And fair or unfair, the BCS and voters are going to give preference towards the SEC. You could argue they have earned that preference though.

I wanted OSU, but I could not make a good argument for them. The "Alabama had their shot and came up short by 3 in OT" argument is a lot stronger of a case than "OSU lost to a 6-6 team a few weeks ago but can (probably) score on LSU" argument. For those that say Alabama had their chance, really OSU is the team that had their chance but lost to a sorry Iowa State team. They can blame the system all they want, but they are the ones who ought to be blamed.

 

I agree, there were a couple of teams that controlled their own destiny and didn't get it done. They don't have anyone to blame. That would have included Alabama too if another team had leaped in front of them.

 

My main beef is that LSU's win in the biggest regular season game of the year over the #2 team and their winning of the SEC Championship are effectively nullified. Those wins certainly did nothing to help them compared to the advantage bestowed on Alabama for losing that game. I think the system is flawed.

And fair or unfair, the BCS and voters are going to give preference towards the SEC. You could argue they have earned that preference though.

 

I agree with that too, but I'd rather see them tweak it so that three SEC teams could play in BCS bowl games than have two play for the title.

I wanted OSU, but I could not make a good argument for them. The "Alabama had their shot and came up short by 3 in OT" argument is a lot stronger of a case than "OSU lost to a 6-6 team a few weeks ago but can (probably) score on LSU" argument. For those that say Alabama had their chance, really OSU is the team that had their chance but lost to a sorry Iowa State team. They can blame the system all they want, but they are the ones who ought to be blamed.

 

The only problem with that statement, IMO, is that it was a game on the road and the week that the plane went down killing coaches and sending the campus into shock.

The only problem with that statement, IMO, is that it was a game on the road and the week that the plane went down killing coaches and sending the campus into shock.

While I am sympathetic to the University for the tragic loss, I am not going to give OSU extra points for that. All teams struggle with adversity in one form or another. Some of which we never hear of. You could argue the tornado in Alabama last spring put added pressure on this year's Tide to succeed on the field. All the off-field distractions for LSU and they were still able to overcome. I am not trying to compare one tragedy to another or equate getting in an off-field altercation at a bar with a plane crash. Just the fact that all teams go through trials and tribulations they must overcome. That is part of every team's journey and growing curve.

The only problem with that statement, IMO, is that it was a game on the road and the week that the plane went down killing coaches and sending the campus into shock.

 

I don't discount this entirely, but my argument against this is that Oklahoma State did not come out like a team in shock. They scored the first 10 points of the game, led 17-7 at the half, led 24-7 at the 11 minute mark of the third quarter. They then allowed Iowa State to dominate the rest of the game. Shock to me is when a team comes out and looks like they didn't lace up their cleats and were down 24-0 before they blinked. The reality is that the upset happened the way all upsets happen. They didn't put the team away properly, and the underdog made them pay. If you go on the road and allow that team to hang around, bad things often happen.

While I am sympathetic to the University for the tragic loss, I am not going to give OSU extra points for that. All teams struggle with adversity in one form or another. Some of which we never hear of. You could argue the tornado in Alabama last spring put added pressure on this year's Tide to succeed on the field. All the off-field distractions for LSU and they were still able to overcome. I am not trying to compare one tragedy to another or equate getting in an off-field altercation at a bar with a plane crash. Just the fact that all teams go through trials and tribulations they must overcome. That is part of every team's journey and growing curve.

 

Have to respectfully disagree. Trauma is usually associated with both the "sudden nature" of a tragedy and the proximity of it in one's life.

 

I think Alabama and LSU are the 2 best teams. I think it's going to be a pickle of conversation if the Tide wins a close one. I remember many on here who argued that a team that can't win their conference or even play in their conference title game does not deserve a National Title slot.

 

One thing is for sure, this has opened up the message boards and sports radio for a lot of conversation.

I don't discount this entirely, but my argument against this is that Oklahoma State did not come out like a team in shock. They scored the first 10 points of the game, led 17-7 at the half, led 24-7 at the 11 minute mark of the third quarter. They then allowed Iowa State to dominate the rest of the game. Shock to me is when a team comes out and looks like they didn't lace up their cleats and were down 24-0 before they blinked. The reality is that the upset happened the way all upsets happen. They didn't put the team away properly, and the underdog made them pay. If you go on the road and allow that team to hang around, bad things often happen.

 

Kind of like Alabama vs. LSU???

Kind of like Alabama vs. LSU???

 

Was there really an underdog in that game? Was that really an upset? I don't care where it was, I always thought LSU was going to win that game.

I agree, there were a couple of teams that controlled their own destiny and didn't get it done. They don't have anyone to blame. That would have included Alabama too if another team had leaped in front of them.

