2011 College Football Final BlogPoll Top 25: The Ground Rules
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2012 10:02 AM EST
in College Football BlogPoll
Email
PrintThe coaches’ and sportswriters’ polls have been released, and the final verdict of the BlogPoll is forthcoming, though we in the blogosphere take a little more time, in the hope of getting it right. Ere I publish my final top 25 (which I am apt to do in segments, this being the ultimate pronouncement upon 2011 to stand against history), I thought it best to set forth a few minutiae, which you may judge as you choose. These are they:
- The instant the Outback Bowl ended---I mean, the instant the Outback Bowl ended---I switched off the television, and I have not watched so much as a single down of college football (not even a highlight) in the week since. I have, however, followed the box scores after the fact, so I am up to speed on what happened, and how it happened.
- I gave consideration to 34 teams for inclusion in my top 25, those being the 34 Division I-A clubs that finished with records of 9-4 or better. No teams with five or more losses were considered.
- I refused, as a matter of principle, to consider a team for my No. 1 ranking if that team did not finish first in its league. I understand and respect that others feel differently, but I believe it to be simply nonsensical to claim that a team can be a national champion without first being a conference champion; it is a non sequitur, akin to saying I am the tallest person in my neighborhood but the second-tallest person in my household. Accordingly, three of the five one-loss teams (Alabama, Boise State, and Houston) were not considered for my final No. 1 ranking because none of those teams won its conference. The Crimson Tide were relegated to the role of spoiler, leaving me only with the question of which dog had the fewest fleas when choosing between Louisiana State and Oklahoma State squads that both endured ugly losses late in the campaign.
Stay tuned. . . .
Go ‘Dawgs!
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How do you feel about the losing team of the Outback Bowl having the MVP? Cause I know how you felt about Drew Breez.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 10:13 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Why do I read how you spelled his name, and think of that old commercial
I unfortunately can’t find on google, “Drew Breeeeeeeeeeze”.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I understand your argument for not including Alabama.
But anyone who does not think, after last night, they are not the best team is wrong. There’s no argument for any other team, not even LSU, since they were absolutely embarrassed last night.
Sure, the Tide didn’t win the SEC for, they lost in OT to the eventual champion due to a plethora of missed FGs. They then pounded said SEC Champ to a pulp last night. Had Bama won the first match-up, they would’ve beaten UGA in the SEC Championship game. It’s not even debatable, sadly.
Not picking Bama to be #1, is like saying the Packers shouldn’t be Super Bowl champions last season because they didn’t win the NFC North. But the Pack played the Bears, the North champ, in the playoffs and won, also beating the Steelers, Eagles, and Falcons, all division winners.
I believe that you are a fan of the BCS. I find it odd that a proponent of the BCS refuses to play by the rules of the BCS when ranking teams. As we’ve discussed ad infinitum, there is not a rule preventing Alabama from being in the title game, being a conference champion simply doesn’t matter.
Additionally, many BCS fans, including those on this site, bash playoffs for the system’s inability to accurately place the best two teams against each other in the championship game. Yet, when it’s quite obvious Alabama is the best team in the county, you create arbitrary rules to discount its accomplishments. This doesn’t make sense. Either you want the teams to earn it on the field (as I do), which is a pro-playoff argument, or you want to arbitrarily place teams into games based on rankings and computers. You can’t have it both ways, and making a team have to win its championship game prior to being placed in the mNC game is a “playing it on the field” argument, since, as mentioned above, this is NOT a requirement of the BCS.
I can assure you any team you place ahead of Bama, would lose to the Tide, by a lot.
GATA!
No, Kyle is not a fan of the BCS. Nor a playoff. Nor am I.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Polls and Bowls
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So an even more arbitrary system
Based on the whims of voters like Kyle who create arbitrary rules to purposefully not count the accomplishments of teams like Alabama?
GATA!
by Jman781 on Jan 10, 2012 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is no way to choose a national champion that does not do at least one of the following:
1) Screw somebody out of a chance at a title
2) Crown a champion who isn’t deserving
3) Significantly devalue the regular season
While I don’t dislike the BCS per se as much as others, the “Polls and Bowls” system always crowns a champion that at least has a legitimate claim to be the best team in the country. Any tournament, even (as we’ve now seen) the BCS, has a chance to crown a champion that has a dubious claim… such as not even being their own conference champion.
The cognitive dissonance between being able to be your conference champion but not the national champion is one of the few things that college football has been able to avoid over the years. And now, even with just a 2-person tournament, we’ve broached that barrier.
The biggest question in which postseason format you prefer is which of the 3 items are more important to you. To me, #2 and #3 are the most important… which is most preserved by the old “Polls and Bowls” system, and to a lesser extent even the current-format BCS.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's very simple.
