College Football In Season Thread

[North King]

Originally Posted by ummmm........

Yes, I understand

No, you don't. The reason why a rematch for the national title is intolerable is because it's in the context of such a stupid postseason system. LSU and Alabama are getting jammed into the national title game without ever giving anyone else in the country a legitimate shot. If they ran the gauntlet of a playoff and made it into a rematch, people would still probably find it a dull rematch, but it wouldn't be a problematic rematch, because they earned their way into the national title game by defeating what contenders remained to be defeated.

Right now, you can proselytize all you want about how the SEC is sooooooooooooo amazing and blah blah blah but what anyone who's not completely blinkered by dogmatic conference chauvinism can see is that we have basically no way of comparing Alabama and Oklahoma State beyond arguing over whether OSU's somewhat worse loss is offset by a slightly better list of wins than Alabama's loss is by it's slightly worse list of wins. This is a criminally tiny list of criteria to utterly shut someone out of national championship play.[1]

Now, if Stanford and Oregon were to meet in a playoff bracket, the "rematch" aspect is completely irrelevant because they both made it into the postseason and they aren't playing one game to decide the national title. If they WERE, it'd be equally criminal because the other teams in the country don't even get a shadow of a shot at the title. But in real postseason play, a "rematch" isn't bad because the rematch will either be over and done with quickly and then we can move on to comparing those teams to the other top teams in the country, or it'll be in the NCG where the teams will have earned their way there.

Instead, we have the broken BCS system with almost no bass for comparing the teams. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not that bad -- at least pollsters have the "eye test" to determine which teams are the best.

But wait, what about that eye test?

You do realize the BCS polls are broken, right? Three parts to them: One is a coaches' poll, where people who want to get their team into the postseason are allowed to rank their teams. One is the Harris poll, which has next to no oversight. The third is the BCS computers, which probably have craptastic computer formulas, 5/6ths of which we can't even look over because they aren't released to the public. The coaches' poll is obviously hilariously wonky -- note that Nick Saban is a voter for that poll, and ranked Stanford over OSU. Who in their right minds would actually do tha -- oh wait, someone who was competing for the slot in the NCG with OSU. But even if we could trust them to be honest (lol), no coach is going to see the games they're supposed to use as a basis for comparison because -- AND GET THIS -- they're usually coaching a game on Saturday.[2]

So much for an "eye test." Most of them aren't even watching. Those who might be have vested interests voting in the poll. It's like if the Heisman ballot included the candidates themselves as one third of the formula.

The rematch NCG is going to be boring to watch, unfair to LSU for effectively giving their opponents a double-elimination bracket while giving themselves a single-elimination bracket, and is all based on a polling system that makes minimal amounts of sense while being wide-open to corruption.

Of course, none of this will matter since I'm trying to convince an Alabama fan that the fact that the BCS this season just happens to give his team a shot at the title doesn't mean the system isn't broken. It's an ultimately futile effort since the likely response to this post is going to be something to the effect of "la la la I can't hear you," but rational arguments have to be made.[3]


[1]It's also part of what's killing regular season play. Effectively you're telling every team in college football that if they want anything resembling a shot at winning the national title, they cannot have a single loss on their resume. Or, I guess, they can have the good fortune to be the in the southeast of the USA (because I guess y'all need something to distract yourself from losing the Civil War). But this encourages less intraconference scheduling, and thus gives us boringer games in the regular season AND even LESS basis to compare teams when it's all said and done.

[2]See here for a more complete explanation, and also for the place I stole my little summary from.

[3]Yep.

[ummmm........]

la la la I can't hear you

[ummmm........]

McElwain doesn't take the Memphis job after all. They go with TCU co-offensive coordinator Justin Fuente instead. There's still the possibility that McElwain will go to Fresno State, and AFAIK Smart is still in the mix at A&M . . .

[North King]

Originally Posted by ummmm........

la la la I can't hear you

Yay we win.

[ummmm........]

It was obvious from the content of your post that you either hadn't read, hadn't understood, or chose to ignore the content of my posts. You then projected your ideas about people who disagree with you on to me and presented counterpoints to those ideas. So basically you're just having a conversation with yourself. It's a little rude, but it doesn't really hurt anything, so I'm happy to oblige you if that's what you're looking for . . .

[North King]

Originally Posted by ummmm........

Yes, I understand that the principal source of all this sturm und drang is the fact that the rest of the country is sick of seeing the SEC win the national title,

see I feel like I was addressing this directly but what do I know I only wrote the post.


Bottom line -- no one's that pissed that the SEC is guaranteed to win another title in and of itself, because they'd probably win this one anyway (I can't see anyone beating LSU) -- they're pissed because the system is horribly broken and locks half a dozen teams out of a meaningful postseason.*

See: the fact that the complaint EVERY year is about the BCS system -- the stupid rematch this year is only the most recent iteration of this.



