Mama, I got dem cosmic rematch blues.

Honestly, I’m not getting some of the anger being directed towards LSU and Alabama potentially facing off again in the BCS title game.  Check out this tweet from Chris Fowler:

Defend that?  If LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the country, what’s to defend?  Isn’t that what the BCS is supposed to do, match the two top teams in its rankings?

Note I’m not defending the method that goes into ranking ‘Bama and the Tigers at the top.  And this isn’t a BCS/playoffs debate.  All I’m going after here is why Fowler and others think it’s a big deal that this weekend’s games may not impact the BCS title game.  As this AP voter put it,

“Honestly I don’t get all of the venom toward a rematch,” said AP poll voter Jeremy Sampson from WILX-TV in Lansing, Mich. “Isn’t the whole idea to have the two best teams play for the title? Clearly these (LSU and Alabama) are the two best teams in the country. I just hope we see a touchdown scored in the National title game.”

Besides, I’m not entirely sure about the premise.  Here’s something intriguing that Jerry Palm wrote the other day:

… One thing that baffles me is the notion that we will have an LSU-Alabama rematch for the BCS title no matter what happens next week.  That’s silly.  There is no justification for rematching those teams if Georgia wins the SEC.  If there is going to be a rematch at that point, it should be Georgia-LSU, not Alabama-LSU.  Alabama would have won nothing.  Not the division, not the league, nothing.  I realize that is true even if LSU wins the SEC, but it’s a lot easier to make the case that the Tide is the second best team in the league (and country) if only one team was more successful than them in conference play[Emphasis added.]

For the record, I’ve always thought the suggestion that you have to win your conference to play in the national title game was silly.  It’s not in the rules, not every league has divisional play, the Big Ten until this season had neither divisional nor round robin play, Notre Dame doesn’t even play in a conference, etc.  If Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the nation and the system is committed to having a title game matching #1 and #2, then you have to let them play, rematch or not.

Before anyone goes there, I don’t say that because of what happened to Georgia in ’07.  I didn’t think it was wrong for Georgia to fail to make the title game, just that it was wrong for Herbstreit to argue that Georgia should be disqualified for consideration due to it not being the conference champ.

And I hope this isn’t some backdoor this-is-why-we-need-a-playoff argument, either.  Because the only difference between a playoff scenario and what’s going on right now is that in the case of the former, Fowler’s network would be spending this entire week speculating about how the upcoming games could affect seeding in the first round of the postseason.  I get enough of that from ESPN in March.  Thanks, but I’d rather listen to the bitching about whether Alabama really is the second-best team in the country right now.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football

191 responses to “Mama, I got dem cosmic rematch blues.

  1. Bulldog Joe

    Just win Saturday.

  2. TennesseeDawg

    What would the playoff advocates say if we had a 16 team (or whatever) playoff and a 3 loss team won it over 1 and 2 loss teams? This is a real possibility that has happened in D1-AA

  3. Fitzdawg

    I look at this weekend as the national Championship. If we beat LSU, and LSU goes on to beat WHOEVER is #2, that will make us the only team in the country who beat the #1 team… I like that. I like that a lot. Go DAWGS!

  4. Bob

    Sorry, I think it is a joke.
    Fact 1….LSU played Alabama in Tuscaloosa and won.
    Fact 2….Alabama, which lost, gets to sit home while LSU, which won has to play Georgia for the Championship of the SEC
    Fact 3….If Georgia wins Saturday, NEITHER team won their conference.

    Forget 2007 for a moment. In 2006, lots of folks were outraged that ESPN was pushing Michigan for a rematch. The networks pounded on the “fact” that Ohio State and Michigan were clearly the best two teams in America. Well, we know how that turned out.

    Alabama has played 4 FBS teams with a winning record and beaten 3 of them. Oklahoma State will have played 8 FBS teams after Oklahoma this weekend that had winning seasons. Hell, Bama’s schedule was barely better than Georgia’s….they missed UGA and Carolina too.

    My gut tells me these are the two best teams in the country. I don’t know that though. What I do know is that LSU went into Tuscaloosa and beat the Tide. That is fact. A rematch is ridiculous.

    • Bob

      I do need to caveat it a bit. IF both Va Tech and Okie State lose Saturday, there will be no BCS Conference Champ with less than 2 losses. Stanford will not have won their division either and Boise will also not have won their conference. Houston is merely Hawaii dressed in red. If that plays out, as opposed as I am to a rematch between two non champs, Bama deserves to play more than anyone else. But to me, that is the only exception.

    • The Lone Stranger

      I agree as well…but on that NCAA ’12 box is a picture of an Alabama player, not a UGa guy. This entire rematch charade is perpetrated by the four-letter network. The fools are corrupting honest competition.

    • almightytmc1

      Right now, it comes down to the same argument. Bama, Okie State, Stanford and Virginia Tech all have 1 loss.
      Now who did each team lose to and by how much.
      Why should Bama be punished for a 3 point loss in overtime to the number 1 team in the country? When these other teams lost against SEC fodder?
      Seriously, What top team in the SEC would get beaten down by Texas Tech or Baylor of even Clemson? LSU, Bama, Georgia, no way.
      And yet some folks are advocating the “lets give everyone a chance” mentality.
      Since the game in Tuscaloosam Bama has done the one thing Oklahoma, Okie State, Stanford, Boise State, Arkansas and Clemson could not do and that is win. IF ANY OF THESE TEAMS WOULD HAVE JUST KEPT WINNING THEN THEY WOULD BE GOING TO NEW ORLEANS.
      They didnt win and they wont be going. Unless someone feels pity for Okie State agter their loss to a nid major team.

  5. Ginny

    Is Alabama really the second best team in the country? I think that’s the true argument. I don’t know why these pundits think it’s so obvious that they are. I have my doubts.

    • gastr1

      If not Alabama, who?

      • Okie St, or Va Tech could make arguments here. Yeah, Bama has that great D, and Richardson, but is their D really as great as their #s or have they benefitted from some really bad Os in Ole Miss, Miss St, Tennessee, etc.

      • Ginny

        I don’t really know. That’s the thing – it’s a guessing game of “well this team beat this team by a bigger margin than this team”. I think if Oklahoma State waxes Oklahoma they could have an argument. (Notice I said “waxes” because it’s apparently all about style points. Except when you’re UGA.) I honestly think Boise St. could give LSU a great game. I guess it really depends on your opinion of the purpose of the BCS. Is it to put the two BEST teams in the championship, the two most DESERVING teams, the two hottest teams at the end of the season, etc?

    • stoopnagle

      Well, we know who Alabama is NOT better than, right?

      Here’s my beef: the focus is on “justice” to the #2 team. What about the #1 team? Should LSU win on Saturday, why should they have to prove on a neutral field what they settled on Alabama’s? That’s the true injustice if a re-match pans out.

      If Okie State beats OU, my opinion is that they deserve to play LSU over a team LSU has already beaten.

    • almightytmc1

      Has anyone else played LSU into overtime and lost by a margin of three points?. Short answer….. no.
      Could anyone else do that with LSU…?
      Short answer……. No.
      I hate to be the bearer of bad news. But you will learn for yourself. LSU will be the best team you play this year. And there hasnt been anything on your scedule that is going to prepare you for what is heading your way.

    • almightytmc1

      Here is a thought for you Ginny. Remember that Florida game you guys won by 4? Bama and LSU both blew that team out.
      And if you will look at the scores, the stats and all of the other relative comparisons you will see that Bama more or less the same with the teams they had as common opponents with LSU. I am happy to see Mark Richt getting Georgia back up and standing but after the SECCG game there willbe ALOT of people screaming for his head on a stick.

  6. heyberto

    “Before anyone goes there, I don’t say that because of what happened to Georgia in ’07. I didn’t think it was wrong for Georgia to fail to make the title game, just that it was wrong for Herbstreit to argue that Georgia should be disqualified for consideration due to it not being the conference champ.”

    This. I’m with you 100%. Starting next year, no talking head should even think about saying a team has to win their conference game after their waffling on that notion this year.

    Herbstreit addressed his change in heart on Saturday on the 9 AM gameday, and said that circumstances are different this year. He even mentioned the 2007 UGA team’s missing out. I’m of the mind that I don’t care if you do consider the conference game a must win if you’re going to play in a MNC game or not, but you can’t walk both sides of that fence. I know consistency is not a requirement, but there is nothing outside of opinion that drives the fact that Alabama is the number two team in the country, .

