Not sure why that makes the Big 10 anything other than an athletic conference.
Why not? Absent another compelling factor to make a case for a team in Oregon’s position, it seems reasonable. At least until the SEC starts losing championships.
Prejudice refers to preconceived judgements. The judgement of the SEC’s viability to compete for the championship is not preconceived; I wouldn’t announce before the season that the SEC champion must be in the national championship. But after the season, with one bowl-eligible team undefeated and several one-loss teams, it’s only reasonable to pick the SEC champion.
Recall that in 2004, a 13-0 Auburn team was passed over for the championship game in favor of 12-0 USC and 12-0 Oklahoma, so it’s not as though things are rigged for the SEC.
Because (A) the sample size is too small and (B) previous year’s performance should have no bearing on ranking the teams in the present year. If you flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads ten times in a row, the odds that it will come up heads on the 11th flip are just 50/50, as the previous 11 flips have no influence on the current flip (assuming a fair flip, of course.) Take a stats or a probability course. 
Your arguments show prejudice in favor of the SEC, it appears to me. Just sayin.
I agree with your general point but this analogy is terrible. There is significant carry-over between seasons in terms of players, coaches, etc.; thus you would expect there to be a correlation between conference strength from year to year. This isn’t coin flipping, unless you have an unfair coin.
Still, using what happened 3 or 4 or 5 years ago to justify something today is not a good idea, either.
As for Auburn, that was 8 years ago. Not only was the perception/strength of the SEC much different at the time, they would have had to leapfrog the preseason #1/#2 teams, who also went undefeated. Not going to happen.
Bias, perhaps. I am a Kentucky fan. I’ll put a question to you, then: Who should have been chosen to play Notre Dame for the championship, and why?
It’s a factor. As you note, there is carry-over between seasons.
And if Ohio State were bowl eligible, or if Oregon hadn’t lost to Stanford, an SEC team wouldn’t be in the championship. They don’t enjoy some massive unfair advantage.
Where prejudice raises its ugly head is in pre-season polling. There is no reason for pre-season polling to exist, and there’s no basis for ranking the teams…so there is a tendency to go on reputation. Which means that 6 or 8 of the Top 25 are reserved for the SEC.
I would love to see how the polls would look at the end of the season if there were no polls taken until Week 5.
I’d chose Oregon. There is no good evidence that Alabama is better than Oregon and Alabama had its shot as No. 1 and couldn’t hold onto it. I don’t see any reason for giving the Tide another crack at the title. Oregon and its crazy offense is more fun than 'Bama too. Actually, if given my druthers I’d have Notre Dame play any of the lousy teams the SEC teams played in November to pad their schedules during that month, but I’m prejudiced.
BTW, what is the difference in your mind between being “prejudiced” and “biased”? They mean the same thing.
I agree wholeheartedly, pre-season polling is an absurd practice.
Well for one thing, Alabama is a conference champion, and Oregon isn’t. 13-1 SEC champion trumps 12-1 PAC-12 also-ran.
My arguement is that success in the recent past is a positive factor in choosing a team for the championship game. You seem to argue that recent success should be held against a team. It’s a negative that Alabama had been #1? It’s a negative that Alabama got a crack at the title last year (and won)? And by the way, Oregon was #1 this year too, and held it for one stinkin’ week.
Now we’re into aesthetics, but I prefer dominant SEC-style defense. Speed kills!
I think you’re placing too much importance on when a team plays their cupcakes. Oregon faced powerhouses like Arkansas State and Tennessee Tech, as well as a much easier conference schedule. Alabama played 4 teams in the Top 15, Oregon played 0. Alabama opened the season against Michigan, so some of their cupcake games were shifted to later in the season.
There’s a slight distinction, prejudice conveys an adverse judgment made without sufficient knowledge, bias can mean just “an inclination of temperment or outlook”, per Mirriam-Webster.
So winning the conference is an important criterium and should outweigh conference runner ups?
Actually, this is something on which reasonable people can disagree. I can argue both sides:
Winning the conference is a prerequisite for the NC. If you’re not the best team in the conference, ipso facto you can’t be the best team in the country.
The BCS NCG should pit the 2 best teams in the country. If they happen to reside in the same conference…so be it.
Sent to me by friends …
*Hail Mary,
Full of Grace
Time to put Notre Dame
In second place!
Roll Tide! Amen!*
Your friends shouldn’t quit their day job.
Conference championships are mere happenstance, a function of whether a team is lucky enough to win a division or not. As I said, there is no GOOD evidence that Alabama is any better than Oregon.
To my mind, Oregon played a tougher schedule that 'Bama did, of course. Bama played 2 cupcakes (Fla Atl & Western Carolina) while Oregon didn’t play any. I think that trumps the Tide. Courage wins out, and by playing nobodies Bama didn’t show any courage. YMMV.
In fact, the whole SEC out of conference schedule has more cupcakes than Hostess Bakeries used to. Compare, the PAC-12’s 8 bowl teams played only 4 cupcakes in total (N. Arizona by Arizona State, Nicholls State by Oregon State, South Carolina State by Arizona, and Portland State by Washington), with the 9 SECs teams 5 cupcakes. (Alabama’s 2 mentioned above, Florida’s playing Jacksonville St, Vanderbilt’s Presbyterian and UMass, LSU’s Idaho & Townson, Mississippi State’s Jackson St and S. Alabama, UGa’s Fla International and Ga Southern, South Carolina’s Wofford, Ol Miss’s Central Arkansas, and Texas A&M’s South Carolina State and Sam Houston St.) Big Whoop for the SEC.