*The Orange Bowl is not, in fact, meaningful.

[ummmm........]

Originally Posted by North King

see I feel like I was addressing this directly but what do I know I only wrote the post.

And you chose not to quote the passage you were addressing 'directly' out of a sense of mystery, perhaps?

Bottom line -- no one's that pissed that the SEC is guaranteed to win another title in and of itself, because they'd probably win this one anyway (I can't see anyone beating LSU) -- they're pissed because the system is horribly broken and locks half a dozen teams out of a meaningful postseason.*

So it's your position that the animosity directed towards Alabama on behalf of Okie State this year is roughly equivalent to the animosity directed towards Oregon on behalf of TCU last year?

See: the fact that the complaint EVERY year is about the BCS system -- the stupid rematch this year is only the most recent iteration of this.

I see that many people find the BCS unsatisfactory (again, including me, if you were reading), but that doesn't change the fact that Alabama and LSU should be playing in the national title game this year under the system we have.

If you are interested in dialogue, this is the reply you would have received if you had been able to post without condescension:

No, you don't. The reason why a rematch for the national title is intolerable is because it's in the context of such a stupid postseason system.

- It's the system that was established before the season began. Changing it now because you don't like the result it yielded would be intolerable.

LSU and Alabama are getting jammed into the national title game without ever giving anyone else in the country a legitimate shot.

- Every AQ conference team (66 of 120) had a legitimate shot to make the national title game when the season started. The vast majority of them had a much better shot than Alabama or LSU, because they didn't have to play Alabama or LSU. Yet only LSU seized their opportunity. Alabama failed to realize its opportunity, but a second team is required by the system in place, and Alabama was selected, by the system in place.

If they ran the gauntlet of a playoff and made it into a rematch, people would still probably find it a dull rematch, but it wouldn't be a problematic rematch, because they earned their way into the national title game by defeating what contenders remained to be defeated.

- All of the contenders were defeated, except LSU.

Right now, you can proselytize all you want about how the SEC is sooooooooooooo amazing and blah blah blah but what anyone who's not completely blinkered by dogmatic conference chauvinism can see is that we have basically no way of comparing Alabama and Oklahoma State beyond arguing over whether OSU's somewhat worse loss is offset by a slightly better list of wins than Alabama's loss is by it's slightly worse list of wins. This is a criminally tiny list of criteria to utterly shut someone out of national championship play.[1]

- This is where you really kind of start to go off the reservation. First off, most folks (including me, if you were reading) think that the Big XII was the best conference in football this year. Secondly, most folks (again, including me) think that losing to ISU is more than 'somewhat' worse than losing to LSU. Finally, choosing two teams to play in the national title game at the end of the regular season is not a 'criminal' activity. It's actually required by the system in place.

Now, if Stanford and Oregon were to meet in a playoff bracket, the "rematch" aspect is completely irrelevant because they both made it into the postseason and they aren't playing one game to decide the national title. If they WERE, it'd be equally criminal because the other teams in the country don't even get a shadow of a shot at the title. But in real postseason play, a "rematch" isn't bad because the rematch will either be over and done with quickly and then we can move on to comparing those teams to the other top teams in the country, or it'll be in the NCG where the teams will have earned their way there.

- The system in place is the 'real' postseason for college football. Other systems have been suggested, as, for example, the SEC's 'plus one' (four team playoff) model that it has been advocating since 2008. So far, they've only received support from the ACC, though the Big XII appears to have come around in light of recent events. A few Pac-12 ADs have also started to express support, but that's a far cry from an actual commitment from the conference. The other seven conferences and the independents have not expressed support, as far as I know. So the system we have is the system we have.

Instead, we have the broken BCS system with almost no bass for comparing the teams. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not that bad -- at least pollsters have the "eye test" to determine which teams are the best.

But wait, what about that eye test?

You do realize the BCS polls are broken, right? Three parts to them: One is a coaches' poll, where people who want to get their team into the postseason are allowed to rank their teams. One is the Harris poll, which has next to no oversight. The third is the BCS computers, which probably have craptastic computer formulas, 5/6ths of which we can't even look over because they aren't released to the public. The coaches' poll is obviously hilariously wonky -- note that Nick Saban is a voter for that poll, and ranked Stanford over OSU. Who in their right minds would actually do tha -- oh wait, someone who was competing for the slot in the NCG with OSU. But even if we could trust them to be honest (lol), no coach is going to see the games they're supposed to use as a basis for comparison because -- AND GET THIS -- they're usually coaching a game on Saturday.[2]

So much for an "eye test." Most of them aren't even watching. Those who might be have vested interests voting in the poll. It's like if the Heisman ballot included the candidates themselves as one third of the formula.

