Coaches Poll...who had OK State as #4 or more

[GoBoilers]

Won't that make the 34th national championship for the Tide?

I believe last year was the 142nd national championship that Alabama has claimed. I think Ohio State fans think we have been robbed of 136.

That is 142 more than Purdue and Iowa have!

[WoVeU]

I think the best chance for an AP Champ different from the BCS is if LSU loses to Bama and not looking bad while doing so. I think this scenario is rather likely...unless the Honey Badger has a really good game. If one guy can make nearly as much offensive progression and scoring of the ball as the entire offense (or even 30-40%) you have quite the game changer.

And with that being said. I think the HB is the best player in college this year. The H Trophy people do an extremely poor job of decoupling position in their award. They should compare a player to the next best available and the average by position.

[WoVeU]

I also think the AP still has a good level of credibility in their crown. I think the BCS Bowl selection helps this with how much criticism it draws. And I would also think when given the chance to crown a different champ, it actually helps, because the AP becomes more than "also" talk. I also think changes to the BCS strengthens the historic and current legitimacy of the AP NC. Changes to the formula in the BCS qualify, and if a future change is made to the BCS not selecting the "4 Big Bowls" that will qualify too. Even if the latter change is not supposed to have any effect on how the Title Game is is determined. Being steady and unchanged matters.

[Cane from the Bend]

Do you guys think this is realistic scenario?

Bama beats LSU by 3 or less. OSU beats Stanford by 21 or more. Do you think OSU could get the AP title and we'll have a split title? What about LSU in that scenario getting the AP Title?

Who gets robbed?

As billybud said, the winner of bama/lsu gets the crystal football, but yes, the AP could vote Ok st. #1. That was the whole reason they pulled out of the BCS rankings...they did not want the BCS dictating to them who they could vote #1. This is what happened when USC and LSU shared the title in '03. LSU won the BCS championship, but the AP voted USC #1. So yes strawman, your scenario could happen...unlikely, but possible.

The BCS never dictated to the ap what their rankings had to be.

When the BCS was first constructed, using the ap poll as one of their formulation statistics; the associated press agreed on the basis that they would retain the right to award the AP championship independently.

And so, the BCS national title had used the ap poll in their final standings; whereas, the associated press continued to award their trophy to whom they see fit.

However, since the BCS was founded, the ap champion has only been given to an alternate team once; USC in 2003.

.


.


.

[RazorHawk]

Having Okla St #4 on a ballot is not as bad as the way the Heisman voting has gotten. But I think Peterson is spot on, that coaches should not be voting at all.

[billybud]

If you look into block voting by conference coaches having a vote, there are some patterns...coaches with a vote tend to believe in the teams in their conference over another's. I guess that makes sense, having a local bias.

The Big 12 had five coaches votes and all but Pinkell (of Mizzou going to SEC) voted OK State #2.

The SEC had six coaches vote.. all six had Alabama #2 and five had OK State #3...Saban had OK State #4.

The Wolverines ended up No.12 in the poll overall. Of the six Big 10 coaches with a vote, only Michigan State’s Dantonio didn’t rank Michigan higher than their final number. And, of further interest, Michigan's highest ranking from the Coaches Poll came from Les Miles of LSU who played and coached at Michigan. A regular homeboy voting his particular bias.

And for TCU..who gave them their lowest ranking? None other than Peterson who, I guess, remembered them taking away another unbeaten season.

Everywhere you look, if you take the votes apart, there is a local bias story line.

[Spence]

If you look into block voting by conference coaches having a vote, there are some patterns...coaches with a vote tend to believe in the teams in their conference over another's. I guess that makes sense, having a local bias.

The Big 12 had five coaches votes and all but Pinkell (of Mizzou going to SEC) voted OK State #2.

The SEC had six coaches vote.. all six had Alabama #2 and five had OK State #3...Saban had OK State #4.

The Wolverines ended up No.12 in the poll overall. Of the six Big 10 coaches with a vote, only Michigan State’s Dantonio didn’t rank Michigan higher than their final number. And, of further interest, Michigan's highest ranking from the Coaches Poll came from Les Miles of LSU who played and coached at Michigan. A regular homeboy voting his particular bias.

