Started By
Message
Will this be the end of the BCS? It no longer works
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:12 am
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:12 am
Please, no flames or taunts, it's a legit question.
Now, I'm a huge LSU fan, and I can acknowledge if we lost Nov 5th I'd want a rematch. I also admit that while I hope and believe LSU will run the table, Alabama is the team most capable of beating us (in my opinion).
So- let's talk football politics. One point is that for all the current hype of a rematch, most fans of schools outside the SEC are tired of hearing how the SEC is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Right now, Oklahoma St, Virginia Tech and Stanford (am I leaving anyone out?) still have the opportunity to match or surpass Alabama's record. OSU and VT will also have conference championships on their side, while Stanford will have, if not the Heisman Trophy winner, then the best QB in the nation (and a total of 2 losses in the last 2 seasons). Currently, the Alabama arguments are "who'd you lose to"; even Saban came out with that line yesterday when he mentioned that his loss was in OT to LSU.
The other side of that coin is "what'd you win"; right now Alabama has no answer to that. No conference, no division (not even a split division and sitting at home on a tiebreaker). OSU would have 11-1 with a Big 12 title, and VT would be 12-1 with the ACC title and having won the ACC Championship game. Stanford is in Alabama's shoes- a great record and no hardware.
So- if you decide (as, say a Michigan fan and voter) that you won't give the SEC a title on Selection Sunday, you must do it with vote tinkering. You can't split up the pool, because those who will vote Alabama will not be splitting theirs.
Do you vote AGAINST Alabama- meaning take the most likely team to edge them? If so, I'd say that's OSU. The computers will favor them, so I'd say they are the best team to choose- if your purpose is to avoid the rematch.
Do you vote for the best credentials? If so, I'd say that's Virginia Tech. 12-1 and playing in the conference championship is no small feat. And really, VT historically is no stranger to this stage, it's actually kinda strange to hear no national love for them at all.
Do you go ahead with Alabama? If so, what about the repercussions? Why, for example, would the other conferences continue to support the BCS at all (and we already know the Big 10 and Pac 12 would gladly revert to the Rose Bowl in a heartbeat)? While they might look better on TV, they didn't win a major conference. And to attack their schedule- their lone out-of-conference marquee win was at Penn St, who's good but shouldn't be considered a trump card. All of their claims ride on playing a close home game against LSU, and dominating in a weakened SEC.
For that matter, the Sugar Bowl has some influence here too. It's currently likely that while they get the BCS championship, they also will put on a bowl with no appeal of any sort. Assuming LSU beats UGA, the Sugar gets-- what? Houston against Michigan? Gee, that's really gonna sell tickets.
Regardless, there will be plenty of screaming when the pairings come out. I kinda think the reason the media is pushing Alabama so hard is to break the BCS once and for all, that all those talking heads who currently want the rematch will howl with indignation on OSU and VT's behalf. I think Alabama is just a pawn in their push for a playoff.
Now, I'm a huge LSU fan, and I can acknowledge if we lost Nov 5th I'd want a rematch. I also admit that while I hope and believe LSU will run the table, Alabama is the team most capable of beating us (in my opinion).
So- let's talk football politics. One point is that for all the current hype of a rematch, most fans of schools outside the SEC are tired of hearing how the SEC is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Right now, Oklahoma St, Virginia Tech and Stanford (am I leaving anyone out?) still have the opportunity to match or surpass Alabama's record. OSU and VT will also have conference championships on their side, while Stanford will have, if not the Heisman Trophy winner, then the best QB in the nation (and a total of 2 losses in the last 2 seasons). Currently, the Alabama arguments are "who'd you lose to"; even Saban came out with that line yesterday when he mentioned that his loss was in OT to LSU.
The other side of that coin is "what'd you win"; right now Alabama has no answer to that. No conference, no division (not even a split division and sitting at home on a tiebreaker). OSU would have 11-1 with a Big 12 title, and VT would be 12-1 with the ACC title and having won the ACC Championship game. Stanford is in Alabama's shoes- a great record and no hardware.
So- if you decide (as, say a Michigan fan and voter) that you won't give the SEC a title on Selection Sunday, you must do it with vote tinkering. You can't split up the pool, because those who will vote Alabama will not be splitting theirs.
Do you vote AGAINST Alabama- meaning take the most likely team to edge them? If so, I'd say that's OSU. The computers will favor them, so I'd say they are the best team to choose- if your purpose is to avoid the rematch.
