re: This is why we play Bama twice.

quote:

---

If LSU and Bama are the two best teams after the season/championship games then they should play again.

---

The operative word here is "if." No one knows this with certainty. We know with certainty that one of the 2 will lose, but we do not know that they are the best, so if there is a viable alternative, they should be chosen first, just like in 2006 when a OSU/Mich rematch was advocated.

quote:

---

if you dont win your conference then you have no business in the title game

---

bullshite. Because there is no playoff, this concept is bullshite. Happens in basketball and baseball all the damn time. Football needs a playoff so the best teams can compete for a national championship despite their conference alignments.

So, absolutely now way undefeated Boise State undefeated deserves to play in the BCSNCG over a 1 loss LSU or Bama that had to play each other during the regular season.

Even if LSU beats Bama, I still hold this opinion and would vote for Bama to play LSU again for the NC.

It's not a perfect system, so most basic rules do not apply.

quote:

---

First. For all you conference champion people, Will you feel the same way if Bama beats LSU?

---

First, I don't have a problem with a non-conf champion being in the game as long as it's conf champion is in the game, but with only a two team playoff the non conf winner needs to clearly be the best choice. This means the other major conf champions should have more losses, including Oregon. So I am okay if LSU loses and does not make it.

quote:

---

Suppose LSU loses to Bama, Oregon wins their conference with only one loss and every other major conference champion has two losses. Should an Oregon team that LSU beat the crap out of play for the championship?

---

Yes, Oregon should go. That was the first game of the season. Oregon would also have a CG win that LSU wouldn't.

quote:

---

What if every major conference champion has two losses, shoud they play over the LSU/Bama loser, just because they won their conference? There have been many conference champions with 2, 3 and 4 loses. Just because you win your conference, it doesn't necessarily make you better than a loss team from another conference.

---

I agree with this, but an undefeated Boise would probably get the nod over LSU. A one loss SEC champion would get the nod over an undefeated Boise, but with an undefeated SEC champ already in the game, Boise would probably be ranked 2nd in the human polls, with a 3rd at best computer ranking. This would put them in.

I think LSU beats the dogcrap out of Boise State if they meet up. Speed and size will dominate!

quote:

---

I think LSU beats the dogcrap out of Boise State if they meet up. Speed and size will dominate!

---

They beat UGA in the first game... as of now UGA appears to have the best road to Atlanta from the SEC East....

However, I'd say UGA is #4 overall in the SEC... LSU, Bama, and Ark are all better (and ranked higher).

I think any of those 3 beast Boise head to head... either LSU or Bama with 1 loss (to the other) is more deserving.

I cannot see Boise surviving a 12 game schedule with 8 SEC teams on it... just wouldn't happen in my opinion.

if we have any questionable calls or ending to the game it could add to the rematch scenario. Otherwise I can't see it happening.

If the winner of the 11-5 game did it with no help from the ref's then it isn't fair to give the other team another shot

quote:

---

signed nebraska 01 and oklahoma 03

---

USC '03 forced the formula change that put a lot of power with the human polls.

quote:

---

if you dont win your conference then you have no business in the title game

---

Even if they are the two best teams? Isn't that the goal?

It's in the conversation. And if both win out, the cry will get louder. Still, it's not probable unless we're left with a bunch of 1 loss team.

I'm sorry, but Boise's schedule is a joke compared to a SEC schedule and should be factored in the equation.

College football has a playoff. It is just a two-team, one game "playoff" for the title.

If it went to a four-team playoff, the same selection criteria would be used. At 8, they'd probably add some automatic qualifying criteria which, based on conferences now, would add an element of "unfairness" to the system.


These IDIOTS who just spew that "a team that doesn't win its conference shouldn't play for the title" are just thoughtless drones who regurgitate what they hear on the radio or television.

It wasn't written on the two tablets that Moses dropped, its got nothing to do with "fairness" or giving anyone a chance or two chances or anything else. The idea is that the "system" is supposed to pick the TWO BEST TEAMS to play for the title. There are a few inheriant flaws in the criteria of course, but more teams doesn't mean its less-flawed, nor does a larger "tournament" make the result any more valid.

quote:

---

if you dont win your conference then you have no business in the title game

---

Let's say Bama beats LSU and they both win out.

And the other scenarios happen. That would probably leave Oregon or LSU as the top 2 one-loss teams. I think LSU gets the nod since they beat Oregon. Just saying...