Great LA Times article on BCS mess

Submitted by Go Blue Eyes on November 30th, 2011 at 9:41 PM

The LA Times has a great article describing what a mess the BCS is with the basis of the story being that even if LSU loses this weekend they will still play Alabama in the BCS Championship Game.  They compare this to a certain team from Ann Arbor that lost on the road but did not get into the BCS due to whining from the, wait for it...SEC.,0,3075780,full.column 



Nosce Te Ipsum

November 30th, 2011 at 9:51 PM ^

Having a team that didn't win their conference in the MNC game is a joke. Michigan didn't deserve to play in it in 2006 and Alabama doesn't deserve it now. It's a fucking joke. 

turd ferguson

November 30th, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^

I agree.  An "only conference champions" rule would produce some terrible situations.  If LSU, Oklahoma State, and Virginia Tech lose this weekend (definitely possible), you'd be in a position of choosing two of these teams over one-loss LSU, Alabama, and Stanford (and Boise State):

  • Houston
  • Two-loss conference champions (Georgia, Oregon, Wisconsin/MSU, Oklahoma, TCU, etc.)

Yes, an LSU-Alabama rematch kind of sucks, but a Houston-Georgia national championship game - or something similar - would be much worse.

Look Up_See Blue

November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^

That's the thing, if they put bama in there this year.  It just shows how much bullshit the system is because in 2006, under the same system, Michigan should've gone but didn't.  F the BCS and F the SEC.  I got into an argument today with a co worker that said Michigan doesn't want to face the SEC in a bowl.  I said dude you have no idea.  Bring on the fucking SEC, we're 20-5 against the SEC in bowl games.  He's an ignorant SEC fan just like most of them.


December 1st, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^

I'll say it.

It's because a lot of them are ignorant rednecks from the South.  Lots of them are still bitter about the civil war, or, as many of them call it, "the war of northern aggression."

A common response to an inferiority complex is attempting to flip the script by making the source of inferiority a point of pride. 

We're talking about a region of the country where the display of confederate flags and a romanticized portrayal of the antebellum south are still common.  These are folks who are really grasping at straws for things to be proud of, they'll latch onto anything they can.

My comment sounds harsh, I know.  And of course, not all Southerners are like this.  Many aren't.  But this type of thing is still somewhat common down there.


November 30th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^

That still infuriates me, too.  Florida went over us because the SEC cried about how a rematch wouldn't be right.  Then you have Saban trolling for votes this year.…

Ridiculous.  I'm not saying there's a team that is better than Alabama out there.  But if you lose head-to-head and don't even play in your conference championship game, there's no way you should play for the MNC.  Pick the next-best team, because 'Bama had their shot at LSU and failed.


November 30th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^

Completley true, I feel that the BCS has a hard on for the SEC and all the powerhouses. Anyone not associated with a SEC team, actually just Alabama and LSU, is gonna be upset Oklahoma State got snubbed. IF the rematch occurs, which it is most likely going to, someone needs to make a sign that says:

2006- Ohio State-42 Michigan-39 OSU-> NAT CHAMPIONSIP,UOFM-> ROSE BOWL




And just hold that badboy up infront of every camera


December 1st, 2011 at 12:15 AM ^

There are mitigating circumstances to some degree for Ok St. Remember they played Iowa State the day after the plane crash which killed members of the Ok St. athletic "family".  While this may not have had a significant impact on the actual play, it is something to remember.  This fact, in conjunction with the fact that Alabama lost AT HOME should play some role.  At least UM lost on the road in 2006 (by the same margin, interestingly... though not in OT).



December 1st, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^

That applying the transitive property is a sin but I'm going to do it anyway. Penn State had no offense whatsoever and lost to Bama 27-11. Wisconsin absolutely destroyed that same PSU team after they ...arguably found a more stable offense.

Honestly I believe LSU's win over Oregon is an outlier and the reason so many pundits have a hard on for the conference. When in reality I think the conference is MUCH softer than people think.

*Georgia lost to Boise State

*Arkansas beat a grossly overrated Texas A&M squad and *survived* against a 3-8 Troy team (38-28)

*Alabama beat a dysfunctional PSU team and who?

I just don't think we are going to learn anything from LSU playing Alabama again. Alabama had their shot, AT HOME. I would give OSU the nod if they get past Oklahoma this weekend.





November 30th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^

To play devil's advocate, the system isn't designed to pick the two best conference champions, right? It's to pick the two best teams, which LSU and Alabama might be (and which Michigan and OSU might have been). On the other hand though, Alabama has already proven that they can't beat LSU, so someone else should get a shot.


November 30th, 2011 at 10:32 PM ^

Which arguement falls flat? The best two teams? didn't both mich and OSU get clobbered in their bowls that year? Looking back, the BCS was absolutely right.

