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 11:23 AM ^
errr Auburn was ranked 11th.
But to your point: the only team worth of a shot would be OSU (if they win Bedlam) in my mind. What is Stanford's resume that deserves them the right to be there? A jailsexing at the hands of Oregon? What's VaTech's marquee win? How about Houston? Boise?
I hate the SEC and the lovefest they get too but in reality, Alabama is the 2nd best team by default. They may not have marquee wins (other than Arkansas) but their only loss is to the obvious #1...by 3 points...in overtime. I think its BS too but there isn't a better option this year.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
Stanford beat USC, and USC just beat Oregon. They also haven't lost already to LSU. They won't play in the conference title, but then again, neither will Alabama. Alabama doesn't have a string of wins much better than Stanford's, either. I'm willing to bet they'd get graped at Autzen too, most teams that visit that stadium lose, and when you start losing there, you tend to lose badly.
Virginia tech, if they win their conference title game, will have beaten the only team they lost to in a neutral-field rematch. They actually won an AQ conference unlike Alabama. No, they aren't as good as Alabama, but they already had their shot at home and as the SEC fans all said in '06, winning your conference is ~important~. Michigan had more marquee wins than Florida by far in '06 but apparently that didn't matter because they didn't win their conference.
Houston will be undefeated so serving them up to get raped by LSU will shut up all of the non-AQ believers forever. This is worth it. Same deal with Boise.
If you have SEC vs SEC for the national title, the rest of CFB basically shouldn't exist.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
1) Alabama doesn't have a string of wins better than Stanfords but their loss isn't nearly as bad. You can't put hypotheticals into the national championship conversation...that's no better than the system we already have that's failed.
2. VaTech would have a win that isn't any better than Alabama's and a loss that again, is worse than Alabama's. Who cars what SEC fans said in '06. This isn't a playoff, its a nationals championship game. You have to figure out who is most deserving...deciphering between two teams schedules from HALF A DECADE AGO doesn't do this...its irrelevant.
3. So you're admittedly saying that Houston is worse than nearly all of the AQ schools yet they should deserve to go to the NC game? What purpose does that serve?
4. SEC vs. SEC championshp game THIS YEAR simply proves that both schools who did the MOST to help their cause just happen to be from the SEC.
Yet again, I don't like the SEC, either. But its clear that no other school has done anything to prove they're more worthy than Alabama and LSU except MAYBE OKSt if they win bedlam...and even then it is close... (worse loss, debatable better resume.)
November 21st, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
Didn't folks in the SEC set the precedent by dropping Michigan way back in the polls in 2006 stating that if you can't win your conference you should play for the NC? I say B1G, Pac12, and Big12 should give the SEC some pay back.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
There's making a decision based on pettiness and spite and there's making a decision based on the most data currently available. Currently available data: there isn't a better number 2 than Alabama this year, regardless of whether or not they win their conference. In 2006 there was. We'd all be a lot better off if people stopped using absolutes in their arguments.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
I agree with your statement about it being petty, but...it is what happend back in 1997, Woodson wins Heisman and Fulmer is honked off that Manning didn't get it, so he gets the entire SEC to upvote Nebraska in the coaches poll, when Michigan had been ahead of them the whole season. It was petty and spiteful of Fulmer and the SEC, but it happens.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^
I agree it happens. But it an awful way to determine who should play for a national championship, no?
November 21st, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^
Michigan got screwed in 2006 because of it. So long as the current system remains the same, I sincerely hope Bama gets screwed too. Call it pettiness...I don't care. It wasn't fair to Michigan in 2006 based on a preconceived notion that rematches are bad, so why does that suddenly change now? The only reason is because Bama is in the ESS EEE CEE.
They are not very clearly the #2 team, in my opinion. They have really only one good win but I guarantee you so does Stanford and Okie State (esp is OSU wins in Bedlam), if not more. Yes, the latter two's losses were technically worse, however, losing at home in a night game and missing 4 field goals isn't a whole lot better than losing on the road to a mediocre-bad opponent.
I'm not saying Bama doesn't deserve #2 right now...I'm just saying it's not as clear a 1-2 as poeple seem to think. OSU will have a serious argument still if they beat OU convincingly.
