), and Clemson was just clobbered by South Carolina (5th best team in the SEC) and beaten by North Carolina State (not ranked and never been ranked and never going to be ranked). Va Tech is just not a serious contender.
Stanford? How can Stanford be second best when the lost to Oregon which has now lost twice (Southern Cal and LSU).
Frankly, the third and fourth best teams are Southern Cal (on probation) and Oregon (but only on a good day). And they aren’t anywhere near UA in the polls, because USC is on probation and Oregon has two losses.
So to make the case that it should be someone other than UA, you have to prop up some pretender … which is why there is no hue and cry for a particular other team, just someone else.
4. Wouldn’t it be fun if …
I would personally greatly enjoy seeing LSU disassembled Boise State, Stanford, or some other pretender from the Big 12. I’d love to see what those hot shot teams look like against a great SEC defense. That’s why we need a playoff. You see, I’d also love to see the best of the rest against Alabama. That is, not the ACC winner (no better than 6th in the SEC if they were part of our conference) or Big East (why on earth do they still get an automatic bid?) but a highly touted team from the Big 12 or Pac 12 or even Boise State. It would be so much fun …
But until we have a playoff, we’re stuck with having no. 1 play no. 2. That’s the system. And that’s the rules we all agreed to play by. And only sissies try to change the rules in middle of the game.
5. Alabama didn’t beat anybody good
Well, we beat Arkansas, ranked 8 (3 at the time), and beat them bad, We beat Penn State (21) bad. We tied LSU (1) in regulation. And Auburn was ranked when we played them – not to mention being the defending national champions. But we beat them so bad we drove them right out of the rankings.
The most important indicator of how good you are is how well you play against the very best. And we beat Arkansas by the very same spread as LSU. Study the scores, and we look to be LSU’s identical twin.
And you might check out Football Study Hall (http://www.footballstudyhall.com/) for truly sophisticated statistical analyses comparing football teams without regard to the polls. UA and LSU have been 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) all year — by a substantial margin.
6. It’s a do over!
In baseball, the NFL, basketball, and every other sport I can think of, it’s common for the finals to be a rematch of an earlier game. There is no rule that says you can’t have a rematch. And it’s happened before in the BCS.
Ask the LSU players, and they’ll tell you they most want to play Alabama — because they’re great competitors and want to play the best. They don’t want their victory tainted by being matched against an inferior opponent they wind up beating by 21 points when they know Alabama is the only peer LSU has in the country. Great teams enjoy competition and want to play the best.
7. There’s an undefeated team
Yeah, and it’s Houston. This is a serious conversation …
8. There are conference winners
All with at least one loss, and every loss is to a team vastly inferior to Alabama’s one loss opponent. So, sure, we’re glad to compare the quality of the teams that beat us. And who would seriously argue that Alabama wouldn’t have won the Big 12 or Pac 12 or Big 10 or ACC or Big East? Why should you get in the BCS over a superior team by the happenstance of playing in a conference that doesn’t have LSU in it?
Conclusion
Every complaint is best answered by a playoff system, and there we surely agree. Put in a common sense playoff system, and we’ll have a much better, much more fun post-season. Until then, there’s only one game that matters — 1 vs. 2.
He-he. Didn’t expect to get my comment as a separate blog post. And didn’t expect the Bama hat to really come off. :-). Here is another perspective and answers to some your points:
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/958302-bcs-rankings-10-reasons-why-alabama-should-not-play-lsu-in-the-bcs-championship
Blessings
Heh. It’s all about the money.
Agreed, Bob. The SEC has the big money and the BCS is stacked in favor of those with the big money. And occasionally, you do get the match-ups that show the sham it really is – remember Boise St vs. OK? 😉
If Arkansas had a quarterback, Alabama, and LSU would have another loss to contend with. The SEC is not that great there are three teams, the rest couldn’t beat North Texas.
QUARTERBACK RATING RAT
1. Aaron Murray, UGA 155.4
2. AJ McCarron, ALA 149.8
3. Tyler Wilson, ARK 148.7
4. Tyler Bray, TENN 144.8
5. Connor Shaw, SCAR 141.5
He is a pretty good QB, 🙂
Johnny, Mr Wilson has one failing but it is a big one,He don’t know when to throw the ball away, to many sacks, or looses concentration when pressured.
