If....!!!!!

[Eric]

But...I see your point...they got Michigan not being in the NC game right...they got OSU wrong.

OSU's early win over 10 win Texas, gave them creds in the back end of the season.

The reason of course that people didn't want a rematch was because Michigan already had an opportunity to play Ohio State. Every pundit on the board said, "rematch? Anyone? Anyone? We're pretty sure that these are the two best teams in the nation." I just saw the replay of the 06 game on ESPN Classic, and Bob Davie, Herbstreit, and Musberger all seemed to nod in agreement that these two teams were unquestionably the best. Yet this didn't gain traction because people thought the rematch would have been unfair to Florida. It wasn't some group of calm, cool, uninvolved observers merely doing the calculus necessary to determine that Florida had a better resume than Michigan (regardless if they did or not). The rematch factor worked against Michigan heavily, so they took a team with an identical record who wasn't provided an opportunity already against the other team in question. There's no reason an 11-1 Oklahoma State should be shut out for 11-1 Alabama. If you look at Bama's schedule, it's not even that amazing. Penn State and Arkansas are the two lone solid wins. People see the names "Florida", "Tennessee", and "Auburn," and think that's special when those teams aren't impressive at all.

[WoVeU]

Just realized that I forgot several things. For #2 and a place in the NC, Bama likely wouldn't get the nod, because LSU would be in a similar predicament. And LSU won't get it because of the recent loss. They will have to vote for Va Tech, Stanford, or Ok St. And much will be probably be based on the Conference Championship games and how the teams look.
Ok State doesn't have one. Va Tech has a chance to redeem themselves, but to a team that went down to a weak opponent last week. Stanford has to beat USC again.

Man, this is a real mess!

And it is awesome...and just wait until the BCS doesn't have condolence games to dole out!

[WoVeU]

I agree Eric. Bama and the general SEC perception is garnering more umph than either should. Bama's resume is not sparkling. LSU's is very impressive.

And I don't see anyone getting a rematch unless it was from the first half of the season and the team getting a 2nd bite lost on the road.

[Cane from the Bend]

Yet this didn't gain traction because people thought the rematch would have been unfair to Florida. It wasn't some group of calm, cool, uninvolved observers merely doing the calculus necessary to determine that Florida had a better resume than Michigan (regardless if they did or not). The rematch factor worked against Michigan heavily, so they took a team with an identical record who wasn't provided an opportunity already against the other team in question.

Actually, no.

It had more to do with Urban Meyer threatening the order of things, by hinting at how he would lobby for a tournament if florida had been left out of the BCS title game.

Michigan may have lost to Ohio St by 3 points, but it was not in overtime, and they had to come from behind to pull within three to make the ending interesting.

That is not the case with Alabama's loss to LSU.
Nobody ever had the upper hand, until overtime.

The Tiger/Tide game showcased two of the best teams I have seen all year. When the final whistle was blown, I was left thinking, "I'm not sure the better team won that game".

I agree that Oklahoma St has had a more difficult road to travel in terms of relative schedule perception. Then again, all of those arguments can work equally against you.

Oklahoma St lost to Iowa St. Check the quality of team played. Who lost to the better team?
[that is how you measure the quality of loss, donovan]

And they still have to beat Oklahoma. "If" the Cowboys beat the Sooners, then we can talk more about this. Until they do, this option is irrelevant.

Va Tech is a viable possibility.

They could balance out their loss by beating Clemson. Seeing as how it was Clemson who gave the Hokies their only loss. Beating them in the ACC Championship, would effectively give them a 12.5 - 0.5 record.

Which kind of makes this statement less poignant:

Eric wrote:
rematches (especially intradivision rematches) should be avoided at all costs. If you play Bama and LSU again, the first game was pointless and a complete waste of time.

And this next comment was poorly though through:

Eric wrote:
It's not about how good we think the teams are, it's about who is most deserving

Because, who we consider to be the most deserving is precisely based on how good we think the teams are.