    • heyberto

      Sorry, hit post too early.

      and just because you perceive the rest of the field to be weak, that’s why we have to make an exception to a rule that doesn’t exist? I have to call bullshit. It either doesn’t matter, or it does. If this is the year when that supposed ‘rule’ gets dropped, then that’s a good thing.

    • Macallanlover

      What Herbie didn’t mention was his famous about face, flip-flop from the 2006 year when he got on the soap box and said there was no one in the country that could even test Ohio State that year so a Michigan rematch was necessary even though they had not won the Big Twelven/10. So this isn’t the first 180 for Gumby on this issue. He is flexible enough to consider politics when he tires of chasing college skirts.

    • Just curious heyberto and Senator….
      If we weren’t one of the two best teams in the county after that first weekend in December of 2007, who was?

      • Did you read my linked post on that subject?

        Georgia certainly deserved to be in the mix of the discussion, but there were other teams you could make as good or better a case for, including the two who indeed wound up playing in the title game.

        • stoopnagle


          You forgot to add the damnit at the end.

        • I don’t think either of those teams would beat Georgia, so I’d disagree that they were “better”.

          That’s the problem with the current system. So much of it leads to a paper debate and is purely subjective opinion on who the “best” team is. Bama’s only “quality” wins are Penn St, Arkansas, and Auburn. They only beat two teams in the BCS top 25 (Penn St and Arkansas). Compare that to Oklahoma St. If the T Boones win Saturday, they’d have quality wins over Oklahoma, Baylor, Texas, Missouri and Kansas St. That’s 5 wins over BCS Top 25 teams vs just 2 for Bama. So who’s “better”? Who has the “better” resume? I’d say that’s strongly in favor of the Cowboys, not the Tide, to be considered the better and more deserving team. Plus, they’d at least be able to claim a conference championship.

          • Mayor of Dawgtown

            Stop it Sanchez!!!! You are making way too much sense! The ESPN police will be over to grab you and shut you up any minute!!

  7. Go Dawgs!

    Here’s the thing, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a team that failed to win its conference to play for the championship, even if it’s a rematch, if there isn’t another team in the country with an argument. If it’s one of those weird seasons were every team out of the league has 2 or 3 losses or something, fine.

    But what’s the first argument that every BCS spin doctor throws out there when you bring up a playoff? “The regular season’s a playoff! If you put in a playoff, it would devalue the regular season, the games wouldn’t mean as much!” Well, if the regular season is the playoff, then Alabama was eliminated on November 5th on their own home field. Yes, their field goal kicker missed field goals. He was kicking field goals because Alabama didn’t score touchdowns on their own home field. Should that eliminate them completely? No. Perhaps not. But there are other schools out there with an argument that haven’t gotten a shot at LSU yet. And if Alabama raises the crystal football after beating LSU in the Superdome, then why am I supposed to think that these regular season games matter so much?

    • Nate Dawg

      +1. I wish I’d said that.

    • Well, if the regular season is the playoff, then Alabama was eliminated on November 5th on their own home field.

      If that’s your benchmark, then the only possible match up in the title game can be LSU and Houston (assuming both win their conference championship games this weekend, of course). You really think Houston is the second-best team in the country?

      • fuelk2

        Maybe semantics, but the BCS is actually intended to match up the two most deserving teams, not necessarily the two best. Many, many years have one of the two best teams sitting at home for the championship game because they “made their bed” with early season losses.

        • “Many, many years”? Care to give us a long list of who’s been slighted?

          • Hal Mumme

            Hawaii 2007!

            • Irwin R. Fletcher

              The point is that every game is NOT a playoff. Every game DOES NOT matter. The Houston-LSU matchup is a red herring. That isn’t the point at all.

              The point is…there is no formula or path to a national championship. There is only ‘who is deserving.’ That’s not sports, that’s communist Russia.

              In communist Russia, pigs are too valuable for sports so we use stuffed heads of executed spies!

              Let’s just call a spade a spade and let the coaches and voters of the Harris poll pick 2 teams at the end of the season and stop worrying about weekly power rankings, conference standings, weekly matchups, out of conference opponents, etc. etc….and the argument is that a playoff would weaken the regular season?

            • wnc dawg

              [slow golf clap]
              Well played.

          • In the past decade….
            Miami in 2000. (beat BCS loser FSU head to head, same record)
            Oregon in 2001. (Joey Heisman and the Ducks were better and more deserving than Eric Crouch and the Huskers who couldn’t make their conference championship)
            Southern Cal in 2003 (BCS matched up LSU and Oklahoma, so Southern Cal got left out for a split title. Someone was getting screwed)
            Auburn in 2004 (better than Oklahoma, but again, someone was getting screwed with 3 teams having similar arguments after the season ended)
            Georgia and Southern Cal in 2007 (I think both would have beaten LSU or Ohio St if they made the big game)
            And in 2008, Texas or Southern Cal more deserving than Oklahoma (the year where Texas, Texas Tech, and Okie all finished with 1 loss to one of the others, but Okie, imo, was the worst of the 3).

            • 2000 – agree with you. In fact, I’d add Washington into the mix as a team which got screwed – they beat Miami.

              2001 – eh, Oregon’s regular season body of work wasn’t quite as impressive, especially that loss to Stanford. And Pac-10 didn’t have conference championship, so that’s not a totally fair standard by which to judge Nebraska.

              2003 – agreed. USC’s only loss was in triple OT. They deserved a slot in the title game.

              2004 – not sure what you have to judge Auburn being better than Oklahoma, but this is the season that justifies a plus-one of some sort, I agree.

              2007 – this is the most subjective of your examples and I can’t say I agree with you. LSU was, IMO, the best team in the country that year.

              2008 – Oklahoma had more regular season wins over ranked teams than either Texas or USC did. USC had the worst loss of the three. Texas got screwed by its own conference; had it been the team in the championship game, it would have played for the national title.

              • stoopnagle

                2003 USC is sorta like 2011 Oklahoma State, right? Just sans the Alabama pedigree?

                2007 Georgia would have beaten LSU in Atlanta; probably not in New Orleans after LSU completely healed. Too bad we had to get blown out by UT.

              • Oregon at least won their conference. COnsidering BCS game appearances by Ohio St, Florida St, Miami, and Southern Cal without having to play in a “conference championship game”, I fail to see how not winning a conference championship game is a detriment to one’s resume. If it wasn’t for those Southern Cal teams (which often had one loss to a vastly inferior team), then how is it a negative for Oregon?

                2004, they won the SEC didn’t they? SEC > Big 12, that’s the justification.

                2007, LSU came dreadfully close to losing to Tennesse in the SEC C game, if it weren’t for drugged up Erik Ainge gifting them a pick 6 and another late interception. They also lost to a 5 L Kentucky and a 5 L Arkansas. If Tennessee doesn’t luck out in multiple late games, we’re there, and we ain’t gift wrapping a win. COnsidering we’d have wiped the floor with them in Atlanta imo, I fail to term LSU “the best team in the country that year”.

                • I think you’re conveniently forgetting about Georgia’s losses in 2007.

                  • Not at all. They are no worse than LSU’s two. And occured earlier in the year before we hit our stride. LSU faltered late, and would have lost to us, imo, it’d have been a blowout. If not for Ainge, they lost to UT.

                    • They were blown out in Knoxville. (They barely escaped Nashville, for that matter.) How is that not worse than two multi-OT road losses to (1) Darren McFadden’s team and (2) a decent Kentucky squad? (South Carolina split with those two teams, so I’d say those losses were fairly equal, except Georgia’s was at home and LSU’s were on the road.)

                      As for “earlier in the year”, a team should be judged on its entire body of work. At least in the absence of an extended playoff.😉

            • Cojones

              While you deviated only slightly from proofing your point, I have to agree with that deviation of UGA vs USC. The heavens cried out for that matchup , but the buttwipes in the bowls couldn’t even oblige. The reason? The winner of that matchup would have the best claim for the NC over the “chosen” two.

            • 2000 – 100% agreed. Miami deserved to be in the Orange Bowl and not FSU.

              2001 – Nebraska not only couldn’t make their conference championship game, but the 1 team they lost to and ended up winning the Big 12 completely demolished them the last weekend of the regular season. Remember Tennessee was in line to be in that game until they laid an egg against LSU. Oregon was the best 1 loss team at that point as their loss was to the team that finished 2nd to them in the Pac-10 and that was Stanford.

              2003 – Oklahoma lost in the Big 12 title game to a huge underdog. They had no business being in the Nat. Title game as USC was a better team at that point.

              2004 – Hard to say Auburn was better than Oklahoma or USC simply because each were undefeated. This is the one example of the need for a plus 1.