 

My main beef is that LSU's win in the biggest regular season game of the year over the #2 team and their winning of the SEC Championship are effectively nullified. Those wins certainly did nothing to help them compared to the advantage bestowed on Alabama for losing that game. I think the system is flawed.

 

We all believe that. I don't even think that's an opinion. That's a fact. You could say that you know it is flawed.

 

If nothing else, perhaps we can finally put to rest this notion (that is used to support the college football system) that every game counts and the season is the playoff. When everything works out perfect for the BCS and only two major conference teams finish undefeated, then that sentiment rings true. In that scenario, every game was a playoff, two teams made it through unscathed, all the others have no one to blame but themselves because they lost.

 

Unfortunately, it rarely works out perfect. They can always blame a team for losing (like OK State to Iowa State), but that's a cop-out. Everyone except LSU lost, which then leaves the selection of #2 as purely a matter of opinion. What makes Alabama more deserving of OK State? Why is OK State the clear #3? Why shouldn't it be Stanford? What made two-loss LSU the most deserving team in 2007? Were they even the best team in the SEC? Some believe Georgia may have been, but because of the SEC's tiebreaker, they didn't get to play LSU in the conference title game?

 

And, what about Auburn in 2004? Did every game matter for them? All they did was win them all and didn't even get a chance to play for the title.

 

The BCS system is a terrible way to determine a champion. It does make every week a big week, but it doesn't necessarily make every game count. That just depends on how the season plays out. Auburn did everything they could in 2004, but ultimately did any of their games matter? Certainly not with regards to winning a championship. This year the LSU/Alabama game was the biggest game of the year, basically billed as a de facto playoff game and title eliminator, yet that's not how it played out. As it turns out, you are correct. That game meant virtually nothing. If anything, the losing team is the one that benefitted. Alabama may have had to sweat a little more waiting on the numbers, but ultimately, they had an easier path to the title game because they lost a game at home to LSU. Meanwhile, LSU had to beat a pretty good Georgia team in the SEC Championship to secure their berth.

 

The BCS is the only system where a major conference team can go undefeated (Auburn, Cincinnati) and not even get a chance to play for the title. And, it is the only system where a team can lose a "playoff" game on its home field and ultimately end up with an easier path to the title because of it. It is absurd.

Was there really an underdog in that game? Was that really an upset? I don't care where it was, I always thought LSU was going to win that game.

 

I would feel the same if Alabama had won and now had to face a 1 loss LSU for the title.

 

OSU was "on the road" and couldn't close it out.

 

Alabama was at home with a huge home field advantage and likewise could not convert and close it out.

 

Why is one THAT much glaring than the other?

Just thought of a similar (though not identical) incident in College Football history.

 

In 1965 Michigan State went unbeaten (9-0) including a big victory over UCLA and Gary Beban. They went to the Rose Bowl vs. the very same Bruin team and were upset 14-13 when they did not make a 2 point conversion late.

 

UPI named the Spartans National Champs because their polls ended at the regular season.

 

However AP had voted Alabama (9-1-1) as the National Champions because they beat the Cornhuskers.

 

Interesting how the Tide ends up in these controversies through the years.

Just thought of a similar (though not identical) incident in College Football history.

 

In 1965 Michigan State went unbeaten (9-0) including a big victory over UCLA and Gary Beban. They went to the Rose Bowl vs. the very same Bruin team and were upset 14-13 when they did not make a 2 point conversion late.

 

UPI named the Spartans National Champs because their polls ended at the regular season.

 

However AP had voted Alabama (9-1-1) as the National Champions because they beat the Cornhuskers.

 

Interesting how the Tide ends up in these controversies through the years.

The next year Norte Dame is 9-0-1 they tied Michigan State 9-0-1. Bama finished 3rd 11-0 with a huge win over the CornHuskers in the Bowl game. What goes around...

 

At that time ND didn't play in Bowl Games, Michigan State had gone to the Rose Bowl in 65 and couldn't go in 66.

I would feel the same if Alabama had won and now had to face a 1 loss LSU for the title.

 

OSU was "on the road" and couldn't close it out.

 

Alabama was at home with a huge home field advantage and likewise could not convert and close it out.

 

Why is one THAT much glaring than the other?

 

Because of the caliber of the opponent. On the road or in Alaska, you tell me that Oklahoma State should have lost to Iowa State. LSU and Alabama was a 1 v 2 matchup and a pickem. Oklahoma State was a 27 point favorite. If that's not glaring, then I don't know what is.

^You can't say "look at the opponent" and "Oklahoma State was a 27 point favorite", and not take into consideration the outside circumstances that surrounded that game. You just can't choose to ignore some factors and take into consideration others.