Otherwise, this logic could apply to anyone. So long as there is an argument for who feels any-such-team is deserving.

There was a guy who use to post on this site about So Cal, and even made an argument one year, that a 2 loss Trojan team should have a stake in the National title game, because (in his opinion) they were playing the best football at the time. Regardless the fact that there was a no loss team, and a few 1 loss teams ahead of them.

It is also that perception in which we rank the teams accordingly.
Generally according to the performances we view.

And by what I have seen, so far, Alabama is better than both Virginia Tech & Oklahoma St.

As for Arkansas having lack of personnel when they played against Bama; the Razorbacks will have their chance to prove it against LSU.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

Just realized that I forgot several things. For #2 and a place in the NC, Bama likely wouldn't get the nod, because LSU would be in a similar predicament. And LSU won't get it because of the recent loss. They will have to vote for Va Tech, Stanford, or Ok St. And much will be probably be based on the Conference Championship games and how the teams look.
Ok State doesn't have one. Va Tech has a chance to redeem themselves, but to a team that went down to a weak opponent last week. Stanford has to beat USC again.

Well, not Stanford, or USC for that matter.

Stanford lost to Oregon, who, even though they are a 2 loss team, beat Stanford outright, head-to-head. Oregon's other loss, was to non-conference opponent, LSU.

So, unless Oregon loses to Oregon St in the Civil War game; the Ducks will fill the pac-12 north spot in the Conference title game.

USC is ineligible to play in post season competition this year. And so, they cannot appear in the pac-12 Championship.

Arizona St was considered the team headed for the game; however, with their string of three straight losses to UCLA, Washington State, and Arizona this past weekend, dropped them to 4-4 in-conference, and eliminating them from the conversation.

Silly as this may look, here's the skinny:

PAC 12 SOUTH Conference Records
USC 6-2
UCLA 5-3
Utah 4-4
Arizona State 4-4
Arizona 2-7
Colorado 1-7

USC is out, so, with a win over the Trojans, UCLA would be @ 6-3 in-conference, giving them the Championship game.

Utah is right there behind them @ 4-4, and plays Colorado this week. The Utes beat UCLA in head-to-head competition. Meaning, if UCLA loses to USC (which is likely), and if Utah wins against Colorado (which is also likely), would put both the Utes & the Bruins @ 5-4 in-conference; then Utah will appear in the pac-12 title game.

As badly as Utah seemed to be from the beginning of the year. They have the best shot of going to the inaugural pac-12 Championship game.

Of course, there is always that proverbial, "why we play the game" annotation. And thus, ever being unlikely, Colorado could somehow beat Utah. Or UCLA could somehow win vs rival USC. Which brings forth another cliche`, "the season's not over yet".

.

.

.

[Eric]

It had more to do with Urban Meyer threatening the order of things, by hinting at how he would lobby for a tournament if florida had been left out of the BCS title game.

Not sure if this is the case or not. Obviously Urban whined to the media, but I'm not sure that effected the average pollster. You can't tell me the rematch-factor wasn't a concern for the pollsters.

Michigan may have lost to Ohio St by 3 points, but it was not in overtime, and they had to come from behind to pull within three to make the ending interesting.

Correct. They were down by two scores most of the game. But the game was decided on an onside kick. Plus they were the road team.

The Tiger/Tide game showcased two of the best teams I have seen all year. When the final whistle was blown, I was left thinking, "I'm not sure the better team won that game".

And? If the second game sees Alabama win by a field goal then......Then what? They went 1-1 against each other. LSU's win means nothing while Bama's means the world as they'll go down in the record books as the final champion when in reality it was a draw.

Oklahoma St lost to Iowa St. Check the quality of team played. Who lost to the better team?

