BCS Selection Show LD

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Georgia were frauds last year. They lost to Boise State and South Carolina. Florida and Ohio State were two 6-6 teams. Nothing special.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I'm all for Cinderella darlings, but the fact that Northern Illinois lost to Iowa...yes, that 4-8 Iowa who lost to the likes of Indiana and Central Michigan, and then did not play a ranked opponent until their final game...they frankly do not deserve to be in the BCS. Their ranking in human polls is what got them over the hump, and it shows the flaws of the human polls. If Northern Illinois loses to a very poor Iowa team, then why are they ranked higher than say...Northwestern...who beat Iowa but lost to 3 other teams at least getting votes for the AP Top 25 at the end? It's as if records are the only thing that voters look for (if they are looking for anything).

Perhaps there is some large conspiracy occurring to point out even more flaws in the BCS. If Northern Illinois beats Florida State, then I will retract my statement. But really, they don't belong when you compare them to some of the better programs in AQ conferences.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

But hey...the Cotton Bowl has to be happy. They have been putting together some really marquee matchups the last several years because of AQ restrictions messing up the BCS lineups.

 

[Slyfox696]

The SEC is average huh? So that's why the SEC has won the last 6 national championships isn't it?

It helps when the deck is always stacked in your favor. When was the last time the SEC won a national championship north of the Mason-Dixon line? When was the last time an undefeated SEC team lost out to a 1 loss team (Cincinnati)? When was the last time an SEC was pushed out for a rematch (like the difference between 06 and 12, for example)?

When everything is stacked to your favor, when people suck your nuts because you have a good record after beating the schools of the blind and deaf, you have a pretty good chance of winning titles.

Get back to me when Alabama beats Notre Dame in New York in January. Or wins any game in cold weather. And doesn't have four bye weeks built into the schedule (including FCS schools)

 

[JJYanks121]

It helps when the deck is always stacked in your favor. When was the last time the SEC won a national championship north of the Mason-Dixon line? When was the last time an undefeated SEC team lost out to a 1 loss team (Cincinnati)? When was the last time an SEC was pushed out for a rematch (like the difference between 06 and 12, for example)?

When everything is stacked to your favor, when people suck your nuts because you have a good record after beating the schools of the blind and deaf, you have a pretty good chance of winning titles.

Get back to me when Alabama beats Notre Dame in New York in January. Or wins any game in cold weather. And doesn't have four bye weeks built into the schedule (including FCS schools)

So if and when Alabama does beat Notre Dame, then what will be your response?

I'm also curious as to what your response was when Oklahoma broke the NCAA scoring record and was heavily favored over Florida, but Florida in the "overrated" SEC came in and held that record breaking offense to 14 points? What was your response to that game?

Then, your beloved Oregon was an elite offense and lost to Auburn. Yes, it was a close game, but that's not the point. Oregon, who puts up crazy amounts of points, didn't in that game. Auburn is easily the weakest National Champion in a while and they still beat a supposedly "way better" Oregon team.

See, it's not that the SEC is overrated, it's that they've backed themselves up by winning on the big stage. If and when somebody beats them on the big stage, then the argument starts to change.

 

[shattered dreams]

I'm as sick of SEC football as anyone but they clearly are the best. As far as I am concerned, any outsider that qualifies for the BCS is more than deserving.

 

[Slyfox696]

So if and when Alabama does beat Notre Dame, then what will be your response?

The exact same thing I said before?

The game is being played in Florida, the South, where the regional fans are far more likely to support the SEC team. It also means Alabama doesn't have to play in a cold weather environment, like Notre Dame has. Alabama, as a 1 loss team, still got in ahead of Oregon and K-State, both who were also 1 loss teams, despite playing TWO FCS schools.

That's not to say Alabama's not a good team, and I'm not even saying that I don't think Alabama is necessarily the most deserving team (though I think Oregon is better than Alabama). After all, Alabama did at least win their conference championship this year, something they didn't even play for last year.

But the "6 titles in 6 years" argument just doesn't hold water for me, when the SEC has received just about every benefit possible from the BCS.

I'm also curious as to what your response was when Oklahoma broke the NCAA scoring record and was heavily favored over Florida, but Florida in the "overrated" SEC came in and held that record breaking offense to 14 points? What was your response to that game?

