re: 2011 Alternative Scenario

quote:

---

Systems prior to the BCS allowed for rematches and made mistakes too. There were some odd rules in place that would allow #1 and #2 to play in different bowl games. Additionally, overtime did not exist and titles could be split.

---

Sure, but the paradigm was totally different. The national title really was "mythical". I'm not saying no one cared because that's not true, but people cared a lot more about winning their conference. That's something the BCS totally destroyed. for all of the talk of valuing the regular season, it devalued the ultimate regular season accomplishment.

College football is not one big league like the NFL. It is more a lose confederation of quasi-independent leagues. So, the champion of the SEC should play the champion of a different league to play for the mythical national championship. But more than anything, we need to return the value to conference championships, which has been eroding ever since Oregon got hosed in 2001 and Nebraska played for the national title despite not even winning its division.

quote:

---

Actually, it was 3 (4 if you count Stanford in the bowl game). They beat #13 Baylor, #15 KSU, and #16 OU. And while they didn't play any great defenses, they did play some great offenses. Baylor was 4th in the nation in scoring. OSU held em to 24 points. OU was 10th. They scored 10.

---

Yeah I didn't think 2 sounded right. Just didn't feel like looking it up. Thanks Baloo.

quote:

---

1996 Florida lost to Florida State but blew them out in the rematch. Was this unfair to Florida State? Would you back up everyone that was "robbed" by the system? You learn a lot of things after the bowl games are played.

---

This is nowhere near the same scenario.

Of course the Sugar Bowl matched up Florida and Florida State. Due to the bowl tie ins, they really didn't have any other choice.

But they would 100% have matched up FSU with Arizona State if the BCS was in place.

That, along with the Michigan Nebraska split title was the very reason the BCS was created.

To ensure that bowl tie ins didn't prevent match ups to determine the champion ON THE FIELD.

LSU and Alabama played ON THE FIELD. The BCS didn't need to arrange that matchup to see what would happen.

It was Big 12 Champ OSU's turn to play the SEC Champ to see who the champion would be for the 2011 season.

There is no argument that can contradict that.


You say Alabama was the "best". I agree, IN HINDSIGHT.

But in December of 2011, Alabama's only argument that they were a better team than OSU was because they had a "better LOSS".


That, my friend, is an offensive catering to the LCD.

"Best loss" is not an accomplishment. By it's very definition a loss is a failure to achieve a desired result.

A "best loss" argument should only be used as a last resort if ALL other factors are equal.

OSU accomplished more on the field than Alabama had in December of 2011. That just really isn't up for debate.


The media and AP were OUTRAGED when a conference non-champ was rewarded in 2003 over USC, and split the title and ended their affiliation with the BCS because of it.

In 2011, they did the exact opposite and robbed LSU and OSU of a deserved matchup to play on the field to decide who was the national champion on 1/9.


And no, I don't think ESPN did what they did because they hate LSU.

It's much simpler than that. They did it for money.

They sabotaged the BCS system so that they could reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profit to televise a playoff system, and their plan worked to perfection.

The fact that LSU was the team to suffer the most from their scheme was nothing more than a comical coincidence in their eyes.