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.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Tiger Voodoo

Champs 03 07 09 11(fack) 19!!!

Member since Mar 2007

21789 posts

Posted on 8/1/13 at 10:14 am to Baloo

quote:
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.

The other obvious problem with bringing up Ohio State in 2007 is that they were the clear #1. They were the only contender with 1 loss. Everyone else had 2.

Alabama and OSU had the same number of losses, so clearly the scenarios are not even comparable at all and he is just deflecting yet again.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Gardevoir

Member since Jun 2013

1880 posts

Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:16 am to Baloo

quote:
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.

I'm not saying that Alabama deserved to be there, and I'm not the one whom introduced "not taking care of business" or "finishing the season strong". I've provided other examples that counter y'all's points regarding the importance of resumes, winning your conference, and the timing and/or quality of a loss. I didn't mean to call out USC. I agree that they were robbed, but if they hadn't lost a game, then the would have played Oklahoma instead; that scenario would have been way worse than what happened in 2011 because we know LSU was better than Oklahoma; your team dominated them and the score was deceptively close.

quote:
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.

Alright, I'm fine with you arguing the importance of winning your conference; however, I don't value conference championships as much as some do because I disagree with the current conference championship and/or round robin formats of determining a conference champion; both methods have serious flaws. The method of determining a division champion is flawed too, at least in the SEC. I haven't detailed the flaws, but when they are considered conference champions can occasionally become a joke.

I understand that winning your conference is probably the most objective way to determine the better teams, but not the best. Also, when winning your conference relies on some fortunes or not defeating the second best team in your conference, it becomes subjective. Humans have determined how a division and conference champion are selected, and they are wrong. Until the Big 5 conferences are using an improved, unified method of selecting the division champs and determining the conference champion, conference championships aren't free of criticism.

Don't take my arguments as implying that losing or winning your conference is irrelevant; that's not my stance. My stance is that winning your conference is rarely what it's blown up to be.

quote:
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.

Look there is no other scenario during the BCS that's a perfect copy of what happened in 2011. Any bias aside, Oklahoma State was not definitively better than Alabama; the matchup wasn't settled on the field. The only way that would have been possible back then is if the two scheduled to play each other during the regular season. It's hard to argue consistency against me when nobody has a scenario that strongly resembles the 2011 dilemma; there's nothing like it. You can only compare bits and pieces of it to other seasons, but not the whole thing.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Gardevoir

Member since Jun 2013

1880 posts

Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:17 am to Baloo

quote:
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.

The BCS is supposed to rank #1 and #2. What do those numbers mean if #3 or #4 has a great shot at beating #1 and/or #2 without help? They can't make a decision based on the future, but if they'd given the teams the rematch then Michigan and Ohio State wouldn't have been exposed by better teams. We could just admit that we've been missing a sound playoff system for a long time, but that's irrelevant back then. The BCS was all we had, and we know Michigan and Ohio State were not the best. Regardless of the team across from you, how do you not prepare and get up for the national championship game? We're talking about the chance to win the coveted crystal football and finish the season ranked #1 here, not to mention being declared the national champions by the #1 accepted rankings system.

quote:
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.

Oklahoma State stretched their lead to 17 points after halftime. When did they find out that the basketball coaches had died? That excuse is getting old. Did they just find out when Iowa State started mounting the comeback? Were they even close to the coaches whom died in the tragedy or was the media just using those people's deaths to push for Oklahoma State?

Comparing accomplishments eh? What legit. accomplishments did 2012 Georgia have? They played the weakest schedule of the East's 3 best teams. Arkansas > Auburn, though both were garbage. LSU > Ole Miss, though their game was competitive and close. Texas A&M and LSU >>> Auburn and Ole Miss. Georgia only had one good win, and that was against the undefeated Gators that won above expectations. I could list a few reasons not to believe Georgia deserved to represent the division or was even the best team; however, then I'd have to defend Alabama if a few arguments of those arguments could be used against 2012 Alabama. Of course some here will only see homerism instead of objectively analyzing those arguments, so there's not much of a point in going there.

quote:
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.

That's not my argument. Stanford could not compete with Oregon. Kansas State was blown out in the Cotton Bowl by the team that Alabama owned. A&M blew several double digit halftime leads, that's not the sign of a good team; it just means they had the potential to be great. When you lose as many games as they did, potential is irrelevant. Those wins don't look good when compared to other teams' wins over those teams. 44-10 is the only win that wasn't topped, but it was Oklahoma State. A terrible Texas Tech team managed to beat Oklahoma already; that dulls Oklahoma's luster. What's worse getting blown out by a team that many consider among the best in the country or losing at home to a terrible, unranked squad? I'll take the blowout loss to a highly ranked opponent over losing to a garbage team at home; both are embarrassing, but I'd rather lose to a quality team.

Oklahoma State was very good; Alabama was great. That may sound biased, but oh well. Everyone here seems pretty grounded in their beliefs.

I will address the comments when I get a chance. I've taken a long break from volunteering and need to see what other work I can do now.

1 ...

Report Post

Tiger Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board