You mean when Florida had a home game for the National Championship? Yeah, the SEC didn't have the deck stacked in their favor at all that night...

Then, your beloved Oregon was an elite offense and lost to Auburn. Yes, it was a close game, but that's not the point. Oregon, who puts up crazy amounts of points, didn't in that game. Auburn is easily the weakest National Champion in a while and they still beat a supposedly "way better" Oregon team.

Was that a cold weather or warm weather location? That's right, warm weather. Again.

But that's actually one of the few years I don't have a problem with. If memory serves, they were the only two undefeated teams, and it was a heck of a game. And despite what I mention about climate, the distance was somewhat equal, as opposed to the aforementioned Oklahoma traveling across the country to play Florida at home game, or Ohio State traveling to Louisiana to play...Louisiana State University.

EDIT: TCU was also undefeated that year.

See, it's not that the SEC is overrated, it's that they've backed themselves up by winning on the big stage. If and when somebody beats them on the big stage, then the argument starts to change.

It helps when the deck is always stacked in your favor. I bet the Big 12 could have won a championship last year too, if they had been allowed to have both teams in the game. I bet the Big 10 would have won a championship in 06-07 if Michigan would have been granted a rematch against Ohio State (like Alabama had last year). I bet Ohio State would have had a bunch better chance to defeat the two loss LSU if the game had been played in Cincinnati, Ohio instead of in New Orleans, Louisiana.

If not for the SEC nuthugging that exists in sports media, we could have Michigan as the National Champions in 06-07, Ohio State in 07-08, Oklahoma in 08-09, Alabama in 09-10, Auburn in 10-11, and Oklahoma State in 11-12.

Can you honestly tell me that the SEC has not had every advantage which has existed in the BCS championship game?

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Weather? Really? That's the best excuse you can come up with as for why the SEC has remained dominant? Whether it's cold or hot makes that big of a difference? Yeah right. Weather has fuck all to do with how a team plays unless it's raining or snowing.

Florida/Ohio State was played in Arizona. Last I checked, Ohio is closer to Arizona than Florida is.

I'll give you LSU/Ohio State which was in Louisiana as well as Florida/Oklahoma which was also in Florida.

Alabama/Texas was in California. Again, Texas is closer to California than Alabama is I do believe. Auburn/Oregon was in Arizona. About the same difference. Auburn might be a little closer but not enough to make a difference.

Obviously Alabama/LSU doesn't matter because it was two SEC team but Alabama DID beat LSU practically in their own back yard.

The National Championship game bounces between Arizona, Louisiana, Florida, and California. At least it has since the BCS was enacted back in the 1998-1999 season so I'm not sure why people are complaining about location. It's not exactly warm weather in January even down South and I'm tired of hearing that used as an excuse when it has fuck all to do with how a team plays.

Didn't Oklahoma State lose to Iowa State last year? Yeah they sure deserved to play for the big one huh? LSU would've spanked that ass all night long. Yet another overrated team last year. I laughed when the coach tried to say his team deserved a shot. 39-35 I think he said?? They wouldn't have scored that high.

Sounds to me like if/when Notre Dame loses, you've already got an excuse handy as to why.

 

[Slyfox696]

Weather? Really? That's the best excuse you can come up with as for why the SEC has remained dominant?

Considering I made NUMEROUS arguments, I suggest you read those before you make such ridiculous statements.

Whether it's cold or hot makes that big of a difference? Yeah right. Weather has fuck all to do with how a team plays unless it's raining or snowing.

Bull-fucking-shit. Cold weather makes a HUGE difference to kids who aren't used to playing in cold weather. To say otherwise is just silly.

Florida/Ohio State was played in Arizona. Last I checked, Ohio is closer to Arizona than Florida is.

But it wasn't a home field advantage for either team, right? So basically you just wasted both of our times with this, right?

I'll give you LSU/Ohio State which was in Louisiana as well as Florida/Oklahoma which was also in Florida.

So, currently, the advantages held by the SEC is two, and the advantages held by everyone else is 0.