November 21st, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
we agree Re: OSU. I've said it a couple times now. If they win Bedlam, they deserve to go over Bama.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
One man's pettiness is another man's precedent. If the coaches got together and dropped Michigan back (some I believe had them at 7) in 2006 to ensure they could not get to the NC game, then why shouldn't they be forced to live by the standard they set? Is it being petty to ask them to live by the same standard they set? Is it unethical? IIRC, there didn't appear to be a better #2 than Michigan in 2006, hind-sight being what it is we now know better.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
Stanford lost at home to Oregon, not at Autzen.
November 21st, 2011 at 7:11 PM ^
You do realize Stanford lost to Oregon at home and not at Autzen as you have now mentioned a couple times...
November 21st, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
Alabama and LSU are the best two teams in the country. Whether Alabama deserves another chance is a different question, and I would love to see LSU play someone else, but I don't see any other potential opponent who is even arguably as good as Alabama.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Agreed. I hate all of the SEC love just as much as anyone, but I don't think there's any question that these two teams are the two best out there.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
Alabama and LSU are the best two teams in the country.
Wrong, the two best teams in the country are Michigan and Michigans scout team.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
I know I may be in the minority here, but this shouldn't be a matchup of the two best teams int he country. It should be a matchup of the two teams most deserving of playing in the game, i.e. those who have positioned themselves best throughout the year. Any 1-loss BCS conference team deserves to be there over a team who already lost to the #1 team.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
I'm not sure I agree. I don't have much faith in Alabama's ability to complete a forward pass against a competent defense and I hear that's important in football. Who have /they/ beaten other than Arkansas and some child molesters?
November 21st, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
Right, because the players were involved in that? Hopefully you'll learn some class once you graduate from high school.
November 21st, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
Posts like these make me wish the Neg bar would go lower than -1. This is why we can't have nice things!!
November 21st, 2011 at 5:32 PM ^
That and I steal them.
November 21st, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
How do we know Alabama is better than every other 1 loss team? Their only real OOC win is a Penn State team that looked far worse at the start of the season than they do now. OSU(NTOSU)'s wins have been equally convincing, and their one loss was a 2OT squeaker away at a team known for pulling off upsets.
If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be in the NC game (yes, I'm aware this has happened before). You especially shouldn't be in the NC game if you can't win your division in your conference. Alabama had their chance, AT HOME. They blew it. Give someone else a try, and don't put LSU in double jeopardy against someone from their own division.
November 21st, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
I completely agree! I definitely think LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the counrty. There isn't anyone else who is as good as/woujld be able to give LSU a better game than Alabama, however, they already had their chance and lost. At home. If the game had been at LSU and Alabama lost by three in OT I'd be more willing to support a rematch, but it was at Alabama and they still lost. So while that means a lesser team, be it OSU (if they beat OU), VaTech, even an undefeated Houston team facing LSU in the championship, there shouldn't be a rematch.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
With the amount of love the SEC is getting, they have eliminated the need to have a playoff system. All they have to do is award the SEC champion the National Champion every year. I have no doubt that the SEC is strong, but I am tired of hearing that a loss in the SEC equals 2 or three losses in every other conference. Enough of the SEC love. If Oklahoma State wins against Oklahoma, I would rather see them play LSU than Alabama, and a rematch of that thrilling 6-3 game. That game was incredibly boring to watch.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
I'm sorry, but if you thought the defensive bloodbath that game was isn't entertaining I don't know what to tell you. I'd rather watch two real, live defensive powerhouses than a MACtion Tuesday nighter where the over/under is set at 148.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
I can get behind good defense and LSU and Alabama have the best defenses in the country. I would give either one of them a 90% chance of winning the title against any other team based on the strength of their defenses.
But that game was a product of terrible quarterbacks as much as it was a product of good defense. Just because a game is low scoring doesn't mean that it was good defense.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
The problem is that Okla. St. lost to Iowa St. while Alabama lost to LSU. Alabama's loss is much better than Okla. State's.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
The 300 yards of rushing that they gave up to Georgia Southern is a real black mark on their resume, and their overall resume isn't that great. The problem is that the resume of every other potential No. 2 is worse, in my opinion. Alabama also just looks better than everyone else to me when I watch Alabama/everyone else play.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
You're unfortunately correct about there not being a reasonable case for any other team as #2.
