re: 2011 Alternative Scenario

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.