Alabama/Texas was in California. Again, Texas is closer to California than Alabama is I do believe. Auburn/Oregon was in Arizona. About the same difference. Auburn might be a little closer but not enough to make a difference.

And again, not a single disadvantage for the SEC, right? Didn't think so. We're still at 2-0 in terms of the odds being stacked in the favor of the SEC.

Obviously Alabama/LSU doesn't matter because it was two SEC team but Alabama DID beat LSU practically in their own back yard.

Right...an Alabama team that didn't even play in their own conference championship game, after losing at home to LSU. Advantage SEC. 3-0. Remember Michigan vs. Ohio State? Michigan didn't get a rematch, and who got their spot? An SEC team? 4-0.

The National Championship game bounces between Arizona, Louisiana, Florida, and California.

Right, all warm weather locations. Like I've been saying.

At least it has since the BCS was enacted back in the 1998-1999 season so I'm not sure why people are complaining about location.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

It's not exactly warm weather in January even down South

As someone who's mother's husband travels to Florida every winter and raves about how nice the weather is, I can tell you unequivocally that you are wrong.

and I'm tired of hearing that used as an excuse when it has fuck all to do with how a team plays.

Again, bullshit.

Didn't Oklahoma State lose to Iowa State last year? Yeah they sure deserved to play for the big one huh?

Yes, bunch of choke artists. So what if there had been a horrific plane crash a few days before, killing people they knew, adversely affecting their friends and acquaintances. It's not like you could see the kids hanging their heads in sadness, even when they were up early in the game. They should have won that game on the road! Not at all like losing a game...at home...wait...

LSU would've spanked that ass all night long.

I sincerely doubt that, but since the BCS is so biased towards the SEC, I guess we'll never know.

Sounds to me like if/when Notre Dame loses, you've already got an excuse handy as to why.

This has nothing to do with Notre Dame. I've been saying this same thing for years now. And I'd say it even if Notre Dame wasn't in the title game. This is all about how bullshit the argument of "6 straight titles" is.

The deck has been stacked in favor of the SEC for years. For you to try and claim otherwise is simply laughable. Hell, even you can't defend the two home games and the contradiction between Michigan of 06 and Alabama of 12, nor did you even try. You can't deny the 1 loss teams from the SEC which have been granted favor over undefeated teams (like Florida over Utah in 2008-2009, the same Utah that spanked Alabama 31-17, the same Utah team that finished as the ONLY undefeated team in the country).

The fact is EVERY advantage has been given to the SEC. Like I said earlier, for you to claim otherwise is simply laughable.


EDIT: I said something about traveling to Florida every summer, which made no sense. I meant winter.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Wait a second. Didn't the Kansas City Chiefs just have a player kill his girlfriend and himself? And then, didn't the Chiefs go on to win the next day? Yes? Then it's not an excuse. You go out and dedicate the game to those who were lost and play your hardest. You don't go out and lose to the weakest team in your division. Tragedy happens. You mourn and move on. Not trying to sound heartless but when it's time to take care of business, you do what you have to do.

Alabama played in LSU's backyard last year and WON. By a lot. So location and having a largely opposing fan base is no excuse either.

It may not be as cold here during winter as it is up north but is ain't exactly summer time weather either.

 

[Slyfox696]

Wait a second. Didn't the Kansas City Chiefs just have a player kill his girlfriend and himself? And then, didn't the Chiefs go on to win the next day? Yes? Then it's not an excuse.

Yes, because how professional adults react to a murder-suicide is exactly the same situation as amateur college kids having to react to an undeniably tragic plane crash.

You just need to stop. I'm actively losing respect for your posting ability.

You go out and dedicate the game to those who were lost and play your hardest. You don't go out and lose to the weakest team in your division. Tragedy happens. You mourn and move on. Not trying to sound heartless but when it's time to take care of business, you do what you have to do.

Good point.

It's kind of like when you have a high profile game on national television, a game being billed as the game of the century, knowing full well that losing will likely cause you to miss out on a championship opportunity, and still lose at home, looking like ass while you do it.

Wait, it's not like that at all. One asks a bunch of kids to mentally prepare after the death of people they know and the other...well, there's really no adversity at all to overcome.

Good point. Or not.