              2007 – UGA and Oklahoma had the better argument than LSU. The Bayou Bengals were the #1 team in the country twice and lost – including the end of the regular season. No way did they deserve a third chance at being the best team in the country one week later. UGA was on a roll, Oklahoma just beat the #1 team in the Big 12 title game and should have been the only team with an argument to jump the Dawgs.

              2008 – Texas had a legit argument to be in the game. They beat OU and the Big 12 royally screwed up their tie breaker.

      • Go Dawgs!

        I’m not saying that only a team with a better record deserves to go to the big one. Obviously, Houston doesn’t belong on a field with LSU or Alabama. However, potential ACC champion Virginia Tech has a decent argument in my mind. After all, they will have avenged their only loss of the season in the ACC title game, and will be sitting with one loss and a conference title, and no shot at LSU. Now, yes, they didn’t play anyone in the non-conference (Alabama at least tried to schedule tough with Penn State, it’s not their fault that the Nittany Lions sucked). Yes, the ACC isn’t as strong as the SEC. But the Hokies were told before the year that if they had a better record than the other six teams in their division, they’d play for their conference title. They did so. Alabama received the same instructions. Alabama might be the second best team in the country, but at this point it’s a beauty contest selected by a bunch of people who watch the games. Alabama didn’t take care of it on the field, so if they’re left out of the game, they have nobody to blame but themselves. If they get in the game, that’s the system and I’m sure it will be an entertaining game. But in my mind, it will completely crush the idea of the regular season playoff. In the end, it’s all about who the voters want to see in the game, and they have wanted Alabama since Day 1. The Crimson Tide is fortunate that the SEC has won so many titles in a row. If the circumstances were exactly the same in 2005, Alabama wouldn’t be considered for the title game because they’re getting this solely on the reputation of our league.

        • MinnesotaDawg

          “If the circumstances were exactly the same in 2005, Alabama wouldn’t be considered for the title game because they’re getting this solely on the reputation of our league.”

          Of course, Alabama’s success over that period is a significant reason why the SEC’s reputation is so high in 2011.

          Is the regular season a playoff? Clearly, it isn’t. I don’t care how many times you’ve heard it before and might hear it again. No matter how one tries to spin it, it is as you suggest, a three-month beauty contest at the end of which coaches, computers, and a group of mostly old guys picks who they think are the two best teams (with their own sets of objective and subjective criteria for choosing). At this point, Alabama and LSU have the best resumes based on those criteria, and are strongly considered the best teams. I happen to agree with them.

          I guess I’d feel more sympathetic to your conference champion “preference” if there was more equality between conferences. But over the past decade (certainly over the past 5 years), including this season, the SEC has demonstrated its superiority over the likes of the ACC, whose likely champion you promote.

          • Go Dawgs!

            Don’t have a conference champion preference. I’ve got a preference against rematches when there are other teams that deserve a title shot.

            • MinnesotaDawg

              “Deserve”? That particular word, like “fair,” is just your opinion. It just doesn’t happen to jive with mine or the opinion of the people that count. BTW, most Virginia Tech fans and coaches know and like the position they’re in (king of a lousy conference), which is why they weren’t gung-ho to leave the easier wins, comfortable scheduling of the ACC for the SEC. But there is a trade-off to such a position, as there should be.

              • Go Dawgs!

                I think my central point is that it’s all opinion, and if we’re going to put so much stock in our opinions as opposed to the “regular season playoff” format that we’ve got now, why play the game at all? Let’s just vote for the champion at the end of the regular season like they did in the 20’s and call the bowls what they are: a series of exhibition games, championship bowl included. I’m not even a playoff guy, I’ll be fine if the bowl system continued. But to call Alabama the rightful champion if they beat LSU in a bowl game is a little silly to me.

      • That’s not the question Senator. It’s about who is deserving of making a title game, and because of that loss, Bama isn;t worthy.

    • Amen. I think if VT takes care of Clemson this weekend, that is their retribution for their one bad game. Why don’t they have a shot at the title?

      If Okie State kicks the crap out of everyones darling Oklahoma, then why don’t they get a shot?

      I agree with an earlier commenter. Why was Bamas schedule so impressive? Was it tougher than UGA’s schedule? They lost to LSU at home at night. They didn’t play UGA or USCe. They played a craptastic Penn State team and Arkansas. Arkansas lost the only two tough games they had.

      The regular season is the playoff. If LSU wins the SEC, then Bama is done. They already lost their playoff game. A game in which they had home field advantage.

      • Go Dawgs!

        Don’t forget that Arkansas had to scratch and claw to beat Ole Miss, and they were about as impressive against Vanderbilt as Georgia was. I remember being skeptical that they could give us the assist we needed against South Carolina, and if Shaw hadn’t gone down in that game, who knows what would have happened?

      • The Lone Stranger

        Per the computer ranking systems I have perused, Bama’s schedule is in fact NOT drastically stiffer than UGa’s — it’s like a margin of 10-15 places.

  8. Macallanlover

    Why are all you “regular season is the bomb man, a playoff would de-value it” dodging the obvious issue here? Is there anything, one thing at all, that would de-value the regular season than a rematch of Bama and LSU? At a limited number of teams in a playoff, I feel the “regular season” argument is effectively neutered, but of all the teams who should not be paired in a limited, ultra exclusive “playoff” it is Bama-LSU. Only one conference?

    Even you antis should see this as the ultimate exposure of the current process. The only thing that might be better is an orchestrated effort to now pry Bama out of their spot similar to how the manipulation was done against UGA in 2007. You are right Senator, the BCS is supposed to pair the two best teams and, subjectively, this would be LSU/Bama. But excluding all other geographies from an opportunity is lame for a faux NC system. If they started at eight with Bama and LSU in different brackets, then it would make sense. I take it back, the only thing better would be for UGA to win on Saturday and the politicians/pollsters STILL match up LSU and Bama. Now you would have two teams that didn’t win their conference playing for the BCS title and all other conference champions relegated to lesser bowls. That might be the final shovel full on the silliness we currently have.

    • Bob

      I wouldn’t be anti-playoff if I knew it would be a reasonable number. I prefer a plus one type format. I could even handle an 8 team playoff.

      The problem is that 8 is not enough for playoff addicts. Look at the NCAA March Madness plans to further expand. And yeah, the 2 1/2 weeks of Madness is awesome. The problem is that the regular CBB season is too long and far too unimportant. Everyone with a pulse makes it in.

      The playoff addicts in this country are bound and determined to reduce the regular season to CBB level of importance. My goodness…look at the NBA and NHL. It is like 6 months of Spring Training.

      I know that 8 is not enough for these folks and once we start down that slippery slope, it will be over.

      • Macallanlover

        And I wouldn’t be for a playoff if it were going to spiral out of control. To me, keeping the number of entrants to less than 10% is key, then having the number of teams to allow representation from each of the major areas/conferences. We will never have agreement on who plays the best schedule so a representative from the PAC12, Big 12/10, etc. is necessary because there are different syles of football played and who is to say if the wide-open offenses are better than the SEC defenses year in, and year out? That is one reason I don’t want a reprise of the Nov. 5 game, I want to see a high-powered offense against an SEC defense because the whole argument about how lowly rated our SEC offenses are due to playing against better defenses is always interesting discussion.

    • A rematch per se doesn’t devalue the regular season. If it in fact matches up the two best teams, it’s an affirmation of the regular season.

      You know what devalues the regular season, Mac? Every time a Cinderella wins a postseason game. It’s great drama, true, but that’s all it is.

      • Assuming LSU wins the SEC. Why is a one loss Bama team better than a one loss VT, a one loss Stanford, or a one loss Okie State? Bama lost their playoff game to LSU.

      • Macallanlover

        Sorry, I don’t get that rationalization at all. A rematch of two teams from 120 is the ultimate “it don’t matter” argument. Why play the game on Nov. 5? They were already #1 and #2 then. And what the hell happens should Bama win? Does the BCS game trump the home field loss? And if so, why? They both knew what the stakes were in November, and both had a bye week to prepare.

        • Raleigh St. Clair

          I doubt you’ll see a reaction to this because there is not a reasonable one.

          Really, if the bowl supporters are intellectually honest, they will argue that if Bama is indeed the #2 team, then the bowl is unnecessary and LSU should be crowned champions.

          Don’t hold your breath. This is nothing more than a rationalization of the bowl system and nothing more.

          • Really, if the bowl supporters are intellectually honest, they will argue that if Bama is indeed the #2 team, then the bowl is unnecessary and LSU should be crowned champions.