Bama and LSU takes away the chance to be conclusive and gives us a rematch. So if Bama wins by 3, then what happens. LSU plays a harder schedule, takes the conference championship, beats alabama once, but loses the "official" title game. do you call it a split championship? give it to bama? crap out a brick and say no one wins?


November 30th, 2011 at 10:49 PM ^

The argument that Alabama should be #2, just like Michigan could have been.  Both Ohio State and Michigan lost their bowl games, but if Michigan was #2 then Florida would have never been given a shot.  Right now, Oklahoma State isn't going to get their shot.  Florida barely snuck by Michigan and that was after intense persuasion by both sides to vote for them.  I wouldn't consider that 'working' when politics had a lot to do with it.

I agree with the argument of 'what if Alabama wins?'  I don't think you could say that they are actually the national champs, even less so if Oklahoma State wins big against Oklahoma and their bowl opponent.


December 1st, 2011 at 12:17 AM ^

Just because UM and OSU lost their bowl games proves nothing except that their was no undisputed #1 team that year.  I think UM and USC would have beaten UF.  I would also argue that if Ted Ginn didn't get hurt, who knows how that would have affected the rest of the game..


December 1st, 2011 at 12:20 AM ^

Yes, both OSU and UM did get clobbered in their bowl games, BUT:

What if the same situation were to play itself out this year?  What if LSU played Ok. St. and lost big, and Alabama lost as well (to whoever they play).  Then the same reality comes about as in 2006.  Ok. St. National Championship and the world knows LSU and Alabama aren't the "#1 and #2 teams".  Yet, we will never have a chance to see another team take their shot.  The BCS gave USC and Florida a chance under similar circumstances, shouldn't the same chance be granted to Ok. State and others?



December 1st, 2011 at 12:38 AM ^

The system is not designed to pick the best 2 teams, it's designed to determine the best team in the country. Having a rematch does nothing but introduce possible controversy if Bama wins. I don't care about the conference champions, but you have to give other teams a shot to beat the supposed best team in the country. That's why Florida jumped us in 2006. Everyone thought that Michigan and OSU were unstoppable. In hindsight, that was blatantly false, but that's exactly the point. Everyone has the same perception of LSU and Bama right now, but if you don't match them up against other teams in the country, then there is no way to tell for sure if one of those other teams is actually better than LSU and/or Bama.

All Aboard

November 30th, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^

What you must remember is that 06 was the last week of the season, with no conference championship game. Having an immediate rematch would be a bit ridiculous. LSU and Bama played an extremely close game, what, 6 weeks ago? No one else has earned the right to play in the NCG.

side note: could you imagine OSU and UM undefeated going into The Game, while the rest of the Top25 has at least 2 losses. They split The Game and the B1G CG, and end up in the NCG. Not saying it's plausible, but holy hell O__O


November 30th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^

It wasn't 6 weeks ago.  Alabama lost to LSU on November 5th.  We lost to Ohio State in 2006 on November 18th.  If you want to count a week and half as a major difference, go right ahead.  But the main difference that still infuriates me is the special treatment SEC schools get in the polls. 

When we lost to #1 Ohio State by 3, on the road, we dropped 4 spots in the polls.  When Alabama lost to #1 LSU by 3, at home, they dropped 1 spot in the polls.

Both Stanford and Oklahoma State were still undefeated at the time yet Bama stayed ranked ahead of them.  The hypocrisy is never ending with the SEC.  Bama has an outstanding defense and they play in the SEC (nevermind that they have only played 2 teams with winning records), that means they should get the rematch in the national title game? 

The bias towards the SEC is never going to stop and that's why we need a playoff.  And I say that painfully because I'm a college football fan that loves the history and tradition of the bowl games. 

The SEC got the first BCS national champion.  The SEC got the first ever 2 loss national champion, and this year will be the 3rd time that an SEC school has gotten to the national title game despite losing a game in November.  This madness has to stop. 


November 30th, 2011 at 11:37 PM ^

If the SEC champ is the best team they will win the championship game. But shouldn't they have to play another conference champ to "prove" that they are the best rather than go by general perception? I remember a 12-1 Alabama team (conference runner up) getting thoroughly demolished by Utah a few years back. The same Utah team that was holding on for dear life against the 3-9 Sherithreet Wolverines in week one.

Let another team play fergodsakes.


November 30th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^

Its not simple at all.  The idea that a team who has the misfortune to happen to play a regular season game against a team who ends up in the BCS title game is automatically eliminated from playing in the title game, notwithstanding that they MAY have better credentials than other teams is ridiculous.  Each team should be judged upon their own merits, who they will face in the title game is irrelevant.


