If....!!!!!

[Eric]

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.

.

.

.

Well, why couldn't it have been Georgia? Maybe Georgia was better than LSU. Whether or not they won their division doesn't matter. Maybe the loss to Tennessee does, but it is apparently irrelevant that Georgia was #2 in the SEC East. They did lose very early in the season and appeared to be a different team at the end of the year. Georgia also beat a Kentucky team that toppled LSU. Where does this leave us? I don't know.

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.

This is not what they said! They only said Georgia didn't deserve to be there over LSU. A lot of pundits thought Georgia playing the best football.

[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.

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.

.

.

.

They didn't have a shot against #1, so it is better. It isn't a rematch. How do you know that Va. Tech isn't better than Alabama or LSU? You don't, we know, at least for one game Bama wasn't good enough to beat LSU if only by a hair. We know no such thing about Va. Tech or Oklahoma State.

[Derek]

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.

.

.

.

They didn't have a shot against #1, so it is better. It isn't a rematch. How do you know that Va. Tech isn't better than Alabama or LSU? You don't, we know, at least for one game Bama wasn't good enough to beat LSU if only by a hair. We know no such thing about Va. Tech or Oklahoma State.

I believe that Va Tech or Ok State have a chance at beating LSU. Alabama should NOT be in the game.

If LSU does lose to Ga, then the SEC should have NO teams in the NCG. Give it to Boise and Oklahoma State IMO. Or Okie State and VT.

I simply want the rules applied uniformly. And if you can't tell, I still say Ga go the shaft and so should Alabama.

I will watch no NCG that has Alabama in it, under any circumstance.

[Cane from the Bend]

I simply want the rules applied uniformly.

The rules are not uniform, because they make adjustments to the system every year.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

And if you can't tell, I still say Ga go the shaft and so should Alabama.

And that is precisely why your comments show you are being a homer.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

They didn't have a shot against #1, so it is better. It isn't a rematch. How do you know that Va. Tech isn't better than Alabama or LSU? You don't, we know, at least for one game Bama wasn't good enough to beat LSU if only by a hair. We know no such thing about Va. Tech or Oklahoma State.

You are right, they didn't play against the #1 team. They all lost to someone ranked lower.

Consequently; how do you know that a rematch between LSU/Alabama wouldn't be a better game than if they played Virginia Tech? And we also know, that for one game, Virginia tech - Oklahoma State - Stanford, were all not good enough to win against a team with a lesser ranking than #1.

I'll say this, though.

If there were one other BCS conference school who were undefeated, then this debate wouldn't even be taking place. However, there is not, which falls into my point, that other than Alabama having already faced off against LSU, you have no argument.

Whereas, all of the other BCS conference contenders have lost as many games as Alabama did, to teams who were not ranked #1.

Now, should Va Tech beat Clemson the second go around, and if LSU loses to Georgia; then yes, I say give the nod to the Hokies.
And the same should also apply to Okie St; if LSU loses to Georgia, and the Cowboys beat the Sooners.

If LSU beats Georgia; then I'm not so sure an injustice is occurring.
We get #1 vs #2, precisely what the system is designed to give us.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

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.

.

.

.

Well, why couldn't it have been Georgia? Maybe Georgia was better than LSU. Whether or not they won their division doesn't matter. Maybe the loss to Tennessee does, but it is apparently irrelevant that Georgia was #2 in the SEC East. They did lose very early in the season and appeared to be a different team at the end of the year. Georgia also beat a Kentucky team that toppled LSU. Where does this leave us? I don't know.

LSU won the conference at large & had the exact same losses with a +1 win vs a ranked team who Georgia lost to.

You certainly cannot show where LSU was playing worse football than Georgia in the overall season. Which is what the final rankings use as an evaluation device when teams are so closely match.

When the final equations are tallied: Georgia had 1 win over a Div IAA team, LSU played a full Div IA schedule.

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.

This is not what they said! They only said Georgia didn't deserve to be there over LSU. A lot of pundits thought Georgia playing the best football.

And who is it you are talking about when you say, they?

The media did not have a vote, which are those talking heads & the pundits you keep referring to. In 2007, the AP had their own independent poll from the BCS.

And They have the right to award any other team a National title that They see fit. Guess what They didn't do.