            Actually I agree with you. In fact I used to make a related argument to playoff supporters about the 2006 title game – Texas and USC were the two undisputed best teams in the country, so what would a plus-one add? (The response: Auburn 2004 trumps all.)

            The best solution, as I’ve said before, would be to tailor the postseason to the pool of qualified teams. But there’s no way TV would agree to that.

        • Ty webb

          Of course a BCS win would trump the home field loss. The former game is for the national championship; the latter is a regular season game.

      • Go Dawgs!

        Cinderella typically gets into the big dance by having a great regular season (and yes, I know UConn is a glaring exception).

        • There is no “big dance” in D-1 football.

          And that sure isn’t always the case in March.

          • Go Dawgs!

            That was a response to your comment that Cinderella wins devalue regular seasons. There aren’t many Cinderellas in D-1 football, so I took your metaphor to be a reference to the basketball tournament. In the past ten years, I can think of two Cinderellas winning postseason games in football. Boise State’s BCS wins and the Utah win over Alabama (beating Pitt didn’t seem to be that big of an upset to me).

            The system in football doesn’t allow for more Cinderellas.

      • Irwin R. Fletcher

        Actually, it is more than drama. It is an outcome determined by actually winning a game rather than winning a popularity contest.

        Last time I checked the former had more to do with sports and the latter had more to do with ‘drama.’

        • C’mon, Irwin. Alabama’s 11-1. Last time I checked, those are “actual wins”.

          And unless you’re going to a fully objective format for a playoff, your popularity criticism is still in play.

          • Irwin R. Fletcher

            Those are wins…but all they end up being is ‘window dressing’ if a voter decides they like Okie State better. That’s the point…the wins didn’t earn them anything except a chance to be groped, prodded, and pranced along in front of some pretentious ‘experts.’ How is that not ‘drama’? That’s a dog show…I don’t consider a dog show to be a sport.

            You don’t have to go ‘full on’ objective to minimize the popularity criticism. Take only conference champions as automatics and have a small number of ‘at large’ bids. Does popularity still factor into who gets in? Sure. But at the end of the day, there is a way to ‘earn it’, period. You win your conference and you win X number of playoff’ve earned it. And Mark May, Lou Holtz, Voting Gene Chizik (as opposed to coaching Gene Chizik), or anyone else can take away from you because they think your conference schedule was too soft or that losing to Iowa State was ok because you’re basketball coach died etc. etc.

            • That’s a dog show…I don’t consider a dog show to be a sport.

              So why do you follow college football if it’s so fatally flawed?

              • Irwin R. Fletcher

                Do you think college football is fatally flawed? I don’t.

                My point is that there is no champion. Polls, selection shows, strength of schedule, etc. etc…..flawed because they are products of opinion rather than outcomes. Why is the little boy the only one to point out that the emperor has no clothes? Because the others surrounding the emperor have their own self interest at heart.

                Maybe it’s a good thing that there is no champion? I can certainly see the argument that not having a true champion has served the sport well.

                I’m just intellectually opposed to the BCS as a ‘championship’ because it isn’t. You end up with a ‘system’ that produces one ‘great’ game while sacrificing other great bowl games and does not produces a champion. (not to mention sets up a scenario where So. Miss gets paid $1.5M for losing to Houston and goes to the Liberty Bowl or So. Miss doesn’t get the $1.5M if it wins but still goes to the Liberty Bowl…but that’s a different topic for a different time..oh and thank goodness we aren’t talking about the Liberty Bowl this year)

                I’d rather the BCS get scrapped and the bowls independently operate outside of trying to match #1 vs. #2 because I think you’d have better games to watch. Or I’d rather have a playoff with auto qualifiers and have a real NCAA D-1 Football champion. I think the current system is the worst possible choice.

                • Dude, I’m not the one comparing it to a dog show.

                  I love college football, warts and all, because the one thing it hasn’t screwed up is the importance of the regular season. And when you consider how much greed surrounds the sport and why playoffs exist in the first place – no, it’s not to “settle things on the field” – that’s pretty amazing.

                  I can think of a number of ways to improve the postseason without having a negative impact on the regular season. But I can think of a lot more ways to screw up a good thing. So I can live with the status quo if need be.

                  • Irwin R. Fletcher

                    First, I’m Mr. Lebowski…the Dude is that bum.

                    Second, didn’t we get here because we all agree this week’s ‘championship’ games are unimportant?

                    Third, I never compared the sport to the dog show, just the selection of a champion. Big difference.

                    The ‘importance’ of the regular season has more to do with sample size than with how the champion is crowned. In a 12 game season where you play roughly 6 quality opponents and traditional rivals only play 1 time, you are going to have ‘important’ games.

                    Regardless, this idea that the reason playoffs exist because of greed is hooey. Are you saying that D-1 College Football is more pure in the way it determines its champion than D-3 Women’s Soccer? Those greedy jerks at Division III are ruining sports!!!!

                    Playoffs are the very essence of all sports. How many Olympic champions are determined by polls and a selection show? The don’t go back and pick runners that lost in the qualifying heats for the championship race based upon their times during the rest of the year and the strength of their opponents in that race. That would be STUPID. Yet, that’s what we tell ourselves is ok with college football. Even in the sports that have judges, it’s judging to determine the scoring of the event, not to determine who is the ‘best’ after the event is over.

                    Ping Pong?
                    Weight Lifting?

                    GREED…all of them!!!!

                    My point…there is no champion until you play it out on the field. I’m fine with that…but what I don’t like is dishonesty…and the BCS is dishonest in that it tries to convince the public of its importance because it crowns a champion when it really doesn’t.

  9. Nate Dawg

    It’s all about fairness for me. Bama’s already got their shot. Look at Va tech if they win the ACC – that’s a 1 loss conf champ. Look at Stanford – they’re in the same boat as bama, 1 loss, no division or conf championship and they don’t even get sniffed at. Ok St, one loss and win the Big 12 if they beat Okla but not even getting mentioned.
    Now if all those teams loose – then let’s talk bama…remember all the folks that had to loose for LSU to get in the game in ’07? Let’s see if that happens again.
    Plus, it just plain ol’ pisses me off that we’ve totally changed course from ’07’s “you’ve at least gotta win your DIVISION of you conference” to “now bama can kick back and wait on gametime”. There’s no consistancy at all…at all…and by the way, you have to bring up UGA in ’07 b/c it’s the same scenerio.

    • Turd Ferguson

      “Now if all those teams loose – then let’s talk bama…”

      But all those teams have lost. And to clearly inferior competition. Alabama took the #1 team in the country to overtime and lost by a field goal. Meanwhile, Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State. Stanford got blown off the field … by a team that LSU has already blown off the field. And VT couldn’t even manage to score a TD on their own field against Clemson’s 63rd-ranked defense. But you think it’d be “fair” to give one of these teams that #2 ranking? Shouldn’t the #2 team be the second best team?

      • Okie State lost to Iowa State in double overtime after a tragedy inside their program.

        LSU may have blown Oregon off the field, but Bama did not.

        If VT blows out Clemson this weekend, what then?

        Bama lost their playoff game to LSU.

        • Turd Ferguson

          Sorry, but I’m supposed to believe that the deaths of two women’s basketball coaches affected Oklahoma State’s football team? Aside from some ESPN-manufactured drama, are there any good reasons for believing that was the case? ‘Cause if not, it remains a fact that Alabama’s 1 loss is much, MUCH more respectable than the Cowboys’. (And honestly, if two of Alabama’s women’s basketball coaches died, does anyone in their right mind actually wonder if the Tide could still manage to beat a team like Iowa State?)

          When we have to compare two teams, it’s useful to see how they performed against similar competition. How did Alabama and Oregon perform against similar competition? One of them took the #1 team in the country to overtime and lost by just a field goal. The other was spanked like a disobedient child.

          If VT blows out Clemson, (a) they will still have a less respectable loss than Alabama, and (b) they still will have played an ACC schedule. (I will say, though, that if VT blows out Clemson, I think they’ll probably have the best argument. But I will still think that Alabama has a better football team than VT.)

          And Bama hasn’t played a playoff game with LSU. There are no playoffs. I’m not one of those who regards the regular season as some kind of playoff, so that’s playing no role in the argument here. Call me crazy, but I’d like to see the two best teams in the country play for the national championship. If you can make a compelling argument for thinking that LSU and Alabama are not the two best teams in the country, I’d love to hear it.

        • Nate Dawg

          Turd, that’s my main point – the fairness comes in when the other guys get the chance against LSU that Bama’s already had. Yes, they’ve lost, but none to the team that Bama already has and they’ll have a conf championship to put on their resume (except for Stanford, who’s already in the same boat as bama but hasn’t played LSU yet).