Every playoff system created can be busted somehow. My brother in law ran a website that annually took all the teams and all the formats and more times than not crazy happened. The only thing a playoff system does in give you a definitive NC. It does not necessarily give you the best team. It’s called a “Mythical National Championship” for a reason. There is no system, and never will be, that annually guarantees one of 120 schools is the proper champion. Did you see the EPSN special where the SEC commissioner was freaking out about the SEC championship game because the best team in the land, Alabama, almost lost to Florida, and it would have killed that system from the start? Think about that, the SEC installed a playoff game and they were scared the best team would lose. Polls and Bowls give great match ups and bowl games. The rest is in the wash.
I am not a Bama fan and live in a world where counting NCs gives me some sense of greater well being. What I am, however, is a college football fan and I would like to see a return to great bowl games instead of all this crap we have been handed this year.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
The basic problem with what you laid out is you are saying that Bama is without a doubt the best team in the nation.
However, they werent the best team in their division, nor conference. It simply makes no sense. It strips all the value of winning your regular season games and conference away. You are correct, the BCS didnt have a rule against this, but they should add in a simple one liner to eliminate a rematch situation. What happened to LSU is they were essentially penalized for taking care of business in the regular season, in their division, in their conference. And LSU still has more wins than Bama.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This cuts both ways.
they werent the best team in their division, nor conference.
How do we know LSU was the best team in the conference? Because they won in OT at Bama? Is every team that beats another team automatically “better”?
Thus, we’re better than Auburn who’s better than South Carolina who’s better than us. Iowa State is better than Oklahoma State. James Madison was better than VT last season. Ole Miss was better than Florida in 2008.
If fact, I’ve heard many use this argument as a reason to not like playoffs. A team like the Cardinals wins the W.S., beating better and more deserving teams like the Phillies and the Rangers along the way, and this is a travesty.
When looking at the season as a whole, I see a team in Alabama that had one hiccup—an OT loss to LSU. They destroyed every other team, including the same Tigers last night 21-0 (and it wasn’t even that close). LSU’s one hiccup is far worse than Alabama’s, even if the Tide were at home. I don’t care if they won an extra game over us.
But this is why I don’t like the BCS, or even a bowls and polls system, for there’s very little certainty on who’s the best. Maybe Okie State should be #1, but I don’t think they would have a prayer against Alabama…
GATA!
We know LSU was the best team in the conference because they went undefeated through a regular-season schedule.
The winner of a one-off game that was played on 30-40 days rest is less representative of the entire season’s accomplishments than a team’s regular season record.
The fact that Alabama beat LSU in a rematch last night just means that Nick Saban did a better job of using his team’s month-plus layoff than Les Miles did. It doesn’t mean that they were the best team in the SEC this year.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
For, obviously, neither one of us will ever sway the other.
I couldn’t care less how a team played months ago. As of today, when ranking teams, I see an Alabama team MUCH better than an LSU team. I give much more weight to how teams play at the end of the season than the beginning, but this is a personal preference.
Each team went undefeated against every other team. Each team lost to each other. The only benefit LSU had was the timing, for their victory granted them the right to destroy us in the SEC Championship game.
But when looking at the two games in total, Alabama was arguably better than LSU in the first game (arguably) and certainly 100% better last night. It’s not like LSU took Bama to the woodshed in the regular season, unlike what Bama did last night to the Tigers.
It’s nonsensical to choose LSU over Bama. Right now. Today. Just as it would be dumb to say the Falcons were better than the Packers last season after the Packers destroyed us in our own dome, better record be damned.
GATA!
How is Alabama "arguably better" when they lost?
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
The games were close.
Just like I think we were arguably better than the Gamecocks in our loss to them.
Once again, just because team A beats team B, doesn’t meant team B is better. Sh*t happens. Do you think Iowa State is better than Okie State?
GATA!
Then this is a massive argument _against_ a playoff.
The only system that can look at a body of work as a whole would be the human test. So, you argued for a playoff, only to say you want a system that a playoff wouldnt work in. If Iowa State beat Okie State in a playoff, Okie State goes home, even though you would say they are “arguably better.”
And I actually dont think UGA was better than SC. They beat us straight up. We improved from BSU, but still played a bad game. And SC beat Nebraska, whereas we were very unprepared for MSUs D.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
I like playoffs for certainty
Not for claiming who’s better.
When upsets occur in the NCAA tournament, which they always do, I don’t automatically assume the victor is “better”, but I may consider them more deserving.
What I don’t like: teams like Okie State, 2004 Auburn, etc. undefeated Boise States, etc. not even having a prayer, simply based on the whims of humans, since, as evidence by today’s discussion, we don’t all agree.
I do know what I saw last night, and that was a Bama team obliterating an LSU team.