Just think, if Wisconsin doesn't lose on 2 Hail Mary's, they're likely the frontrunners, right now, for the championship game (though, even if they beat OSU, their resume's not as good as Alabama's).
November 21st, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
There's a strong case for OSU. If they beat OU, their best win and their loss will be worse than Alabama's, but everything else will point their way. Had they lost to Iowa State to begin the year, and then rolled off a bunch of big wins, they're probably right there in the conversation.
They lost at the wrong time, and in the wrong way (in a shootout to a mediocre team). They're also hurt by the perception of their defense. But on a pure resume, it's a tossup.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
.............Bama's win against Georgia Southern:
Saban elected to score another TD at the very end of the game when a kneel down would have accomplished the same thing. And, they used Richardson and McCarron on that last TD drive when they were already up 38-21. My point? I believe Saban wanted another TD to make that win look better than it really was.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
This game (if it happens) proves, once again, that there is no need for a national championship game. The concept itself is mythical.
And there will not, and should not, be a D-I playoff system; it would be detrimental to the players, too expensive for some of the schools (remember, most schools lose money on bowls), and fergodsakes, haven't we already seen enough evidence that college sports are headed down a dangerous path this year because too much is placed on these programs' shoulders?
The conference championship games are enough. And the bowl games are enough of a reward.
The BCS is a pile of excrement.
Look at all the hoopla starting from Michigan State already, as they are already bitching about Michigan possibly headed to a BCS bowl. Really? If you're not going to the Rose Bowl, then what's the damn difference which secondary bowl you go to?
The BCS is an overhyped scam.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
but I still want to be a part of it so bad...
November 21st, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
I just hope LSU loses to Arkansas saturday....CHAOS!!!
November 21st, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
Nah, that's not chaos. It would just muddle up which rematch is appropriate. If you want chaos, root for Georgia to beat LSU in the SECCG. Even better would be if that happened after Georgia loses to Georgia Tech this week. Would love to see how commentators would argue that two teams that failed to win the SEC should play for the national title.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
No chance in hell Va. Tech, Houston and Boise St. are deserving of going to the NC. You obviously hate the SEC, but LSU-Bama is currently the best match up
November 21st, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
I just hope one of them manages a TD this time around...
November 21st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
Alabama lost to LSU once already this season. Did we not already establish in 2006 that rematches can't happen?
November 21st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
If you really want a playoff system, I think you would still end up with a NC game between LSU and Bama, unless they played each other before that.
November 21st, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
Honestly this is OK, because they'd have had to beat up on the top teams from the rest of the nation to prove that they did deserve to play each other to decide the national title. Where is Alabama's big win? Shit, get off the ESPN/National circlejerk bandwagon, where the hell is their offense? Their QB? Sure, they have trent richardson, but they can't complete a forward pass against a team that doesn't have its pants around its ankles.
I personally think Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma St, and hell, even Michigan right now would have a good shot at beating Alabama straight-up. Their defense is one of the best in the land, but their offense is not that hard to slow down or stop completely. If we played the quality of game we did against Nebraska we'd probably beat them by two touchdowns.
November 21st, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
November 21st, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
but I thought this was settled in 2006. EVERYBODY in the sec, the sec network(CBS) and the sec's #1 mouth piece douchebag danielson were screaming and hollerin' that we don't need a rematch between UM and o$u. Don't need it and don't want it. They already played and the issue was settled. So, why don't I hear any of that now?
November 21st, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
because you're missing an obviously deserving third party. There isn't one in this case. There was in that case. Not apples to apples.
November 21st, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
Because there may be more than one. The whole argument for 2006 is that they showed there were other better teams, because they beat the other ones. How do we know Okie St, Standford, or whoever else wouldn't beat LSU and Alabama unless they get a chance to play?
I mean, if we shouldn't go eye test in 2011, when 2006 told us that's not the way it should be done.