re: 2011 Alternative Scenario

quote:

---

I don't consider having the best record in a round robin schedule to make you the best.

---

Well, you are objectively wrong. This is empirically the best way to crown a champion. Winning a round robin format in which every team played every other team is the single "fairest" way to crown a champ. The SEC doesn't do it because we have too many teams, and championship games are fun moneymakers. but a round robin format is "more accurate".

I prefer title games because they are fun, and I like fun. But winning a round robin is more impressive because there's no way to avoid other quality teams in the conference. There's no "luck of the draw".

ETA: I should also point out that a round robin format depresses each team's record while the SEC's format inflates them. It is literally impossible for the Big 12 to have 6 10-win teams like the SEC did last year, just by the format of the schedule.

quote:

---

Holy shite. Y'all are really going to be particular about winning your division.

---

You argued that Oklahoma 2003 didn't deserve to be in the BCSNCG because they didn't beat anyone and lost in their championship game, but argue Bama 11 was justified in making it though they didn't even win their division.

quote:

---

2003 Ole Miss and LSU had identical division record. LSU got blown out at home by a Florida team that Ole Miss defeated.

---

LSU had the tiebreaker, so they won the division. I'm not following.

quote:

---

LSU won a close one over Ole Miss on the road. Take from that what you will, but you've got to appreciate Ole Miss losing to Memphis and Texas Tech; one cannot describe how much that helped you r case in the BCS standings.

---

If anything Ole Miss' losses hurt LSU because it brought down their SOS and make Ole Miss a less impressive victory. The losses had no bearing on the SEC West.

You're grasping.

Look, although no rules were broken, conferences historically serve as a gauntlet to determine the best team, out of a group of teams in a system where one plays roughly 10% of those eligible and no playoffs. It's a way to find commonality where it otherwise doesn't exist. That's a distinction from a the appointed "Champion" in some cases (2001, 2003). The bigger abomination is giving a second chance to team A while denying a single opportunity to a more deserving (statistically) Team B under a system where the sample size is so small.

Teams have not historically received second bites at the apple. You get your chance at a team, that's it. Don't give me 96 because the two are not very similar at all--both conf champs, and that Sugar Bowl was not a winner take all event until after the Rose Bowl was concluded. What happened was defied all protocol and precedent set in the modern era of college football. You should at least appreciate that and not assume it was God's will that selected Bama.