- This is not news. It was known before the season started, and all parties chose to use this system.

The rematch NCG is going to be boring to watch, unfair to LSU for effectively giving their opponents a double-elimination bracket while giving themselves a single-elimination bracket, and is all based on a polling system that makes minimal amounts of sense while being wide-open to corruption.

- If the first game was any indication, the title game is going to be fantastic to watch. It is unfair to LSU, which is what I've been saying all along, if you were paying attention. No team can beat LSU in the national title game and have a legitimate claim that they are a better team or have had a better season. But it is the system that we have and LSU -- the only team that has clearly been wronged here -- hasn't complained, to their great credit.

Of course, none of this will matter since I'm trying to convince an Alabama fan that the fact that the BCS this season just happens to give his team a shot at the title doesn't mean the system isn't broken. It's an ultimately futile effort since the likely response to this post is going to be something to the effect of "la la la I can't hear you," but rational arguments have to be made.[3]

- Again with the not reading. I said even before the result of the first Alabama/LSU game was known that I was opposed to a rematch. Since the rematch has been set, I've pointed out that no team but LSU deserves the title, that fairness dictates there be no title game this year, and that if Alabama does win the title game, it will be a hollow victory and I hope the AP still awards LSU the title in that circumstance. Rational arguments have been made, but you have not chosen to address them.

[1]It's also part of what's killing regular season play. Effectively you're telling every team in college football that if they want anything resembling a shot at winning the national title, they cannot have a single loss on their resume. Or, I guess, they can have the good fortune to be the in the southeast of the USA (because I guess y'all need something to distract yourself from losing the Civil War).

Yep, not a hint of animosity towards the SEC at all. 100% directed at the BCS there. I stand corrected.

But this encourages less intraconference scheduling, and thus gives us boringer games in the regular season AND even LESS basis to compare teams when it's all said and done.

- LSU played, and beat, the eventual Pac-12 and Big East champions in OOC play, and yet they are the only team that is agreed upon by everyone to deserve a title shot, very much because of those OOC wins. Under the BCS, every team needs to consider their OOC schedule, because they know they may be in an 'eye test' or 'resume' war with someone else for one of only two available spots in the title game. To get into a sixteen team playoff, OTOH, you'd only need to get through your conference with less than two losses for an at-large spot, or, worse still, just win your conference and get a guaranteed berth.

[2]See here for a more complete explanation, and also for the place I stole my little summary from.

- For a more complete explanation, read my posts in this thread

[3]Yep.

Indeed . . .

[North King]

Originally Posted by ummmm........

And you chose not to quote the passage you were addressing 'directly' out of a sense of mystery, perhaps?

No, because it was obvious.

So it's your position that the animosity directed towards Alabama on behalf of Okie State this year is roughly equivalent to the animosity directed towards Oregon on behalf of TCU last year?

Animosity is hard to quantify.

I see that many people find the BCS unsatisfactory (again, including me, if you were reading), but that doesn't change the fact that Alabama and LSU should be playing in the national title game this year under the system we have.

"Should be" is incredibly subjective.

- It's the system that was established before the season began. Changing it now because you don't like the result it yielded would be intolerable.

- Every AQ conference team (66 of 120) had a legitimate shot to make the national title game when the season started. The vast majority of them had a much better shot than Alabama or LSU, because they didn't have to play Alabama or LSU. Yet only LSU seized their opportunity. Alabama failed to realize its opportunity, but a second team is required by the system in place, and Alabama was selected, by the system in place.

Moreover, "this is how it works" is not a valid response to a post which essentially says "a rematch is intolerable because this is not how it should work." So sure, in isolation your points would be a valid rebuttal, but the problem is that the discussion of the rematch can't be isolated from discussion of the wonky system that created that rematch in the first place. The rematch is a problem because it is in the context of that system.

If Alabama LSU was the championship game of a meaningful playoff bracket I doubt people would care nearly as much.

- All of the contenders were defeated, except LSU.

Wait, so you actually believe that one loss should disqualify you from any hope of championship contention? One loss which might be decided by a freak flurry of wind sending a field goal slightly wide? A loss in September should stop you from having a hope at the NCG in January despite the fact that your team might be completely different? A single off-day in a player's life should determine whether they get their fair shot at a trophy?

Jesus, I'd understand that mentality in the playoffs, where you have to have the win-or-die toughness to succeed, but in the regular season it's just absurd.

Secondly, most folks (again, including me) think that losing to ISU is more than 'somewhat' worse than losing to LSU. Finally, choosing two teams to play in the national title game at the end of the regular season is not a 'criminal' activity. It's actually required by the system in place.