      • pjsgroundpound

        FIrst…LSU took Alabama to overtime in Tuscaloosa. That’s a home loss for the Bamers for those of you keeping track. No one could score a TD–I know the Defenses are good but it also says something about the ineptness of the offenses. So drop the crap about VT not scoring a TD against Clemson. Your 2 top teams couldn’t score any either.
        Second, LSU nor Bama have a played a team like OSU that have great receivers and a very accurate QB who makes good decisions. Should LSU win and OSU win I would think that a better matchup than a rematch with another baseball score.
        As Corso would say, “Not so fast my friends”…UGA isn’t done yet.

        • Both LSU and Alabama are ranked higher in scoring offense than Georgia. If both offenses are inept, what does that make Georgia’s?

          And keep in mind that the Dawgs haven’t faced either LSU’s or ‘Bama’s defenses. Yet.

          • Puffdawg

            “And keep in mind that the Dawgs haven’t faced either LSU’s or ‘Bama’s defenses. Yet.”

            Nor have they faced ours. Yet. Well, at least they haven’t outside of the Field Goal Bowl.

          • pjsgroundpound

            Point taken. I just think they are pretty one dimensional. They run the ball. If they face a team with a good defense they struggle as they did against each other. Both teams under 300 total yards of offense. LSU forced Bama to throw and if you watch McCarron he isn’t very good so that is working against them. LSU had under 100 yards passing and under 150 rushing. They have a hard time throwing the ball and making them pass hampers them. Outside of one another neither of them has played a good defense this year either. SC would be a pretty good comparison but that doesn’t exist this year. UGA is good at stopping the run and LSU is less good at stopping the pass. It plays into our strengths on offense and defense and thus I believe UGA has a shot.

            TO the original deal–I still believe seeing a crazy accurate passer against the LSU or Bama defense would be a better matchup than watching 2 yards & a cloud of dust-only to end up at a 4th down punt or field goal attempt/miss. I just don’t think a rematch is warranted. There is nothing to gain for LSU. They beat Bama at home–for them to play them again and lose on a neutral field and see Bama crowned NC would seem to me a farce. Who’s really better? It solves nothing. Thanks.

  10. TnDawgFan

    A lot of talk about Bama not playing because they were beaten by LSU. OK, I get it. What team is the second best team to play LSU? Who is it? Who should get that 2nd spot? If you don’t wany Bama in there, then put up another team that has a better record against better competition.

    • stoopnagle

      Oklahoma State has the same record, but more wins versus higher ranked teams.

      And they haven’t lost to LSU.

      • And Alabama hasn’t lost to Iowa State.

        • 4.0 Point Stance

          This is a strong argument in favor of an Alabama-Iowa State matchup in the Beef O Brady bowl. Pollsters, make it happen.

        • Irwin R. Fletcher

          And Alabama hasn’t played Iowa State and Okie State hasn’t played LSU.

          So what’s the point?

          The regular season in college football is nothing but a beauty contest and instead of polls, rankings, and BCS selection shows, we should just have a swimsuit competition after the season and let Perez Hilton, Mariel Hemmingway and Lil’ John select the two teams for the BCS ‘championship’ game.

  11. Turd Ferguson

    If someone can make a compelling argument for thinking that there’s a better team out there than Alabama, then I might understand all this frustration over a rematch. But there’s no such argument. They’ve clearly got the most respectable loss of all the 1-loss teams, and (statistically, at least) they’ve got the best defense in the country … by a rather wide margin. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State. You think they could hang with LSU? Stanford got embarrassed by a team that LSU has already embarrassed. VT couldn’t score a single TD at home against Clemson. And despite playing an absurdly weak schedule, Houston only barely escaped UCLA and Louisiana Tech.

    If you’re going to bitch about something, bitch about those years in which the BCS system clearly did NOT do what it is supposed to do, which is to match the two best teams in the country against each other for the national championship.

    • Bob

      Sorry Turd, cannot agree. We are arguing who had the better loss? Really? Then Arkansas should remain #3 until they lose again. How about who has the better wins? Okie State has beaten twice as many winning teams as Bama. An oh yeah, they didn’t schedule an FCS team like Bama (and lots of other teams) did.

      Sure, losing to LSU looks a lot better than losing to Iowa State. But if they beat Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor etc, who has Bama beaten that is better? Arkansas and uh…………..

      Look, I THINK Bama is second best. I am no fool. But I do not think they deserve it more IF OSU beats Oklahoma. Besides, it is grossly unfair to LSU, which went on the road to Morgantown and Tuscaloosa and won at both.

      • Macallanlover

        And don’t you have to factor in the circumstances of that Iowa State loss by OSU? It was inexcusable on paper, but the plane crash with members of their athletic department was not only a sad occasion, it was a major-league distraction. There was consideration to cancelling that game hours before kickoff.
        As to who is the better 1 loss (or 2 loss) team is impossible to say definitively. We all think it is Alabama, but that is very subjective and impossible to just declare it without another voice crying out for attention. Not but one way to really know, or at least have ammunition for your argument.

  12. Raleigh St. Clair

    The real absurdity is that this result cheapens the entire LSU regular season, which is the pure nonsense justification for bowls over a playoff.

    LSU’s road to the National Title is actually more difficult because they had the audacity to beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

    It’s dumb, and the only reason it’s defended is because there is lingering emotional sentimentalities about the bowl system from days gone by.

    • Biggus Rickus

      The Bama-LSU game is not “devalued” anymore than it would be in a +1 system. And this is the first time such an issue has arisen. It would be far more regular with a playoff. Also, how many rematches have we seen over the years in conference title games? Do you complain about those as well?

      • Raleigh St. Clair

        Yeah, I do actually think those are kind of bogus. But, in a system of playoffs, rematches are accepted and have always been so.

        That had never been the case in the bowl system. The one other time it happened, there was an enormous amount of teeth gnashing.

        • Biggus Rickus

          There’s teeth gnashing now, too. So much so that given any reasonable alternative, i.e. a one-loss OSU fresh off a beatdown of Oklahoma, voters will collude to keep Bama out. Since I think OSU will lose, we’re stuck with a non-ideal matchup. Few are going to be willing to vote an ACC champ over Bama.

          • 4.0 Point Stance

            There will be teeth gnashing under any system, because the one thing people enjoy more than college football is complaining about the way college football chooses its champion.

    • pjsgroundpound

      True. That is what bothers me most. I am a UGA fan but the fact that Bama sits home during it’s conference championship game and gets and automatic birth into the NCS according to most is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. LSU who played a very difficult schedule must now go one more win to stay above Bama who they already beat. How is that gonna work? If LSU loses does Bama become number 1? If not, LSU is better than some of the other 1 loss teams and Bama? Why? This is crazy and no one is going to change the way they think.

      In the end this argument in pointless as no one is open minded enough to consider someone outside the SEC can possibly play with and even beat someone in the SEC.

  13. charlottedawg

    Hey sorry i’m late to the party. i must have missed the 2011 sec championship game. can anyone fill me in on how badly lsu beat us because listening to these pundits lsu must have already won and is the undefeated sec champ.

    • Turd Ferguson

      I don’t think anyone’s overlooking the SEC championship game. Even if we beat LSU, I think most people believe that LSU’s resume will still be strong enough to keep them in the BCS championship game. So regardless of what happens on Saturday, the question will remain: “Who should play LSU for the national championship?”

  14. Griff

    Gary Danielson had a good opinion about LSU-Bama during the LSU-Arky game. He said that if LSU beats Georgia, then they should get at least a share of the MNC because they have already proven they are the best team in the nation. I totally agree. Why would Bama get that lone crown for winning a rematch?
    I would love to see us totally blow LSU out…for obvious reasons, but also to see what happens then with the MNC game. Is it possible for LSU to be left out if that happens?

    • Yes. I really don’t even see the point in a BCS championship game if LSU wins the SEC. Let them go beat the only other unbeaten team, Houston, and call it a season.

      • Russ

        +1 Gotta agree with that.

      • AusDawg85

        +1000 Call Houston “BSU” in any other of the past few seasons, and it’s a near given that the title game would be LSU v BSU (assuming LSU wins this weekend…and maybe even with a loss). Frankly, if LSU runs the table, they should already get the crown and play Houston just for the fun of it. If Houston wins…well, you playoff gurus all like a Cinderella story, right?