Do you vote for the best credentials? If so, I'd say that's Virginia Tech. 12-1 and playing in the conference championship is no small feat. And really, VT historically is no stranger to this stage, it's actually kinda strange to hear no national love for them at all.
Do you go ahead with Alabama? If so, what about the repercussions? Why, for example, would the other conferences continue to support the BCS at all (and we already know the Big 10 and Pac 12 would gladly revert to the Rose Bowl in a heartbeat)? While they might look better on TV, they didn't win a major conference. And to attack their schedule- their lone out-of-conference marquee win was at Penn St, who's good but shouldn't be considered a trump card. All of their claims ride on playing a close home game against LSU, and dominating in a weakened SEC.
For that matter, the Sugar Bowl has some influence here too. It's currently likely that while they get the BCS championship, they also will put on a bowl with no appeal of any sort. Assuming LSU beats UGA, the Sugar gets-- what? Houston against Michigan? Gee, that's really gonna sell tickets.
Regardless, there will be plenty of screaming when the pairings come out. I kinda think the reason the media is pushing Alabama so hard is to break the BCS once and for all, that all those talking heads who currently want the rematch will howl with indignation on OSU and VT's behalf. I think Alabama is just a pawn in their push for a playoff.
10
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:14 am to Scoob
Too long and
You'll need it.
You'll need it.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:14 am to Scoob
quote:
Do you vote for the best credentials? If so, I'd say that's Virginia Tech
your post is invalidated
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:14 am to Scoob
Tldr
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:16 am to Scoob
quote:
Will this be the end of the BCS? It no longer works
too long to read, but yes, it could be the end of the BCS as we know it. The fact that two teams from the same conference who played each other prior playing for the NC will probably cause "rule changes". I would say this if LSU lost Nov 5, btw.
If there comes a "BCS playoff" (in some form or fashion), you would probably see the likes of LSU vs Alabama anyway at some point, but a lot less moaning.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:18 am to Scoob
the BCS is supposed to put #1 against #2. it will still do that.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:18 am to Scoob
Vandy - a bottom feeder in the SEC - absolutely crushed the second-ranked team in the ACC Atlantic division last night.
Clemson, the winner of the ACC Atlantic - and a team that crushed Virginia Tech - got destroyed by the #4 or #5 team in the SEC last night.
How is Virginia Tech's credentials better than Alabama's? That conference sucks.
Clemson, the winner of the ACC Atlantic - and a team that crushed Virginia Tech - got destroyed by the #4 or #5 team in the SEC last night.
How is Virginia Tech's credentials better than Alabama's? That conference sucks.
This post was edited on 11/27/11 at 11:20 am
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:18 am to RollTide1987
yeah to say VT has a good resume is fricking idiotic
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:18 am to Scoob
just kidding but yes the BCS has major problems. If this rematch gets us to a playoff then so be it. whatever it takes. nobody is winning the west every year. a playoff will help other teams who are good but snubbed due to not wining divisons/conferences and teams that are not preferable to the media elites they love so much. yes, i am talking about this helping LSU in future years.
This post was edited on 11/27/11 at 11:22 am
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:19 am to Scoob
It will be tweaked somehow some way IMO. As for why everyone seems to be pushing for a rematch....Alabama or LSU ( if roles were reversed) would dominate any conference if they were in the pac12, big10, acc, big east, . Alabama and LSU are the best 2 teams in college football and just so happen to be in the same conference and division.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:21 am to Scoob
tl;dr
but the fact is no matter what happens and who is paired up in the BCSNCG there will be people bitching. Every year. It's inevitable...and a playoff won't solve all our problems.
but the fact is no matter what happens and who is paired up in the BCSNCG there will be people bitching. Every year. It's inevitable...and a playoff won't solve all our problems.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:How is going 12-1, winning the ACC (a BCS conference), along with having to play in and win the championship game, not valid?
Do you vote for the best credentials? If so, I'd say that's Virginia Tech
your post is invalidated
I can understand you think one team or conference is better than others. The ACC isn't a mid-major conference, despite being down a lot recently; and while the championship games are meant to make money, they're also supposed to give the winner a boost. You play another reasonably tough opponent.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:23 am to Scoob
quote:
How is going 12-1
horrible, and i mean horrible schedule
might as well talk up Boise State
quote:
winning the ACC
a shitty conference
quote:
The ACC isn't a mid-major conference, despite being down a lot recently;
despite being down every fricking year
the ACC and Big East rotate for worst BCS conference. this year the BE is last, but a few years ago it was the ACC. the ACC fricking sucks, and i mean SUCKS
quote:
You play another reasonably tough opponent.
not possible in the ACC
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:27 am to Scoob
quote:
Scoob
LSU doesn't have to participate in BCS, even after it is the only reason you were able to get to the title game in 03 and especially 07, if the system is now so flawed.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:38 am to Scoob
Just so I'm clear: if there was no rematch, I'm confident both LSU and Alabama would beat any opponent by at least 3 TDs. That's my opinion, but I would definitely put money down to back it up depending on the lines.