GATA!
One argument you talk about who's better, and in another you talk about "certainty". I cant argue in this circle anymore.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I am in favor a playoff system.
Always will be, for I favor certainty.
How does claiming Alabama is better than LSU contradict this point?
Just because team A beats team B, doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY make them better. Sure, often Team A is the better team, like when we beat Coastal Carolina. But upsets do happen, and it’s possible LSU’s victory over Alabama was an “upset.”
I don’t think LSU was “better” on that night, even if they won. Likewise, I don’t think MSU or South Carolina were “better” than UGA in our losses to those respective teams. I don’t think Iowa State is better than Okie State.
I am 100% certain, however, each of the teams lost. I am also 100% certain that in the National Championship game last night, Alabama beat the tar out of LSU. It’s not even debatable.
Thus, Alabama is the champ.
Y’all are equating “better” with “more deserving”, yet these aren’t the same. Being “better” is obviously arbitrary, as evidence by ignoring what happened on the field last night. Anyone who can watch a team get destroyed and then say the loser was “better” proves this.
Do I think Alabama should have been there? No, for I don’t like the BCS. I believe Oklahoma State was more deserving. I would have loved to see a playoff to determine the champion.
Why was Alabama more deserving than Okie State? They weren’t, for Bama didn’t win their conference, even if I arbitrarily think Bama is “better” than Okie State.
Being more deserving isn’t a rule of the BCS, it’s my rule. Alabama thumped LSU. There’s simply no way to argue LSU’s better, more deserving, sure, but y’all keep throwing around the word “better.” Also, I’m 100% certain the Tide won last night.
Once again, me saying Alabama is “better” and being “certain” they won, aren’t mutually exclusive.
GATA!
That's actually an argument in my favor, not yours.
Iowa State was certainly not better than Oklahoma State. But in one game, one day, they were the better team on the field. When looked at through the prism of the entire season, however, Oklahoma State was clearly the better team.
/LSU, your National Champions
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
"As of today, when ranking teams, I see an Alabama team MUCH better than an LSU team."
By this logic, how where the Cardinals not much better after winning the World Series, when as of that day, ranking teams. Or the Giants when they defeated an undefeated Patriots team for the Super Bowl. Your logic in these arguments is contradictory.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 10, 2012 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Did you watch the games?
We’re not talking about a close, back-and-forth game between LSU and Alabama, unlike the first match-up. LSU was destroyed on both sides of the ball.
Had LSU put up any sort of a fight, I’d agree with y’all. Alabama is better than LSU. It’s not debatable. It’s not, unless you choose to wear blinders. If, after that game, you still feel LSU is better, then there’s nothing to discuss.
Y’all can make all the arguments you want, but the simplest test is to look at what happened on the field over the course of two games plus. Alabama was better than LSU when they played. (See: the stats in this thread.)
In fact, under the old “polls and bowls” system, the first game would’ve been a tie, not an LSU victory, since O.T. wasn’t established until 1996…If we’re going to harken back to the glory days, at least be consistent. Who would’ve won the SEC if both teams had tied? Since the first game was essentially a draw, what happened in game number two?
LSU may be more deserving under our new system, but they certainly aren’t better, as evidenced on the field.
By the way, I don’t believe the Giants destroyed the Patriots, and I don’t hear Patriot fans complaining about not being Super Bowl champs.
GATA!
Fine, I will look at the raw facts. The series is tied at 1-1. However one team won in regular season and won one additional game.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"I don’t hear Patriot fans complaining about not being Super Bowl champs"
Clearly you’ve never read Bill Simmons.
If you still feel LSU is better...
OVER THE COURSE OF THE ENTIRE SEASON is the part you keep forgetting to add, because it greatly enhances Kyle’s argument. If you look at a single game, you’re fine, but from September 1 through today, LSU has a significantly greater resume.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 10, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
100% agree.
LSU has a better resume.
But they, in my opinion, aren’t better.
They may be more deserving, for, as indicated here and before, I don’t think Bama should have even been in the game.
That said, due to our crappy system, there was a game, and Bama won convincingly. It’s really, really hard for me to ignore that and crown LSU champion, due to an unconvincing squeaker over Bama earlier in the season.
GATA!
by Jman781 on Jan 10, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think you love the BCS.
Here’s why: your answer to the arguments about the relative merits of LSU and Bama all come back to a the BCS Championship Game – at the expenses of the regular season matchup and the SECCG.
I don’t feel so constrained. I won’t penalize teams that didn’t get the best matchup (though the quality of their opponents bears on the strength of their resume).
Bowls were designed to create good matchups between strong teams, not to eliminate down to a champion. I believe in bowls, not BCS.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I concur again with this last statement. Bowls came well before someone started this whole NC thing.