And Alabama didn't have to play their game on the heels of a university tragedy. I don't know how that event factored into Oklahoma State's psyche, but we can speculate. The quality of loss is important I believe and it shouldn't be discounted at all. I don't think I ever suggested that Oklahoma State's loss was more forgivable than Alabama's.

They could balance out their loss by beating Clemson. Seeing as how it was Clemson who gave the Hokies their only loss. Beating them in the ACC Championship, would effectively give them a 12.5 - 0.5 record.

I'm not defending the concept of conference championship rematches either. I think they are unfortunate since they're there to guard against top teams not playing each other in large conferences. I'd still prefer a 12-1 Va Tech to 11-1 Bama.

And this next comment was poorly though through:

Eric wrote:
It's not about how good we think the teams are, it's about who is most deserving



Because, who we consider to be the most deserving is precisely based on how good we think the teams are.

Otherwise, this logic could apply to anyone. So long as there is an argument for who feels any-such-team is deserving.

No, that comment was not poorly thought through. And no, we don't consider the most deserving teams precisely based on how good we think the teams are. Many people still feel that Oklahoma is better than a team like Virginia Tech, even with the two losses. Teams can lose fluky games and that has no bearing on how good the teams are perceived as being, but, that puts a damper on the "deservability" factor since they didn't get up for the game. We put teams in the title game if they get the job done when it matters. Obviously, your position about putting the two teams you happen to think are the best into the title game isn't immune from the criticism whatsoever. That's about as messy and subjective as anything else.

It is also that perception in which we rank the teams accordingly.
Generally according to the performances we view.

If you ask the pollsters, none of them believe Houston is better than Oklahoma. But they rate Houston higher because they are getting the job done, although be it against a much lesser schedule. We give Houston the benefit of the doubt, for the time being. If you rule them out beforehand from competing in the BCS and it turns out, counterfactually, that they would have done well in a BCS game, you shafted the Coogs. If they get blown out then...They get blown out. We learned something new.

[Cane from the Bend]

Not sure if this is the case or not. Obviously Urban whined to the media, but I'm not sure that effected the average pollster. You can't tell me the rematch-factor wasn't a concern for the pollsters.

Possibly, then again, possibly not.

But I can say for certain, that it wasn't until after Meyer whined, and started spouting maybe we need a playoff, that florida was announced as OSU's opponent.

I can also say, that the coaches' Poll is reflective of the mind set of most Universities. And that University presidents are predominantly against a playoff.

I do not claim any idea of what the Harris poll's insight might be. Though, seeing as how the AP poll was no longer a determining factor as a BCS component at that time; the associated press had no influence over the decision.

And you can take from that what you will.

Correct. They were down by two scores most of the game. But the game was decided on an onside kick. Plus they were the road team.

The game ended in regulation, and ended because Michigan did not come up with the ball.
The game was not necessarily decided by the onside kick. Because we don't know that even
had Michigan come up with the ball, whether or not they would have scored.

No, Michigan being down by two scores most of the game was the true deciding factor.

Alabama on the other hand, only trailed at one point of the game. Which is when they lost.

And? If the second game sees Alabama win by a field goal then......Then what? They went 1-1 against each other. LSU's win means nothing while Bama's means the world as they'll go down in the record books as the final champion when in reality it was a draw.

So what if it does?
However, what if it doesn't.

What ifs work only in the sense of, "let's not do it, because I'm afraid of the outcome".

And Alabama didn't have to play their game on the heels of a university tragedy. I don't know how that event factored into Oklahoma State's psyche, but we can speculate. The quality of loss is important I believe and it shouldn't be discounted at all. I don't think I ever suggested that Oklahoma State's loss was more forgivable than Alabama's.

By stating you would rather see Oklahoma St play for the Championship, instead of seeing a rematch between two teams who may very well be the best two teams, but also make a claim such as, "We put teams in the title game if they get the job done when it matters."

Remind me if I'm wrong about this, but, didn't Oregon, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma all lose, this past weekend?