Alabama’s much less deserving than Oklahoma State. If you have to hold up beating Auburn this year as a signature win, then you’re in trouble. This column does a good job of pointing out some of the BCS hypocrisy:
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2011/11/28/for-its-latest-trick-the-bcs-renders-the-sec-title-game-moot/
Alabama makes for more entertainment calling out the names of the players!
Yeah, that “beating Auburn right out of the standings” is not much of a claim to fame.
When is Jay going to send me a thank you note for sending y’all Texas A&M? They should slot in right nicely somewhere between Ole Miss and Tennesee in beatability. And they improve the overall academic reputation of your conference.
And we have already written 10,000 Aggie jokes, so you won’t have to put your American Literature department on that job. But after further consideration, this might not work out for my Tidal brethren. In Texas, Aggies are dumb. In the SEC, they are the salutatorian. Never mind.
BTW, I think Trent Richardson will get the Heisman, but Robert Griffin actually deserves it. And forget a playoff. The annual debate is much more fun than the games could ever be. And I would submit that if ‘Bama manages to reroute the Tiger team bus down Bourbon Street, thus winning the championship by default, they will NOT send back the trophy later, saying, “Well, it’s not rightly ours, we never had a playoff.” A champion is a champion.
“Every complaint is best answered by a playoff system… Until then, there’s only one game that matters — 1 vs. 2.”
I agree totally. My problem with the BCS system is that after next next Saturday, there will not be a college game that matters until the 2nd week in January. The BCS bowls (except for the money) have become the NIT– sometimes fun to watch, but meaningless. And the only “tournament” that matters is one game long.
I have to agree that LSU and Alabama are by far the 2 best teams in the country. I have to agree… because I’m an Arkansas fan. If you are going to put up two 30+ point losses, it’s best for it to be against the two top teams in the country. Maybe with A&M and Missouri coming into the SEC, we can move BOTH Auburn and Alabama to the east? Please? And take LSU with you!
Some folks say that something similar is true in college basketball. That nothing in college basketball matters until March. I can’t say I like it better. But having one of each system gives us a nice counterpoint.
One other little matter, a trifling thing, a minor point that I would not have considered except that my collegiate daughters mentioned it at Thanksgiving… final exams. Now those who are majoring in Recreational Philosophy or getting their degrees in Applied Orthokinetic Studies may not have an issue with traveling to playoff games when they might otherwise be studying, but the academic year for real college students does sometimes impinge upon the greater good– f’ball. All we need to do is get those darn professors to get with the real program.
Bob’s nailed it. It’s all about the money.
Perhaps this will force changes to have a “final four” scenario where the top four BCS teams play New Year’s weekend and the winners of those games play for the national championship the next weekend. (At least in this scenario, we’re FINALLY laying the framework for a tiered playoff system.)
Why not have 8 teams to play on Christmas weekend, with winners playing New Year’s day with a championship game the next week? Or maybe we could do as in basketball – have 64 teams in the tournament and extend the playoff season into February. Then we could have the February Follies along with March Madness.
Better yet, why not admit that it’s just a game and none of it will make a hill of beans of difference in a hundred years?
Charles,
Aggie jokes? Who needs those when we have Auburn jokes?! The Texans steal some of our best ones, but we tell ’em better …
Jerry,
You know, an 8-team play off would be even more controversial — we’d be arguing about “bubble teams” — teams 12 – 9 that should have gotten in (and gotten play off money!), but no one would be arguing that the true no. 1 team was sitting at home in January. And far more games would matter because all games impacting the last few slots would matter. More slots, less difference among the teams, more controversy. I like it.
From http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/11/oklahoma_state_coach_says_lsu.html
Enough said.
The FBS should follow the direction of what the FCS does now: 20 teams, 12 teams get first round byes. See http://fcsnow.com/Documents/2011%20bracket.pdf
This bracket could easily be expanded to cover 24-32 teams, pretty much eliminating poll bickering if adopted by the FBS. And would pretty much cover all teams that get any votes at all in the polls. On the other hand, there would be teams in the playoffs with 3-4 losses. And the squabbling would all be over seeding: wah, wah, waaaah.
Probably not nearly as much money in it, however. And at least 5 opportunities to get upset if on top of the rankings. What big bowl wants to be in the quarterfinal round?
