re: Another Eason article... This one is on SI...

I was as steamed up over 07 as everybody else was, but people need to realize we didn't get screwed out of anything. People have their blinders on 24/7 instead of taking a step back and actually looking at the reality of both years.


2007: Ohio State was a given. They were an absolute lock as they were 3rd goign into conference champ wknd, only had 1 loss, and won their conference while 1/2 went down. No use even debating OSU since they were a lock.

So that leaves who woudl play OSU. Yes, we were 4th going into staruday so everyone wants to say "1/2 lost, so 3/4 should slide up!" but it's not that black and white. Us, LSU, and Oklahoma all had an argument and all with 2 losses. Only difference is we didn't win the SEC while those 2 did, which ultimately gave those the better overall resume. It's perfectly reasonable that in the debate between those 3, it would go to LSU.


2011: LSU was a lock so no need to discuss them. The question is who LSU would play, bama or OSU. Now me personally, I think more credence should be given to who you beat (which would go to OSU as they beat several ranked teams) instead of who you lost to (which was a huge factor apparently), so I'm not saying unequivocally "yes, bama shoudl have gone". But there was only a debate between those 2 teams, and bama's only loss was by 3 to LSU in OT while OSU's was to isu. So I can see why they'd get to go.


Bottom line is this. In both years there was a clear cut #1 with no debate, and the issue was who they'd play. In 2007 the debate was between us and lsu. Both of us had pretty darn similar resumes, but they won the league (and we obviously play in the same league). In 2011 the debate was who woudl go between bama and OSU, and bama was determined to have had the better resume. I think herbstreit is a total arse clown and I don't really respect much of his analysis, but people thinking we got screwed is just sour grapes IMO.