The ISU was an incredibly tough game for everyone involved -- or did you miss that plane crash thing? Sure, it should be enough to keep OSU out of the top two for the seeding, but to rob them of any hope of the NCG? Ludicrous.

And, as said above, the system is wonky and complaints of a rematch cannot be extricated from general systemic malaise.

- The system in place is the 'real' postseason for college football. Other systems have been suggested, as, for example, the SEC's 'plus one' (four team playoff) model that it has been advocating since 2008. So far, they've only received support from the ACC, though the Big XII appears to have come around in light of recent events. A few Pac-12 ADs have also started to express support, but that's a far cry from an actual commitment from the conference. The other seven conferences and the independents have not expressed support, as far as I know. So the system we have is the system we have.

Ditto.

- This is not news. It was known before the season started, and all parties chose to use this system.

Ditto.

I don't think anyone's particularly advocating that we should suddenly switch to a playoff right this second, since that'd be somewhat problematic for most of the parties involved. I think they're advocating a switch in systems.

No team can beat LSU in the national title game and have a legitimate claim that they are a better team or have had a better season.

Actually I'm pretty sure if, say, OSU went to the title game and beat LSU it would be an incredible upset, a brilliant cap to a season, and therefore the great season in college football this year.

Saying LSU would automatically be better regardless of who would win a hypothetical championship matchup is ridiculous. See: Kraz's posts earlier (maybe we should crown the best recruiting class as champions instead of actually playing the games!).

Again with the not reading. I said even before the result of the first Alabama/LSU game was known that I was opposed to a rematch. Since the rematch has been set, I've pointed out that no team but LSU deserves the title, that fairness dictates there be no title game this year, and that if Alabama does win the title game, it will be a hollow victory and I hope the AP still awards LSU the title in that circumstance. Rational arguments have been made, but you have not chosen to address them.

But you're wrong.

LSU shouldn't be crowned undisputed champion because there's a dozen perfectly legitimate teams out there who could conceivably beat LSU, and if they did so in the context of a NCG, that'd be enough to crown them national champion. LSU's two OOC games do not make them clearly better than anyone from any conference because wins aren't transitive. You can't say that Team A beating Team B which beat Team C means Team A is better than Team C and Team C deserves no shot at the postseason.

e.g. Oregon lost to USC, which lost to Stanford, which lost to Oregon. Clearly, all of them are better than each of the others, and all of them should be crowned Pac-12 champions.

Yep, not a hint of animosity towards the SEC at all. 100% directed at the BCS there. I stand corrected.

I didn't say I didn't dislike the SEC (I do, and most merrily). I said my problem with a rematch lies with the BCS. I do hope you can separate the two ideas.

LSU played, and beat, the eventual Pac-12 and Big East champions in OOC play, and yet they are the only team that is agreed upon by everyone to deserve a title shot, very much because of those OOC wins. Under the BCS, every team needs to consider their OOC schedule, because they know they may be in an 'eye test' or 'resume' war with someone else for one of only two available spots in the title game. To get into a sixteen team playoff, OTOH, you'd only need to get through your conference with less than two losses for an at-large spot, or, worse still, just win your conference and get a guaranteed berth.

Yeah, but the fact that a single loss wouldn't be crippling would obviously encourage more OOC play, plus the OOC would help your rankings and therefore your seedings... plus you could just do away with the AQ thing to begin with.

[Azale]

Big East poops on geography.

Boise State, San Diego State, Houston, UCF, and SMU to the Big East by 2013. Navy and either Temple/Air Force will round out the Big "East" football roster.

[Ceoladir]

Originally Posted by Azale

Big East poops on geography.

Boise State, San Diego State, Houston, UCF, and SMU to the Big East by 2013. Navy and either Temple/Air Force will round out the Big "East" football roster.

They better rename the damn conference.

[madviking]

I think the "Big" is in there for a reason.

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

@GamezRule - Big Eastwesteast

@ummm... and North King - the system is what it is:

1992 - "we want number 1 v number 2." Fine we'll give you the bowl alliance.

1997 - "Two straight years a top 2 team went to the Rose Bowl." Okay, here's BCS.

2003 - "The title game is 2v3!" Time to retool.

2011 - "The top two teams already played and are in the same conference." We'll make a new system that puts number 1 vs number 3?

[MobBoss]

No team can beat LSU in the national title game and have a legitimate claim that they are a better team or have had a better season.

I disagree with this. The whole point of having a championship game isnt about who had a better season, or even who may be a better team; but rather its about who wins the freaking national championship game on that particular day. You win...your're the national champion. End of story.

[ummmm........]