December 1st, 2011 at 12:27 AM ^

The credentials are very subjective if not outright biased. You seem to be basing the entire ranking on what team AL lost to, which ignores the other games played.

According to Sagarin, OK St played a more difficult schedule than AL. The other computer models probably agree.



November 30th, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^

The BCS is perfectly consistent, #1 and #2 in the BCS standings will meet again this year as they do every year.  You just dont like who they're picking as #2. 

The idea that because the BCS ranked a 1 loss florida team ahead of us in 2006, that for the BCS to be "consistent" it has to choose some team over Alabama is ridiculous.

Each team, each year, should stand on its own merits.

Michael From TC

December 1st, 2011 at 12:41 AM ^

Also, Alabama has played just four, yes FOUR teams with winning records, they lost to one of them at home and Georgia Southern had them within 10 points until 3 mins left in the 3rd...yea they deserve to be #2   /s

compare that to a team with the identical record who will be playing their 9th team with a winning record this weekend but is #3 and barring a complete blowout (50+ pt variety) has no chance to pass them for the #2 spot

also pending a Georgia upset the #2 and #3 teams in the SEC will be playing in the game to decide the #1 team in the nation...that seems right


December 1st, 2011 at 1:53 AM ^

It's inconsistent because in 2006 UM had as good of, if not a better case for a rematch than Bama does this year. The only reason we didn't get a rematch was because the teams already played each other. Bama isn't playing for their conference championship game this weekend while LSU is, and no matter what happens in that game it's already been decided that these two teams will play for the National Championship. It's almost as if Alabama is being rewarder for losing that game because they don't risk injuring any of their players in an extra game.

They couldn't win against them on their home field! Nobody should be convinced that it will be any different the second time around. And comparing their schedule to LSU's is a total joke. Oklahoma State, if they win this weekend, should get their shot, just as Florida should have in 2006.


December 1st, 2011 at 12:36 AM ^

Is the SEC the best conference this year?  The have the best team, and maybe the second best team, but outside of that, who do they have?  First of all, look at who Alabama has played (I believe they have only played 3-4 teams with winning records), same with Arkansas, have they played anyone outside of LSU and Alabama?  Who is the next best team?  Georgia?  Didn't they get destroyed by Boise (not saying they aren't a good team).  The SEC is usually a deep conference, but this year, I think they are very top heavy.


November 30th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^

My mistake.  Oklahoma State went to #2 but Alabama still only fell one spot in the polls to #3.  And that still highlights the difference between SEC schools and everyone else. 

When has an undefeated Big Ten team ever lost a close game in November and only dropped one spot in the polls?  The SEC has got it made with this treatment. 


November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 PM ^

Thats actually not entirely correct either.  Before the LSU game Alabama was #2 with about 1/3 of the first place votes.  After they lost they fell to #4 in both the coaches poll and the Harris poll (they only fell to 3 in the BCS standings because their computer rankings were much higher than Stanford's), they were the highest 1 loss team and the onle undefeateds they were ranked ahead of were Boise and Houston.  Not an unreasonable result in my opinion after an OT loss to the #1 team.  The reality is if Okla St or Stanford had won out, there would be no issue.  Its simply not fair to say that after Alabama loses in OT to the #1 team that Okla St and Stanford HAVE TO lose twice for Alabama to move back ahead of them.  And in fact neither has a particularly compelling one loss argument, Ok St lost to an average Iowa St and Stanford got waxed by a team LSU waxed.


November 30th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^

How do you know that?  How do you know that Oklahoma State wouldn't beat Alabama?

Teams that Alabama has played that have winning records:
Penn State
Georgia Southern

Penn State and Arkansas are good teams but not great.  Auburn is decent, not top 25 material though.  Georgia Southern scored 21 points and racked up 300 yards rushing on Alabama and was only down 10 most of the game!  

I'm not so sure that Alabama is as good as people are thinking.  I'm not saying I'd definitely take Oklahoma State over them, but it isn't clear cut like everybody assumes.  I'm willing to bet that the SEC goes about even this year in bowls, and that's with the terrible ACC teams that they're going to play in SEC territory.


November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^

What's your point?  The post I responded to made it seem as fact that LSU and Alabama were the best two teams in the country.  And so what if I was willing to take Oklahoma State over Alabama?  I haven't watched enough of OSU to say truthfully, but I'll make any argument I can against Alabama getting a re-match when they lost at home.


December 1st, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^

Well my point was that you were saying that Okla St was better even though you don't know, that its all based on opinions.  But now my point is moot because you apparently aren't even saying that, you're just picking Okla St for no other reason than they aren't Alabama, I'm not sure how you can justify that intellectually.