  15. Mark

    I think the tweet was sent just to stir things up. It’s disingenuous, imo. If UGA beats LSU, it will impact the title game. If OSU beats OU by a wide margin, I think it will impact the game. The voters didn’t allow UGA to play in the 07 game and I think most everyone agrees they were one of the best two teams at the end of the year. Let UGA win Saturday along with a big OSU win, and I would bet that Bama gets left out of the game entirely. It’s even possible that a big OSU win will eliminate Bama anyway. IMO, the talking heads will be hypocrites if they put Bama in after all the reasons they gave for leaving UGA out in 07.

  16. Brian Dawg

    let’s say UGA beats LSU, then Bama also beats LSU….who then is the national champion? I know that Bama is the obvious answer because that is how the system is set up. But can you really say they are the best when they are 1-1 against the consensus #1? This stuff is dizzying. Here’s to the Dawgs getting the SEC title and blowing the doors off someone in New Orleans. GO DAWGS!

  17. BCDawg97

    Nama might be #2 now, but I’d OK St wins, they have a good enough resume and a conference title and the pollsters will rearrange and jump them over Bama.

    • that is exactly what’s going to happen becuase the national media,East coast,west coast and Big Ten is not going to tolerate two SEC teams in BCSCG the country is,in fact,suffering from SEC fatigue

  18. Dante

    At this point, all pollsters need is a rationalization to lock either Bama or an SEC-losing LSU out of the picture. If Okie State and/or VT blow out their opponents, I think one of the SEC schools will get Georgia’d.

  19. Always Someone Else's Fault

    People are conflating frustration with the BCS system – legitimate and long-standing – with Alabama’s resume. They are not the same thing.

    The “down” SEC East just crushed Wake, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, the 5th, 3rd, and 2nd best teams in the ACC. I have no issue with the SEC sending two teams to the national championship game. I have a real issue with sending VaTech simply because they’re not Bama.

    Same thing with Okie State. The B12 is down this year at the top. Good across the board, but no greatness. Okie State’s defense is ranked 107, for Heaven’s sake. They are half a team. LSU will beat them 66-6. And we want to send them just because they’re not Bama?

    I don’t respect the BCS, but I do respect college football. Two best teams means two best teams. Alabama dominated everyone they played and played LSU to a draw. If that’s not the second best resume in the country, then what is?

    If anyone outside the SEC had Alabama’s exact schedule and results, people would be howling for a rematch, hoping to see the SEC finally fall in that big game. So this is entirely anti-BCS, anti-SEC sentiment, IMO.

    • People are conflating frustration with the BCS system – legitimate and long-standing – with Alabama’s resume. They are not the same thing.


    • Mark

      Keep in mind that a lot of the points that OSU’s D has given up came in garbage time. Take a look at how many points their D gives up in the first half when the starters are playing. It’s surprising!

      • Always Someone Else's Fault

        And look at their D’s complete inability to stop Iowa State down the stretch or hold K-State in check… teams that lost to Missouri 52-17 and Oklahoma 58-17. It’s surprising!

        LSU would average 9 a carry against that D.

    • hailtogeorgia

      I don’t necessarily want to see a rematch, but I can’t disagree with your last point at all. Well said. If Oregon had played LSU that closely and had finished out with only one loss, people would be clamoring to have them back in the game against the Tigers.

    • Nate Dawg

      A.S.E.F. – no they didn’t draw…remember that fg in overtime? Bama lost. Give someone else a chance to loose it…other than someone else who already has.

      • Always Someone Else's Fault

        I didn’t say tie – I said a draw. To me, a draw is a game which could have gone either way, the entire game, based on a few inches here or there on multiple plays.

        OSU-Iowa State was a draw, as I use the word.

        • hailtogeorgia

          I took it to mean a draw in the soccer terminology of the word, and thought it made complete sense. They played to a draw, and at that point, it went to overtime (which, in this comparison, is quite similar to penalty kicks…both teams get the ball at the 25 with a chance to score and you go until one doesn’t match the other).

  20. fetch

    For all the ones on here argueing that Alabama lost their shot because they already lost to LSU, here’s a thought for you. If we loose to Alabama during the regular season next year, should that exclude us from consideration of playing against them again for the SEC championship even if we win all our other games and are clearly the best in the east?

    • Go Dawgs!

      You can quote me on this if it happens next year. I’ve always felt that you lose your argument after your first loss. Up until then, you can bang on your chest and scream about not getting into the game, just as Auburn 2004 did. But if you lose, you can blame nobody but yourself. I felt that way in 2002 and certainly also in 2007. Now, you can still get into the title game with a loss. But the idea that it’s your right to do so and not just being incredibly fortunate, that’s what I have a problem with. I don’t think that Alabama is undeserving of being in the game, and I don’t think a conference title is a requirement to play in the game. But this year, it certainly seems like there are other teams out there with a claim to a berth who didn’t already get a shot at the number one team on their home field.

    • pjsgroundpound

      Um no. Not the same. SEC is based on wins in division which is objective. BCS is based on magic fairy dust which is subjective. If we win all conference games but to Bama (who may be replaced with Missoura) and no one else does so (like this year) then we play whoever wins the west.
      This is the system in place. BCS isn’t set up that way.

      The BCS simply takes some spit from Lou Holtz, a lock of Fowler’s hair, Linda Cohn’s right boot, a drop of the blue from Herbie’s eyes and Corso’s wild and wacky personality sauce and mix them together to come up with the BCS rankings. As you can see this makes perfect sense and leads to legitimate rankings and bowl match ups. Please drink your juice before we continue with the ride.

    • clearly not because we’re not in the same division. You play by the rules at the at the start of the season and the way it’s currently set up . Ga loses to UA next year reg season but wins SECCG we are champs end of discussion. The point everyone is making is UA hasn’t won anything.The MNCG game is for champions not Teams that can’t score a touchdown on their home field.

  21. AthensHomerDawg

    Back to the game at hand. Practice this week. Wonder how the weather (snow tomorrow) affects our preparation for a game in the Peach Bowl vs a LSU team which has sunny skies and high in low 60’s this week?

    • Go Dawgs!

      Been worried about that. I don’t think the indoor area at Butts-Mehre is big enough to hold a full practice. Hope the Falcons don’t mind sharing the facility in Flowery Branch a little this week.

    • Cojones

      Unless LSU practices in the Dome the Dawg advantage would be to practice indoors since that’s where the game is played.

  22. Bryant Denny

    As I’ve said before, I’m not generally in favor of rematches. If Bama had won the first game, I would not want to play LSU again.

    The problem is that there isn’t a better #2 team out there except for Bama. The system is just working the way it’s set up. This year just happens to be an odd ball.

    Yes, Oklahoma State “beat more teams with winning records.” Who cares? Glance down their respective schedules and couple that with a general understanding of college football and you’ll see why Bama is the better #2.

    Have a good day,


    • UGAfoo

      Who cares OSU beat more teams with winning records? Yea who cares? Definitely not a Bama fan.

      What if OSU blows out OU this weekend? I would say that is more of a signature win than Bama can put up, which would be Arkansas.

    • Cojones

      Yeah? What if the Dawgs beat the team that beat you? Don’t see how that #2 claim would hold up. It would however apply to the Dawgs.

  23. Ugawilletts

    Alabama lost at home as a 5 point favorite. They had their shot and lost. Move on. Who have they beat? Why is their resume so good? If okie st is a half a team than so is ala with that offense.

    • almightytmc1

      Er yeah… that offense. Have you actually seen that offense. Let me lay a statistic on you. Bama has scored something like 40 points in every game they have played this year except 2. Thats 10 games with a comibned average score of over 40 points. In the SEC. Against SEC defenses. And that is with Saban playing every player he has in the second half the game. Lets go one step further. When is the last time in your lifetime has a Georgia offense been that good?

  24. it really all comes down to who are the two most dominant teams in the country that could go toe-to-toe with any other team. The arguments against the BCS over the years was that it couldn’t pit the two best teams in the country together, therefore, you have the BCS formula that factors in strength of wins/schedule, so you don’t get Osborne/Snyder Big 8 teams steamrolling undefeated against inferior schools.

    If Bama gets one more FG in regulation play, they beat LSU. So what if that happened, how does that change your perception? Bama would be in the SEC championship against Georgia. Does that all of a sudden make LSU less of the team we currently see it as now (as the head-and-shoulder above all others)? LSU didn’t manhandle Bama, but were in a fight for their lives. Neither team won in regulation. I get that folks don’t want to ‘reward’ Bama for losing, but if they happen to be the ONLY team in the country that could hang with this year’s LSU team, then they rightfully are the #2 team in the nation.