Originally Posted by North King

No, because it was obvious.

So you quoted a different passage as a diversionary tactic of some kind, then?

Animosity is hard to quantify.

Your position is hard to quantify . . .

"Should be" is incredibly subjective.

Er, no. To wit: "1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game." That's a direct quote. The little '1' at the beginning means it's the first rule . . .

Moreover, "this is how it works" is not a valid response to a post which essentially says "a rematch is intolerable because this is not how it should work." So sure, in isolation your points would be a valid rebuttal, but the problem is that the discussion of the rematch can't be isolated from discussion of the wonky system that created that rematch in the first place. The rematch is a problem because it is in the context of that system.

Of course it is, as can be seen with very little mental effort. The system in place is the system that will be used this year. Events of this year may, or may not, be used to alter the system that is used in future years. The two things really don't have anything to do with one another. A post that argues "Oklahoma State should be playing LSU in the national championship" has to do with what should happen this year, when the current system is in place. A post that argues "other teams didn't get a fair chance," are addressed by the part of that post you didn't.

If Alabama LSU was the championship game of a meaningful playoff bracket I doubt people would care nearly as much.

If "people" cared about establishing a playoff, preventing rematches, or guaranteeing only conference champions were allowed to win the national title, they would have established rules to that effect before the season started.

Wait, so you actually believe that one loss should disqualify you from any hope of championship contention? One loss which might be decided by a freak flurry of wind sending a field goal slightly wide? A loss in September should stop you from having a hope at the NCG in January despite the fact that your team might be completely different? A single off-day in a player's life should determine whether they get their fair shot at a trophy?

Jesus, I'd understand that mentality in the playoffs, where you have to have the win-or-die toughness to succeed, but in the regular season it's just absurd.

I think this is a problem a lot of people have, mostly people who come to college football from other sports. We have that 'win-or-die toughness' that everybody else can only manage during the playoffs all season long, because our regular season actually matters.

The ISU was an incredibly tough game for everyone involved -- or did you miss that plane crash thing? Sure, it should be enough to keep OSU out of the top two for the seeding, but to rob them of any hope of the NCG? Ludicrous.

I think that using the loss of human life to justify, excuse or really even relate to a loss by a football team is offensive. Happily, no one affiliated with the football programs at any of the schools that play FBS football and lost loved ones this year have done so.

And, as said above, the system is wonky and complaints of a rematch cannot be extricated from general systemic malaise.

Well, that's not really fair. I mean, they can be. It's possible, I'd think. For example, my complaints about the BCS are completely unrelated to my complaints about a rematch. Perhaps you cannot separate the two, but that's really a personal problem.

Ditto.

Ditto what? You have a personal problem with separating efforts to improve the system from your 'general systemic malaise'?

Ditto.

And with accepting the results of the current system until the system is changed . . ?

I don't think anyone's particularly advocating that we should suddenly switch to a playoff right this second, since that'd be somewhat problematic for most of the parties involved. I think they're advocating a switch in systems.

The switch that the SEC has been advocating for three years? We'd love it if the rest of you could catch up. But if you agree that Alabama should be playing LSU in the national title game this year, what are you getting so bent out of shape over? The system college football uses to crown its national champion isn't going to change between now and January 9th, or January 2013. If you want to argue for a new system, you don't want to focus on results of this year or years past, because your system won't need to work in those years, it will need to work in future years, when the specific circumstances are unknown. How long do you think it will be before the best two teams in college football once again find themselves playing in the same division of the same conference?

Actually I'm pretty sure if, say, OSU went to the title game and beat LSU it would be an incredible upset, a brilliant cap to a season, and therefore the great season in college football this year.

Saying LSU would automatically be better regardless of who would win a hypothetical championship matchup is ridiculous. See: Kraz's posts earlier (maybe we should crown the best recruiting class as champions instead of actually playing the games!).

See the reply to that post. In college football, the regular season matters. The final AP poll didn't even consider the results of postseason games until 1965. The coaches poll didn't follow suit until '73. This is because the 'postseason', meaning bowl games, was thought of mainly as a reward trip to a vacation spot for players, and a showcase for the sport. That certainly changed, exactly when the polls started being released after the bowl games. Currently, all games are considered, but trying to set up an analogy where recruiting is to the regular season as the regular season is the postseason is absurd.

But you're wrong.

LSU shouldn't be crowned undisputed champion because there's a dozen perfectly legitimate teams out there who could conceivably beat LSU, and if they did so in the context of a NCG, that'd be enough to crown them national champion.

Says who? Seriously, where does that idea come from? Because it doesn't come from the history of college football.

