If....!!!!!

[billybud]

VT played a weak OOC schedule...the 3-23 loss to Clemson took some shine off VT's offense. And scraping by Duke 14-10 looked ugly. The voters remember but the computers are what knocked VT to #5.

[billybud]

VT, in Sagarin, was given credit for playing just one top 30 team....and it lost that game. No wins against a top 30 team will hurt your ranking in Sagarin.

The fact that Clemson, in the ACC, is the only team the computer thinks of consequence, hurt VT's SOS (60)...

[Vileborg]

I'm pulling for Georgia to smoke LSU so the national title is not even the two best teams in their conference and neither would even be conference champions.

As for who can beat LSU? Only Alabama and Va Tech. Both have the two best defenses of the teams in the top 5 and I think only Va Tech could score 20 or more on LSU. Va Tech has the weapons on offense and the defense to play with them and I don't think anyone else does. So as for the two best teams? The system has failed and the emperor is naked again.

[billybud]

VT is ranked #12 in Total Defense....Alabama and Georgia are ranked Top Five.

Scoring Offense...VT is #44, Bama is #16

Naw...I do not see it for VT.

[billybud]

Huh? FSU has a higher rated defense and a higher rated scoring offense than VT...

Too bad about those four losses (by a combined 20 points)...FSU could lose to LSU if the ball had bounced a little differently.

[Vileborg]

There is nothing misleading in what I have said. Other than Alabama none of the other teams in the top 5 has a good enough defense to keep LSU from outscoring them.

[Derek]

LSU beat a decent Tennessee team in the conference championship by 7 points. At the time, LSU was #7 in the BCS, #5 in Harris, #7 in the coaches. Georgia was #4 in the BCS, #4 in the Harris, #4 in the coaches. Missouri and West Virginia were #1 and #2 respectively and both lost. What happened to Georgia? Well, miraculously, LSU's 7 point win over a 9-3 Tennessee team was convincing enough for them to jump Georgia all the way up to #2. Oklahoma's win over Missouri also got them to jump over Georgia. Everyone dismissed Georgia in favor of LSU because Georgia didn't win their division. Nobody was talking about whether or not they were the best team in the nation, they were completely forgotten about. All the talk was about "pushing the reset button" which was just code for "have LSU hop over Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Kansas to the #2 slot so they can play Ohio State for the title." Precedent went completely out the window. Generally, if a team is idle and a team in front of them lose, you don't punish the team and they move up. LSU's solid win over solid Tennessee by 7 points was treated like they beat the #1 team in the land and saw them move up 5 spots (when only 2 teams in front of them lost).

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!

With the exception of Vile I thought I was the only one who understood the history of this situation.

Thank you for explaining it like this, You said what I have been thinking but just not well enough.

[Derek]

LSU beat a decent Tennessee team in the conference championship by 7 points. At the time, LSU was #7 in the BCS, #5 in Harris, #7 in the coaches. Georgia was #4 in the BCS, #4 in the Harris, #4 in the coaches. Missouri and West Virginia were #1 and #2 respectively and both lost. What happened to Georgia? Well, miraculously, LSU's 7 point win over a 9-3 Tennessee team was convincing enough for them to jump Georgia all the way up to #2. Oklahoma's win over Missouri also got them to jump over Georgia. Everyone dismissed Georgia in favor of LSU because Georgia didn't win their division. Nobody was talking about whether or not they were the best team in the nation, they were completely forgotten about. All the talk was about "pushing the reset button" which was just code for "have LSU hop over Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Kansas to the #2 slot so they can play Ohio State for the title." Precedent went completely out the window. Generally, if a team is idle and a team in front of them lose, you don't punish the team and they move up. LSU's solid win over solid Tennessee by 7 points was treated like they beat the #1 team in the land and saw them move up 5 spots (when only 2 teams in front of them lost).

It was the preseason perception that had Georgia pushed to the side.

LSU was ranked higher all season long.

.

No.
They.
Were.
Not.

You are completely wrong. Sorry.

[billybud]

Georgia lost two games by October 6, 2007. Losing two early games dropped them back.

