Official 2011 College Football Bowl Season thread

[Ben E Lou]

So the party line from Alabama fans (which I didn't believe) all this time has been pretty much "We outplayed them the first time. We are better than them. We just missed field goals. That first game wasn't an
aberration." I confess that I was thinking LSU woud win 28-17 or so. But now, it's pretty clear to me that the best defense in the country was on display last night, and by a long shot. There's no good reason to believe that "rust" was a factor on LSU's part. They couldn't move the ball much the first time, and couldn't move it at all this time. Really, apart from the missed FGs, this game wasn't *that* different from the first. LSU put up 40+ against two top five teams, and against a couple other top 20 teams, but could only manage 9 points in two games plus an overtime against the Tide. Yowza.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

a guy with a reputation of a genius, an innovator and a gutsy playcaller Miles

I don't think I'd go with any of those but the last. Just personally.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So the party line from Alabama fans (which I didn't believe) all this time has been pretty much "We outplayed them the first time. We are better than them. We just missed field goals. That first game wasn't an
aberration." I confess that I was thinking LSU woud win 28-17 or so. But now, it's pretty clear to me that the best defense in the country was on display last night, and by a long shot. There's no good reason to believe that "rust" was a factor on LSU's part. They couldn't move the ball much the first time, and couldn't move it at all this time. Really, apart from the missed FGs, this game wasn't *that* different from the first. LSU put up 40+ against two top five teams, and against a couple other top 20 teams, but could only manage 9 points in two games plus an overtime against the Tide. Yowza.

Motion seconded.

[Easy Mac]

I liked a stat I saw yesterday.

LSU beat 3 of the 5 BCS bowl winners this season.

[Mantle2600]

Lowest rated BCS game in history... No surprises there.

[miked]

I could even stay awake for this snoozefest. If I saw LSU do another WR screen, I was going to throw my remote at the TV.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mantle2600

Lowest rated BCS game in history... No surprises there.

I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that this was the first time it was purely on cable (ESPN) as opposed to one of the "big 3" networks.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I liked a stat I saw yesterday.

LSU beat 3 of the 5 BCS bowl winners this season.

LSU happened to play 2 teams (Oregon and WV) early on and benefited from a lot of sloppy play. Oregon was without both returners due to suspensions and had a combined 3 fumbles on kickoff/punt returns. They also had a true freshman RB playing his first game fumble on an early carry. Still, Oregon and WV combined to score 48 points on 870 yards, but the 8 turnovers (some unforced) allowed LSU to win the games without doing a ton on offense.

What's interesting to me is that Oregon and WV (both younger teams who played sloppy early) averaged 24 PPG and 435 total yards in their games against LSU. The SEC, on the other hand, only scored more than 11 once against LSU (Arkansas in the 41-17 loss).

Alabama played just one decent non-conf opponent (Penn State), and they ended up as the 110th best offense in football. Georgia Southern put up more points against the tide than any SEC team. It would have been nice to see Alabama against an offense at the end of the season hitting its stride (OK St, Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, even Baylor) instead of the 105th best passing attack of LSU.

All that said, Alabama did do enough to be the best team, I just wish we avoid these "incest SEC battles" in the future for a title when no SEC offense ranked in the top 25 nationally. Playing a zone and rushing 4 may work against crap QBs in the SEC, but I would have liked to see that against Luck, RGIII, Russell Wilson, Barkley or even Weeden. I still think Alabama was the better overall team - but atleast the game would have been watchable.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that this was the first time it was purely on cable (ESPN) as opposed to one of the "big 3" networks.

Auburn-Oregon was on ESPN last year and got a much higher rating. This game was just unwatchable for football fans who consider an good offensive gameplan more inventive than WR screens, runs up the middle and option plays.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

All that said, Alabama did do enough to be the best team, I just wish we avoid these "incest SEC battles" in the future for a title when no SEC offense ranked in the top 25 nationally. Playing a zone and rushing 4 may work against crap QBs in the SEC, but I would have liked to see that against Luck, RGIII, Russell Wilson, Barkley or even Weeden. I still think Alabama was the better overall team - but atleast the game would have been watchable.

