So we know that Alabama made it into the championship game. They were considered the second best team in the nation by the purely subjective polls. They lost to LSU at home already. So lets say that they lose the Championship Game to LSU. Is that enough to satisfy you that LSU won a clean championship or will it be tainted by the rematch/second-chance issue and that Oklahoma State should have had their chance?
I don’t understand why everyone says Alabama had their shot, but don’t consider that OK State and Stanford had their shot at going undefeated too. Every team in the country had a shot to go undefeated and only LSU did that.
I’d be ok with giving LSU the title even if they lose, provided it’s close and/or there is some controversy.
A good case can be made for putting OK State into this game - but Alabama’s case is also strong, and there can be no legitimate outrage that they got the nod. So the notion that an LSU victory would be “tainted” goes nowhere.
Since LSU is the only undefeated team, it would be no more tainted than usual.
Usual, of course, being “very tainted”.
One team lost in overtime, at home.
One team lost in overtime, on the road (after a devastating tragedy).
If everything else were equal, I’d give it to the team that lost on the road.
When you add the OSU plane crash…
Yeah, fuck Alabama. This game is a travesty. I can only hope it helps kill the BCS.
You’re wrong.
I don’t think LSU’s national championship is tainted, only that they’ve already won it no matter what happens against Alabama. I won’t recognize an Alabama national championship because they would have split with LSU while losing at home.
I would have accepted Oklahoma State as BCS champion if they had won.
As both a BCS and SEC hater, even if they skipped the NCG, I don’t see how there is any doubt LSU is the best team in the country.
Oh no! Whatever shall we do?!
…to the #1 team in the nation.
…to a 5-loss dog.
Trouble is, you can’t add in the plane crash, any more than you can say that it would be a tragedy if Alabama didn’t win the title, just because they really, really wanted to give something back to Tuscaloosa and its 55 tornado victims. It didn’t happen on the field.
Me too. I’d love to see a real, honest-to-god tournament.
Do you actually think any of the people involved with their team spent more than 30 minutes thinking about that?
I’m an Auburn fan and Auburn had a bad year, including embarrassing losses to both Bama and LSU, and Georgia, as well as Clemson. But I watched LSU dominate every game they played, including the Bama game. LSU is the best team in 2011 college football. Winning the BCSCG was going to happen no matter who got sent in to lose to them.
I’m satisfied before the BCSCG even takes place.
LSU rules!
If there needs to be any settling of “who’s number whatever?” it needs to be “who’s number two?” Number one is already decided!
LSU has been far and away the best team this year and they have not cruised through an easy schedule. If the voters sent the third-best team in the country to play them instead of the second-best, LSU can’t be faulted for that.
I have no problems with LSU; they’re undefeated. But Alabama? Fuck that. As far as I’m concerned, even if Alabama wins, they’re not the champions.
So you’re basically saying that it’s a close call, but then you throw in the plane crash and it becomes outrageous?
I’m gonna stick with my notion that this is not legitimate outrage.
As I said in the other thread, this response is just hilarious.
I’m happy with the winner of LSU/Bama being the champ. Should Bama win 9-6 in overtime, essentially on the road, it will be funny to see if we get a split championship. And if Bama wins an ugly game 13-3 or something, and OSU or Stanford beats the other 45-7, and the AP names OSU/SU their champion, that’s fine by me, too.
A little food for thought. Ratings are from Sagarin:
Alabama’s strength of schedule was #23 in the nation. OK State’s was #6.
Alabama beat two teams in the top 30. OK State beat 6.
These are the teams that Alabama beat who finished with a winning record: Penn State (and I’m a Penn State alum, but dear God their record was one of the most inflated in their history), Arkansas, and Auburn. Yes, that’s it: they beat only three teams with a winning record. They beat only one team that might be considered as “good” this year. Meanwhile, OK State beat Kansas State (ranked #8 in the final polls), Baylor (led by a Heisman Trophy-candidate quarterback and #12 in the final BCS), and Oklahoma (#14 in the final BCS).
I can understand why people are arguing that OK State lost to a bad team, and that’s why they aren’t playing for the MNC. But at the same time, I’ve heard those same people say that “strength of schedule is meaningful.” Isn’t that why undefeated teams like Boise State and TCU in past years (and Houston, if they’d won against Southern Miss) didn’t play for the MNC while one-loss–or two-loss!–teams did? Why is strength of schedule suddenly not important now, when it was always so important before?
Nope. I won’t even watch the title game because it will feature two SEC teams and I’ll have nobody to root for. Even the coaches are evil, Saban for leaving Michigan State and Miles for spurning Michigan. My opinion is that if you aren’t good enough to play for your conference title, you shouldn’t be good enough to play for the national title. Get rid of the SEC bias and the BCS might be salvageable. Until then, it’s a joke.
There are sound arguments for OK State over Alabama, but IMO this one doesn’t work. It should be obvious that it’s at least possible the two best teams are in the same conference.