OT: Matchups better than SEC-SEC BCS Circlejerk
I don't see how a matchup between LSU and Alabama represents a national title when there are at least 3 other worthwhile conferences that don't have a legitimate shot at saying who is the 'best in the nation'. The SEC is not a deep conference and consists of total bottomfeeders after the top 5. Most of their top 5 do not play each other - the two top SEC east teams have a combined 1 game against an SEC west contender (Arkansas). LSU and Alabama each do have one out of conference win with mention.
But let's be honest - you don't deserve a rematch to decide the entire nation when your game /at home/ was a loss.
If the SEC is so good, let them prove it by playing other conferences. Matchups I'd rather see for the national title game more than LSU-Alabama:
1. LSU vs 1-loss Stanford. Yes, Stanford will not play in its title game. However, you have a three-way dynamic between them, Oregon, and USC where they all beat each other. One loss in Autzen (any loss in Autzen looks ugly) is a lot more understandable than a home loss, even in overtime. They also haven't played LSU yet, and Alabama won't play in its title game either.
2. LSU vs 1-loss Oklahoma State. 1-loss AQ conference victor should always have a more legit shot than a team not playing for a conference title with 1 loss already at home seeking a rematch. Big 12 has more parity than SEC by far - Iowa State could have a shot at being an 8 win team right now if it had some of the schedules the SEC east teams have.
3. LSU vs 1-loss Va Tech (revenge win over clemson in ACC title game) - 1-loss AQ conference victor should always have a more legit shot than a team not playing for a conference title with 1 loss already at home seeking a rematch.
4. LSU vs Undefeated Houston - would shut everyone up about Non-AQ teams deserving a shot at the NC for the next 10 years, and would give us a crack at playing Nick Saban in the sugar bowl. This is the way for us to get the most challenging matchup possible.
5. LSU vs 1-loss Boise St - - would shut everyone up about Non-AQ teams deserving a shot at the NC for the next 10 years. Or, will make everyone shut up about the SEC being so good. This won't happen, but I'd rather see it than an Alabama rematch.
See: 2006 for reference as to why 1 vs 2 rematch is never a good idea. If you remember, a certain florida team had a garbage loss to an unranked auburn team...
(CFB needs a playoff etc)
November 21st, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
Because none of those teams have better wins than Alabama and all of them have worse losses (unless OKSt happens to win Bedlam, then I'm willing to give them their shot). Championship caliber teams in the BCS era don't get nuked a home...or if they do they better have a damn impressive resume otherwise. Sorry but the wussification of everyone's schedule (following the SECs lead, mind you) has given the SEC the advantage. If your conference isn't up to snuff with the SEC you better damn well schedule some solid OOS opponents...and win. Oregon was the prime example...except they blew their shot by losing to USC.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
Alabama's only remotely good wins came against Penn State and Arkansas. The next best win comes against a 6-5 Florida team. They may add a win over a 7-5 Auburn team this week (that needed a miracle finish to hold off Utah State at home).
Are those any more impressive than say, beating Nebraska (who won in Happy Valley) and Notre Dame (who I think could go toe to toe with Arkansas)?
Recent success, preseason rankings, and reputation are the only reasons people think this particular Bama team deserve another shot at LSU in the title game.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
again, who has a better or same record and a better or same resume as Alabama? No one. Alabama has proved they could potentially win the game. No one else has proved they deserve to be on the field.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
Bama has beaten two good teams, Penn State and Arkansas. That is it. Their resume is not as good as a potential 11-1 Ok State team with wins over OU, K-State, Baylor, and 7 total teams currently with a winning record (after playing all 9 teams in their conference rather than scheduling Georgia Southern in mid November).
LSU beat Oregon by 13 points despite 4 Oregon turnovers. LSU couldn't put up 300 yards of offense on the Ducks defense. I think plenty of teams are as good or better than Oregon and would have no trouble staying on the field with LSU.
November 21st, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
I've said it mulitple times in this thread that if OSU wins bedlam and they don't jump Alabama then we all have beef. Up to this point no one has done more than Alabama to deserve jumping them. Their only loss is by 3 thread the obvious number one.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
Or let them prove it by playing the best teams in their own league. As it turns out, a scheduling quirk has really padded the records of the teams at the top of the SEC standings. Like the Big Ten, the league has 5 ranked teams currently. Those teams play just one cross divisional matchup all year long (Arkansas beat South Carolina in that game). LSU and Alabama both miss South Carolina and Georgia.