Alabama played in LSU's backyard last year and WON. By a lot. So location and having a largely opposing fan base is no excuse either.

Yes, because that 4 hour drive was really going to make it difficult for Alabama fans to show up. COMPLETELY the same thing as Oklahoma flying to Florida. Or not.

Sly, I've lived in the South for 17 years of my life. I do believe I know what the weather is like here.

It's December, and tomorrow the temperature is expected to get to 78 degrees in Miami, which is where this year's BCS National Championship is expected to be played.

Credibility? You're losing it fast.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Meh. That's why I edited. Florida is on a different temperature scale than the rest of the South. Although it has been warmer the last couple of years so I get your point there. I still don't believe that how hot or cold it is makes a difference how a team plays but whatever.

 

[JJYanks121]

The exact same thing I said before?

The game is being played in Florida, the South, where the regional fans are far more likely to support the SEC team. It also means Alabama doesn't have to play in a cold weather environment, like Notre Dame has. Alabama, as a 1 loss team, still got in ahead of Oregon and K-State, both who were also 1 loss teams, despite playing TWO FCS schools.

That's not to say Alabama's not a good team, and I'm not even saying that I don't think Alabama is necessarily the most deserving team (though I think Oregon is better than Alabama). After all, Alabama did at least win their conference championship this year, something they didn't even play for last year.

But the "6 titles in 6 years" argument just doesn't hold water for me, when the SEC has received just about every benefit possible from the BCS.

You mean when Florida had a home game for the National Championship? Yeah, the SEC didn't have the deck stacked in their favor at all that night...

Was that a cold weather or warm weather location? That's right, warm weather. Again.

But that's actually one of the few years I don't have a problem with. If memory serves, they were the only two undefeated teams, and it was a heck of a game. And despite what I mention about climate, the distance was somewhat equal, as opposed to the aforementioned Oklahoma traveling across the country to play Florida at home game, or Ohio State traveling to Louisiana to play...Louisiana State University.

EDIT: TCU was also undefeated that year.


It helps when the deck is always stacked in your favor. I bet the Big 12 could have won a championship last year too, if they had been allowed to have both teams in the game. I bet the Big 10 would have won a championship in 06-07 if Michigan would have been granted a rematch against Ohio State (like Alabama had last year). I bet Ohio State would have had a bunch better chance to defeat the two loss LSU if the game had been played in Cincinnati, Ohio instead of in New Orleans, Louisiana.

If not for the SEC nuthugging that exists in sports media, we could have Michigan as the National Champions in 06-07, Ohio State in 07-08, Oklahoma in 08-09, Alabama in 09-10, Auburn in 10-11, and Oklahoma State in 11-12.

Can you honestly tell me that the SEC has not had every advantage which has existed in the BCS championship game?

Your main argument is that there is a media and College Football bias towards the SEC and that the weather thing is a concern. Fine. It's not much of an argument, especially coming from a guy that is usually top notch in argumentation, but lets at least examine each thing you've said. I'll be fair. This other guy is apparently a Gator like me, but I'm not going to go the route he has with argument style.

The game is being played in Florida, the South, where the regional fans are far more likely to support the SEC team. It also means Alabama doesn't have to play in a cold weather environment, like Notre Dame has. Alabama, as a 1 loss team, still got in ahead of Oregon and K-State, both who were also 1 loss teams, despite playing TWO FCS schools.

Actually, there are plenty of fans that won't support someone like Alabama because they hate Saban and the program. It's not an exact science like that. Also, and I'll get more into this later. There's a big difference between playing in the cold in November and playing in it in January. As a New Yorker, I'll tell you it gets significantly colder over that 6 week span.

As for the Oregon and K-State stuff, Oregon didn't win their conference so they are out (I'm a big believer in winning your conference so I'm with you on Bama last year but we'll get to it), while K-State's loss is to an unranked team. Bama lost to a top 10 team and won their conference. I don't think there's much of a case this year for anyone but Alabama really.

Also, the FCS stuff is crap. Yes, I'd like to see everyone play tough games every week, but keep in mind that Bama's other OOC game was against Michigan which they dominated. This year, Bama deserves to be there, especially after beating Georgia, another top 5 team, to get there.

