re: 2011 Alternative Scenario

quote:

---

There is no need for the insults; I'm not a Gump.

---

Well, you ignored all of my other arguments made in this thread. But I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm saying your statement was hypocritical. Just like a person can lie without being a Liar, because every single person has told at least one lie in their life. But calling out USC for not taking care of business is incredibly hypocritical from a Bama fan. Bama hasn't taken care of business either, yet they've been rewarded.

quote:

---

Did 2007 Ohio State finish the season strong? They lost their second to last regular season game and didn't play in a conference championship game.

---

No. They did not. But it's not my argument that a team must take care of business. It is YOUR argument, which is why I flipped the scenario. i'm not the one who claimed a team has to take care of business or anything. I'm the one who argued about the importance of winning your conference above all else, as it makes the regular season more meaningful. So yes, OSU won their conference.

quote:

---

Again, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma finished the season as weak as you can possibly get but still made the title game.

---

Which I pointed out earlier. those were also abominations. I f'n hate the BCS. The way it has devalued conference titles is abhorrent to me, as a longtime college football fan. It started in 2001, and continued through 2011. I completely agree, Oregon should've played for the title in '01 and USC in '03. And Okie St in '11.

See how my position is internal consistent, and not dependent on which team I like? Ask the USC fans on the MSB fans if I like the Trojans.

The problem with your argument is that you start from the point that "Alabama should've been in the title game" and then you construct an argument around proving that point. Which is fine, but you have to expect to be called out on it.

quote:

---

2006 Michigan wasn't given a rematch after losing a close one at Ohio State and rightfully so; it was the last game of their season. After the fact, Ohio State and them were blown out in their respective bowls. Why are people defending teams that were exposed in their bowl games?

---

Maybe because selectors don't have the Sight and can't see the future? They have to make their selection based on the data on hand, at the time. They can't make a decision based on future data because they aren't precogs. Also, we have no idea how that team would've played had they not been screwed in the bowl selection. K-State had a habit of sleep walking through their games after getting hosed out of the BCS over the years. Can't blame them, either.

quote:

---

If Oklahoma State's loss to Iowa Sate and near misses with Texas A&M, Kansas State, and Stanford mean nothing to you guys, then I don't know what to say.

---

The losss, of course, means something. It just doesn't mean EVERYTHING. I prefer to rank teams by their wins, not their losses. I care what your accomplishments are. So, of course the ISU loss matters. It was also on the road, after a short week, after a campus tragedy, in overtime, and on a controversial call. As far as losses go, it isn't a crippling one.

As for close games against A&M, KSU, and Stanford... is your argument, seriously, that Okie State beat a lot of really good teams? Stanford was arguably the 4th or 5th best team in the country. Yeah, I'm impressed by a win over them. KSU was really good. So was A&M. Know what we call narrow escapes? WINS. Wins are a good thing, and those were really good wins.