re: "You should have to win your conference to play for a NC"

quote:

---

No matter what they did this season, if Auburn can't win the SEC Championship

---

Would you be okay with the SEC changing its rules to say the "winner of SECCG goes to sugar, but team with best BCS rankings is the CHAMPION". Would that make you happy?

Hell, why not just make a rule and say "the whole conference ties for the chmapionship". This is basically what Notre Dame's conference does

quote:

---

Notre Dame's conference

---

Each conference has their own criteria to determine its champion. If you disapprove of their method for determining the champion you can always opt out. Teams change conferences all the time

As I see it, that champion is the only legitimate representative from that conference that should be allowed to go to the BCSCG.

If that seems unfair to you, you might have a lot to talk about with Boise State's kicker.

quote:

---

As I see it, that champion is the only legitimate representative from that conference that should be allowed to go to the BCSCG.

---

You are sort of missing the point. If you make a rule that says you have to win your conference, wouldn't conferences just change their rules to allow for their teams to have the best shot at a NC?

quote:

---

All games are played to generaate money.

---

no they are not. Ohio State and Wisconsin will play in volleyball, soccer and any number of sports that do not generate revenue, just because football does generate revenue doesn't change the fact that there are other reasons for college athletics to be played.

CCG did not start until 1992, the SEC had been around for approximately 65 years by then. They did not start the SEC CG to "settle it no the field". We had been able to crown a conference champ for a long time with out it. The Big 10 has been doing so for over 100 years. The CCG are purely a revenue generating creation. They did not start playing regular seasons solely for that purpose.

quote:

---

And they all count. Ohio State lost to Wisconsin. That game was played soley to generate money. By your "logoc" we could just throw it out because it does not matter. So Ohio State gets in the natioanl title game.

---

Wow, that's a pruddy nice strawman you contructed there. God, there is so much fail in this quote, I'm not sure where to begin.

Realize some of us like lsumatt, xiv and myself have been having these debates for years now, so I do not feel the need to re hash every single point, since arguments build on each other. My contention is that every game should count and that regular seasons should matter. I believe (know) that a larger sample size is better than a smaller one. How teams play over 8 or 12 or 16 games gives a better picture of who the best team is rather than just looking at the results of 1 single game. And Ideally I'd like the "best" or one of the top teams at least to be the Champion.

For a conference you should look at only the conference games, but for the National Title you need to look at the entire season, Conf and OOC games.
For example if Ohio State and Wisconsin were tied at 7-1 in the Big 10 then Wisconsin should be big 10 Champs based on head to head win, as a tiebreaker, 1 game is the best or at least fairest measure. The Big 10 title should be based on Big 10 games only keep in mind.
Now suppose Wisconsin was 9-3 overall and Ohio State was 11-1, Ohio State would be worthy of playing for the National Title but not Wisconsin, because over the 12 game schedule tOSU proved to be better overall, (though equal vs the Big 10).
Now in the case of the SEC, over 8 games, Auburn is 8-0, LSU and Ark 6-2, USCe 5-3. There is no question who the best team in the SEC is. It is simply illogical to say that Auburn should be disqualified for playing for the National Title if they lose 1, specific game, meanwhile Wisconsin or Ohio State from the above example would be allowed to, even though they have the same number of conference loses.

You and lowerbamatrojan just further prove my (our) point, that the BCS is the best method of determing a champ because it counts the whole season and the winner will be 1 or the elite teams from the season. The whole season matters, not just 1 or 2 games with special names. The champ will be the team that wins 1 special game, but they only get there by proving themselves over the course of 12-13 games.

quote:

---

Apparently not. Ohio State lost to Wisconsin and is still a "Big 10 Champ" even though Wisconsin has the same record.

---

So do all 3 teams in the Big 10 put up "Co-Big 10 Champs" banners for 2010?

quote:

---

But I do think that it is a little presumptuous to say that LSU was better when the UGA was ranked ahead when both were two loss teams with identical records.

---

we are basing our assement on the entire season, not the rankings for 1 particular week and btw that week, LSU was ranked behind Va Tech, who had the same record as LSU and lost to LSU 48-7. ETA In the human polls, LSU was 7, that's abig part of the reason we were behind UGA in the BCS, once LSU was moved up in the human polls we passed UGA.

But you are missing the bigger point, this is not about one specific year, some of do not think winning a conference should be a requirement to play of the NC. If UGA had only 1 loss that year, in the SEC CG say or 1 loss kept them from it, I'd have no problem with them playing for the NC. But for the 2007, LSU had a better resume and was better over the whole season.

quote:

---

LSU had a better resume

---

You shouldn't have to win your conference to play in the NCG. But, it should give you a boost over teams with identical records and similar schedules who didn't win their conference.

quote:

---

Not to split hairs, but in the BCS that week, LSU was 5, VT was 6.

---

yeah, I editied, LSU was 7, VT 6, UGA 5 in human polls iirc.

I'm not saying voters shouldn't consider it or that you couldn't use winning the conference as a sort of tiebreaker if you will between 2 teams, just that it shouldn't be a requirement.

However even with out the SEC CG, I think LSU had the better resume, certainly we should not have been behind VT and that might have had us above UGA in the BCS, I'm guepretty sure we were better in the computers.

The point that lsumatt makes is the SEC could have called LSU, UGA and UT SEC champs in 2007, all were 6-2, and then people in this thread would say they should be allowed to play for the title which is funny if you think about it.

quote:

---

Nobody has ever given me a good, objective reason why UGA should have gone over LSU in 2007

---

they were hot at the end