Alabama has beaten 4 teams with a winning record. One of those teams was Georgia Southern. Another was a 6-5 Florida team.
Arkansas has beaten three teams with a winning record. One of them was a 6-5 Texas A&M team (the hogs won by 3 on a neutral field).
By contrast, Michigan has beaten 7 teams with a winning record.
As for their out of conference performances, the signature wins are Alabama beating a solid but unspectacular Penn State team by 16 (we'll see how good they are this week against Wisconsin), and LSU benefitting from 4 turnovers to beat Oregon by 13 (despite putting up only 273 yards of offense against the Ducks). And of course Arkansas' big comeback win against the Aggies.
Preseason predictions and expectations aside, I haven't seen anything this year to suggest that the SEC is so dominant that these teams deserve a rematch in the title game.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
plays 3 cross divisional games each year, not one.
6-5 teams. You mention one of the teams Alabama beat is 6-5 well 4 of UM's wins are against 6-5 teams.
LSU also beat West Virginia. Some of the more marque SEC non-conference games are this weekend: South Carolina vs Clemson, Georgia vs Tech and Florida vs FSU.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^
I'm also not arguing against LSU, or whoever actually wins the SEC from getting into the title game.
I'm also well aware that they play three cross divisional games. The point is that playing Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee is a lot different than playing the teams that are ranked in the top-25. If the SEC had the same scheduling that the Big Ten has this year (with three cross-division games between the top-25 teams in the conference) those 5 teams would be splitting 2 extra losses between them and you probably wouldn't have all of them ranked in the top 15.
And you'll note that the teams that are up for the title debate have already completed their non-conference schedule. The fact remains, Bama and Arkansas do not have terribly impressive resumes. The schedule has set up so that whoever won that game would almost be guaranteed a spot in the top-5 nationally by default without having to do much else (Bama's only other quality win is against PSU, Arkansas beat only South Carolina and A&M).
If you only play 3-4 difficult games all year and lose one of them to a team in your own division, then you don't get to act like your entitled to a rematch in the national title game. A 12-1 Virginia Tech team that avenges its only loss of the year in the ACC title game would be more deserving of a bid. An 11-1 Ok. State team with wins over OU, K-State, Baylor (not to mention a bunch of teams in the Big XII with winning records and a decent Tulsa team) would be more deserving of a bid. If you get past them to teams like Houston, Stanford (no conference title=no bid for me), or a two-loss team then we can start talking rematch. Until then it is pretty ridiculous.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
Devil's Advocate time--Georgia and USC have better records than the rest of the SEC because they got lucky and didn't have to play LSU and Alabama. If Florida had played Ole Miss and MSU and Georgia had played LSU and Bama, the teams and perception of the SEC East would be much different.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
.........that very topic of the SEC not being as dominant as they are being pimped out to be.
-For example, yes LSU beat Oregon, but it wasn't due to their offense. Oregon had 4 turnovers in that game, one leading to an immediate fumble return TD and two others leading to short field TDs by LSU. LSU, when given the long field to drive could only produce two TD's and one field goal out of 9 tries. 6 of 9 possessions that they started on their side of the field led to punts. One that they started on the 50 led to a punt. By contrast, Oregon had 4 of 8 long drive scores. Take out the three turnovers on drives started on their side and it becomes 4 of 5 drives started on their side that they scored on. This game was a classic game of Oregon beating themselves and LSU taking maximum advantage of Oregon's miscues(and yes, I do give LSU some of the credit for causing those miscues). This game very easily could have been an Oregon beatdown of LSU if they had taken care of the ball alot better than they did.
-Bama's one "marquee" out of conference win was against PSU, a team that should have lost to Temple. PSU could end up at 9-3 without having played two of the top teams in the B10 this year(us and MSU).
-The SEC's lone game against the B12 was Arky's win over T A&M, a comeback win where A&M was winning by a large margin at halftime. By contrast, A&M also lost to OKSt. where they were also winning by a large margin at halftime. To me, that makes this a push between the B12 and SEC.
-The SEC is 0-1 against the ACC so far, with Auburn's loss to Clemson. After this coming weekend, they very well could be 0-4 against the ACC, and it looks likely that it could happen. The ACC gets no love after Florida St. got beat handily by Oklahoma, however, Florida St. is no where near the top of that conference. The top teams in the ACC all beat one another. Yes, they have no out of conference marquee wins, however, that doesn't mean that their top teams aren't that good, merely that they haven't played anyone outside of the conference yet. That kinda changes this weekend.