If UGA beats LSU but LSU still plays Alabama for the national championship, you would have a team that didn’t win its conference vs. a team that didn’t win its division, playing for the national title. How messed up is that?
Nobody ever accused either coaches or reporters of being all that good at math. But this does remind me a little bit of several years ago when Texas and Zero U knocked each other around in a similar situation.
But no worries here. LSU will win out and make all the hand-wringing moot.
So Jay, you do not want to see a rematch of LSU vs. …Oregon? 🙂
All of this talk reminds me of the 1978/79 rematch saga:
No. 1 Oklahoma upset by Nebraska, Nov. 11, 1978. And what did the 1979 Orange Bowl do? They infuriated the Huskers by inviting… Oklahoma to play Nebraska in the bowl!!!! Result: Oklahoma 31, Nebraska 24.
When close rematches happen, I will offer that it is rare in college football for one team to win both. And I am not even a Crimson Tide fan, Jay. But I do have high regard for Bear Bryant (spoken by a long-time Sooner… who laments Ryan Broyles’ injury and is impressed with Robert Griffin’s athleticism and skill….).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Rick G asked,
Pretty messed up and really unlikely. Georgia may not cross the 50 against LSU. Just so, if UCLA (5-4 in conference play) beats Oregon, it goes to the Rose Bowl. That’s as messed up as the Big East getting an automatic bid. And then Stanford will have a better record than Oregon (they’re tied now and Oregon beat Stanford). Which one gets an at large bid? Oregon or Stanford?
Bruce,
Thanks for the kind words regarding the Bear (may he rest in peace). And, yes, Alabama might well be favored in a re-match … but for the fact they still won’t be able to kick their field goals.
“Bama had their shot” – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sports/ncaafootball/oklahoma-state-makes-its-case-point-by-point.html
OSU makes their case on the field. Alabama makes their case from, uh, the clubhouse with the rest of the teams who can’t do it on the field?
Enough said 🙂
OSU has beaten 7 of todays top 25; ‘Bama beat 5
We know LSU can beat Bama, they haven’t beaten OSU yet. From an unbiased (and slightly bitter) aspect, I would rather see the LSU steamroller against the OSU pinball machine. I suspect LSU beats ’em by 10+, but it would be fun to watch.
Another ugly Dixie cleat-fest would be an anti-climatic end to an exciting season. Bama folks will vote for it, but they’d vote to see a title game of Alabama vs. Whatsamatta U.
But alas, it is pretty clear that we are to be subjected to another sixty minutes of bus wreck football– a loud crunch accompanied by a pile of bodies. Repeat ad nauseum, award trophy.
If people insist on a rematch, bring back Oregon.
Charles,
BCS rankings will be announced at 7:15. And Alabama will be in second place and the BCS championship.
You know, if OSU hadn’t lost to a Iowa State, you’d get your wish. Now, does a serious contender for the national championship lose to a 6-6 team? A team that placed 8 in a 10-team conference with a 3-6 conference record?
In 2008 the SEC proposed the “And One” play off (4 teams playing off to play the final game, all games in the existing major bowls). This followed Auburn being cut out of the BCS championship despite being undefeated (or else the SEC would have won that one, too).
The other conferences would not even allow the proposal to be discussed! They were too tied to the existing four bowls, one of which would be cut out each year. It seems getting free stuff from bowl committees is more important than giving four teams a chance for the championship.
Therefore, the only reason OSU won’t be playing for a national championship is the decision by the Big 12 to INSIST that only two teams go.
Ever since then, the SEC has won every championship. And now the SEC will win again.
Come to think of it, I can’t imagine why we’d want to invite four teams to the party.
Jay,
A couple of points. Does a serious contender miss 4 field goals and only score 6 points AT HOME when it has a chance to be #1? Does a university losing part of its coaching staff of one its major sports in a tragic accident just hours before its only loss have any bearing on mitigating circumstances? This match-up is a disgrace to NCAA football. For once, the computers got it right and the subjective voters could not look beyond past history and reputation rather this season’s results.
If Bama wins in January, they will be 1-1 vs LSU for the season, and then will joyously proclaim that they are the better team. Uh-huh. Roll Tide… back to math class.
Charles,
1 < 3. 2 < 3. Therefore the best two teams are 1 and 2, not 3. QED.