You misquote and misinterpret what I wrote. What I said was that Alabama had its chance and lost it. There’s no reason why they should get a second crack at No 1, when Oregon hasn’t had a chance at No 1 its ownself.
As per dictionary.com, the pertinent definition of bias is:
“a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.” (emphasis added).
Yes. As I noted, objection to the Alabama / LSU championship rematch was perfectly reasonable. I was against it, myself.
Both arguements are reasonable, but I go for option 1. Conference champions only, barring some extraordinary circumstance.
Clearly, I place a lot more stock in conference championships than you do. Reasonable minds can disagree.
Oregon’s schedule was tougher at the bottom (slightly…Arkansas State and Fresno State aren’t exactly powerhouses), but Alabama’s was much tougher at the top. 4 top-15 opponets for Alabama vs. 0 for Oregon.
Interesting, but the rest of the SEC’s non-conference schedule has little bearing on whether Alabama should be in championship.
Misinterpret? Perhaps, I can’t read your mind. Misquote? No, I quoted you verbatim.
Oregon become #1 in the AP on November 11th. They lost to Stanford on the 17th.
That sounds like a slight distinction to me.
Quite right.
I don’t understand how you can plausibly say that. You argue on the one hand that the SEC is the overall strongest conference and say that as the champion of the alleged strongest conference Alabama should be given the benefit of the doubt, but then say that fact that the entire conference just plays out of confernce cupcakes has no bearing on the discussion. It is either one or the other, but it cannot be both.
IMHO, the SEC doesn’t deserve its reputation. It doesn’t back it up by playing nothing but cupcakes. The SEC’s is a fraud, IMHO. Out of conference schedule is one of the ways to measure a league’s relative strength, and by playing only a very limited number of out of conference toughies, the SEC has failed to make its case that it is entitled to deference or to its reputation. The SEC presumes its strength into existence, without actually proving it. It says it is strong because of the fact it has a lot of tough teams that play against each other, but it never goes outside of its southern state comfort zone to prove that against outside competition on the road.
I mean, it was great that Alabama played Michigan in Dallas. It would’ve been much greater if the Tide played a home-and-home in Tuscaloosa and Ann Arbor, or a neutral site in the north, like say Chicago.
Give me a break H.A. When the one word, “prejudice”, is used as a synonym in “Bias’” definition, it means that there isn’t any difference between the words. They mean the same thing, as I said.
Surely to goodness you don’t believe this. Oregon played Tennessee Tech (3-8), Washington State (3-9), and Colorado (1-11). Alabama played Florida Atlantic (3-9), Western Carolina (1-10) and Auburn (3-9). Neither of these is exactly a murderer’s row, but to say Alabama played cupcakes while Oregon didn’t is ludicrous.
This also is ludicrous. The SEC is currently riding a six-game winning streak in the national championship game, against teams from the Big 10, the Pac-12 and the Big 12. The SEC had the best record of any conference in BCS bowl games from 1998-2009 (13-5), and I’m sure that record only improved with the two most recent bowl seasons; I just couldn’t quickly find data on them.
In other words, the SEC consistent proves its mettle year-in and year-out against the top teams from every other conference. Unless you’re also saying the top teams from other conferences are cupcakes themselves, in which case you’re just arguing cant, not honest opinion.
Didn’t make the edit window - I found the rest of the BCS bowl information.
The SEC is 16-7 in BCS bowls all-time, for a winning percentage of .696. That’s higher than any other conference with the exception of the Mountain West (3-1, .750), which has appeared in only four BCS games. Of the major conferences, the SEC and the Pac-12 are the only two with overall winning records in BCS games.
My mistake, I thought we’d shifted from SEC discussion to “who should play Notre Dame?” discussion, and was thus making the Alabama case on its individual merits.
Here’s another, more meaningful measure of conference strength, seeing as all major-conference teams play cupcakes, even Oregon: bowl record. Games played against other conferences, outside the southern comfort zone.
If we take 2006-12 as the SEC era, here’s how the bowl records stack up for the six BCS conferences:
Big East 23-10 (.696)
SEC 36-19 (.654)
Big 12 25-22 (.531)
Pac-10/12 18-17 (.514)
ACC 19-31 (.380)
Big 10 17-30 (.361)
This method makes the Big East look good, but note the comparatively tiny number of bowl appearances for such a big conference: that indicates a weak conference with a decent top tier, which is accurate.
Ok, then can you demonstrate that my bias isn’t justified?
Good point, I’ll try and locate BCS bowl records. See who’s top-tier is strongest. ETA: never mind, Sauron found it.
*emphasis added
Generally, posters here are expected to argue in good faith. You’ve failed to do so here. That, or ignorance (willful or otherwise) or bias is a factor. As noted above, Oregon played Tennessee Tech, Washington St., and Colorado. The three had 7 combined wins and Colorado’s only win was a one point effort over 3-9 Washington St. I’m compelled to quote The Fugitive.