LSU's two OOC games do not make them clearly better than anyone from any conference because wins aren't transitive. You can't say that Team A beating Team B which beat Team C means Team A is better than Team C and Team C deserves no shot at the postseason.

e.g. Oregon lost to USC, which lost to Stanford, which lost to Oregon. Clearly, all of them are better than each of the others, and all of them should be crowned Pac-12 champions.

I'm starting to think that maybe you're just new to the sport. LSU would be superior to every team that beat it in the national title for the exact reason you mention: No team will beat every other team every time, and any team that did beat LSU (except Alabama) would have a far worse loss on its resume than LSU would at that point. And since we in college football don't throw the regular season results out when the playoffs start the way other sports do, that claim is legitimate.

I didn't say I didn't dislike the SEC (I do, and most merrily). I said my problem with a rematch lies with the BCS. I do hope you can separate the two ideas.

You need to separate them yourself first.

Yeah, but the fact that a single loss wouldn't be crippling would obviously encourage more OOC play, plus the OOC would help your rankings and therefore your seedings... plus you could just do away with the AQ thing to begin with.

A single loss isn't crippling now. An undefeated national champion is extremely rare. Even a national champion with fewer losses than anyone else is fairly rare. For example, this year Alabama has a single loss and we get a chance to play in the title game, since we're the second best team in the country. Funny how that works. Expanding the field to sixteen teams would 'obviously' eliminate the need for the Alabamas and LSUs of the world to play legitimate OOC games, since they couldn't be left out of a playoff under any circumstances without delegitimizing the entire process. The little teams might clamor for better games, but since the 'haves' wouldn't gain anything by playing in them, they would clamor in vain. So sad. Witness the clamoring of the little people. I know they're small. Use your field glasses. They're down there. Clamoring and stuff. Wave politely. Carry on . . .

Originally Posted by GamezRule

They better rename the damn conference.

The Big XII And Big Ten didn't . . .

Originally Posted by dIZZyBlIZZy

@ummm... and North King - the system is what it is:

1992 - "we want number 1 v number 2." Fine we'll give you the bowl alliance.

1997 - "Two straight years a top 2 team went to the Rose Bowl." Okay, here's BCS.

2003 - "The title game is 2v3!" Time to retool.

2011 - "The top two teams already played and are in the same conference." We'll make a new system that puts number 1 vs number 3?

Exactly. Don't focus on a system that would have given you a result you would have preferred this year, instead try to find a system that will consistently yield better results in all future years, when the exact circumstances are unknown.

Since college football has the best regular season in all of American sport, your first goal needs to be preserving that. And given that it's a lot harder to move backwards than it is to move forwards, you need to take baby steps. The smallest possible step is a play-in game, and it yields a better result in every circumstance: 1) More than two teams "deserve" inclusion: it includes an additional team, 2) Exactly two teams deserve inclusion: it reinforces the historical value of being the best team in the regular season, 3) Only one team deserves inclusion: it forces the also-rans to face an additional challenge before they get the opportunity to face the presumptive champion. It's like the best idea ever ! ! !

Originally Posted by MobBoss

I disagree with this. The whole point of having a championship game isnt about who had a better season, or even who may be a better team; but rather its about who wins the freaking national championship game on that particular day. You win...your're the national champion. End of story.

Well, if you're talking now -- which is past since you've moved on to this part of the sentence -- as the end of the story, then yes. And there have been a lot of national pundits advocating that view, but I think it lacks historical perspective.

Why does the national title game exist? It exists because in the past we didn't always have a clear #1 at the end of every season, and we wanted a chance to put two top contenders against one another. This year, there aren't two top contenders, there's LSU and there's everybody else. So LSU has already won the 'historical' national championship. If Alabama beats LSU on January 9th, then sure, we did what we were supposed to do and deserve the BCS title, but the AP choosing LSU as their national champion would be a nice -- and apparently, hugely necessary -- reminder of what college football values in its champions . . .

[North King]

Originally Posted by ummmm........

So you quoted a different passage as a diversionary tactic of some kind, then?

I quoted a passage which said the rematch complaints were only cause of SEC hatin', and then said that was incorrect. No diversion here, champ.

Your position is hard to quantify . . .

That's cause you don't normally quantify positions. (Champ.)

Er, no. To wit: "1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game." That's a direct quote. The little '1' at the beginning means it's the first rule . . .

Wow, brilliant! Except I just said "should be" is subjective because I don't agree that Alabama should be ranked #2. Working within the idiotic system, it should be LSU#1, OSU#2.

Of course it is, as can be seen with very little mental effort. The system in place is the system that will be used this year. Events of this year may, or may not, be used to alter the system that is used in future years. The two things really don't have anything to do with one another. A post that argues "Oklahoma State should be playing LSU in the national championship" has to do with what should happen this year, when the current system is in place. A post that argues "other teams didn't get a fair chance," are addressed by the part of that post you didn't.

