re: SEC Champ Rings

quote:

---

Think about this. The year before, Bama, who was 3rd in the West, beat the Big Ten champ 49-7 in their bowl game. This is why conf champs shouldn't be the only criteria. Not all conferences are equal.

---

Understood. But at the end of last year's regular season, Bama was not the best in their conference (or divison), because LSU beat them at home and LSU won the SEC title game. However better Bama may have arguably been than another's conference champ, IMO they should not have been given the chance to upstage the team that had already beaten them and was crowned SEC champs. This point has less to do with comparing other conference champs as it has to do with fairness within the division.

Secondly, just because Bama won that game, or the 1/9 game, doesn't prove Bama deserved the chance to play for the NC last year. Given the chance, any dog can have his day, and then they can retroactively claim their victory justifies the chance.

And back to my point I've made to several people in several threads without resonse: If Bama was so obviously more deserving, why did the computers (which compared strength of schedules, records vs. ranked teams, etc. ) favor Okie? Why did some human voters vote Okie as low as 6th?