That's not to say Alabama's not a good team, and I'm not even saying that I don't think Alabama is necessarily the most deserving team (though I think Oregon is better than Alabama). After all, Alabama did at least win their conference championship this year, something they didn't even play for last year.

Whether you think Oregon is better or not, they didn't win their conference. That puts them out of the conversation. I happen to agree with you about last year with Bama. I didn't want them in either because with the system the way it is, I'd like to see two top conference champions square off. Unfortunately, that doesn't allow for a non BCS conference school like Utah a few years back to ever get that chance, but that's why the system is changing. I still contend that an 8 team playoff with the Big 6 conference winners and two "at large" bids either from the top ranked teams from big conferences or from non BCS conferences would be the best solution but we're taking baby steps. Still, for me it's conference title or bust. I think that should mean something so we agree on Bama last year. This year I think we agree that Bama deserves to be in. Had Oregon beaten Stanford, they'd obviously be in and I'd have no problem with that.

But the "6 titles in 6 years" argument just doesn't hold water for me, when the SEC has received just about every benefit possible from the BCS.

It's been earned over time. When you win the big games, people take notice. However, there are measures to help things stay fair. The coaches poll only allows a certain number of coaches from each conference to have votes so it stays fair. Despite the SEC having more teams than anyone else, they have the same amount of votes. For that poll, which factors into the BCS, the SEC can't use some sort of monopoly to sway things. This is just a small example but I don't think the BCS "favoring" the SEC is that strong an argument when they've gone in and won games. If they got in and kept losing, I'd get it because then it's like "why keep putting them there?", but they've won them.

You mean when Florida had a home game for the National Championship? Yeah, the SEC didn't have the deck stacked in their favor at all that night...

The only argument you have as to why Florida's defense shut down a record breaking offense is the crowd? Seriously? I'd argue that Oklahoma likely played in front of tougher crowds in their Red River Rivalry game as well as other conference opponents in their home stadiums. This was in Miami, a full 6 hours drive from Gainesville. The Gators took a plane to the city. Yes, there are Gator fans down there, but if all you have is "the crowd was on Florida's side", you don't have much. Teams throughout history have overcome crowd noise or whatever. If you can't, you're not a good team. Oklahoma's offense, which is still the highest scoring of all time today, was held to 14 points. That's because Florida's defense had better athletes than anyone Oklahoma had seen. The only stacking of the deck that mattered was the stacking of those stellar athletes on one side.

Was that a cold weather or warm weather location? That's right, warm weather. Again.

Ok, now it's time to talk weather. The major issue I have with what you are saying is that we're talking about an early January game. These kids aren't paid like NFLers to go out there in January and play like that. They are students. To put them in cold weather is a tough sell to ADs and schools. That said, if you want to put them in a dome in Detroit where it's closer to Big 10 country or in Indianapolis where it's Big 12 country, or wherever else, I'm fine with that. Ultimately, you WANT these kids to play in good conditions to see who the best is without distraction. That's why the Super Bowl is indoors or in good weather. It's to get a game not effected by outside conditions. We are chancing that next year with the game in Jersey and believe me, not everyone is happy with that, including fans. It's also harder to sell seats to people when the weather is below zero. It's a money game too and that won't work. Put a game in a dome up north, I don't care. Put it wherever you want. I don't think that would change the results any. If your only argument is "well if it snows, then the SEC would lose!", your argument is weak. I know it's also "cold weather is a different game", but really, it's a weak argument. We put these kids in ideal conditions the same way the NFL does.

But that's actually one of the few years I don't have a problem with. If memory serves, they were the only two undefeated teams, and it was a heck of a game. And despite what I mention about climate, the distance was somewhat equal, as opposed to the aforementioned Oklahoma traveling across the country to play Florida at home game, or Ohio State traveling to Louisiana to play...Louisiana State University.

Again, Gainesville is 6 hours from Miami so it's not exactly down the road but that's not the point. I see where you are going and again it's "the crowd factor". It has to be because these guys have 5-6 weeks to prepare, not one week so travel shouldn't be an issue. You should get there with plenty of time to adjust to where you are. Thus, it's the crowd factor again and we've discussed this but there's no solution really. It needs to be a neutral field game like the Super Bowl, but you can't just wait to see who gets in and then pick the field. Tickets are sold months in advance with areas for the teams in it reserved until they are known. Perhaps it would be cool to pick a stadium equidistant to the two schools, but is that feasible? If it is, I'd be for it, but I don't know if it is.