-The only BCS conferences that the SEC has a legitimate argument as being better than are the BE, for obvious reasons as well as a few wins over them, and the Pac12 with LSU's win over the likely P12 champ Oregon. If PSU pulls out two wins then they'll have the B10 in that category as well, but no one from the B10 is up there for the NC game. That leaves the B12 and the ACC, whose top teams have only lost to in-conference opponents.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
Your first example sounds almost like Nebraska and Michigan. Michigan had a number of short fields to work with thanks to Nebraska miscues. So would you say if Nebraska doesn't turn the ball over, it might have been a blow out by Nebraska?
There's so many variables that go into each game, trying to use transitive properties for scores almost never works. Nebraska beat MSU by 24 and UM lost to MSU by 14 so there's no way we should have beaten Nebraska. Notre Dame beat MSU by 18 and UM lost to MSU by 14 so there's no way we should have beaten ND.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
.........UM held Nebraska to a miserable 3rd down conversion rate. Oregon had a 9-19 conversion rate on LSU, which isn't too bad at all for an offense. Also, Oregon's 3 turnovers that led to LSU points were (1) A fumble recovery near the goal line taken in for an immediate score, (2) Two others that led to short fields for LSU with one of them being inside the red-zone. Nebraska couldn't move the ball well against UM, while Oregon was moving the ball decently against LSU. Different games, yes, but the point is that Oregon moved the ball against LSU well enough they could have won easily if not for the turnovers. If not for the turnovers by Nebraska against UM, the game was still in UM's control based on our ability to move the ball against Nebraska, something LSU had trouble with vs. Oregon.
November 21st, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
moving the ball well. Oregon had 197 yds of offense through 3 quarters. After the score was 33-13, Oregon gained 138 yds.
After 3 quarters of play, Nebraska had 187 yds of offense. So even though Oregon and Nebraska had about the same amount of yards through 3 quarters, one team was moving the ball well and the other wasn't? (The reason I use 3 quarters is because LSU had the ball to start the 4th and kicked a FG to make the score 33-13.)
November 21st, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
If a 2 loss LSU team got to play for the national tile a few years ago, then why are all these 1 loss teams being thrown out of the discussion right now? This is all driven by ESPN and their SEC bias. Other than LSU beating Oregon have these idiots even glanced at some of the SEC non-conference scores this season? What about Boise St.? What about Va Tech? Oklahoma St. lost a close game this weekend, They didn't get blown out, and they still have a big game against Oklahoma this up coming weekend. The Cowboy's offense looks amazing this season.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
I'm not too sure that Alabama is the second best team in the country. And you won't ever know if they play in the Championship Game. You have to give other conferences a chance to compete and having a LSU/Bama rematch isn't allowing for that.
If Michigan was allowed the rematch against OSU, Florida would've never destroyed Ohio State and nobody would have ever known who was actually better. Alabama lost to LSU AT HOME, that's gameover in my book. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State on the road and I think the Big12 is pretty good this year, something I can't say for the SEC outside of the top 3 teams. I think LSU is the best team in the nation but Alabama and Arkansas are just the usual good, BCS bowl teams that aren't national championship material.
In the end, you can't have Alabama play LSU again considering that they already lost at home to them. It's a SEC-bias to allow them to have a rematch and you aren't letting other conferences compete. Alabama's loss is better than Oklahoma State's or Stanford's, but their loses aren't to the other team in the national championship game that already beat you.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
didn't lose in Autzen, they lost at home by 20+ points.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
At this point in that season, it looked to the world like Ohio and UM were the best two teams in the nation, hands down. UM had beat a #2 ranked ND team at the time and Ohio had beat a #2 ranked Texas team at the time. No other marquee wins by either team out of conference.
Florida had no marquee wins out of conference and their one loss was to an Auburn team that got beat bad by Georgia, a team that Vandy beat, who we beat by a pretty good margin. The bowl season showed how overranked Ohio and UM were, with both of them losing big in their bowl games and the B10 going 2-5 in all of it's bowl games. Meanwhile, the SEC, which seemed to be only a "good" conference that year went 6-3, including a blowout win over Ohio in the MNC.
The point is that things aren't always how they seem on the surface. The B10 that year was shown to be overranked. Could the same thing happen to the SEC this year? If LSU and Bama are both in the MNC game, we won't ever know for sure if they were really that much better than everyone else, or if by playing one another they missed out on getting beat during bowl season by teams that should have been there instead.