How is that getting the job done when it matters?
Whose loss was more recent?

As for the psyche of Oklahoma St, I give them no excuses. They were up 17-7 @ the half. 24-17 @ the start of the 4th quarter. And they did not score in the 4th quarter. Which allowed ISU to tie things up with a touchdown.

Furthermore, the quality of opponent in Iowa State adversely affected Oklahoma State's strength of schedule, bringing it down, had the Cowboys won the game.

What then does that say about them, seeing as they lost it?

I'm not defending the concept of conference championship rematches either. I think they are unfortunate since they're there to guard against top teams not playing each other in large conferences. I'd still prefer a 12-1 Va Tech to 11-1 Bama.

Obviously, you did not understand my comment; as I had intended to convey that I would not be opposed to seeing Virginia Tech vs ??? in the title game.

However, denoting that you do not advocate conference championship rematches, then say you would prefer to watch a team who won their conference championship in a rematch, play for the national title in place of a team who would be playing for a national title in a rematch, is arbitrary, contradictory, and hypocritical.

No, that comment was not poorly thought through.

Yes it was, my point still applies.

And no, we don't consider the most deserving teams precisely based on how good we think the teams are. Many people still feel that Oklahoma is better than a team like Virginia Tech, even with the two losses. Teams can lose fluky games and that has no bearing on how good the teams are perceived as being, but, that puts a damper on the "deservability" factor since they didn't get up for the game. We put teams in the title game if they get the job done when it matters. Obviously, your position about putting the two teams you happen to think are the best into the title game isn't immune from the criticism whatsoever. That's about as messy and subjective as anything else.

Oh no, then why is Southern Miss un-ranked? They are 9-2, the exact same record as Oregon. I can honestly say, I wouldn't give the Golden Eagles much of a chance vs the Ducks without ever having seen them play one another. Based purely on what I have seen on the field.

And that is the same formulation you use when allocating your preseason rankings; because you have not yet seen anyone play; that to me is messy & subjective.

Is my assumption of who the two best teams are, more so subjective than your assumption as to factor in some team's possible psyche? Hardly.

If you ask the pollsters, none of them believe Houston is better than Oklahoma. But they rate Houston higher because they are getting the job done

Really, then explain #2 Alabama, #3 Arkansas, #4 Oklahoma State, #5 Virginia Tech, #6 Stanford, and #7 Boise State.

They all have 1 loss, which is 1 more than Houston.

I would say that is ranking based on those same assumptions as commented on above.

We give Houston the benefit of the doubt, for the time being. If you rule them out beforehand from competing in the BCS and it turns out, counterfactually, that they would have done well in a BCS game, you shafted the Coogs. If they get blown out then...They get blown out. We learned something new.

And if they are not paired with anyone in a BCS bowl, then this point is moot. Because they didn't play in a BCS bowl and got left out. Which means, you cannot assume they would fair any better in said BCS without the same predetermined counter-logic that you leave Alabama or Arkansas out of the title game, simply because you are afraid of what might happen.

.

.

.

[billybud]

Houston is unbeaten for one reason...they play one of the five weakest schedules in IA football. They are a non factor.

I almost agree with the pundit who wrote that if LSU beats Arkansas and then beats Georgia...why have a NC game? LSU is champ by proclamation.

[Eric]

And? If the second game sees Alabama win by a field goal then......Then what? They went 1-1 against each other. LSU's win means nothing while Bama's means the world as they'll go down in the record books as the final champion when in reality it was a draw.

So what if it does?
However, what if it doesn't.

What ifs work only in the sense of, "let's not do it, because I'm afraid of the outcome".

You can disregard the potential outcome of the game as I only said that for effect. Regardless, if Alabama wins by X, the point remains that they were still 1-1. How can we determine which outcome was the flukiest? How can we say after Bama wins the national title, "ah, that was the real Alabama! They are better than LSU"? Why wasn't the first game the real Bama and the NC Bama the fluky one?

