Great LA Times article on BCS mess

My only issue with Alabama in the BCS title game is if they win, are they really the national champion?  LSU has clearly played the tougher schedule.  LSU and Alabama are 1-1 against each other, with LSU winning at Alabama and Alabama winning at a neutral site.  I just think you end up with many people still thinking that LSU is the better team, the type of situation the BCS was intended to eliminate.

 

If you put an out of conference team against LSU and LSU wins, they are the clear NC.  And if the other team wins, then maybe the SEC was overrated and that other team is the NC.

I think if Oklahoma State beats OU they should have a shot at LSU.  I know what I think doesn't matter to anyone.  That would be an exciting game to watch though.  If I was Gundy I would be trying to score 100 points this weekend against OU.

I'd agree that the SEC has been the best conference over the past decade.

That said, however, I do wonder if I'd have that same opinion if all the bowl games were played north of Columbus. It's always rankled me that bowl games are much closer to home games for other teams/conferences. I think it makes a difference. How big a difference, I'm really not sure. But a difference.

 The whole point to this BCS mess is to see what happens if number 1 plays number2 the two best teams or whatever. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BAMA PLAYED LSU AT HOME they lost. I'm tired of people saying yea LSU and Bama are head and shoulders above everyone else. Was'nt Ohio State head and shoulders above everyone else when Florida beat them? Was'nt Miami head and shoulders above everyone else when Ohio State beat them? The list goes on and on upsets happen... a lot. I don't want to see a bama LSU rematch , we've been there done that . Lsu went in bama house kicked up their feet and watched whatever the hell they wanted on T.V. If oklahoma state wins vs. Oklahoma they should be in the NCG. They had one loss on the road following a tradgedy. What can bama say? There was a sign on Gameday during the Auburn vs. bama game "Only losers want a rematch"

I'd rather watch the Humanitarian Bowl.  The greatest voters in college football seem poised to unleash a Foul championship matchup like Bama-LSU take 2 on the nation.  Two ethically challenged programs.  Two games in the same season.  Only one (or none!) 2011 conference championships between the two of them.

in 2006, the Big Ten hadn't won 5 BCS national championships in a row. 

In 2011, the SEC has don just that. 

We need to stop bitching, because we got completely exposed that year and its kind of pathetic that we're saying we should have been in that game after all that happened that bowl season. 

Congratulations to Gundy for taking the high road, but part of me feels like he is scared to play LSU...

Having a title between two teams from the same division is akin to running an experiment with no control.  LSU and Alabama have both played Tennessee, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Auburn, and each other.  Alabama's eastern division opponents were SC and Vandy, LSU's were Kentucky and Florida.

By placing them against each other, all you are doing is simply confirming the pre-existing biases about the strength of their conference foes.  LSU has convincingly made its case in non-conference play, but Alabama has not.  This means that Alabama did absolutely nothing to make it to the championship but put itself in a situation where it would have been difficult to not make the championship.

While it may not be true for LSU, a plausible list of teams who could be in the championship game if they enjoyed the same situation as Alabama  (needing to 11 teams topped by Arkansas and Penn State):

Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma St., VaTech, Boise St., Wisconsin, perhaps even Houston, Georgia, or, dare I say, Michigan.

In fact, comparing the schedules now, counting LSU as a loss, the most likely stumbling blocks were Michigan to have played Alabama's schedule would have been Arkansas at home, and road games against Penn State, Florida, and Auburn.

All this speculation is pretty stupid, I admit, but I can say that, after comparing seasons, I am not at all intimidated by any matchup Michigan might get with an SEC team.

 

Is if LSU had lost to Bama.  With their OOC schedule if they had lost to Bama they would DESERVE to go.  Playing WVU, Oregon already shows how good that they are but as everyone else said Bama had it's chance and hasn't really beaten anyone good outside it's own DIVISION.  

 

Give the shot to someone else.  

I don't know why nobody is giving OkSt any credit. Yes their loss was worse than Bama's but look at the big picture. Bama has beaten only 2 teams currently ranked by the BCS and if OkSt beats OU this weekend that makes 5 for them. Bama's schedule is pretty weak. They have 3 wins over teams with winning records, a PSU team that's nowhere near as good as their record indicates, Arkansas, and a pathetic Auburn team. Everyone talks about Bama's defense being so good. Have you seen the offenses they've played? It's not hard for even an average defense to look good when you play the #116, #114, #110, #107, #101, #82, #72, #71, and #61 ranked offenses in the country. Bama is good but I get tired of the perception that just because they're in the SEC West they're "so" much better than the other 1 loss teams.

The real "bias" is in the number of poll voters per conference. If remember correctly from 2006, the states with SEC schools have roughly twice as many votes as any other region. Of course they are going to dominate the polls and hence, the BCS. The system is rigged there guys. Equalize that inequity and this problem is largely neutralized.