I hate the SEC as much as anyone, but haven't we seen this each of the last five years. When motivated in national championship games, SEC defense have routinely shut down big time offenses. See Oregon 2010, Oklahoma 2008, Ohio State 2006, etc.

What makes you think Luck, Weeden, Wilson or anyone else would have made a difference?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by digamma

I hate the SEC as much as anyone, but haven't we seen this each of the last five years. When motivated in national championship games, SEC defense have routinely shut down big time offenses. See Oregon 2010, Oklahoma 2008, Ohio State 2006, etc.

What makes you think Luck, Weeden, Wilson or anyone else would have made a difference?

Those three instances don't mean anything, I'm sorry to say. We'll never know they would or they wouldn't.

Doesn't last night's game strengthen the case for a playoff? If Oklahoma State doesn't lose to Iowa State, they play the "clear cut, no one else deserves it more" LSU last night and our actual national champion is sitting at home.

[digamma]

We have a play-off. It is a two team play-off and we're just quibbling about how many teams participate and how we select them.

[digamma]

I mean personally, I would have loved to see Justin Blackmon match up against the LSU secondary or even Alabama rush Weeden, but while past results aren't exactly indicative of future performance, I know where my money would have gone.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by digamma

We have a play-off. It is a two team play-off and we're just quibbling about how many teams participate and how we select them.

Guess that settles it then...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

I hate the SEC as much as anyone, but haven't we seen this each of the last five years. When motivated in national championship games, SEC defense have routinely shut down big time offenses. See Oregon 2010, Oklahoma 2008, Ohio State 2006, etc.

What makes you think Luck, Weeden, Wilson or anyone else would have made a difference?

I still think Alabama would have won, but the game would have been competitive. In the last 4 BCS wins for the SEC, the loser still put up 20 points a game. Also, those SEC teams had good QBs (Newton, Tebow, Matt Flynn). This Alabama team ranked 70th in passing, LSU ranked 105. It would have been interesting to see them try and score with a Stanford or Wisconsin who could actually run and pass. I'm not sure Alabama played a team that could do both all season and their "rush 4 and play a short zone to stuff the run" archetype probably wouldn't have worked. The SEC was so abysmal this year offensively, I'm not sure these defenses were quite as good as people gave them credit for.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Arles

Auburn-Oregon was on ESPN last year and got a much higher rating. This game was just unwatchable for football fans who consider an good offensive gameplan more inventive than WR screens, runs up the middle and option plays.

I sort of watched it. It was on my TV. I watched the first half and then ended up playing "Left 4 Dead' while the second half was going on. I saw a couple more fields goals. I missed the touchdown completely and assumed that the guy had kicked 7 fields goals.

Watching LSU's offense was brutal.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

I still think Alabama would have won, but the game would have been competitive. In the last 4 BCS wins for the SEC, the loser still put up 20 points a game. Also, those SEC teams had good QBs (Newton, Tebow, Matt Flynn). This Alabama team ranked 70th in passing, LSU ranked 105. It would have been interesting to see them try and score with a Stanford or Wisconsin who could actually run and pass. I'm not sure Alabama played a team that could do both all season and their "rush 4 and play a short zone to stuff the run" archetype probably wouldn't have worked. The SEC was so abysmal this year offensively, I'm not sure these defenses were quite as good as people gave them credit for.

I would look at what those teams were averaging coming into the national championship game.

Oregon 49, put up 19
Texas 40.7, put up 21
Oklahoma 54, put up 14
Ohio State 32, put up 24
Ohio State 36.3, put up 14

The SEC defenses and their SEC SPEEEEEDDDDD have to count for something.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Arles

The SEC was so abysmal this year offensively, I'm not sure these defenses were quite as good as people gave them credit for.

Indeed.

[Arles]

I guess what I'm saying is everyone is saying that this Alabama team had the greatest college football defense of all time and they won the title without facing one top 25 offense or top tier QB.

That would be like the 49ers winning the Super Bowl without facing New England, Green Bay or New Orleans and saying they had the best defense ever. There's a lot of "what ifs"...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

I would look at what those teams were averaging coming into the national championship game.