The two things have everything to do with one another. The rematch is only a problem in the context of the system, which means discussion of a rematch is in fact inextricable from discussion of the system. No one has a problem with the rematch in and of itself -- rematches can be exciting (see: Pats-Giants Super Bowl).

Now, obviously discussion of why the system is abysmal IS, in fact, extricable from discussion of the rematch, but that doesn't mean it goes both ways. The rematch problem is a part of the set of systemic problems.

Capiche?

I think this is a problem a lot of people have, mostly people who come to college football from other sports. We have that 'win-or-die toughness' that everybody else can only manage during the playoffs all season long, because our regular season actually matters.

Except that's still stupid. In college football you have minimal basis for comparing the teams that end up in the NCG versus those who end up in the Rose and Orange Bowls, and all of these teams end with only one loss. A playoff, of course, takes care of all of that by having the top teams play each other.

I think that using the loss of human life to justify, excuse or really even relate to a loss by a football team is offensive. Happily, no one affiliated with the football programs at any of the schools that play FBS football and lost loved ones this year have done so.

I think it's offensive to say these people would be unaffected by that.

Well, that's not really fair. I mean, they can be. It's possible, I'd think. For example, my complaints about the BCS are completely unrelated to my complaints about a rematch. Perhaps you cannot separate the two, but that's really a personal problem.

See above. If you need some sort of analogy to make it work for you -- the BCS system is "bugs" and the rematch is "insects". You cannot talk about the latter without talking about the former, but you can talk about the former without talking specifically about the latter.

The switch that the SEC has been advocating for three years? We'd love it if the rest of you could catch up. But if you agree that Alabama should be playing LSU in the national title game this year, what are you getting so bent out of shape over? The system college football uses to crown its national champion isn't going to change between now and January 9th, or January 2013. If you want to argue for a new system, you don't want to focus on results of this year or years past, because your system won't need to work in those years, it will need to work in future years, when the specific circumstances are unknown. How long do you think it will be before the best two teams in college football once again find themselves playing in the same division of the same conference?

Because the excuse "that's the way it is" is what keeps dictators in place and what makes our meatpacking industry use kittens in its burgers.

No, seriously speaking, it's because if you don't voice the complaints yearly then the system never changes. This is true in all bureaucratic morasses.

See the reply to that post. In college football, the regular season matters. The final AP poll didn't even consider the results of postseason games until 1965. The coaches poll didn't follow suit until '73. This is because the 'postseason', meaning bowl games, was thought of mainly as a reward trip to a vacation spot for players, and a showcase for the sport. That certainly changed, exactly when the polls started being released after the bowl games. Currently, all games are considered, but trying to set up an analogy where recruiting is to the regular season as the regular season is the postseason is absurd.

And the regular season is insufficient for separating teams. That's why postseasons exist.

Says who? Seriously, where does that idea come from? Because it doesn't come from the history of college football.

It's a "championship game," yo, I'm pretty sure that's definitional.

I'm starting to think that maybe you're just new to the sport. LSU would be superior to every team that beat it in the national title for the exact reason you mention: No team will beat every other team every time, and any team that did beat LSU (except Alabama) would have a far worse loss on its resume than LSU would at that point. And since we in college football don't throw the regular season results out when the playoffs start the way other sports do, that claim is legitimate.

But LSU loses the game that matters, which means they're not "clutch". You don't say, "well, team A was leading for three quarters so they win the game," you tally up the points at the end of the game. And in this context, winning the championship game, because it's a "championship game," counts for more than anything else.

You need to separate them yourself first.

Frankly, I don't.

A single loss isn't crippling now. An undefeated national champion is extremely rare. Even a national champion with fewer losses than anyone else is fairly rare. For example, this year Alabama has a single loss and we get a chance to play in the title game, since we're the second best team in the country. Funny how that works. Expanding the field to sixteen teams would 'obviously' eliminate the need for the Alabamas and LSUs of the world to play legitimate OOC games, since they couldn't be left out of a playoff under any circumstances without delegitimizing the entire process. The little teams might clamor for better games, but since the 'haves' wouldn't gain anything by playing in them, they would clamor in vain. So sad. Witness the clamoring of the little people. I know they're small. Use your field glasses. They're down there. Clamoring and stuff. Wave politely. Carry on . . .

So wait. You think that a team which will want to maximize its regular season results will voluntarily schedule numerous, grueling OOC games?

Wat.

[JollyRoger]

Obviously the Patriots were the 2007 NFL Champions. I can't remember, though, did the Colts, Cowboys or Packers get chosen for the "championship" game? Surely no 6 loss team would have gotten a shot at New England ahead of these 3 loss teams.