My question is: why would any of the other conferences continue to stay in the BCS if they have a champion with equal or better record than Alabama, who's done until the bowls, and has no trophy to show for the year? How is this setup beneficial for them?
Virginia Tech is not a great team, but they could probably win the SEC East this year. Oklahoma St is basically Arkansas playing weak defenses. I get that.
We're not big into basketball. Nonetheless I was still yelling "bullshite" when LSU won the SEC and got an 8 seed, and half the Big East and ACC were seeded ahead of us. Our argument at the time was that we won a major conference; and seeing that we gave UNC their best contest of the tourney, that point held up.
My question is: why would any of the other conferences continue to stay in the BCS if they have a champion with equal or better record than Alabama, who's done until the bowls, and has no trophy to show for the year? How is this setup beneficial for them?
Virginia Tech is not a great team, but they could probably win the SEC East this year. Oklahoma St is basically Arkansas playing weak defenses. I get that.
We're not big into basketball. Nonetheless I was still yelling "bullshite" when LSU won the SEC and got an 8 seed, and half the Big East and ACC were seeded ahead of us. Our argument at the time was that we won a major conference; and seeing that we gave UNC their best contest of the tourney, that point held up.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:43 am to Scoob
quote:
We're not big into basketball. Nonetheless I was still yelling "bullshite" when LSU won the SEC and got an 8 seed, and half the Big East and ACC were seeded ahead of us.
Shows your ignorance.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:44 am to Scoob
quote:
My question is: why would any of the other conferences continue to stay in the BCS if they have a champion with equal or better record than Alabama, who's done until the bowls, and has no trophy to show for the year? How is this setup beneficial for them?
money
they couldn't get as much without free riding on the SEC and Big10, essentially (big12 and pac12 to a lesser extent)
you think big bowls would give big payouts to the ACC? no sir
quote:
Virginia Tech is not a great team, but they could probably win the SEC East this year.
did you watch the USC-Clemson game yesterday?
Posted on 11/27/11 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:man, you need to ease off the caffeine this morning
SlowFlowPro
The ACC is still one of the founding BCS conferences, they are not the MWC or CUSA. Their level of play may be, but that is an automatic qualifier. And they are not collapsing like the Big East or Big 12 are.
I realize when the BCS was formed, Florida St was their drawing card. And that a few years ago Miami and VT was supposed to make them a super-conference. And that instead, all those teams declined, while the SEC got better.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 12:00 pm to Scoob
btw, my pick for the top 2 teams ARE LSU and Bama.
All of the attacks on my question (other than being too long) are based on "on the field"; what I'm saying is that the rest of the country doesn't really care about the SEC.
Big 10 people care about their teams, ACC theirs, etc.
Sure, the SEC has the best 2 teams this year. Is this the time the rest of the country says "enough of this shite" and changes the rules? I think it might be. If so, we might be left in the corner beating our chests, while the rest of the nation does something different.
We say Boise is a joke with a weak schedule, and they get pissed off, and nobody cares. But when you say EVERYONE not in the SEC is a joke with a weak schedule, and they get pissed, then people WILL care.
All of the attacks on my question (other than being too long) are based on "on the field"; what I'm saying is that the rest of the country doesn't really care about the SEC.
Big 10 people care about their teams, ACC theirs, etc.
Sure, the SEC has the best 2 teams this year. Is this the time the rest of the country says "enough of this shite" and changes the rules? I think it might be. If so, we might be left in the corner beating our chests, while the rest of the nation does something different.
We say Boise is a joke with a weak schedule, and they get pissed off, and nobody cares. But when you say EVERYONE not in the SEC is a joke with a weak schedule, and they get pissed, then people WILL care.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 12:00 pm to Scoob
quote:
Will this be the end of the BCS? It no longer works
Isn't the point of the BCS to get the best two teams on the field, or at minimum, to ensure that #1 plays #2? Looks like its working on both fronts to me.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News