I would like a NC, but what I really would like is an undeafeted UGA, with a great bowl match up and win. The rest is in the wash.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As much as it may hurt your feelings
that’s you. But with regards to Kyle’s blog poll, his opinion is the only one that matters, and it’s both different from yours, and a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion based on the criteria used to rank his ballot.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Apparently you didn't watch the first match-up.
Alabama outplayed LSU but lost on the score board. It was obvious. Make up any mythical blog voting rules that you want. It screams of being whiney and pathetic. There will never be a rule that says you have to win your conference. Especially in any type of playoff. The two teams that played last night were without a doubt, the two best teams in the nation. Alabama dominated and its a one game season. The better team won.
Funny, I thought the better team was decided by the scoreboard
the “outplayed” logic gives a lot of moral victories, which are bullsiii.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Having been on the losing end to UGA many times and the moral victories of a close loss....
You can have the moral victories if you want. I’ll take the W, which is determined by the scoreboard and nothing else.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 10, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Did you see the game by game comparison of LSU and Alabama? LSU also "destroyed" all the exact same teams by almost an identical score.
AND beat Alabama at home. Don’t try and spin it like Alabama had a better year, because they didnt. LSU did everything Bama did, plus beating bama on the road plus winning in Atlanta. I would say +2 pts to LSU and then -1 for last night for a net of +1 LSU over Bama.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
I'm very much aware
Of what each team did.
But let’s not argue about schedules right now…Good golly, of all teams, UGA fans shouldn’t be using the schedule argument.
Yes, LSU played better teams than Bama, but so what? It’s not like Bama lost another game or didn’t destroy its opponents, too.
I don’t care if LSU beat Bama at home…in OT…after Bama had a questionable INT call against them and missed a gazillion FGs…Yes, LSU won, but they weren’t better that night.
Last night, there’s zero argument for saying LSU was better than Bama. Look at the box score. LSU crossed the 50 ONCE. 21-0 didn’t even tell the story.
Bama > LSU. Today. Right now. I don’t care who was “better” three months ago.
GATA!
Then the regular season is completely meaningless to you? Why bother even playing those games?
I responded to your statement that “Bama destroyed everyone” with the fact that LSU “destroyed everyone” with almost the exact same score. If you pick the first as part of your argument, then you have to pick the second. And then you have to add LSU also “destroyed” one more team (us) than Bama did.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, the regular season isn't meaningless.
If Bama had lost to another team, they wouldn’t have played last night. If Okie State had beaten Iowa State, Bama wouldn’t have been in the title game.
Each game matters, even in in the NFL, which has a playoff system, for the games determine (a) who makes the playoffs and (b) who plays whom and where.
I simply don’t value the beginning of the season as much as the end.
For example, let’s pretend the Atlanta Braves are up 8-0 through eight innings over the Phillies. They have a perfect game going, too. They’ve been clearly the best team for 8/9ths of the game. The Phillies then have a crazy inning and beat the Braves 9-8.
Thus, the Braves would have “won” eight innings. The Phillies would have “won” only one inning, yet it would be crazy to give the victory to the Braves right? But why? The Braves over the course of the entire game were the better team. Why let one crazy inning ruin what was otherwise a perfect game? Does the 9th inning suddenly count more than first eight innings?
Braves win! No, for the Phillies were the better squad when it mattered the most—at the end of the game.
Just like Alabama.
GATA!
I dont think I will go into a discussion comparing an inning of one game in baseball to college football.
That’s some serious apples and oranges.
If UGA opens against Bama, LSU, Oklahoma, Okie State,& Clemson I believe those “early” games mean just as much as the rest of the schedule after that was San Diego, New Mexico and Coastal Carolina. And you know you do to.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
"Is every team that beats another team automatically "better"?"
By this logic, how can you be so absolute about Bama being the best team simply because they beat LSU last night?
And your last graph proves the insanity of your earlier absolutism. “Maybe Okie St should be #1”, but because you don’t THINK they could win (without actually having the two play or any reasonable measure to determine who’s the “best” between them), they are discounted. College football’s a beauty pagaent, plain and simple.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 10, 2012 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly.
Which is why I want a playoff.
Because no one knows who’s better, especially when teams don’t play each other.
However beating the tar out of a team to the tune of 21-0—and it wasn’t that close—is pretty darn convincing…
GATA!
Then pay for it
including the detriment it would cause for the profitability of regular season TV deals. What you want is irrelevant.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Thanks for saying my opinions are "irrelevant"...
As a moderator, I’d hope you’d hold back such comments to a regular, but whatever.
What you want is irrelevant.
Regarding, your desire to crown LSU: ditto.
GATA!