    You end up with a serious challenge from those who simply don’t want to see the SEC in the NC game again (let alone TWO SEC teams), you have the “rest of the country” (non SEC market) who wants to be included, you have people who figure a rematch to look the same (all defense) and deem this as unexciting, then you have people overvaluing regular season schedules.

    This isn’t the NFL, there is no conference parity. Undefeated in the WAC is not the same as being undefeated in the B10. People like to argue “fairness” for the NC (“but, but, Houston/Hawai’i went undefeated!!”). So acknowledging this kind of misguided bias would be the first step to soberly evaluating who should be facing off against each other in the NC. Also, keep in mind this isn’t the “NCAA National Championship”. It is the BCS National Championship, meaning, the bowl system is completely independent of the NCAA in terms of true representation. The bowl system is setup to bring two particular fan bases together for a great matchup.

    • Ron

      What if South Carolina doesn’t score 28 weird points against UGA? The what-if scenario is ridiculous because it can never stop. What if Boise makes the field goal against TCU? What if Oregon makes the field goal against USC? What if Okie State wins in overtime against Iowa State? See how easy that it is??

      It happened and you can’t change the fact that Alabama lost on their home field that day. No what ifs required.

      • almightytmc1

        Ou. OSU, Stanford, Oregon. They all share a common thread. Bama was OUT of the picture. But all of these teams managed to find an embarrassing loss and let Bama climb them in the polls.
        Each of these teams had thier shot…. All they had to do was win out. They didnt. Bama did.
        And oh yeah. National Champions dont lose to a mediocre Iowa State team when it matters most.
        So to hell with Okie State and the rest of them, too bad, too sad….sorry for ya.

    • Go Dawgs!

      If Alabama was better than LSU, they would have scored touchdowns against them on their home field and not been forced to put it on the toes of their two inept field goal kickers.

      • almightytmc1

        Its easier said than done. You will get your chance to find that out real soon. And since the game is in atlanta that is in Georgia right? Brother I am not trying be a smartie here, but crow doesnt taste much better with tobasco.

  25. Always Someone Else's Fault

    Alabama’s offense is ranked 31 in yards and 16 in points scored. If you think that compares to 107/64, then you’re just determined to put in someone over Alabama, no matter what.

    Just admit it’s what your heart desires and not what your brain achieved by logic.

  26. Jason

    SIAP. I can agree to disagree w/ folks on the argument that a team should have to win their conf to play for the NC. What my brain can’t wrap itself around is the fact that there is a system in place can benefit a team for losing a game.

    • Always Someone Else's Fault

      I’m sorry, where’s the benefit?

      • Jason

        I didn’t want to get into this b/c undoubtedly someone is going to replay w/ a post along the lines of “IF if’s and but’s were birdie putts, we’d all be Jack Nicklaus”. This isn’t an if scenario, but more of an example. Suppose UGA doesn’t schedule Boise. Based on the way Louisville looked early on it’s safe to say UGA wins that game and finishes 11-1. If UGA beats LSU, chances are LSU doesn’t go to the NC b/c they won while Bama goes b/c they lost to LSU.

    • Well, that’s the thing. It’s not “a” system. It’s two: the SEC uses an objective criteria to determine which schools play in its title game while the BCS uses a subjective one to choose its two.

      The way to fix the disparity is to lop off a bunch of schools from D-1, organize the remaining 64-80 into superconferences and play a fully objective playoff comprised solely of conference/division champs.

      But that’s not the system we have now. With what we have, I can’t see why ‘Bama should be excluded solely because it’s not playing this Saturday.

      • Jason

        People are comparing apples (the system) to oranges (result). As the saying goes, a broken clock is correct twice a day. Just because the result is correct this year doesn’t mean the system is a good system. The results were incorrect in 01, 04, and 07 off the top of my head. 11 out of 14 (79%) ain’t good enough with the amount of work the players and coaches put in.

      • UGAfoo

        The way to fix the disparity is to lop off a bunch of schools from D-1, organize the remaining 64-80 into superconferences and play a fully objective playoff comprised solely of conference/division champs.


  27. Always Someone Else's Fault

    Easy to be against a rematch. Much harder to be for a specific alternative.

  28. Ron

    This is all ridiculous. Let’s assume Bama actually plays in the MNC and wins the game. Why does that game matter more than the first game?? Obviously, it doesn’t except one game is named THE GAME & other isn’t.

    I’m sorry…..but a 3rd place team in a conference has no reason to expect to play for a national championship. Alabama will be the 3rd team in the SEC if UGA wins Saturday. There’s no denying that….

    Subjectivity is a nasty disease when it comes to college football. There is no simple answer when it comes to subjectivity. But in this case, I just don’t see how you can place Alabama in the top two in the country when they placed third in their own conference. The precedent has been set in 2007 and logic proves that point as well.

    • 4.0 Point Stance

      Is it possible for OSU to play V Tech or Stanford? Because if Bama beats LSU, and OSU beats OU and either one of those teams, OSU would have at least as good a claim to the MNC as either Bama or LSU. The one structural benefit of avoiding a rematch is that you get a clear champion. LSU, if they win out, would obviously be undisputed. And if OSU beats LSU, Bama won’t be able to agitate for inclusion ahead of OSU because, hey, OSU beat #1 LSU while Bama couldn’t.

    • almightytmc1

      Like I have said before. When Bama lost. A lot of teams had the opportunity to make their case for the BCSCG. They all choked. Bama is ranked where it is. And I am saying this again. Look at the results of the Bama-LSU game. And then look at the UGA-LSU game and tell me who is the 2nd best team in the conference next week.

  29. Ruteger

    For me, one of the pluses of the current setup with the BCS is that it gives an opportunity to match up teams that played dissimilar schedules (i.e. from different conferences). College football, with it’s short regular season and few crossover conference games, makes it really difficult to compare teams. We have to do alot of guessing about the perceived value of wins/losses. The championship game has value to help rectify this. That’s been a good thing for the SEC in those years where Oklahoma or Ohio State looked like world beaters and the debate was who would be #2 to play them in the MNC game. And then they ended up being clearly inferior to another team with a lesser/similar resume. So this year, I don’t like that another team with a dissimilar schedule isn’t being given the opportunity to be compared on the field with the clear-cut #1. So we can say that the point of the BCS is to match up the two best teams, but I would much rather hedge my bets with, say, OSU since it’s so difficult to compare results from a Big-12 sched to a SEC sched. Let’s take the team that’s clearly the best playing an SEC schedule (LSU) and match them up against a team that did well playing a different one.

    • Macallanlover

      Agree 100% with your comment (but don’t call the winner a NC, that doesn’t exist. LSU has already proven they are the best team on a subjective basis by what they accomplished in the regular season, imo, and for once it agrees with everyone else!) Let’s see a more interesting game with a match up of different styles and regional diversity.

    • almightytmc1

      Dude if your resume includes losses to schools like mediocre schools like Baylor, Texas Tech and Iowa State. You DO NOT deserve to step on the BCSCG field. The only contender that had decent losses to decent teams was Oregon. The rest of these teams are like wisconsin. Great Pretenders.

  30. Brew dawg

    Well said. What about this…

    Forget everything Mandel says in this piece besides the point he makes about OKST’s body of work relative to Alabama’s.

    Assume Okie St beats Oklahoma. Don’t they have just as good a claim to the no. 2 spot and a chance to play LSU as Alabama? And should they get the nod over Bama because Bama has in fact already played LSU?

    What say you?

    • almightytmc1

      What strength of schedule does oKS have?
      Ok state beat Texas A & m. Wow. The Arkansas team that bama beat down beat them.
      They beat an awesomely mediocre Texas Team… whoo hooo…?
      Of course there is that huge win against…(drumroll please) kansas State. YAY! K State is just well …. slightly above average?
      the rest of OSU’s schedule has been against some pretty weak competition. I am talking abour the type of teams the SEC uses as a tune up.
      Dude. If UGA was in the big 12 this year they would have been undefeated. And certainly would not have found a way to lose to Iowa State.

  31. Will Trane

    Dawgs do not get caught up in the rant and rave about the BCS.
    Win # 11, and let’s see where it stands.
    Execute in all three phases of the game Saturday. That you can control. Play like you are capable, and you can have # 11…and erase the thoughts everybody still has and still lingers in some minds from your last trip to the Dome.
    Play hard for the full sixty minutes. Leave it all on the field of play.

  32. PNWDawg

    If LSU somehow manages to defeat the Dawgs (which is crazy talk) I say we just give them the BCS title without playing the game. Why screw up a perfectly good system of voting with a game?

  33. Rambone

    But, but, but…a playoff would “cheapen” the importance of regular season games!