Oregon 49, put up 19
Texas 40.7, put up 21
Oklahoma 54, put up 14
Ohio State 32, put up 24
Ohio State 36.3, put up 14

The SEC defenses and their SEC SPEEEEEDDDDD have to count for something.

Cam Newton's Auburn averaged 42 points per game and just put up 22 against Oregon. Guess Cam Newton and Auburn couldn't hang with that stifling Pac-12 defense..

Same goes with the 08 Florida team who averaged 44 points per game and scored just 24 against Oklahoma. I think you'll find that the long layoff had a lot more to do with these scores than the SEC defenses being that much better.

The SEC offenses this season weren't capable of scoring a lot of points without a ton of help from their defense/special teams. They didn't have the QBs to do it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that this was the first time it was purely on cable (ESPN) as opposed to one of the "big 3" networks.

Combine that with the fact that to many people outside of SEC-land this was Yankees vs. Red Sox, and you have a winnah. For some reason, a lot of people don't like front-runners. After winning five straight titles against everyone else, the last thing the rest of the country wanted to see was two of those previous title-holders from the SEC playing one another for the SEC's sixth straight title. Whether the game was an offensive shootout or a defensive struggle wouldn't have made much difference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How do you make honey badger cookies? First you put it in a BCS bowl and beat it for three hours ...

I really shouldn't pick on LSU though, they've had a rough week. First the game, then transportation issues have left them stuck in New Orleans ever since. Apparently some joker painted a 50 yard line in front of their buses & they haven't been able to figure out how to get across it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How do you make honey badger cookies? First you put it in a BCS bowl and beat it for three hours ...

I really shouldn't pick on LSU though, they've had a rough week. First the game, then transportation issues have left them stuck in New Orleans ever since. Apparently some joker painted a 50 yard line in front of their buses & they haven't been able to figure out how to get across it.

"I'll be here all week!!!"

[Matthean]

Just remember, if you bring in the Wisconsin, Oregon, and OSU offenses, you have to bring in their defenses as well. Those FG drives by 'Bama suddenly become TD drives. Random stat, 'Bama in it's last two games gave up a grand total of 232 yards of offense. Say what you will about Auburn being bad, they posted 38 on a team that went to a BCS game. They posted 43 in their bowl game. They got 140 total yards against 'Bama. A decent amount of which were after the game was out-of-hand.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Combine that with the fact that to many people outside of SEC-land this was Yankees vs. Red Sox, and you have a winnah. For some reason, a lot of people don't like front-runners. After winning five straight titles against everyone else, the last thing the rest of the country wanted to see was two of those previous title-holders from the SEC playing one another for the SEC's sixth straight title. Whether the game was an offensive shootout or a defensive struggle wouldn't have made much difference.

I think the fact that it was a rematch did impact the ratings a bit. But, I think a lot of people just tuned out once it was apparent LSU wasn't going to break midfield (let alone score enough to keep it competitive) with that terrified QB.

I'd be interested to see the ratings in the first quarter compared to the second half. I'm imagining a pretty enormous dip (I stopped watching it during the 3rd quarter).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Combine that with the fact that to many people outside of SEC-land this was Yankees vs. Red Sox, and you have a winnah. For some reason, a lot of people don't like front-runners. After winning five straight titles against everyone else, the last thing the rest of the country wanted to see was two of those previous title-holders from the SEC playing one another for the SEC's sixth straight title. Whether the game was an offensive shootout or a defensive struggle wouldn't have made much difference.

I know you've been beating this drum for a while now and I am sure there is some of truth to it, but not as much as you'd like there to be.

I think the fact that the game was all SEC and a re-match of an earlier game, that was also horribly disappointing and quite dull, played a role in the lack of interest in this game. However, I believe the latter played a significantly larger role in the apathy and low ratings than the former. Had LSU and Alabama played an "instant classic" earlier in the year, I think there would be a lot more excitement about this game. Sadly, their first game kinda sucked. Folks had a "been there, done that" feeling about it. The fact that they were both SEC teams was largely irrelevant for the most part.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of intra-conference bowl games because what I enjoy most about bowl games is seeing teams from different conferences going up against one another.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Just remember, if you bring in the Wisconsin, Oregon, and OSU offenses, you have to bring in their defenses as well. Those FG drives by 'Bama suddenly become TD drives. Random stat, 'Bama in it's last two games gave up a grand total of 232 yards of offense. Say what you will about Auburn being bad, they posted 38 on a team that went to a BCS game. They posted 43 in their bowl game. They got 140 total yards against 'Bama. A decent amount of which were after the game was out-of-hand.

