The Pac-12 Championship Breakdown

[Eric]

That's not my point though, RazorHawk. What you, Billybud, and Cane in particular have said in the other thread is that the BCS is designed to pit the two "best" teams against each other. Oklahoma State missing a late FG against Iowa State is not really that big of a deal in this context. Whether they had squeaked past Iowa State or whether they barely got upset by Iowa State really doesn't have much bearing on their rank if you were to measure their rank in terms of pure strength. The fact of the matter is that Iowa State played them close--The W isn't a big deal when you are measuring relative strength.

Now, if you want to keep saying that we have to pit the two "best" teams against each other and if you would have Oklahoma State play in the national title if they beat Iowa State by 3, what you are saying is that the missed FG against Iowa State is the difference in Oklahoma State being more powerful than Alabama. Because if you want 12-0 Oklahoma State + a squeaker win over Iowa State in the national title game over Alabama, you would have to assume that they are better than Alabama in order to do that. In order to be consistent, it seems like you would rather see 11-1 Alabama over 12-0 Oklahoma State.

[RazorHawk]

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

Oregon and LSU have played, and had the Ducks not lost to USC, they would have been in the Natl Championship game against LSU.

Of course all of this assumes LSU will beat Georgia.

[Spence]

You're right, so yes I would be against that too.

[Dossenator]

"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.

No Ok St vs OU is not a conference champ game. It is a regular season game. If Ok State wins that game they will have played the same number of games as Bama. Some of The Big 12 or whatever it is had two by weeks so they would still be playing a game while other conferences had championship games. Flor, in 2006, played an extra game against a top 10 opponent and won (believe it was against Ark). They played an extra game than Michigan that year.

[Spence]

Yep, Eric already pointed that out to me.

[Derek]

I believe Alabama is probably the second best team. I still think they had their shot, someone else should go. The voters have said in the past that this is how things should be, they have manipulated the poll to make it happen before.

Thank you!!!!

[Cane from the Bend]

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.

Actually, before Nebraska & Oklahoma both lost in the last week of regular season play, the BCS projections had Oklahoma vs Nebraska in the National Championship.

Summary -

Oklahoma lost to Nebraska in the midseason.

If Oklahoma had finished the regular season without losing a second game, the Sooners and the Huskers would have rematched for the Big 12 Champioship.

Based on the computer ratings (which was 2/3rds of the BCS formula in 2001), had Oklahoma won the Big 12 title, the BCS Championship game would have been a second rematch between Oklahoma vs Nebraska. Both with 1 loss to each other. And Undefeated Miami would have been left out of the title picture.

Actually, this kind of makes me wonder; Would an undefeated Big East team, this year, play for a National Title?

Anyhow, the precedent to not have a rematch never existed. It was purely the media spinning things that way.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

That's not my point though, RazorHawk. What you, Billybud, and Cane in particular have said in the other thread is that the BCS is designed to pit the two "best" teams against each other. Oklahoma State missing a late FG against Iowa State is not really that big of a deal in this context. Whether they had squeaked past Iowa State or whether they barely got upset by Iowa State really doesn't have much bearing on their rank if you were to measure their rank in terms of pure strength. The fact of the matter is that Iowa State played them close--The W isn't a big deal when you are measuring relative strength.

Now, if you want to keep saying that we have to pit the two "best" teams against each other and if you would have Oklahoma State play in the national title if they beat Iowa State by 3, what you are saying is that the missed FG against Iowa State is the difference in Oklahoma State being more powerful than Alabama. Because if you want 12-0 Oklahoma State + a squeaker win over Iowa State in the national title game over Alabama, you would have to assume that they are better than Alabama in order to do that. In order to be consistent, it seems like you would rather see 11-1 Alabama over 12-0 Oklahoma State.

And you are misinterpreting what I have been posting.

It isn't about a field goal. It is about 17 points. Oklahoma State had a 17 point lead over Iowa State @ the half. I watched as that lead melted away. I watched as Okie St looked helpless once the momentum they carried to that point, had shifted to the other side of the field. Oklahoma State was unable to pull it together and take control before things got out of hand. And it happened to an unranked team.

That is not at all what happened in the Alabama/LSU game. Neither team looked to be the better. Neither team had real control. And Alabama didn't collapse under a swing of momentum, being outscored by 17 points.

It is like the South Florida/Miami game.

Sure the `Canes got the win . . . but, why is it that it didn't feel that way?
Simply; because I'm not sure either team is better than the other.

So, yeah, I can safely say, that by watching both the LSU/Alabama game, and the Iowa St/Oklahoma St game, that I confidently believe Alabama is a better team than Oklahoma St . . . and based solely on 3 points.

.

.

.

[Eric]

So if Oklahoma State held on by making that FG and finished 12-0, you would prefer Alabama, yes?

[Cane from the Bend]

I would say that Okie St had proven that they can hold firm against adversity, and that they didn't implode.

So, no. A 12-0 Oklahoma St would have done enough to show they deserve the the #2 ranking over an 11-1 Alabama.

A lot of times, it takes close calls to wake a team up, and bring them together. The Cowboys did not do that, they lost.
And not by a field goal. By 6 points, because their defense had no answer to Iowa St's offense.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

Nice attempt at your own little spin there, Eric.

But your assessment of what I'm saying is wrong. Oklahoma St played poorly against an unranked team. Alabama played very good against the #1 team.

.

.

.

[Eric]

Nice attempt at your own little spin there, Eric.

I was going to make a post that was germane to your previous statement, but this was so ridiculously snide and arrogant that I decided it wasn't worth the time.

[RazorHawk]

Nice attempt at your own little spin there, Eric.

I was going to make a post that was germane to your previous statement, but this was so ridiculously snide and arrogant that I decided it wasn't worth the time.

I am beginning to believe this whole discussion isn't worth the time. Everyone has their opinion and no one is going to be convinced otherwise.

Kind of similar to the debate on a playoff.

Over and Out.

[donovan]

Dang, and I was just on the verge to thinking we needed an intergalactic championship game.

[donovan]

Well tonight at 5:00 in the only tine zone that matters, UCLA will go into Eugene to play the Ducks. You know Fluiddude will be there. So the winner plays in the Rose Bowl against Michigan State or Wisconsin...that will bring about 14,234 fans if it is UCLA and 14,233 if it is Oregon. If Oregon loses, they might as well plan on playing in the who cares bowl..which is most of them. UCLA has been given a waiver with a 6-7 record to play in a bowl....and this is the system that is being defended!

Here are the keys to the game, I think.
1. Oregon needs to score quickly...First team the scores wins the game.
2. Stop the run on both teams...that is what they do
3. Don't let Neuhesiel got out a winner...he has nothing to lose and he will do it all. He is however, a pretty classy guy with it come s to decorum. Not so much with tunnel vision Kelley.