And for TCU..who gave them their lowest ranking? None other than Peterson who, I guess, remembered them taking away another unbeaten season.

Everywhere you look, if you take the votes apart, there is a local bias story line.

Good for Dino letting his bias against Michigan influence him more than the conference loyalty thing.

[Yeofoot]

In general, The Harris and Coaches Poll change their criteria from week to week and year to year.

2008, Florida got in because "No one wanted a rematch," and "Texas didn't even win their conference." Florida lost to a mediocre Ole Miss team that played well at times, but at home. Texas lost to Tech on the road, ask any Red Raider fan, and they will tell you "that was the greatest win in Tech history."
2011, Alabama got in because "We want the best two team in the country, it doesn't matter if it is a rematch or that Alabama didn't win their conference." Oklahoma State lost to a mediocre Iowa State team, but on the road. Alabama lost at home to the best team in the country.

If the logic was consisten, it'd ben OU vs Texas in '08 or LSU vs Okie Lite in '11

In the BCS Championship Game, Florida proved to be the best team in the country, so it's a moot point.
In this BCS Championship Game, LSU will prove to be the best team in the country, so it'll be a moot point.

[Spence]

In general, The Harris and Coaches Poll change their criteria from week to week and year to year.

2008, Florida got in because "No one wanted a rematch," and "Texas didn't even win their conference." Florida lost to a mediocre Ole Miss team that played well at times, but at home. Texas lost to Tech on the road, ask any Red Raider fan, and they will tell you "that was the greatest win in Tech history."
2011, Alabama got in because "We want the best two team in the country, it doesn't matter if it is a rematch or that Alabama didn't win their conference." Oklahoma State lost to a mediocre Iowa State team, but on the road. Alabama lost at home to the best team in the country.

If the logic was consisten, it'd ben OU vs Texas in '08 or LSU vs Okie Lite in '11

In the BCS Championship Game, Florida proved to be the best team in the country, so it's a moot point.
In this BCS Championship Game, LSU will prove to be the best team in the country, so it'll be a moot point.

That is entirely the point. It has also been used to keep Boise State from playing in the championship game. You can agree or disagree with a team being in the game, but the manipulation to get the matchup they want is wrong.

[Brian Roastbeef]

In this BCS Championship Game, LSU will prove to be the best team in the country, so it'll be a moot point.

Had the BCS remained consistent with '08, sending them against Okie St, they would probably defeat the Cowboys, and had all of the leading scalps on their belt. Alabama? It was close, but been there done that. Oklahoma St? Beat 'em for the title. (Stanford? Houston? That's just grasping at straws.) Fans could argue if the real championship game was played on January 9 or November 5, but the end result is the same either way.

As is they'll play Alabama again. Win again, but this time get top accolades for redoing a done job. In this case though, if Oklahoma St. does as expected against the Cardinal doubts will linger. It will be the challenge that was never met, hyped by disgruntled fans and egged on by a sports media pushing a plus one. As somebody said before it's unfair to LSU. They'll have proven they're the best in the country, but forced to leave some room for doubt to linger.


Agreed that it's manipulated for the match that they want. I don't think anybody can question that... It's just too bad what's best for the team, sport, and fans aren't exactly top priorities there.

[billybud]

In general, The Harris and Coaches Poll change their criteria from week to week and year to year.

2008, Florida got in because "No one wanted a rematch," and "Texas didn't even win their conference." Florida lost to a mediocre Ole Miss team that played well at times, but at home. Texas lost to Tech on the road, ask any Red Raider fan, and they will tell you "that was the greatest win in Tech history."
2011, Alabama got in because "We want the best two team in the country, it doesn't matter if it is a rematch or that Alabama didn't win their conference." Oklahoma State lost to a mediocre Iowa State team, but on the road. Alabama lost at home to the best team in the country.