I'd be happy with a 42-30 Alabama win - atleast the game would be watchable. Auburn played a pretty marginal Virginia team that gave up 31 to Indiana and 21 to Duke. For the season, Auburn ranked 105 in passing with a first-year QB. So, Bama gave up a grand total of 232 yards to the 105th (Auburn) and 106th (LSU) rated passing offenses in CFB. Hard to imagine how you stop them ...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the fact that it was a rematch did impact the ratings a bit. But, I think a lot of people just tuned out once it was apparent LSU wasn't going to break midfield (let alone score enough to keep it competitive) with that terrified QB.

I'd be interested to see the ratings in the first quarter compared to the second half. I'm imagining a pretty enormous dip (I stopped watching it during the 3rd quarter).

Well, the announcers did point out what happened in the SECCG. LSU actually had a worse offensivefirst half in that one. They didn't even get a first down. And we see how that turned out for the Dawgs. Obviously, Alabama Defense > Georgia Defense, but still, we're talking about a team that had gotten up off the floor in their most recent game to win 42-10, so tuning out that early wouldn't have made a lot of sense. As I said earlier, LSU's thing all year was that they could look bad but they had so much speed that if a guy found a crease, SEE YA. The difference is that Bama could match (maybe exceed) their speed, so a crease just meant a decent gain, but not a TD.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'd be happy with a 42-30 Alabama win - atleast the game would be watchable. Auburn played a pretty marginal Virginia team that gave up 31 to Indiana and 21 to Duke. For the season, Auburn ranked 105 in passing with a first-year QB. So, Bama gave up a grand total of 232 yards to the 105th (Auburn) and 106th (LSU) rated passing offenses in CFB. Hard to imagine how you stop them ...

If you are going to beat 'Bama, it's via the run. It's how LSU did decently in the first game against 'Bama. 'Bama's secondary will shut down the passing game and just wait for the inevitable INT. As I have said before, I watched OSU put up 41 on Stanford and I wasn't impressed at all outside of Blackmon.

[JediKooter]

I'm not really a college football (college sports in general) fan, but, I watched a lot of the game and thought it was a good game. I could care less if it's SEC this or SEC that or rematch...whatever. I like defensive games that make the opposing offense work and that's what happened last night.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Arles

I still think Alabama would have won,

No...Bama wouldnt have been there. It should have been OSU/LSU

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Just remember, if you bring in the Wisconsin, Oregon, and OSU offenses, you have to bring in their defenses as well. Those FG drives by 'Bama suddenly become TD drives. Random stat, 'Bama in it's last two games gave up a grand total of 232 yards of offense. Say what you will about Auburn being bad, they posted 38 on a team that went to a BCS game. They posted 43 in their bowl game. They got 140 total yards against 'Bama. A decent amount of which were after the game was out-of-hand.

Again LSU beat Bama and if the sanctity of the regular season is a valid reason for no playoff, then Bama should have been eliminated.

The conversation is OSU/LSU...not OSUvBama

Here is another stat for the geeks.
Bama beat 3 teams with a winning record, OSU? 7

Take the names off the jerseys (and the conflict of interest off ESPN employee voters) and OSU gets the nod over Bama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Take the names off the jerseys (and the conflict of interest off ESPN employee voters) and OSU gets the nod over Bama.

Spare me.

Anybody that thinks Oklahoma State belongs on the field with Alabama this year is either blind or clueless at best.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Spare me.

Anybody that thinks Oklahoma State belongs on the field with Alabama this year is either blind or clueless at best.

Well they didnt belong on the field with LSU either, they lost to them.
Look I'm not sure that OSU was better than either Bama or LSU....but I would like to have seen.

