re: Saban - The Documentary

frick you and frick Nick Saban

frick that motherfricker

quote:

---

We know what happened when they played at the superdome too.

---

Which is the entire argument

LSU was robbed having to play Bama again as they sat at home during the SECCG

frick them and their mulligan

quote:

---

And you’re assuming Oklahoma state was better than Alabama

---

Well you are either incapable of following an argument, or you are of the school that simply wants to argue in circles with strangers on message boards without ever actually acknowledging anything that is contrary to your predetermined position.



Nothing in my position even remotely assumed Oklahoma State was “better” than Alabama at all. In fact I specifically state I don’t think that they were.


But that, in my opinion, was the whole purpose behind the BCS, to do away with opinion determining national championships to move toward a more objective determination by letting teams “settle it on the field”.


Your entire argument rests on the idea, with the benefit of hindsight of course, that LSU and Alabama were indeed the two best teams, so therefore they should have played for the title.


You continually allude to the BCS doing its job because the two best teams played. Again, you are assuming Alabama was better than Oklahoma State.


I don’t have to assume that Oklahoma State was better than Alabama to believe the purpose of the BCS was not fulfilled.

In an imperfect system where only two teams are chosen to play for a championship, of course a judgement to differentiate contenders has to made at some point, which is why I focus on OSU and Alabama and not “the other 125” teams, as you so cleverly try to point out that I disregarded.


LSU was the undisputed #1 team. So the job of the BCS was to sort out who deserved the chance to play them for that championship.


Based on rankings, resumes, and national consensus, that determination came down to a choice between Oklahoma State and Alabama.


When trying to differentiate between the consensus options, the only truly objective data point was that Alabama had already played LSU and lost. Oklahoma State had not.


Therefore, the concept of “settling it on the field” had been already been met in one matchup, no matter how close the game was.


When you take away all of the other considerations on the spectrum from objective to subjective, that was the simple fact. LSU and Alabama had already “settled it on the field”, while LSU and Oklahoma State had not.


In 2006, Ohio State and Michigan went months ranked as the top 2 teams in the country. When Michigan lost at Ohio State 42-39 in the final game of the season, many people still believed that they were the two best teams in the country.


Despite that, SEC Champion Florida was determined to have played a more difficult schedule, and had better wins, despite Michigan’s only loss being a three point road loss to the undisputed #1 team in the country.

Sec Champion was given the opportunity to “settle it on the field” with the Big 10 Champion over a Big 10 runner up getting a rematch.

Ohio State was a heavy favorite against Florida, as Michigan was projected to be at the time as well btw, and proceeded to get beat by five touchdowns. That is why the BCS was created, because opinions are like, you know.


I could go line by line and volley back and forth every point, but we both know nothing I can say would generate even a hint of acknowledgment from you that perhaps the BCS didn’t actually faithfully execute its supposed purpose.

Just because we both, like most people likely, believe that Alabama was actually “better” than Oklahoma State, that doesn’t mean Oklahoma State didn’t deserve to represent the Big 12 against the SEC Champion that had already “settled it on the field” with Alabama.

Miss Terry is also quoted as saying they had "fixed" everything that was broken at LSU and there was nothing else to accomplish. He was taking that next career step and she was influential in that decision. They were never going to stay.....