They also didn't award Auburn a National title in 2004 for going undefeated after winning the Sugar Bowl vs Va Tech.
Those same They, who did award USC a National title in 2003, before the BCS Championship game even played.

Maybe you need to stop listening to whatever it is They are saying. And look at what actually happens.

.

.

.

[Eric]

The media are the opinion-molders.

[Cane from the Bend]

They do not form my opinion.

And the media has on more than one occasion been highly critical of the BCS for not doing things the way the media has spun things.

So, I would say, there are obviously some voters who disregard the media babble.

.

.

.

[Eric]

They do not form my opinion.

And the media has on more than one occasion been highly critical of the BCS for not doing things the way the media has spun things.

So, I would say, there are obviously some voters who disregard the media babble.

.

.

.

I'm talking about coaches in general. The coaches don't watch the games, they listen to the media. Mike Riley was coaching an All-Star team and didn't know what school "had the Kangaroo helmet" (he didn't even know Akron existed). This is the extent of the coaches' knowledge of the game.

[Cane from the Bend]

To some degree, yes.

However, I do not think it is primarily media who influences them.
Most coaches do not have the time to sit around watching the media.

This is why I stated that I believe the poll voters look at the final scores.

The problem with the coaches poll, is that they can only base their rankings off of who just won - who did they beat - what was the final.

And that is why margin of victory will always be a part of the standings. Because the coaches do not have time to watch the games. They only have enough time to see what the final outcomes were, then post their ratings of what happened.

No, the coaches poll should not exist. But I do not believe the media is their source.

.

.

.

[Spence]

They didn't have a shot against #1, so it is better. It isn't a rematch. How do you know that Va. Tech isn't better than Alabama or LSU? You don't, we know, at least for one game Bama wasn't good enough to beat LSU if only by a hair. We know no such thing about Va. Tech or Oklahoma State.

You are right, they didn't play against the #1 team. They all lost to someone ranked lower.

Consequently; how do you know that a rematch between LSU/Alabama wouldn't be a better game than if they played Virginia Tech? And we also know, that for one game, Virginia tech - Oklahoma State - Stanford, were all not good enough to win against a team with a lesser ranking than #1.

I'll say this, though.

If there were one other BCS conference school who were undefeated, then this debate wouldn't even be taking place. However, there is not, which falls into my point, that other than Alabama having already faced off against LSU, you have no argument.

Whereas, all of the other BCS conference contenders have lost as many games as Alabama did, to teams who were not ranked #1.

Now, should Va Tech beat Clemson the second go around, and if LSU loses to Georgia; then yes, I say give the nod to the Hokies.
And the same should also apply to Okie St; if LSU loses to Georgia, and the Cowboys beat the Sooners.

If LSU beats Georgia; then I'm not so sure an injustice is occurring.
We get #1 vs #2, precisely what the system is designed to give us.

.

.

.

Florida lost to a lower ranked team than Michigan in 2006, that really doesn't matter as Florida proved.

[Vileborg]

The SEC and ACC are traditional rushing conferences. The ACC has some good backs this year but the only back to rush for over 100 yards was Miller with Miami.

The only direct comparison between LSU, Alabama, and Va Tech I can find is weak at best.

Alabama gave up 311(302 net) yards and 21 points to Georgia Southern FCS #3 who run the triple option.

Va Tech gave up 281(243 net) yards and 26 points to Georgia Tech who also run the triple option.

Both games were in the last three weeks. It is possible Georgia Tech is the third best team in Georgia.

[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.

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.

Georgia was beaten badly by Tennessee...when LSU handled Tennessee...and had one more win..they moved up. VT and Oklahoma also moved past Georgia with their "good wins" in the CCGs. Oklahoma moved up 5 spots and VT moved up three.

Eric...If someone wanted to be peeved about the final BCS movements..it would be WVU rather than Georgia.

In the next to last BCS Rankings, WVU was #2 at 10-2 (same record as Georgia) and set for the NC game...the final week they, like Georgia were idle. When the BCS Rankings came out, WVU was no longer #2...they were #9.

[Vileborg]

If LSU loses LSU would still be #1. Kind of like Alabama losing and remaining #2. The SEC is a lock at the top regardless of wins or losses per ESPN.