This is the biggest argument I can think of for not allowing two teams from the same conference into the MNC game, and we have the SEC to thank for showing us this point from back in 2006.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^
OSU overranked that season? Or do crazy things just happen in bowl games? Give a good coach a month to prepare for a game, some will stick to their same conservative script ie Lloyd and The Vest. Others think outside of the box and throw in new wrinkles to surprise their opponent. SEC SEC SEC.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
However, with the B10's bowl record that season of 2-5, I think they were. Of course, the most frustrating thing watching UM vs. USC in the Rose Bowl that year was watching the same plays over and over that we'd seen the entire season. UM vs. Fla in the CapOne the next season was a look into what our offense could have been like during Carr's last seasons.
The point I was making in the previous post was that the perception by much of the country was turned around during bowl season. If we don't get to see an SEC team vs. another conference, like the B12 or ACC for the MNC, then we, as fans, will never get to see if the SEC's top teams are really that good, or if the perception is wrong. That is why I say no emphatically to an all-SEC MNC.
Now, that very well could turn around for me if the ACC loses it's 3 games vs. the SEC this weekend and no conference has a team with fewer than 2 losses as champion. But even then, if those team's two losses are in-conference, never having lost out of conference, then IMO they still have an argument to be included
for example, Clemson wins vs. South Carolina this weekend and then wins the ACC championship, they will have beat two SEC teams and only have lost to in-conference opponents. I think the ACC goes 3-0 this weekend against the SEC, making it 4-0 on the season. If VaTech ends up winning the conference at that point, with only one loss to Clemson, a team that went 2-0 vs. the SEC, the VaTech would have a very legitimate argument for inclusion in the MNC, especially if they had then avenged their lone loss against Clemson in the ACC championship game. They will have a win vs. a team that beat the SEC East second place team and the SEC West 4th place team.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
When Michigan didn't get a rematch in 2006, it set a precedent. Really, a "national championship" shouldn't be between two teams a few hundred miles apart that already played each other in conference play.
The only fair way, of course, is a playoff with conference champions only, with the CC games counting as a de facto first round. Maybe if enough teams finish with one loss and two SEC teams get a rematch that nobody outside of their region bothers to watch, we will start to see genuine discussions about a playoff to determine a real champion.
Besides, I don't think the two worst offenders when it comes to over-recruiting should be rewarded with two berths in the "national championship" game. Both teams cheated to get where they are, leaving a few "recruits" on campus with no scholly or place to live. Rewarding them for such behavior would send a message that is 180 degrees away from everything the NCAA supposedly represents.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
remember the phrase uttered by many talking heads "if you don't even win your conference, you shouldn't play for the national championship". But now because it's the SEC we'll just forget all about that. I say if the BCS pulls this crap this season. Then all non-SEC fans should just boycott watching this game. Personally I don't feel like watching that field goal crapfest again anyways.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
when the no 1 vs No 2 teams are from the SEC and ANOTHER for everyone else (2006)
seems fair...BLOW the BCS UP FOR GOOD
November 21st, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
The only real contender I see is Oklahoma State, who essentially lost twice when Oklahoma lost again. They needed that win to establish themselves as having a better resume than Alabama. They still have a chance... maybe... if they win out. However, if the media decides that they don't, then they don't (due to the Harris poll). The computers still like them a lot.
Stanford can piss off. They barely beat USC who barely beat Oregon who lost to LSU by quite a bit, and their schedule is weak.
Virginia Tech can piss off x2. They have a terrible schedule and play in a bad conference.
Boise lost to a two-loss TCU team and has a weak schedule. Maybe if Georgia wins the SEC, I'd reconsider.
Houston has a terrible, terrible schedule. Are they even better than Michigan (not a title contender for this year)? They can go away and hope that they get a nice BCS bowl.
I don't like Alabama at all, but they are a lot more legitimate than most of the other contenders.
November 21st, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
If its Bama / LSU I just won't watch it. That's pretty much a regional match up and one that bored the bejesus out of me once already this year. I think it will hurt TV ratings too because we've already seen that movie. Furthermore, if Bama wins then what? They are NC's because they won in the title game, although they lost earlier in the year? Yes.
Yeah I get that they are both good. But seriously its going to piss off the rest of the nation having to watch the drivel from the ESPN talking heads for another year about the SEC. I'm so over it.