We can agree there
my opinion that LSU had the best resume over the course of the season is also irrelevant.
If you want a playoff, by all means, make an argument for one. But remember, you have to do so without harming the regular season’s profitability to be even remotely feasible, because the powers in control of this thing are like Big Dan Teague, “all about the money, boys!”.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I believe, Jman781, that what Mr. Sanchez meant . . .
. . . was that what any of us wants is irrelevant to what any of us will get.
For reasons I will explain in due course, I believe LSU had the more impressive resume over the course of the campaign, treating all games as equally important.
As I tried to express above, I understand and respect why others may view it differently, but, particularly when two teams go 1-1 against one another, I believe a team’s entire body of work is what matters. Reasonable people may disagree, but I am not constrained by anyone else’s rationale (or by the voting requirements of the coaches’ poll) when casting my own (admittedly irrelevant) ballot, no more than I expect anyone else to be constrained by my rationale.
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
Out of curiosity.
Who won the SEC in 2001?
Do you value the SEC Championship game over the regular season? Do you consider the SEC Championship game just another game or does it carry more weight than the other games?
In 2001, during the regular season, UT beat LSU and went 10-1; however, they lost to an 8-3 LSU team in the SEC Championship game, denying UT a shot at the title game.
LSU is crowned SEC Champs.
But why? Both teams were 1-1 against each other, yet UT had a better record and regular season. Thus, they should have been crowned SEC champs instead of LSU, despite losing in the SEC Championship game.
Why should that one game count more than the other games? If it doesn’t count any more than the other games, why should playing in it matter when determining whether a team should or shouldn’t play for the National Title?
If it does count more, then even you admit not all games, including the regular season games, are equal.
Likewise, I can’t ignore the 21-0 drubbing of LSU last night merely because Bama didn’t play in the SEC title game, unless I acknowledge some games do count more than others.
GATA!
And this was the fear the SEC commissioner had when the playoff game was first installed.
And the problem you get into with any type of playoff game.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
What playoff system? Because every system can be beat unless we start with 120 schools day 1, scrap the regular season and bowls.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
No argument for LSU,
even though they beat Bama in Tuscaloosa? Or for anyone else considering the extremely weak schedule (aside from LSU and perhaps Arkansas) that Alabama faced?
The beauty contest is alive and well. But “best team all season long” indeed.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 10, 2012 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
The problem...
Under no system would LSU be crowned champion.
If this were a playoff, LSU just lost in the one and only round.
If this were the “polls and bowls” system, LSU would not be crowned champ after losing 21-0 in its bowl game. Please show me where a team got obliterated in a bowl game and was subsequently crowned champ.
If this were the BCS, well we know what would happen for Alabama is the champ.
Thus, you must want a system that crowns the National Champion before the bowl season. Thus, after the regular season LSU is champ, a la the EPL. The bowls should be meaningless exhibitions.
That’s fine, but there will never be a system that eliminates all types of post-season play, including bowls.
Thus, the argument shouldn’t be why LSU should be the champ, but why Alabama shouldn’t be the champ. I’m okay with this, truly, for I feel claiming Oklahoma State is the most-deserving makes more sense than claiming LSU is the “best” or even “most deserving” for the reasons stated above. Okie State went out with a win over a top-five team in its bowl game and won its conference. They didn’t lose their last game by 21 to a non-conference winner.
GATA!
If this were a "polls and bowls" system, LSU would not have played Alabama in the Sugar Bowl...
… so they would likely have beaten whomever they played, and would be the national champion.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Your lack of reasonable tone in every post you've made in this thread...
… is the reason I will not reply to this fallacious question/argument.
(Other than the reply I just made, of course.)
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
LSU played and beat Alabama at home. Right now the record is 1-1 for the year.
You’re whole “premise” that Bama should get a rematch sounds a lot like, well, Bama.
If you truly feel good about holding up the crystal ball, but not winning the SEC, good for you. But deep down, you know it’s weak.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
Though I was strongly against the idea of an Alabama-LSU rematch....
I prefer to look at the record as Alabama 27 points, LSU 9 points. I wonder if Georgia fans are just bitter from 2007. Auburn fans would be more bitter were it not for Cam Newton and 2010.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 10, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think we're bitter...
…because we’re espousing a rule that would have denied us a championship in 2007.
We might be wrong, mind you, but bitter? I think not.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Is there a rule?
It appeared to me that Georgia was excluded simply because it didn’t have a ranking that was high enough to get it in the BCSNCG. It would seem that not being in a position to play in the SECCG probably hindered its ability to climb, but it doesn’t seem to me that it was excluded because of a rule. Didn’t Oklahoma play for the title after losing to K-State?
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 10, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
There's no rule.
But some of us think there should be.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You can count me as being a member of that camp.