What do we know?
Bama is not the best team in the SEC.
LSU is not the best team in the country.

I think the answer is a 6 team playoff. (Top 2 get 1 bye) and Im not sure that we wouldnt have ended up with the same game. But you can not ignore the fact that ESPN gets a BONUS PERCENTAGE from their SEC deal if both teams play in the BCS champ game, and the fact that ESPN employs more BCS voters than the next 5 sources combined and not see a conspiracy theory. The day after LSU BAMA they started saying a rematch was possible....they were setting up the hook then.

To be honest I wish ESPN would buy WWE, they have proven they know how to book...oh wait no they havent ,much like Vince they book the match they want that no one else in the nation does.

[CU Tiger]

DOLA - according to the BCS computer portion the Big 12 was the best conference in the country per out of conference results. Yet the best Big 12 team wasn't invited to the SEC private incest party.

So either the computer is flawed and should be removed from the calclation, or it is a viable portion and its results were nullified by a concerted effort of persuasion by the big 4 letter.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Combine that with the fact that to many people outside of SEC-land this was Yankees vs. Red Sox, and you have a winnah. For some reason, a lot of people don't like front-runners. After winning five straight titles against everyone else, the last thing the rest of the country wanted to see was two of those previous title-holders from the SEC playing one another for the SEC's sixth straight title. Whether the game was an offensive shootout or a defensive struggle wouldn't have made much difference.

An article I saw earlier also mentioned that the three lowest BCS games were ones where there was some controversy about a non-conference champion winning team in the final. Last night, 2001 Nebraska vs. Miami and 2003 Oklahoma vs. LSU.

I'm just glad now that the combination of awful bowl ratings (Orange 4.5, Sugar 6.3, Fiesta 9, Rose 9.9) and the SEC taking both title slots has finally made Jim Delany get the stick out of his ass and embrace a +1 system today after rallying everyone to kill it when the ACC and SEC suggested it in 2008.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

DOLA - according to the BCS computer portion the Big 12 was the best conference in the country per out of conference results. Yet the best Big 12 team wasn't invited to the SEC private incest party.

So either the computer is flawed and should be removed from the calclation, or it is a viable portion and its results were nullified by a concerted effort of persuasion by the big 4 letter.

I've never been an advocate of having the computers in the mix {shrug}

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've never been an advocate of having the computers in the mix {shrug}

if you remove the computers and restrict any employee from any company that has a financial interest in the outcome then Id have no issue.

As it is we dont just have lobbyist groups we have actual votes being sold and strong armed it flies in the face of everything our country believes in.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Matthean

If you are going to beat 'Bama, it's via the run. It's how LSU did decently in the first game against 'Bama. 'Bama's secondary will shut down the passing game and just wait for the inevitable INT. As I have said before, I watched OSU put up 41 on Stanford and I wasn't impressed at all outside of Blackmon.

Which good QB did Bama "shut down"?

[bronconick]

John Brant....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Bama is not the best team in the SEC.

Bama was not even the best team in their DIVISION during the regular season, let alone the conference...

[digamma]

Why is it that we will accept the results of a playoff in all other sports and crown a champion no matter their regular season performance (see Packers last year, Duke basketball last year, Cardinals World Series, etc.) but in college football where we have a play-off that preserves the value of the regular season better than any other sport we have to find some way to not devalue the winner of the championship game?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

Which good QB did Bama "shut down"?

People seem to like the Arkansas kid a bunch.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by digamma

Why is it that we will accept the results of a playoff in all other sports and crown a champion no matter their regular season performance (see Packers last year, Duke basketball last year, Cardinals World Series, etc.) but in college football where we have a play-off that preserves the value of the regular season better than any other sport we have to find some way to not devalue the winner of the championship game?

Because those sports don't use polls and computers to determine who gets to play for a title? Shrug. Seems pretty easy to understand. I guess the NCAA basketball tourney does (as in, the only other NCAA tournament with mass appeal) but you can still earn your way in by winning your conference. With the BCS, you could do that and it'd still not be enough if some yahoo who didn't watch your games or some coach who has more to lose by you not playing in the game than seeing you do it, decides to vote you down. Whether it's happening in the status quo or not isn't really important, it's that the process essentially relies on bad information to determine who gets to participate.

