Okie State, which certainly would have played for the national title if they had not had their bad loss.
I highly doubt you actually believe this and I think you know it too.
If Oklahoma State had beaten Iowa State and instead lost to, say, Texas A&M by ~3 points you would completely agree they should have been in the title game and not Alabama? No longer having a dreaded "bad loss" to such a "bad team" would have been the only final difference maker?
True, I also disagree with your assessment of NFL teams and how they would be hypothetically ranked; I don't think this "bad loss" idea would matter. There's no evidence in college football that the idea of a "bad loss" ever had much effect in rankings or performance, nor is there a reason it should, and I think that applies to the NFL and other sports to a similar extent.
Of course, it seems to me you're the only one who really brought it up here, it's sort of on you to define what you've been meaning this whole time by a "bad loss" - I haven't been trying to define the concept myself. I've been taking your idea of a "bad loss" opposed to a "normal loss" as something like losing to an unranked team or any blowout loss.
Clearly, looking at past BCS championships alone, not even other bowls or rankings, teams with a "bad loss" got in and even won multiple times.
In 2007 LSU had a "bad loss" to an unranked team while some other contenders did not, but they made it into the title game.
In 2006 instead of a Michigan-Ohio State rematch Florida got into the championship when they clearly had a "worse loss" during the regular season.
In 2003 USC had the closest, not-so-bad loss of the top three teams, on the road in multiple overtimes, but they were left out.
In 2001 Nebraska had a bad blowout loss at the end of the regular season and, surprise, played in the championship game.
So in past BCS championships alone, ranking teams by whether they had a "bad loss" doesn't seem informative, at all. Even the traditional wisdom about the timing of a loss makes far more sense. It actually seems a large proportion of the BCS championship participants that weren't undefeated would be in controversy over your idea of a bad loss.
If decisions by the polls and the bowl system had actually been made with some "bad loss" criteria there's no good indication it would have worked for the best n the past either, as teams which could have been ruled out from being in the championship game both won and lost.
There's also been no reason given why the concept of the "bad loss" should be considered over other factors in the general resume like strength of schedule, conference strength and accomplishment.
Really from all sources the talk of "bad loss" seemed much more like an excuse for other deciding factors this year. Sure, I'd be open to hearing your case for why another team would have been ranked #2 in the polls and not Alabama if they'd only had a "normal loss" instead of a "bad loss." Or even a case for teams lower down in the polls and how they might have fared. I doubt any of that would have happened because of the other real reasons at play but it's plausible if you had an argument for it.
I don't know them particularly well. I know they are Ohio State fans, so coupled with the Green Bay thing I presume them to be yankee transplants, but anything else would be total guesswork.
. Also Mobby's got it down. That ball doesn't bounce off Williams's knee and the Niners win 17-10.