Although I am curious as to how exactly they will word this rule. It will either be that you have to be a conference champion, or Teams ranked number 1 and the highest ranked conference champions thereafter, or teams ranked number 1, number 2 and highest ranked conference champions thereafter.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 10, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
It wasn't a rule that excluded us in 2007
it was the polls, influenced in all likelihood by a huge pr campaign from Herbstreit, May, and the rest of ESPN spouting off again and again about how you had to win your conference to play for a national title, ignoring some of their own arguments a year earlier in favor of Michigan, or Nebraska in 2001, Oklahoma in 2003, and subsequently Oklahoma again in 2009.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
They flipped the script! Totally surprised.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
Yes and yes
I wonder if Georgia fans are just bitter from 2007. Auburn fans would be more bitter were it not for Cam Newton and 2010.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
I am bitter about 2007.
And I always will be.
by dawgfan will on Jan 10, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
For the record, skandrewj62j, . . .
. . . I argued in 2007, on this very weblog, that Georgia should not be in the national championship game, for that very reason. Unlike Kirk Herbstreit, I have been entirely consistent upon what I believe to be the self-evident point that you can’t be a national champion without first being a conference champion, any more than you can be the smartest man in the building without first being the smartest man in the room. That principle underlies the entirety of my opposition to a playoff.
Manager, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
Go 'Dawgs!
I fully agree with this position...
…but I’m still bitter about 2007. It’s more of a general bitterness about the whimsical nature of our season now, though, as opposed to the bitterness that was focused with laser-like intensity at the time on Herbstreit, ESPN, and the BCS.
by dawgfan will on Jan 10, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
Should have said some Georgia fans.
apologies. and I was only thinking out loud.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jan 10, 2012 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
The fact that I'm still bitter about the final result of the 2007 BCS poll vs. the 2011 version...
… doesn’t make my argument wrong. :-)
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
As mentioned above...
Under the old “polls and bowls” system, LSU and Bama would’ve tied.
What would have happened then?
GATA!
Not really
the current BCS didn’t come about until a few years after the OT rules were established. So put them under the Bowl Alliance set up of 96, 97, 98, and you still have a Sugar Bowl, vs Okie St, with Oregon vs Wisconsin in the Rose, and Stanford playing Bama in the Fiesta.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
Well, if we're going back even before any "Bowl Alliance" nonsense (which was a necessary interim step, but was even stupider than the BCS):
You would have Oklahoma State in the Cotton/Fiesta vs. somebody (Bama?), Oregon/Wisconsin in the Rose, LSU in the Sugar vs. somebody (Stanford? Michigan? VPI?), and Clemson/WVU in the Orange.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
Not so fast my friend:
If this were a playoff, most of the proposed systems wouldnt even have Alabama in it, so LSU wouldnt play Bama, and least not round 1. So, you have to specify what playoff system we are working with and create brackets. And now we are way off in fantasy land because who knows who plays who and who wins.
If this were polls and bowls, it would be LSU in the Sugar Bowl vs someone not Alabama, and if they won, they would be voted #1. So, you are way off base on polls and bowls.
It is the BCS, which needs a rule modification to prevent this.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Fine...
I agree that under a playoff system or the polls and bowls system, Bama wouldn’t necessarily be matched up with LSU, but if LSU is the best team in the land, should it matter?
We don’t want to have a bowl system or playoff system where LSU would have to, God forbid, play a potentially better team like Alabama. Because we know what would happen if LSU had to play Alabama: last night.
This is why I favor a playoff, and I’m obviously in the minority, at least on this site. Trying to determine who’s most deserving or better is arbitrary, for I’m sure there are voters out there who agree with me and there are voters who agree with you.
Let them settle it on the field. While a “better” team won’t necessarily win, each other contending team would have a big, fat loss to end its season. It’s not like upsets don’t happen in the regular season, too, which would prevent a team from winning under any system devised (case in point: Oklahoma State). We don’t like it when a team gets knocked off in the post-season, but we’re okay when it happens in the regular season.
GATA!
"Let them settle it on the field"
They did, back in November. LSU won.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 10, 2012 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
"Please show me where a team got obliterated in a bowl game and was subsequently crowned champ."
I’m too lazy, but I guarantee I could find one, if not multiple back several years ago when the champs/polls were done after the regular season, and the bowls treated as the meaningless exhibitions they truly are.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
That's the dumbest thing I've heard a smart person say this week.
This is the only non-Bama SB blog I read every day. The qualtiy and entertainment value are top notch. I respect Georgia as an adversary who does things the right way. I hope you continue to beat Auburn by four or five touchdowns every year.