[Azale]

Hey so, anyone actually care about the Heisman? I kinda sorta care since a QB from Baylor has a very real chance at winning it over the SECSECSEC.

[Zack]

Originally Posted by Azale

Hey so, anyone actually care about the Heisman?

I will be outraged if anyone except RG3 wins.

[pacesplace]

I think Richardson should get it, but I have no problem with Griffin getting it. All projections I've seen have Griffin winning.

[ummmm........]

Originally Posted by North King

I quoted a passage which said the rematch complaints were only cause of SEC hatin', and then said that was incorrect. No diversion here, champ.

You quoted

Originally Posted by ummmm........

Yes, I understand

That's cause you don't normally quantify positions. (Champ.)

Or animosity.

Wow, brilliant! Except I just said "should be" is subjective because I don't agree that Alabama should be ranked #2. Working within the idiotic system, it should be LSU#1, OSU#2.

So you think the math is wrong. You didn't say that. Where's the error you've discovered?

The two things have everything to do with one another. The rematch is only a problem in the context of the system, which means discussion of a rematch is in fact inextricable from discussion of the system. No one has a problem with the rematch in and of itself -- rematches can be exciting (see: Pats-Giants Super Bowl).

Now, obviously discussion of why the system is abysmal IS, in fact, extricable from discussion of the rematch, but that doesn't mean it goes both ways. The rematch problem is a part of the set of systemic problems.

Capiche?

No.

Except that's still stupid. In college football you have minimal basis for comparing the teams that end up in the NCG versus those who end up in the Rose and Orange Bowls, and all of these teams end with only one loss. A playoff, of course, takes care of all of that by having the top teams play each other.

Which proves my point.

I think it's offensive to say these people would be unaffected by that.

As do I.

See above. If you need some sort of analogy to make it work for you -- the BCS system is "bugs" and the rematch is "insects". You cannot talk about the latter without talking about the former, but you can talk about the former without talking specifically about the latter.

That helps not at all.

Because the excuse "that's the way it is" is what keeps dictators in place and what makes our meatpacking industry use kittens in its burgers.

No, seriously speaking, it's because if you don't voice the complaints yearly then the system never changes. This is true in all bureaucratic morasses.

So you're not so much trying to communicate as win. That explains a lot.

And the regular season is insufficient for separating teams. That's why postseasons exist.

No. Baseball has a postseason even though the best team is frequently better determined by regular season results than postseason results. I think postseasons exist mostly because people are sad to see the regular season end.

It's a "championship game," yo, I'm pretty sure that's definitional.

Do you mean tautological? If that's all you need, then the 'championship game' was played between Alabama and LSU on Nov. 5th. LSU won. There you go.

But LSU loses the game that matters, which means they're not "clutch". You don't say, "well, team A was leading for three quarters so they win the game," you tally up the points at the end of the game. And in this context, winning the championship game, because it's a "championship game," counts for more than anything else.

So I'm right: You're saying you just don't understand the value college football places on regular season games.

Frankly, I don't.

Up to you

So wait. You think that a team which will want to maximize its regular season results will voluntarily schedule numerous, grueling OOC games?

Wat.

I'm saying that a team that knows ahead of time that all it needs to do is finish in the top sixteen to advance will schedule accordingly. LSU could have scheduled four scrimmages to start the season this year, and if a sixteen team playoff left them out at the end of the year then the winner of that playoff would not have played the best team in college football. The Houstons, Boises, and other lesser conference teams would need a strong OOC schedule to justify inclusion, but none of the stronger teams would have any incentive to play them, since they'd basically be adding rounds to the end of season playoff. Think about the NFL, where there can come a time in the season that your playoff position is set, and you can send your scout team out there to lose 60-0 and it has no impact on your season in any way. College football isn't like that.

Originally Posted by Azale

Hey so, anyone actually care about the Heisman? I kinda sorta care since a QB from Baylor has a very real chance at winning it over the SECSECSEC.

Meh. Even as an SECSECSEC fan, I don't care much about the Heisman. Richardson's better than Ingram was, but so was Namath, and he didn't win. It's always struck me as a little bit of a silly award. We can't even settle on a best team, and we want to talk about a best player? I'd compare it to the concept of the 'winning touchdown'. I remember the first time that expression resonated with me I was in elementary school, and though my math skills were limited I could still recognize that a team that won a game 42-35 needed all six of its touchdowns to win the game. And even if you could point to one and say 'that's the winning touchdown', no player scored it without another ten guys from his side on the field. I guess I just don't think individual awards have a place in team sports. The only ones I really pay attention to are all-whatever teams, since there you're at least looking at how the players might perform together . . .