- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The way the voters should view the Alabama rematch situation
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:40 am to cheeser
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:40 am to cheeser
quote:
you can flat out believe alabama will be in the championship game. maybe the only thing that could possibly change is who they will play, and that would only come into play if we get blown out by georg
Actually, here is a scenario for you. If Okie State wins out against OU and is conference champ and LSU loses in a close upset, say 3 points, who goes to the BCSCG. In that case, I would bet the farm it's Okie State and LSU.
0
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:46 am to Geaux2002
quote:
The thing that worries me is going to be the corruption that's going to occur in the votes. Bama homer's/people wanting a rematch will push back OSU, while those against a rematch will do the opposite.
You do understand that the human voters are either (1) coaches or (2) Harris Poll voters.
The two fan bases that most want to keep Bama out of the SEC game is (1) Auburn, (2) LSU, (3)+ Other contenders. The Harris has no voters with Bama connections. They have 4 voters from Auburn, 1 from LSU. I didn't check for connections to non-SEC contenders but needless to say, if there is any monkey business, it will go against Bama, not for it. Clearly, this entire rant is about LSU fans not wanting to play Bama even though they are the clearly the 2nd best team in the nation. If there was a playoff scenario, Bama and LSU could still face each other, and probably would end up playing again because they are the top 2 teams in the nation. The BCS is a 1 game playoff with the intention of picking the teams most likely to end up in a final. Btw - all voters come directly or indirectly from humans. The computers merely reflect the programers' opinions. And they are frequently wrong because they do not take into account injuries, etc. The computers had Bama beating LSU earlier this year.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:51 am to towncryr
No, the point of the BCS game is to pit the TWO top teams and let them play for a title. As I posted earlier, there is even consideration about what if two teams from the same conference play in the NC game - even if neither won their conference. Clearly, the rules expect rematches and expect teams to compete that did not win their conference. Giving anyone other than Bama a shot is clearly not the point unless you can argue they are the better team. The BCS is a 1 game playoff.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:53 am to PatriotAlum
quote:
The computers merely reflect the programers' opinions.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:54 am to LSU
quote:
I'd rather play anyone else in the country since LSU already beat Bama once, but under the current system, nobody but LSU & Alabama deserve to be in the title game.
This is what mos LSU fans don't get. We were all about this sentiment in 2003/2007 when the system benefitted us. Now the tables are turned we are crying foul.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:56 am to LSU
quote:
The purpose of the BCS to match the best 2 teams in college football isn't an opinion that can be disagreed with. It's the stated fact of the system.
Link?
Posted on 11/27/11 at 8:57 am to PatriotAlum
quote:
No, the point of the BCS game is to pit the TWO top teams and let them play for a title.
the point is that there is no standard on how voters rank teams, they don't simply say if I think team A could beat team B then I'm going to rank team A higher. Resume, quality wins, bad losses, extenuating circumstances, etc., all go into their rankings.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:02 am to Honkus
quote:
We were all about this sentiment in 2003/2007 when the system benefitted us. Now the tables are turned we are crying foul.
the system in 2003 ultimately benefitted Oklahoma, not LSU, and it was changed to keep math from having too much influence. In 2007, what happened is exactly what many are saying is possible this year, a conference champ jumped teams with the same record primarily because of resume.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:09 am to ForeLSU
quote:
the system in 2003 ultimately benefitted Oklahoma, not LSU,
Exactly. LSU was in no matter what.
quote:
In 2007, what happened is exactly what many are saying is possible this year, a conference champ jumped teams with the same record primarily because of resume.
Again, correct.
It's not that difficult to make an argument for Okie State if they beat Oklahoma. Personally, it doesn't make too much differenct to me.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:09 am to PatriotAlum
quote:
No, the point of the BCS game is to pit the TWO top teams and let them play for a title.
Top RANKED teams. How voters think teams should be ranked is left up to them. There is nothing illegitimate about a voter ranking according to, lets say, conference championships. There is nothing illegitimate about ranking them according to who you think is more likely to win against another team. We're all making normative arguments here.
quote:
Clearly, the rules expect rematches and expect teams to compete that did not win their conference.
Of course they recognize that it can happen. But SHOULD they allow it to happen? No. Alabama had a chance to secure their spot. They couldn't get it done.
quote:
Giving anyone other than Bama a shot is clearly not the point unless you can argue they are the better team.
If a team other than Alabama is ranked #2 they will get a shot and that is very much the point. #1 vs. #2 is the point. The standards used by humans in their contribution to those rankings is left up to them. Humans are perfectly and justifiably free to individually prioritize what merits an appearance among those top two rankings. "Team X would be team Y" might be a strong consideration or it may not be. Overall record might be another. Wins against ranked opponents might be. Losses against unranked opponents as well. None of these considerations need be any more important than another.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 10:00 am to NAsh-vegas Tigah
I agree with Nash-Vegas...if we had lost to 'Bama, we would not be in the conversation.
Guess the only thing to do is play and beat them again, then look the entire media in the face and go STFU!
Guess the only thing to do is play and beat them again, then look the entire media in the face and go STFU!
Posted on 11/27/11 at 7:04 pm to Honkus
quote:
This is what mos LSU fans don't get. We were all about this sentiment in 2003/2007 when the system benefitted us. Now the tables are turned we are crying foul.
False! LSU did not play (and get beat by) the team they met in the NCG in 2003/2007. The difference (as I see it) is that we play Bama in our own division...not even different divisions of the SEC. Although I think it is extremely unfair for LSU, I'd really have no problem playing Bama again. The result will be the same with the exception of LSU scoring more points this time.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 7:07 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
the system in 2003 ultimately benefitted Oklahoma, not LSU, and it was changed to keep math from having too much influence. In 2007, what happened is exactly what many are saying is possible this year, a conference champ jumped teams with the same record primarily because of resume.
EXACTLY!!! In 2003, OU (not USC) should have been left out cause OU wasn't even conference champs. In 2007, we WERE conference champs of the SEC, thus making us deserving.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News