But seriously???? Dude. There was a game played last night. Don’t watch if you don’t care, but if after that you aren’t willing to even consider Bama, you have no right to be taken seriously.
by Watchman on Jan 10, 2012 11:01 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
See my reply to Jman781 above.
The fact that Alabama won a one-off game against LSU doesn’t erase all of their accomplishments over the regular season, including the fact that Alabama didn’t go through the SEC with an undefeated record, and didn’t win the SEC Championship Game.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
Bias
Of course I’m biased. I thought Bama deserved to play LSU over Okie State (look at how the game between our best win prior to last night and their best win turned out in the Cotton Bowl.) And I think we deserve to be #1 after throttling LSU.
If TKK reached a different conclusion based on the weight of the entire season, I would disagree, but it would at least he would be making an argument that makes sense. What he said was that he wasn’t even willing to consider it, and that is where I have a problem. He has set up ground rules that (IMHO) prevent proper evaluation.
Did you win your conference championship?
No? Then you can’t be the national champion.
Seems like a reasonable criterion to me.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is no rule that says so. And look at who they played for the SEC Championship. Everyone called that game.
Sounds like sour grapes.
by burmbuster on Jan 10, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm trying to follow this...
… but I can’t. We have sour grapes about losing to LSU in the SECCG, so we are discussing whether a team has to be its conference champion in order to be a national champion.
Alabama is a fine football team with a defense that will rank among the best ever. But it’s possible that Alabama does not have the best claim to the national championship this year.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
"there is no rule that says so"
Sure there is. It’s right up there in the original post.
Editorial Staff, Dawg Sports, SB Nation's Georgia Bulldogs weblog.
@NCThom
Go 'Dawgs!
by NCT on Jan 10, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
No flag, no country. You can't have one.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That's the rules that I've just made up. And I'm backing it up with this gun.
http://sportsandgrits.com/
There needs to be an Eddie Izzard Dressed to Kill commentary on UGA football.
I think Mike Bobo is the land war in Asia. “It’s a new plan! It’s a new plan! It’s the same plan! It’s the same plan!”
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
On Nick Saban and oversigning: " Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we’re sort of fine with that."
On Mark Richt and self reporting minor violations: "When you’re more mature, you do start telling the truth, in odd situations. “I’m sorry, I’ve broken a glass here. Is that expensive? I’ll pay for it. I’m sorry.” And you do that so that people in the room might go, “What a strong personality that person has. I like to have sex with people with strong personalities.”
http://sportsandgrits.com/
And Bobo is definitely the stewardess on Church of England...
“Cake or Death?”
http://sportsandgrits.com/
You're lucky he's church of England.
We’ve only got three [good plays] and didn’t think there’d be such a rush.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sour grapes?
Hell, at least we won our (admittedly crappy) division. But I don’t think we deserved a rematch either.
Under a playoff system, I’ve got no problems with rematches. In a one-off game, let somebody else have a shot.
by dawgfan will on Jan 10, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I dont believe Bama deserved to play in the NC. I guess that's the line in the sand.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
Ground rules.
The good thing about Kyle is that, while I often disagree with his rules, I think he’s fair in applying them.
There is a really good argument for Alabama being the best team in the land today and this season. That was a masterful game last night against one of the best teams in recent memory. At every stage, Alabama had a plan and an answer for LSU’s plan. Execution, preparation, and intensity were perfect. Key injuries? No matter – adaptions were instantaneous and yet not predictable. (Without Maze, I can’t believe Alabama still played pass-first ball against LSU’s secondary with success.)
For Alabama, that game was necessary for it to put itself in the small group of teams that can claim #1. But, except for hardcore BCS proponents, that game is not sufficient to dispose of the competing arguments, and I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Alabama failed another necessary condition by not winning its conference.
There are subjective reasons why requiring a national champion to be a conference champion might be a bad idea, but the result of that argument is more subjectivity, not less.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think Kyle's got a principled stand.
Picking a champion is hard when the system is flawed.* It’s just fine to accept the system’s outcome (i.e., winner of the ’championship game" is the champion), but that requires a degree of faith in the BCS system that most people lack. At the other extreme, you can be purely subjective: which team looked the best to me across the whole season (or the last game, or in their wins, or in their loss(es), or against ranked teams, or whatever metric you want to use).
Kyle seems (1) to reject blind adherence to the BCS; and (2) to use a few tools to close the subjectivity gap. One of those tools is that a team must have established that it is the best team in its conference in order to be the best team in the country. It’s not a perfect system (see the BIG XII south debacle from 2009), but it provides a handy yardstick.
Of course, because rules are just decisions made before the fact, there is always a chance that a situation might present itself that challenges the basis for your rule. But if you abandon your principles, then they were never principles to begin with, and you have simply embraced pure subjectivity. Pure subjectivity is (paradoxically) a principled position to take, but it’s not what most people would own up to advocating.