EDIT: TCU was also undefeated that year.

Can't have it both ways. Either Bama and the SEC are jerks because they schedule one or two "weak" games, or teams in weaker conferences are at a disadvantage since they player very few, if any, tough games. And by the way, if you do away with FCS games, that only makes it tougher for a TCU (not anymore since they are in the Big 12, but small conference teams in general) to get any credit for what they do during the year.

It helps when the deck is always stacked in your favor. I bet the Big 12 could have won a championship last year too, if they had been allowed to have both teams in the game. I bet the Big 10 would have won a championship in 06-07 if Michigan would have been granted a rematch against Ohio State (like Alabama had last year). I bet Ohio State would have had a bunch better chance to defeat the two loss LSU if the game had been played in Cincinnati, Ohio instead of in New Orleans, Louisiana.

I agree with you in that two teams from the same conference shouldn't play for the National Championship. It should be two teams that WON THEIR CONFERENCE. I believe strongly in that so I think last year sucks too. Then you go back to the location thing which again, if the conditions are fair, you can put the game anywhere. Some team will be "closer" to the stadium but the season ticket holders get the same amount of tickets. The only solution there is to somehow wait to choose the stadium when we know the participants but that won't happen and can't happen. Thus, it's always possible that someone will be closer to the stadium than someone else. Still have to play the game though and these teams have likely played in raucus places, way moreso than any atmosphere that can be created in a National Title game scenario.

If not for the SEC nuthugging that exists in sports media, we could have Michigan as the National Champions in 06-07, Ohio State in 07-08, Oklahoma in 08-09, Alabama in 09-10, Auburn in 10-11, and Oklahoma State in 11-12.

Lets look at this piece by piece:

we could have Michigan as the National Champions in 06-07

No we can't. You can't have it both ways. Either it needs to be conference champions only or it doesn't. You can't say Alabama shouldn't have been in last year but Michigan should have been in that year. I'm going with the winning the conference thing so Florida deserved to be in over Michigan and they justified that by spanking OSU.

Ohio State in 07-08,

Both OSU and LSU won their conferences and finished 1 and 2 in the BCS. Not sure what your argument is here. The two teams that could have made it, Missouri and WVU, lost in the last week of the season with Mizzou doing it in their conference title game. No conference title, no championship game. I stand by that logic all the way through. This was the right matchup and if you want to move it, fine. Move it to California at the Rose Bowl where no one has "home field advantage". It's still likely that LSU wins. And they did win in reality so they were a pretty good team.

Oklahoma in 08-09

Oklahoma had their chance and lost. It's that simple. All you have is that "the game was in Florida". Again, it's not like it was in the backyard of Gainesville or in The Swamp. It was in Miami and Oklahoma lost. They came in heavy favorites because of that offense and it did nothing. Florida outplayed them. The BCS didn't sack and pick off Bradford more than he had all year. Florida did that.

Oklahoma State in 11-12

I'm kind of with you on this. I believe OK State should have been in the game, but it's no slam dunk that they'd win. As we've seen previously, great offenses going up against SEC defenses isn't a formula for success. I know you'll say that LSU was at home basically, but they did lose the game to Bama so it's not like it helped. OK State should have been there though and it was this fact that led the BCS to change to a playoff system. Still, we don't know how OK State would have fared and that sucks. The fun of these bowl games is to see those fun matchups. I love the best offense vs. best defense "who will break" matchups. That's great stuff. We saw it with Florida/Oklahoma and with Oregon/Auburn. It's fun stuff.

The thing is, in both those cases, the SEC team won. All you gave me is the location stuff. Put the games wherever you want. You can't put them outside in January because these kids aren't being paid to play so to put them in potentially hypothermic conditions at under 21 years of age is kind of a tough sell. However, put them in domes around the country and it's all good. I don't care where the games are held. It's like the Super Bowl. You put the two best teams in fair conditions so that there are no outside factors. Then it's "may the best team win". Put them anywhere and I still think the SEC comes out on top most, if not all those times. We'll get to see again this year with Notre Dame. I think they have a better chance than the rest actually because they do play defense. Should be a fun game and if ND wins, I'll happily say they were the better team. If they don't, I will say Bama was the better team. That's how it goes.