And Alabama didn't have to play their game on the heels of a university tragedy. I don't know how that event factored into Oklahoma State's psyche, but we can speculate. The quality of loss is important I believe and it shouldn't be discounted at all. I don't think I ever suggested that Oklahoma State's loss was more forgivable than Alabama's.

By stating you would rather see Oklahoma St play for the Championship, instead of seeing a rematch between two teams who may very well be the best two teams, but also make a claim such as, "We put teams in the title game if they get the job done when it matters."

Remind me if I'm wrong about this, but, didn't Oregon, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma all lose, this past weekend?

How is that getting the job done when it matters?
Whose loss was more recent?

As for the psyche of Oklahoma St, I give them no excuses. They were up 17-7 @ the half. 24-17 @ the start of the 4th quarter. And they did not score in the 4th quarter. Which allowed ISU to tie things up with a touchdown.

Furthermore, the quality of opponent in Iowa State adversely affected Oklahoma State's strength of schedule, bringing it down, had the Cowboys won the game.

What then does that say about them, seeing as they lost it?

Hey, stuff happens. Teams get upset. This isn't making an excuse for Oklahoma State because they failed to "get it done." They did fail to get it done. But not anymore so than Alabama who also happens to be 11-1 (provided Okie State beats OU of course). Does Alabama have a better resume? Yes. Is Alabama's loss better than Oklahoma State's loss? Yes. Is Alabama probably better? Yes. I won't deny any of these things, but to ignore the fact that you are putting the integrity of the regular season in jeopardy by giving Alabama a do-over is a bad thing in my book. Since Oklahoma State's resume isn't egregiously inferior to Alabama's (and since they each have identical records), I favor Oklahoma State.

I'm not defending the concept of conference championship rematches either. I think they are unfortunate since they're there to guard against top teams not playing each other in large conferences. I'd still prefer a 12-1 Va Tech to 11-1 Bama.

Obviously, you did not understand my comment; as I had intended to convey that I would not be opposed to seeing Virginia Tech vs ??? in the title game.

However, denoting that you do not advocate conference championship rematches, then say you would prefer to watch a team who won their conference championship in a rematch, play for the national title in place of a team who would be playing for a national title in a rematch, is arbitrary, contradictory, and hypocritical.

No, no, and no. Look at the standings. Clemson has two losses, Virginia Tech has one (if they beat Virginia). Straight-up, VT is the ACC champ (although I realize they don't play equal schedules which, again, is a function of the size of conferences).

And no, we don't consider the most deserving teams precisely based on how good we think the teams are. Many people still feel that Oklahoma is better than a team like Virginia Tech, even with the two losses. Teams can lose fluky games and that has no bearing on how good the teams are perceived as being, but, that puts a damper on the "deservability" factor since they didn't get up for the game. We put teams in the title game if they get the job done when it matters. Obviously, your position about putting the two teams you happen to think are the best into the title game isn't immune from the criticism whatsoever. That's about as messy and subjective as anything else.

Oh no, then why is Southern Miss un-ranked? They are 9-2, the exact same record as Oregon. I can honestly say, I wouldn't give the Golden Eagles much of a chance vs the Ducks without ever having seen them play one another. Based purely on what I have seen on the field.

And that is the same formulation you use when allocating your preseason rankings; because you have not yet seen anyone play; that to me is messy & subjective.

Is my assumption of who the two best teams are, more so subjective than your assumption as to factor in some team's possible psyche? Hardly.

Where did I ever say we should ignore the schedules or perceived strength? Not all schedules are equal and not all teams look equal. What my point this whole time has been is that we give the teams the benefit of the doubt. Southern Miss has proven to be a weaker team due to losses against Marshall and UAB. Those are egregious losses that top 25 teams should not suffer if they don't have any convincing wins to prove otherwise that those were flukes. Again, if you read my comment, I used the adverb, "precisely." Meaning it wasn't the only thing taken into account.

