The Pac-12 Championship Breakdown

[RazorHawk]

Setting a precedent does not equal having a rule. There is a huge difference.

[donovan]

"They have set a precedent already that said two teams from the same conference shouldn't play in the NCG. They have also used the argument "how can you be in the NCG if you didn't win your conference. Conferences have this championship game to decide who the best teams in the conference is and they don't use it. "

Who has set a precedent? Message board posters and bloogers have opined about winning your conference...But the BCS has said nothing.

In 2006...Florida at 12-1 moved past Michigan at 11-1. Michigan dropped because they didn't have the 12th win and Florida won a big game while Michigan was idle. It wasn't because Michigan was in the same conference...although many pundits and message board posters discussed that. It was because Florida won an extra game, a big game, while Mchigan was through.

Hmmm an legal man saying precedent does not matter and history would seem to indicate their is a precedent..oh well..anyway...the BCS is clear, they say they want to have the two top rated teams in a NCG. They get to rate the teams. Fair enough..their party, they invite. Not sure buying into the BCS and defending it makes sense to me..but what the heck...I would still playing games after school so the kids could get home and milk the cows.

"The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game showcase of college football. It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games."

I read this as...we will rate the top two teams for a playoff and then we will pit "high regarded".....as in...just what the heck does that all mean..talk about dribble.

[Spence]

"They have set a precedent already that said two teams from the same conference shouldn't play in the NCG. They have also used the argument "how can you be in the NCG if you didn't win your conference. Conferences have this championship game to decide who the best teams in the conference is and they don't use it. "

Who has set a precedent? Message board posters and bloogers have opined about winning your conference...But the BCS has said nothing.

In 2006...Florida at 12-1 moved past Michigan at 11-1. Michigan dropped because they didn't have the 12th win and Florida won a big game while Michigan was idle. It wasn't because Michigan was in the same conference...although many pundits and message board posters discussed that. It was because Florida won an extra game, a big game, while Mchigan was through.

That means if Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma they should go above Alabama who will be idle.

And poll voters who discussed their votes at the time said specifically said that two teams from the same conference should not play. Also since several coaches and media types have said if you don't win your conference you shouldn't play in the championship game. Just looking for some consistency.

[RazorHawk]

"They have set a precedent already that said two teams from the same conference shouldn't play in the NCG. They have also used the argument "how can you be in the NCG if you didn't win your conference. Conferences have this championship game to decide who the best teams in the conference is and they don't use it. "

Who has set a precedent? Message board posters and bloogers have opined about winning your conference...But the BCS has said nothing.

In 2006...Florida at 12-1 moved past Michigan at 11-1. Michigan dropped because they didn't have the 12th win and Florida won a big game while Michigan was idle. It wasn't because Michigan was in the same conference...although many pundits and message board posters discussed that. It was because Florida won an extra game, a big game, while Mchigan was through.

That means if Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma they should go above Alabama who will be idle.

And poll voters who discussed their votes at the time said specifically said that two teams from the same conference should not play. Also since several coaches and media types have said if you don't win your conference you shouldn't play in the championship game. Just looking for some consistency.

Oklahoma State could, but a win doesn't mean they should. Just because a similar scenario has happened previously, does not necessarily mean the same thing in another year. Again you have to look at the whole body of work. My guess is that the BAD loss to Iowa St will keep Okie St from jumping Alabama.

[Spence]

I think until you have a way to accurately measure strength two teams that have played during the season should not play in the NCG. I think if it is allowed then the rest of the conferences should opt out of the BCS and make their own bowl deals. This would be worse than when Nebraska made it to the game a few years ago.

[RazorHawk]

I think until you have a way to accurately measure strength two teams that have played during the season should not play in the NCG. I think if it is allowed then the rest of the conferences should opt out of the BCS and make their own bowl deals. This would be worse than when Nebraska made it to the game a few years ago.

I am on my third scotch and water, but my reading comprehension cannot figure out what you just posted. Are you talking about Houston?:D

[Spence]

I think until you have a way to accurately measure strength, two teams that have played during the season should not play in the NCG. I think if it is allowed then the rest of the conferences should opt out of the BCS and make their own bowl deals. This would be a worse situation than when Nebraska made it to the game a few years ago.

I am on my third scotch and water, but my reading comprehension cannot figure out what you just posted. Are you talking about Houston?:D

It isn't the scotch, there should be a comma in there. I could use a scotch about now.

[RazorHawk]

I think until you have a way to accurately measure strength, two teams that have played during the season should not play in the NCG. I think if it is allowed then the rest of the conferences should opt out of the BCS and make their own bowl deals. This would be a worse situation than when Nebraska made it to the game a few years ago.

I am on my third scotch and water, but my reading comprehension cannot figure out what you just posted. Are you talking about Houston?:D

It isn't the scotch, there should be a comma in there. I could use a scotch about now.

Okay, so you are saying that if Alabama and LSU play for the BCS championship game, all the conferences except the SEC should drop out of the BCS. Somehow, I don't think this will happen. If it does and the BCS is done, that would be fine with me.

[Spence]

I know it would. At this point it wouldn't both me either. Not because of this, but because of the way the polls are being manipulated by the voters. It is a sorry day when the AP voters have more integrity than the coaches poll and the Harris poll is such a joke it isn't funny.