Dropped Georgia to #20...Georgia worked their way back up by week 14 (10-2) to #4, as high as they got all year...week 15 had Georgia fall to #5 as some 11 win teams moved above them. LSU ,VT , and Oklahoma won a CCG game and moved to 11 wins while Georgia sat idle at 10-2. Georgia lost two games and lost to the SEC East Champs (Tennessee) badly (14-35) in 2007 while LSU handled the Vols in the CCG. That beating of Tennessee moved lSU past Georgia. No conspiracy. LSU had a better record, beat the SEC East Champs while Georgia did not.

Georgia was not in the same position as Bama is this year. Bama has not been beaten in regulation and played that one loss to #1 LSU as close as one can play a loss.

[Cane from the Bend]

Nor has Georgia played Alabama; which was the case in 2007 --- as Billybud pointed out above, Georgia Lost to the conference runner up, Tennessee, badly.

And, yes, LSU had been ranked higher than Georgia throughout the season.

So; yes they were.

And, Georgia wasn't the best in conference, had two losses, with LSU Playing against 1 loss Ohio St.

This season does not seem to parallel the situation of 2007 quite nearly as close as the picture you're painting.

.

.

.

[Eric]

Georgia lost two games by October 6, 2007. Losing two early games dropped them back.

Dropped Georgia to #20...Georgia worked their way back up by week 14 (10-2) to #4, as high as they got all year...week 15 had Georgia fall to #5 as some 11 win teams moved above them. LSU ,VT , and Oklahoma won a CCG game and moved to 11 wins while Georgia sat idle at 10-2. Georgia lost two games and lost to the SEC East Champs (Tennessee) badly (14-35) in 2007 while LSU handled the Vols in the CCG. That beating of Tennessee moved lSU past Georgia. No conspiracy. LSU had a better record, beat the SEC East Champs while Georgia did not.

Georgia was not in the same position as Bama is this year. Bama has not been beaten in regulation and played that one loss to #1 LSU as close as one can play a loss.

Well what they did was have LSU 3 spots behind Georgia the week of the conference title game (with two teams ahead of Georgia losing). LSU beats Tennessee by 7 points. Then the voters say, "uh-oh...Georgia got beat badly by Tennessee, we can't have them get in over LSU and they didn't win their conference", and then they threw out the previous weeks' polls and had LSU skyrocket to #2 for no other reason than the fact that they won the conference title game.

You could still make an argument that Georgia was playing the best football in the nation. Winning the division, apparently, is irrelevant, so let's just go off of who we think the two best teams are (Georgia could very well have defeated LSU if they had an opportunity in the SEC title game and that meaningless artificial construct of "divisions" is what propelled 9-3 Tennessee over them). Georgia vs. Ohio State for the national title.

[Cane from the Bend]

Exactly. I'm never going to forgive the system for this abysmal decision. I also decided a few weeks ago that I would not watch one second of the game if it turns out the way it will and I hope others follow suit (not that it would matter since it would most likely be the highest-rated national title game ever).

I do not buy into the Game of the Century nonsense.
They said the same thing about USC/Texas.

And I said it then, that it is a bit premature to declare such a title while still in the first decade of the century.

By the way; the Texas/USC game was much more entertaining than the LSU/`Bama game.

I don't think it will be the highest rating they've even had. But it will have the highest rating on that day.

.

Craig James' rationale behind ranking Arkansas #3 is absurd. Yeah, many of those top 10 teams probably would have lost to Alabama and LSU....But does that somehow mean Arkansas is the third best team in the nation? No. Not at all. Their best wins on the year have been a comeback against Texas A&M and South Carolina. Congratulations. I bet Oregon, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Stanford, Virginia Tech, and USC would also be 10-2 on Arkansas' schedule. Just because Arkansas has two losses to the two best teams doesn't mean they are obviously the #3 team in the nation.

This is why the talking heads at ESPN are irresponsible.

I believe Arkansas' losing by double digits to both #1 & #2 should be suffice enough to show they are not capable of competing at the top.

The talking heads are incompetent, but Craig James' voice speaks with a little less volume than most. They louder voices are continuing to blab the same ol' playoff garbage.

.

If you are trying to decide who is the best team in the nation you have to let someone outside one conference play.

Yes & No

Yes, if their are enough other teams who could challenge the #1 team.
No, if you assume the #2 is from the same conference.