If the logic was consisten, it'd ben OU vs Texas in '08 or LSU vs Okie Lite in '11

In the BCS Championship Game, Florida proved to be the best team in the country, so it's a moot point.
In this BCS Championship Game, LSU will prove to be the best team in the country, so it'll be a moot point.

That is entirely the point. It has also been used to keep Boise State from playing in the championship game. You can agree or disagree with a team being in the game, but the manipulation to get the matchup they want is wrong.

Links please to any voter saying this. What we do is take our forum chatter and project that on voters...not only that but we ignore the computer portion. The "manipulation" is in our minds.

If Boise plays a terribly weak schedule....that had nothing to do with manipulation. It had to do with playing a weak schedule. And some, unlike Spence, did take the strength of Boise's schedule into consideration.

[Spence]

Manipulation kept Georgia from going in 07, Michigan In 06, and there was no way Boise State was making a bowl no matter who they beat or how good they were. No there was no link, no one is going to come out and say that we manipulated the poll, but look at all the contradictions. Georgia couldn't make the championship in 2007 because they "didn't win their conference". That was the mantra of the media. Michigan had some argue say that and some say that two teams from the same conference shouldn't be in the championship because the BCS is about seeing getting the best teams from CFB and Michigan lost. Both those things happened this year and it is not an issue. And with Boise State....that is the worst....If you watched what happens to Boise State in the polls toward the end of the season, like raising them to three and having one or both of the teams lose and all of the sudden the voters reach down and grab the fourth team and elevate them above Boise State. Now if you believe their schedule isn't good enough to put them in second, don't put them up to three and drop them as the teams above them drop. Don't raise them above 10 or 12 or where ever, but the commish's don't want that lawsuit so they act like Boise State has a chance. If that isn't manipulation, there is no such thing as manipulation. Everytime something comes up you get an explanation from the media (talking to coaches) or a coach himself explaining why a team makes it and a year or few later that is contradicted and we get they same situation.

I have never been for a playoff, primarily because I don't want to see the bowls go away. Still, I would rather the bowls go completely away and have a playoff that included all conference winners before I watch one more vote manipulation. At least the computers are consistent. There is a method to their madness. They may pick a team that shouldn't be in the game, but it is at least honest. The current BCS system makes me want to compare it to professional wrestling. There is no justification that explains the inconsistencies. None that I have heard at least.

[billybud]

Manipulation didn't move LSU up...beating the SEC East Champ (that spanked Georgia) and moving to 11 wins to Georgia's 10 moved LSU up. The CCG win moved up LSU...as CCG wins tend to do.

The juxtaposition of LSU beating Tennessee for the championship and an additional win, while Georgia was soundly thrashed by the Vols, would make most vote for LSU over Georgia.

Would you honestly have a 10-2 Georgia over an 11-2 LSU with LSU beating the SEC E Champ and Georgia losing to Tennessee by three TD's.

[Spence]

Manipulation didn't move LSU up...beating the SEC East Champ (that spanked Georgia) and moving to 11 wins to Georgia's 10 moved LSU up. The CCG win moved up LSU...as CCG wins tend to do.

The juxtaposition of LSU beating Tennessee for the championship and an additional win, while Georgia was soundly thrashed by the Vols, would make most vote for LSU over Georgia.

Would you honestly have a 10-2 Georgia over an 11-2 LSU with LSU beating the SEC E Champ and Georgia losing to Tennessee by three TD's.

You mean like Oklahoma State soundly thrashing Oklahoma giving them an additional win should have put them in over Alabama who didn't play for a championship. You can jusitfy anything, you can call it what you want, but the voters aren't consistent in their criteria on how teams move up and down. And honestly, Saban putting Oklahoma State 4th wasn't him doing his best to give his team an advantage over them in the final poll? You can be biased for your team and still get an honest vote, but when you showing bias against teams, it isn't an honest poll any more. That was Nick Sabin manipulating his vote. It happens lots. It happens in the form of block votes and individual votes.

[billybud]

Alabama has the same record as Ok State...Georgia didn't win as many games as LSU...

OK State lost to an unranked team...Bama tied the #1 team in regulation. Nuff said.