My point about the subjectivity is that there can be no clear demarcation between which two teams are "best" in a given year and which teams "deserve" it more, which is what you stated earlier. I never said that measuring which team "deserves" it more was less subjective than using the criterion of which team is "best" (although I guess that's not what you're saying here, but I still feel the need to explicate this point).

If you ask the pollsters, none of them believe Houston is better than Oklahoma. But they rate Houston higher because they are getting the job done

Really, then explain #2 Alabama, #3 Arkansas, #4 Oklahoma State, #5 Virginia Tech, #6 Stanford, and #7 Boise State.

They all have 1 loss, which is 1 more than Houston.

I would say that is ranking based on those same assumptions as commented on above.

Yeah, I would say this is that hybrid of "deservabilitiy." It's not solely on how good you think the teams are, it is based on how they play their schedule, if they win when it counts, and how good they are perceived as being. I would bet these pollsters don't believe Houston is better than Oregon (Houston is 8 in the AP, Oregon is 9). Again, nobody is going to give Houston a free ride for beating a terrible schedule, but they will, temporarily, give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being in the top 10.

We give Houston the benefit of the doubt, for the time being. If you rule them out beforehand from competing in the BCS and it turns out, counterfactually, that they would have done well in a BCS game, you shafted the Coogs. If they get blown out then...They get blown out. We learned something new.

And if they are not paired with anyone in a BCS bowl, then this point is moot. Because they didn't play in a BCS bowl and got left out. Which means, you cannot assume they would fair any better in said BCS without the same predetermined counter-logic that you leave Alabama or Arkansas out of the title game, simply because you are afraid of what might happen.

I'm not afraid of anything happening. What, am I scared that Alabama might win? That would be dumb. No, I think they could very well win a rematch. But I will never say they deserve to be there since I think there is another option that would be more fair to LSU. I think Houston deserves an opportunity in the BCS regardless of whether or not we find out they don't belong.

[billybud]

Alabama barely lost, in overtime, to the current number one and undefeated team in the country.

Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State....and Iowa State lost to Texas, Baylor, Texas A&M & Missouri. And some of Iowa State's losses were beatings...by 32 points, by 16 points, by 23 points.

I think that Bama's loss to LSU was not like Oklahoma State's loss to Iowa State.

[Vileborg]

Alabama had their shot and they LOST. Why should they get a second shot to get it right? They lost and it's not even fair to LSU to have to beat them again for the national title. They have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Now it's time for someone else to get a shot.

[RazorHawk]

Alabama had their shot and they LOST. Why should they get a second shot to get it right? They lost and it's not even fair to LSU to have to beat them again for the national title. They have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Now it's time for someone else to get a shot.

I guess if losing to the number 1 team in the nation should disqualify you from competing for the National Championship, then Houston should be just awarded the glass football if they can beat Tulsa.

[donovan]

Alabama had their shot and they LOST. Why should they get a second shot to get it right? They lost and it's not even fair to LSU to have to beat them again for the national title. They have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Now it's time for someone else to get a shot.

I guess if losing to the number 1 team in the nation should disqualify you from competing for the National Championship, then Houston should be just awarded the glass football if they can beat Tulsa.

Exactly..now you are getting it.

[Eric]

I think that Bama's loss to LSU was not like Oklahoma State's loss to Iowa State.

Way to step out on a limb . I'm not aware of a single soul who ever said it was.

Alabama had their shot and they LOST. Why should they get a second shot to get it right? They lost and it's not even fair to LSU to have to beat them again for the national title. They have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Now it's time for someone else to get a shot.

I guess if losing to the number 1 team in the nation should disqualify you from competing for the National Championship, then Houston should be just awarded the glass football if they can beat Tulsa.

It's not about the resume per se. It's about who they're going to be going up against--The same team that beat them already. It's not about being "fair" to Alabama; it's about being fair to LSU.