That has no bearing on whether or not I think the two best teams faced each other this year or in past years, just saying why there's a great deal more hate towards college football's system versus that in pro sports or the other NCAA sports.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Bama was not even the best team in their DIVISION during the regular season, let alone the conference...

Actually they were the best team in both their division & conference, as Ben alluded to earlier, there were people who knew that all along.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Doesn't last night's game strengthen the case for a playoff? If Oklahoma State doesn't lose to Iowa State, they play the "clear cut, no one else deserves it more" LSU last night and our actual national champion is sitting at home.

I think you can see it both ways. You can tweak any playoff system in any sport and you'd probably get a different champion. A 16 team tournament, a +1, a +4, a 6 team tournament with byes, no bowls at all, would probably not all end up with the same champion. If anything, the longer the tournament, the more unpredictability/randomness. Maybe if the Giants or Angles sneak into the MLB playoffs last year one of them gets hot and goes all the way. There is no inherently "correct" champion that will emerge if you pick the right postseason format. Boise St. or Stanford might run the table in an 8-team college football tournament.

As for this year, I'm kind of amused that people are so harsh about Alabama already "having their shot" against LSU, and "not even winning their division!!", etc. Have we completely forgotten that Oklahoma St. LOST TO IOWA ST! It's as if people want to throw that game away as some kind of fluke, but Alabama's loss to LSU was somehow way worse because it was a closer-in-talent opponent. I think that's a common fallacy. If you lose to a team comparable to you, it's considered PROOF that you're worse, but if you lose to a really bad team, we just look the other way. Alabama probably would have had more support if their 1 loss was to Kentucky, because then more people would just disregard it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

People seem to like the Arkansas kid a bunch.

Oh, yeah, they faced him in his first ever SEC start - in Alabama. That was a pretty seasoned passer they went against.

It seemed like every SEC team was starting a first year QB this season.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Oh, yeah, they faced him in his first ever SEC start - in Alabama. That was a pretty seasoned passer they went against. It seemed like every SEC team was starting a first year QB this season.

Nah, just felt that way

Bray at UT, Brantley at UF, Relf at MsSt, Newton at UK, Murray at UGA, Jefferson at LSU, partially Smith at Vandy (until mid-season) all had significant experience at QB. That 6 (or 7) of the 12.

Arkansas, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, South Carolina were playing mostly a new guy.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Again LSU beat Bama and if the sanctity of the regular season is a valid reason for no playoff, then Bama should have been eliminated.

The conversation is OSU/LSU...not OSUvBama

OSU got beat so if it's a playoff, OSU isn't there either. Look at the teams that have beaten 'Bama. It's all teams who threw the ball 30 times, or less. Weeden's fewest attempts in the year was 28 when they steamrolled Kansas. He had 6 games of 40+, three games of 50+, and one with 60.

Originally Posted by Arles

Which good QB did Bama "shut down"?

Arkansas put up 36.8 per game even with factoring in playing 'Bama and LSU. They put up 44 on the 11th best scoring defense in the country. They scored 14 against 'Bama. Let's not forget Arkansas ended up #5 in the nation and 'Bama beat them 38-14. Stanford would give 'Bama a better run than OSU would based purely on match ups.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by digamma

Why is it that we will accept the results of a playoff in all other sports and crown a champion no matter their regular season performance (see Packers last year, Duke basketball last year, Cardinals World Series, etc.) but in college football where we have a play-off that preserves the value of the regular season better than any other sport we have to find some way to not devalue the winner of the championship game?

Because you cant earn your way in?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually they were the best team in both their division & conference, as Ben alluded to earlier, there were people who knew that all along.

Well hell, I knew Ok ST was the best team before the season began, why play the games?

Come on man, I'm largely playing devils advocate here to hear some different opinions, but you I expect better than this to you.

Otherwise lets just agree that Clemson and GT will play the NC game next year in Clemson, we know their the best teams and if they lose to 3 or 4 others it doesnt really matter.