You cannot disregard that everyone had their chance to go undefeated, too.
Clemson is not as good as LSU. So that basically disqualifies Va Tech out.
Iowa State is not as good as LSU. So that disqualifies Oklahoma State.
Stanford got blasted by Oregon who got dominated by LSU; triangle.

You could play this list down the line, and you will still find that Alabama's only sin, was losing to a team that is in-conference.

It does not make Alabama not the #2 nationally.

On-the-other-hand, should LSU lose to Georgia, and Va Tech corrects their loss to Clemson with a double digit win in the ACC Championship, I believe the argument could change dramatically.

I suppose an argument could also be made for Oklahoma St in the event they were to beat the Sooners in convincing enough fashion. (though, their argument wouldn't be as strong as Virginia Tech's)

As for Stanford; I do not think beating UCLA is a solid enough win to put them back into the conversation.

.

As I calm down a little I have to realize that Oklahoma St. has the biggest beef and they deserve to be ahead of Va Tech. They have played the toughest schedule and the most ranked teams and beaten them all.

Oklahoma St did play a schedule with more ranked teams than Va Tech; SoS wise, they may have a larger gripe.

However, Virginia Tech beating Clemson gives the Hokies a chance to rectify the single loss they have. Oklahoma State losing to, Iowa State doesn't look good, at all.

Of course, the flip side is; assuming Va Tech does win, the same could be said critically of Tech's possibility to play for the National title, as the argument is being made against Alabama.

You say, Alabama shouldn't get to rematch vs LSU.
But, Va Tech's only chance, is because they get a rematch.

Sort of ironic.

.

The only problem with winning ugly is that the margin of victory is not factored into any of the polls.

It is true, margin of victory is no longer a criteria in factoring pool rankings.

Though, I do not believe the human element disregard margin of victory.

.

There is nothing misleading in what I have said. Other than Alabama none of the other teams in the top 5 has a good enough defense to keep LSU from outscoring them.

You are basing those comparable statistics off of dissimilar competition.

How about comparisons between the offenses & defenses of those teams Virginia Tech/Alabama/LSU played against.

Otherwise, it's speculative.

.

.

.

[Spence]

I don't have a problem with Virginia Tech either. I just don't believe a team should get a rematch. In or out of conference. Especially in conference. I believe they played and lost, next man up.

[Cane from the Bend]

Well what they did was have LSU 3 spots behind Georgia the week of the conference title game (with two teams ahead of Georgia losing). LSU beats Tennessee by 7 points. Then the voters say, "uh-oh...Georgia got beat badly by Tennessee, we can't have them get in over LSU and they didn't win their conference", and then they threw out the previous weeks' polls and had LSU skyrocket to #2 for no other reason than the fact that they won the conference title game.

You could still make an argument that Georgia was playing the best football in the nation. Winning the division, apparently, is irrelevant, so let's just go off of who we think the two best teams are (Georgia could very well have defeated LSU if they had an opportunity in the SEC title game and that meaningless artificial construct of "divisions" is what propelled 9-3 Tennessee over them). Georgia vs. Ohio State for the national title.

Or, you could say that a 35-14 loss to the team who won the division, who then lost to LSU hurt Georgia's strength of Schedule; that and having Western Carolina on Georgia's schedule didn't help.

You see; LSU did not have one FCS/Division IAA team on their schedule.

Once the final polls are released, they reflect all extenuating criteria. Have you noticed the polls generally make some dramatic change in the last week? It happens virtually every year.

I am also not so sure Georgia could have beat LSU. I don't believe they were necessarily playing the best football at that time. That of course is my opinion. Then again, to say they were, is stating an opinion.

In the end, the voters said "No" Georgia was not playing the best football in the Nation, and they are not the #2 team (which by the way Georgia never elevated to at any point during the 2007 season). Thus, LSU competed against Ohio St, and the Tigers won.

One thing you cannot argue, is that in this for instance, the voters were wrong. Because they did play a team who could beat #1 rated Ohio St. And in this case, it was not Georgia.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

I don't have a problem with Virginia Tech either. I just don't believe a team should get a rematch. In or out of conference. Especially in conference. I believe they played and lost, next man up.

And in this scenario, I believe next man up has already had the same chance that Alabama did, by also losing. So, next man up, isn't any better.

.

.

.