The three major human polls all list Alabama 2. The rules we all agreed to is that 1 and 2 play at the end of the year.
For further, completely persuasive explanation for why the voters got it right, see http://bleacherreport.com/articles/969718-bcs-national-championship-game-why-alabama-was-the-right-choice-by-breakdown
PS — It's very common for SuperBowl teams to have played each other in the regular season, and the result is often reversed. Why don't we require best two out of three in the NFL? Because that's not the system we agreed to.
PPS — Suppose we had a four-team play off (which the Big 12 rejected a few years ago). Alabama would have played OSU in the first round. If UA had won and then beaten LSU, it would still be 1 win each. Would you still object to the system? Or is the real complaint that OSU got left out? If so, the solution is a play off — which the SEC proposed and got nowhere with.
Alan S,
I love college football. Totally unpredictable, crazy results despite the efforts of the executives and press to bring rationality to an irrational system. Until we have a playoff, we’ll have such arguments.
Personally, I’d rather be arguing over who should have been 4 in the BCS — the last team to enter the 4-team playoff. But this way, maybe the Big 12 will finally be willing to support the 4-team playoff suggested by the SEC — before they won all the remaining national championships. Of course, I’m not sure we in the SEC would be willing to bring it up again now.
Jay,
Knowing that all of our discussion is just jousting of windmills, it might be worth point out that the polls are invariably and inarguably biased. One pollster in Harris ranked OSU as low as 6th, and a few others ranked it as low as 5th (one of the above even ranked Houston higher than OSU). Really? Not one SEC pollster ranked Alabama lower than 2nd. The more objective computer polls went over 70% toward OSU as #2 (5-2).Seeing how close the final BCS score was (less than 1/100th of a point between #2 & #3), is there really any question than a less biased human poll would have rectified this inequity? Yes, those are the rules everyone plays by, but they are stacked in favor of the traditional power-houses regardless of how the actual in-season, on-the-field performances go. The best we can hope, short of congressional anti-trust action, is for another tweaking of the BCS system to eliminate the human bias as best as possible.
As I lower the visor on my helmet and take another run at the windmill….
Jay, I have to testify in court later today. If the defense lawyer is as clever as you, I hope our counsel lets me point out any invalid assumptions offered. For a fellow who wants a playoff, you are quick to shed the resultant head-to-head mathematics when such calls your conclusions into question. The current system is fatally flawed, but if it anoints Bama, it is “what we agreed to” and should be respected. Had the BCS put Okie State in the final, as it almost did, I suspect that this injustice would have been further evidence that such a plan should be shelved in favor of a playoff.
Actually, both systems share what may be an unavoidable flaw: it’s all about who won or lost most recently that determines everything. Modern football cannot escape this, as it is too physical to allow the “best of” series shared by pro baseball and basketball.
But that’s not bad. The fun is in the debate.
Now then, to something much more objective and easily defined. What odds do you give me on the Heisman? I think RG3 closed the gap on your monster running back by blowing up Texas.
Interestingly, in the BCS Selection Process rules (http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597), Rule #1 is the only that either does not require Conference Championship or does not forbid two teams from the same Conference from an automatic berth. All we need to do is make rule #1 have the same high standards as rules #2 and #3. Problem solved. Next year. 🙂
This is from an email circulating, by Joseph Woodruff (abbreviations expanded):
Polls show RG3 as winning. Indeed, the experts opine that Trent would have won if Alabama had played Auburn the most recent Saturday rather than sitting home during the SEC Championship — as though that should matter.
The Heisman is vastly more arbitrary than the BCS. Peyton Manning and Joe Namath didn’t win. It’s nuts.
But I can’t criticize the choice of RG3. He’s had an incredible year.
Jay – who’s making the Big 12 argument Woodruff is trying to disprove? Sounds more like a strawman. The argument is not about conferences, but about strength of schedule for three individual teams: LSU, OSU, and Alabama. Hands down, LSU and OSU had a much tough schedule than Alabama.
Alan S —
This post clarifies the history and purposes of the BCS system. History as it really happened: http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2011/12/6/2616565/the-bcs-a-historical-primer
Enjoy.
PS — Rivals seems to think a 4-team play off is in the offing: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_final_four_gains_steam_120811