Started By
Message
re: I used to naively think a conference championship meant a team was the best
Posted on 12/5/16 at 10:58 am to crazy888
Posted on 12/5/16 at 10:58 am to crazy888
quote:
I used to naively think a conference championship meant a team was the best
San Diego State is the Mountain West champ, but how do you know they were the best? There was a 3 way tie for co-champions in the other division and Wyoming had the tiebreaker. SDS beating Wyoming doesn't mean they're also better than NMexSt or Boise.
0
Posted on 12/5/16 at 10:58 am to crazy888
Results don't matter when there are TV ratings at stake brah
Not only in but a higher seed than Washington.....
Not only in but a higher seed than Washington.....
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:00 am to Jon Ham
Well according to everyone of those answers. LSU was the better team in 2011. Go figure.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:01 am to crazy888
quote:
I used to naively think a conference championship meant a team was the best
I think the job of the committee is to get the 4 best/most deserving teams in, and they did that. If PSU only had 1 loss instead of 2 they'd have been in over OSU.
That said, if situation was reversed and OSU was a two loss B1G champion with H2H win over a 1 loss PSU and they got left out, you'd never hear the end of it from their fans.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:02 am to Warrior Poet
quote:
Yeah, LSU somehow managed to beat Bama. Miracle
No. Cade Foster making those 2 field goals was a miracle. He should've taken that mid major scholarship as a LB.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:03 am to pvilleguru
quote:
We have a terrible way of deciding on a champion.
I agree.
In the old days, we'd be headed down to New Orleans to play Penn State and would be the national champions when we won that game. There were no conference championship games. Ohio State and Washington would be headed to the Rose Bowl, Clemson would be headed to the Orange Bowl, all three of those would be hoping Penn State would knock us off. But even then, it might not help, since I'm old enough to remember in 1977 a #5 Notre Dame jumping to the top after beating #1 Texas.
Yeah. It was a lot better back then.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:03 am to dgnx6
quote:
LSU was the better team in 2011. Go figure.
Who had to beat the 'second' best team in the country to win the title. They couldn't do it, and the rest is history.
Sorry the BCS worked that year. The "best" team in the country got beat by the "second best" team in the country for all the marbles.
Here we are five years later and y'all are complaining. Why? Because you wanted to play a team that was easier to beat to win the natty? The road to the natty was too tough because you had to play a good team twice?
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:08 am to dgnx6
quote:The intent of the nat'l championship game is to pit the 2 BEST teams against each other at the end of the season. There's no way that can be determined in the middle of the season when they played. Team do improve or degress during the season.
LSU finished with the better record, and actually beat bama. Why play the games if they don't count?
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:09 am to UAtide11
quote:FIFY
Who had to beat the 'second' best team in the country twice to win the title.
Seriously, I have always felt the LSU win in Tuscaloosa was a fluke. Bama played tight and CNS screwed the game up. The real champion was crowned in January and order was restored. Problem is, if you went by head to head, they never should have been there. They are Bama so they get the benefit of a second opportunity. Just the way it is.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:19 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Problem is, if you went by head to head, they never should have been there. They are Bama so they get the benefit of a second opportunity. Just the way it is.
There were three one-loss teams in the country vying for that second title spot.
Oklahoma St lost to 6-7 Iowa St on Nov 18th
Stanford lost to 12-2 Oregon (who got drummed by LSU) on Nov 12th
Bama lost to 13-1 LSU on Nov 5th
Bama clearly had the best loss and it occurred the earliest in the season.
The "never should have been there" is the saddest argument of all.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:20 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Yeah. It was a lot better back then.
I was specifically talking about conference champions. It's retarded to have a 14 team conference with 2 divisions. Get rid of divisions and play everyone. If you have too many teams, get rid of some. If you still want a conference championship game, take the two teams at the top of the standings.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:21 am to Wolfhound45
I'm not saying the committee got it wrong are right because that's all opinion, theirs versus anyone's. I'm just saying we have now made opinion more important than fact.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:23 am to crazy888
Had the Gators found some odd way to win the SEC championship would you have thought they were the best team in the conference?
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:24 am to Wolfhound45
quote:It seems to me that your post is the best indicator of why the 2 best teams should play for the championship to see who's the best at the end of the year.
Seriously, I have always felt the LSU win in Tuscaloosa was a fluke. Bama played tight and CNS screwed the game up. The real champion was crowned in January and order was restored. Problem is, if you went by head to head, they never should have been there. They are Bama so they get the benefit of a second opportunity. Just the way it is.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:25 am to coachcrisp
quote:
That's not so. Y'all had 2 games and you never did score a TD...and wouldn't if the game was still going on.
To be fair, Bama only scored 1 TD in those 2 games.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:26 am to UAtide11
Right, in my opinion we were the best, what Middle East country do I have to invade so I can get on the committee.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:31 am to WhereOrWere
quote:....and won the National Championship while LSU was a strong 2nd.
To be fair, Bama only scored 1 TD in those 2 games.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:38 am to UAtide11
quote:
The "never should have been there" is the saddest argument of all.
Sorry you cannot understand the having to play the same team twice argument.
Typical Bammer, I offer a compliment and an honest assessment of who was the best team and get whining in return.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:41 am to coachcrisp
quote:
....and won the National Championship while LSU was a strong 2nd.
Ah. Thx Corch. Was unaware.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 11:46 am to UAtide11
quote:
Here we are five years later and y'all are complaining. Why? Because you wanted to play a team that was easier to beat to win the natty? The road to the natty was too tough because you had to play a good team twice?
We would have lost to them too. The team that took the field on 1/9/12 was not the team we had been watching all year, and the game-planning was abysmal.
Also, the issue isn't with playing a tougher or weaker opponent, it was that the team who had earned the right to be in the game got left out for a more popular program. But I'm an LSU/Alabama fan, so I'm not complaining too much about it. One of my teams was guaranteed to win it all that year, which was nice.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News