As I said before, I believe Alabama to be the second best team. Just cause we believe it, though, doesn't make it so. We know what happens when LSU and Alabama play even in Bama's back yard. We don't know what happens if they play Oklahoma State or even Oregon - this year, but I believe if Oklahoma State wins against the Sooners, they should rise to the second team and go to the championship. They would have one more win. They would have a conference championship in their back pocket and they would be the only team in the amongst the top two contenders that hasn't had a shot at LSU. No if OKie lite loses - all bets are off and I would say Bama should go. The only thing that they would have going against them is they didn't win their conference. While I think you should win your conference, you are right that if the schools want that to happen they should change the rules.

I think the fact that Oregon got spanked last year takes them out of an argument against Bama. Oklahoma, I guess could make an argument, but it would be weak. The B-10 and B-east have no argument at all. Houston doesn't have the resume.

[RazorHawk]

I certainly don't know what will happen if Alabama and LSU play. Just because it has been played earlier does not guarantee the result of a rematch. I do think that LSU would rather play Okie State or anyone other than Alabama. We will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

[Spence]

I agree that we don't know what would happen if they play again, but we know what happened when they played. We don't know what would happen if LSU and OKla St. play. They should get their shot with a better record than Alabama and a conference championship in their back pocket. I agree that LSU would probably rather play Okla St. I don't think that should be a consideration either way.

I don't believe any team should get a rematch in the championship game, period, but if Okla St. loses I can't think of a good reason other than that to keep them out. I also believe that LSU is the best team in the nation. If their offense was better they would be head and shoulders above everyone.

[Eric]

I agree that we don't know what would happen if they play again, but we know what happened when they played. We don't know what would happen if LSU and OKla St. play. They should get their shot with a better record than Alabama and a conference championship in their back pocket. I agree that LSU would probably rather play Okla St. I don't think that should be a consideration either way.

I don't believe any team should get a rematch in the championship game, period, but if Okla St. loses I can't think of a good reason other than that to keep them out. I also believe that LSU is the best team in the nation. If their offense was better they would be head and shoulders above everyone.

If Ok State wins, they'll be 11-1 which is identical with Alabama. Either way, with Oklahoma State generally having a virtually identical resume, I would give them the nod over Alabama.

Live I've kept on saying--If Oklahoma State gets blown out, so what? If Oklahoma State proves they are not a match for LSU, well, then hindsight is 20/20. The national title will have been played in Tuscaloosa. Alabama lost to LSU, I don't see the point of them getting a mulligan. Can anybody explain to me why they should get a mulligan? Can anybody explain to me what we will learn by virtue of a rematch? Because I seriously don't get it.

Think of it this way--If Oklahoma State squeaks by Iowa State in Ames that Friday night, would people still give Alabama the nod because they think Alabama is better than a team that squeaked past Iowa State? Would you say that Oklahoma State, by virtue of making a FG with 2 minutes remaining in the game, would be the second-best team in the nation over Alabama? Is the FG really going to make that much of a difference in considering where you would rank teams in a pure power poll? Not really. This is why we take into consideration who you lost to and what you "deserve"; it is not about how "good" we think you are per se.

[Spence]

Right, I forgot there was no CCG in the B-12 now. Doesn't matter, they are conference champs and they would beat the #2 team in their conference to get there.

[RazorHawk]

I agree that we don't know what would happen if they play again, but we know what happened when they played. We don't know what would happen if LSU and OKla St. play. They should get their shot with a better record than Alabama and a conference championship in their back pocket. I agree that LSU would probably rather play Okla St. I don't think that should be a consideration either way.

I don't believe any team should get a rematch in the championship game, period, but if Okla St. loses I can't think of a good reason other than that to keep them out. I also believe that LSU is the best team in the nation. If their offense was better they would be head and shoulders above everyone.

If Ok State wins, they'll be 11-1 which is identical with Alabama. Either way, with Oklahoma State generally having a virtually identical resume, I would give them the nod over Alabama.

Live I've kept on saying--If Oklahoma State gets blown out, so what? If Oklahoma State proves they are not a match for LSU, well, then hindsight is 20/20. The national title will have been played in Tuscaloosa. Alabama lost to LSU, I don't see the point of them getting a mulligan. Can anybody explain to me why they should get a mulligan? Can anybody explain to me what we will learn by virtue of a rematch? Because I seriously don't get it.

Think of it this way--If Oklahoma State squeaks by Iowa State in Ames that Friday night, would people still give Alabama the nod because they think Alabama is better than a team that squeaked past Iowa State? Would you say that Oklahoma State, by virtue of making a FG with 2 minutes remaining in the game, would be the second-best team in the nation over Alabama? Is the FG really going to make that much of a difference in considering where you would rank teams in a pure power poll? Not really. This is why we take into consideration who you lost to and what you "deserve"; it is not about how "good" we think you are per se.

Had Okie State not lost to Iowa State, they would be set to play in the National Championship game. Had Oregon not lost to USC, they would also be set to play, but Spence would not want this, as they have already played LSU. Had Stanford not lost they would be in the championship game.

[Spence]

They haven't played in this season, but I would rather see Okla St.