    Defend that argument you playoff haters. Is this Saturday’s game important to LSU? Would a playoff make it less important? Truth is that a playoff would actually make it MORE important.

  34. King Jericho

    Something I haven’t seen anyone bring up is does LSU have more to gain from losing the game Saturday than they do to win it? If they’re a lock for the BCS title game regardless of win or loss, why not rest the starters and avoid Bama (assuming an LSU loss and OSU win would take Bama out of the #2 spot)?

    If you’re LSU, would you rather play a Bama team coming off a bye that missed a handful of winning field goals last time you played, or an OSU team that must play all its starters in a tough game against OU with a poorly ranked defense that you feel confident you can control the clock against with your running game? What good is an SEC championship without the MNC?

    • Cojones

      You, sir, have a develishly mischievious mind! Love it. AND LSU could shave the points such that a little play money could be made on the side. It is absolutely a plausible concept. It IS good to be da King and your comment takes the day by wiping the food-for-thought plate clean. Kudos! I’m still laughing because so much thought has been produced here only to have a sliver of doubt inserted into the argument. Totally diabolical.

  35. PatinDC

    Well, LSu doesn’t really need to rest any starteers b/c they will have a month to prepare for the next game.

    Win or lose the SEC Champ game, I hope LSU kicks Bama’s ass and removes and chance for the Bama nation to have any claim whatsoever. They would end the year without, a divison title, a conference title or a MNC.

    Enough with their entitled “We are Bama and thus it is meant to be”

  36. Kevin Brigman

    If LSU gets blown out by UGA, and LSU and Bama still play for the NC, the sytem is broken. We will have beaten the team no one could beat, and only have one more loss, yet we don’t deserve a shot? That’s a crock of shit. Not to mention Oklahoma state being ranked entirely to high. They lost to an unranked team, they don’t even belong in the top 10. And why doesn’t unbeaten Houston deserve a shot? Because they don’t play in a major conference? Not every team can play in the SEC. I guess they shouldn’t even play college ball if they can’t win it all.

    • almightytmc1

      A while back a lot of UGA folks were hopeful that they could beat Florida. And now you are talking about blowing out LSU? My friend that will not happen. Even if everyone of LSU’s starters contracts food poisoning and cannot play it will not happen. Even if hell freezes over, republicans and demavrats start working together, and the loch ness monster is found… it will not happen. I would be far more inclined to think that it will go the other way and ve a done deal for LSU by the start of the 4rth quarter.

  37. Russ The Temporary Mascot

    I will be happy to poop on the BCS with a big win this weekend.

    This will render the January 9 game meaningless as we already know Bama will retroactively count it as a national championship, win or lose.

    – Russ I

  38. Here is a fact that you all aren’t thinking about, LSU/BAMA part 1 was the highest rated college football game since 1989…something tells me that means A LOT to the decision makers(ESPN) after all, the rematch is on their network.

    And forget about whose loss was worse in the OSU- Bama talk, concentrate on the wins. Ok St by a long shot.

    • almightytmc1

      Yep, I would say quality wins over Texas a&m, Texas and kansas state trump an SEC schedule…….. What are you serious? Have you even looked at the soft schedule Oklahoma state has played? Even the computer thinks it is a piddling joke. The only quality game on it is against the Stoops team that was Texas Tech’s whipping boy.

  39. Connor

    If matching up 1 vs 2 is obviously so difficult, how is going to 4 teams going to make it easier?

  40. SMUdawg

    Here is how I rationalize college football and the BCS, in the event this is a novel concept to someone: The structure of DI-A college football is more akin to high school football on a national level than the NFL, meaning there is no way to compare so many teams with such relatively little overlap.
    Meaning, to me, the postseason has always been (even with the BCS) an exhibition. To me, the “National Champion” carries as much weight as those mythical “National Champion” designations given to great high school teams; i.e. they are the result of a great program culminating with a magnificent season, great players, one great game against another cross-border opponent, etc. All the trappings are there as well on the college scene.
    How about this: the only things that matter are (in order): 1) Win your conference championship 2) Beat your rivals for pride 3) Win your bowl game for pride.
    As we all know, the SEC is the best conference, so what greater achievement can we laud our team for than this!

    • Puffdawg

      clap clap clap. Best answer yet. I’ve said this before. Nice to know someone out there agrees with me.

      • Cojones

        Hear, Hear! DGDs are poppin up everywhere. Sounds like things are coming together for this game. Flying under the radar and grabbing LSU by the cojones is bound to change their hearts and minds. Right?

        SIC’EM DAWGS!!

    • Skeeter

      Yes! The rest is a beauty contest.

  41. Patrick Hood

    Has anybody asked the correct question yet?

    Are we supposed to view this individual season on as its own entity without taking the recent past into account?

    If yes, there is NO ability to separate two teams like Bama & OSU. They didn’t play, they didn’t play common opponents, nobody really knows who played the harder schedule. OSU might be undefeated if they had Bama’s schedule. Bama might be undefeated if they had OSU’s schedule. Or maybe one of them would have had 5 losses.
    We KNOW that LSU is better than Bama. Because there is no ability to separate Bama & OSU, instead of replaying the one known outcome, shouldn’t you give the slot to the unknown outcome and have LSU play OSU? Much fairer to LSU, as well. If we didn’t use that logic in 06, we would have had Ohio St and Michigan playing again, and nobody would have realized that Florida was much better than both of them…

    Back to the original question.
    If no, then things are much more obvious. LSU and Bama are the two best teams and they should play for the title.

    How are the voters instructed to answer the original question?

    • Connor

      Despite the impossibilty of separating OSU and Bama, that is exactly what the voters have to do if OSU wins. Of course, fitting OSU and Bama into one spot, as difficult as that might be, is probably easier than fitting OSU, Bama, Stanford, Oregon, Houston, Boise, VT, and the MSU/Wisconsin winner into 3 spots.
      I think the voters are asked to vote for the two best teams, with special attention given to overal record and head to head results.

  42. Scott


    “I just disagree that having 2 or 3 top heavy teams necessarily makes one conference superior over another, and IMHO I certainly don’t think that not having a couple nationally superior teams makes a conference suck in comparison to one that does. I think an argument can be made that while the SEC has 2 great teams, 4 good teams, 1 mediocre team, 3 bad teams, and 2 dreadful teams, the ACC has 6 good teams, 3 mediocre teams, and 3 bad teams.

    This is how I see it in what seems to be the perceived team rank within the conferences. uva at number 3 here really has my head spinning.

    1) LSU > VT
    2) ALA > CLEM
    3) ARK > UVA
    4) GA = FSU
    5) SC post Lattimore < WAKE
    6) AUB < GT
    7) UF < MIA
    8 ) UT < NCS
    9) VANDY < NC
    10) MSU = BC
    11) KY < DUKE
    12) MISS < UMD

    Mock Head to Head = 7-3-2 in favor of the ACC. I'm sure this will be widely disputed, but it was fun."

  43. Always Someone Else's Fault

    1 – I still don’t get how a group of fans who spend so much time arguing that all conferences clearly aren’t equal suddenly find so much value in conference championship equivalency.

    2 – I still don’t get how a trophy declaring Okie State a conference champion – in a year which the B12-4+2 two premier programs, Texas and Oklahoma, have 6 losses between them, and the 3rd best program is playing for Jim Delaney – somehow makes them a better team and erases a defense ranked 107/64 in yards/points.

    3 – I still don’t get how OSU doesn’t have to negotiate a conference championship game (or Notre Dame if they had similar results), but Alabama does.

    4 – If you look at championship games in which one team had to play that extra conference championship game and one team didn’t, the team that played the extra game won 4 and the team that didn’t won 1 (USC-Oklahoma). I fail to see “the benefit” for Alabama.

    5 – I agree an optimum system remains a play-off after the alignment dust settles and ESPN and Fox have clear legal sailing to negotiate a value-add package over and above the regular season deals directly with the remaining big conferences. Until then, putting OSU in that game amounts to the same thing as giving Torreta and Ware Heisman trophies — things that just look ridiculous in hind-sight. Nothing this year accelerates that end-game one way or the other.

    6 – I would agree that an Alabama-LSU game probably generates some real SEC backlash down the road, and maybe Georgia takes that whack. But it kills me to see any deserving group of kids passed over for politics, and that, to me, is what this argument for Okie State is all about right now – a statement for “principles” that requires looking well beyond the obvious football realities. The coaches have Okie State 5th right now, and there’s a reason for that.

    Peace. I get everyone’s perspective, and I don’t think less of anyone for it. I just don’t buy it.