*I’m not advocating a playoff. There are too many team and too few available games to actually get enough data to produce a clear champion in college football. Every system will be flawed, and there will always be a role for subjectivity. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
by first and thom on Jan 10, 2012 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
You are forgetting one major point
This is not a Coaches Poll ballot. This is a BlogPoll ballot. There are numerous differences, but two play in to Kyle’s decision in a big way.
1. Coaches Poll voters are required to vote for the winner of the National Championship Game as their number 1 team. BlogPoll voters are not.
2. Coaches Poll voters vote pretty much how they please. Technically, BlogPoll voters are not supposed to. To quote from the main BlogPoll page, “the BlogPoll has an explicitly declared poll philosophy that voters are directed to follow”. The BlogPoll is based on overall resume, not on the outcome of a single game. If you are voting strictly on resume, which Kyle does, then there is no question what team should be voted number one. Look at these two resumes and tell me which is more impressive.
Team 1: Wins over teams ranked 1, 4, 5, and 17 in the final AP Poll, with a loss to the number 1 ranked team.
Team 2: Wins over teams ranked 2 and 5 in the final AP Poll, with a loss to the number 2 ranked team.
For the purposes of this poll, last night’s game was not the end all, be all. A vote for LSU over Alabama is perfectly justified.
by SG Standard on Jan 10, 2012 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Correction
I should have said “two probably play into Kyle’s decision in a big way”. I’m not him, so I won’t presume to know his thought process.
Y'all are all complaining about the wrong thing, anyway.
Kyle is obviously going to pick Oklahoma State as his #1 team. :-)
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
LSU blew it
How about this- there is no #1 team in D1 this year.
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees." Thomas J. Jackson
by Dr. Morpheus on Jan 10, 2012 11:53 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Apropos of nothing...
It appears that all of Georgia’s losses are now officially to teams finishing in the top 10 of the coaches poll (top 11 in the AP). So there’s that.
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Jan 10, 2012 1:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
WE'RE NUMBER NOT-SUCK-TOO-BADLY!
WE’RE NUMBER NOT-SUCK-TOO-BADLY! WE’RE NUMBER NOT-SUCK-TOO-BADLY!
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 10, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
In eight quarters of football + OT this year the following has happened:
LSU has scored 9 points
Alabama has scored 27
LSU has run for 187 yards
Alabama has run for 246
LSU has passed for 144 yards
Alabama has passed for 433
LSU has gained 331 total yards
Alabama has gained 679 total yards
LSU has 20 first downs
Alabama has 38 first downs
I understand and respect Kyle’s point of view that Alabama cannot, as a matter of principle be recognized as a better team than LSU. However it is not as if Alabama has barely outplayed LSU; over the course of the season, they have dominated them.
Broadcasting live from a secure location underneath the Hell Gate Bridge
by The Quincy Carter of Accountants on Jan 10, 2012 1:35 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
What's funny about this comment...
…is that if I hadn’t already read the entire thread, I wouldn’t know which side of the debate you are on.
Both sides use “settling it on the field” as a major point in their arguments, yet they can’t agree on what “settling it on the field” means.
Funny ol’ worl’, in’t?
by dawgfan will on Jan 10, 2012 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
That's why I said I was going to stop going in circles at one point.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
The bowls were created long, long ago as a post game match up for exciting cross continental type games and as a reward.
Then some dudes started ranking teams and bowl tie ins developed.
Then the BCS tried to patch the system to prevent multiple #1s with a garaunteed #1 vs #2.
So, we have put bandaid upon baddaid upon bandaid on a system never designed to generate a “NC” anyhow. It’s all about the Rose Bowl, and always has been. And the Rose Bowl is very, very unlikely to change. Any playoff system put in place will still be filled with wholes unless we want to break up conferences and traditional rivalries.
In the meantime, it’s best to just enjoy the sport, and realize the “MNC” title has been and always will be the most truth.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 10, 2012 4:22 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Thread Complete
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 11, 2012 1:19 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
And I can't spell holes.
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
by chuckdawg on Jan 11, 2012 1:20 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I find it very interesting
that the very reason the bowls were directly tied to the coronation of a national champion is because of the way Alabama won the 1973 “national championship.”
While I always have been (and will always remain) in favor of instituting a “must win conference” clause for any system that claims to award the national title, that clause is non-existent.
The Alabama Crimson Tide is your national champion, tankertoad.
Audemus jura nostra defendere
Every day we make it, we'll make it the best we can.
by animalcracker on Jan 11, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
They may be someone elses, but they arent mine. I dont have to claim them, and you can't make me. )
Editor, "Dawgsports"
"The ball ain't heavy." Herschel Walker
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
Related FanShots on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