I just won't buy into the clear bias stuff because you still have to play the game, and every time a game has been played, the SEC's athletes have beaten the best from around the country. Until someone beats them, there's really no argument. It can start with Notre Dame. Lets see if it does.

 

[Shocky]

The SEC has some damn good teams, but make them play in the cold in January up north, the outcome is probably different. The problem is, the power brokers of the B1G love to go south for the winter, so the system will never change. they would rather take a vacation down south, than to have their team have a reasonable chance of winning a national title.

I hate the BCS. Hell, 3 years ago there were 5 undefeated teams, and only 2 play for a title, that's some serious bullshit. The four team playoff is going to help, but hopefully it gets expanded to at least 8.

And NIU has a puncher's chance in the Orange Bowl. Everyone takes a big steaming shit on the Big East, but the ACC is the one sporting the 2-11 BCS bowl record.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Indianapolis would be a great place to have a rotating national championship game/regular major bowl.

 

[Shocky]

That's the only good thing about the new playoff system, the Championship game is going to the highest bidder, ala the Superbowl.

 

[Slyfox696]

Your main argument is that there is a media and College Football bias towards the SEC and that the weather thing is a concern. Fine. It's not much of an argument, especially coming from a guy that is usually top notch in argumentation, but lets at least examine each thing you've said. I'll be fair. This other guy is apparently a Gator like me, but I'm not going to go the route he has with argument style.

My argument is that when every advantage has gone in the favor of one conference, then that conference should do well in terms of national titles. When you're allowed to put teams in the national championship in ways no other conference is allowed to, then the argument of "6 titles in 6 years" doesn't hold any water for me.

That's my argument.

Actually, there are plenty of fans that won't support someone like Alabama because they hate Saban and the program. It's not an exact science like that. Also, and I'll get more into this later. There's a big difference between playing in the cold in November and playing in it in January. As a New Yorker, I'll tell you it gets significantly colder over that 6 week span.

A) Do you mean to tell me more regional fans will support a non-SEC school over an SEC school? Notre Dame might be the only team in the country who could compete in a non-local region for number of fans, but even I don't believe there will be more Notre Dame fans in Florida than SEC fans.

B) But there's very little difference between playing in 80 degree Florida weather and 70 degree Florida weather. There is, however, a huge difference between playing in 70 degree weather and 35 degree weather.

As for the Oregon and K-State stuff, Oregon didn't win their conference so they are out (I'm a big believer in winning your conference so I'm with you on Bama last year but we'll get to it), while K-State's loss is to an unranked team. Bama lost to a top 10 team and won their conference. I don't think there's much of a case this year for anyone but Alabama really.

We'll see how you address the Alabama from last year, before we get to it.

Also, the FCS stuff is crap. Yes, I'd like to see everyone play tough games every week, but keep in mind that Bama's other OOC game was against Michigan which they dominated. This year, Bama deserves to be there, especially after beating Georgia, another top 5 team, to get there.

And again, I'm not even necessarily arguing they don't THIS YEAR, what I'm saying is the SEC never gets snubbed, and plenty of times, they are the reason others teams do. The deck is stacked in their favor every year.

Whether you think Oregon is better or not, they didn't win their conference. That puts them out of the conversation. I happen to agree with you about last year with Bama. I didn't want them in either because with the system the way it is, I'd like to see two top conference champions square off.

Then let's just go back to my argument.

Why does an Oregon team that doesn't win their conference not get in, but an Alabama team that doesn't win their conference does? Do you not see the double standard there? Even though you agree Alabama shouldn't have been in, the fact they were in shows, once again, how the SEC has received ever BCS advantage possible. That's my point.

I still contend that an 8 team playoff with the Big 6 conference winners and two "at large" bids either from the top ranked teams from big conferences or from non BCS conferences would be the best solution but we're taking baby steps.

8 teams is best. Conference winners are not. There's no way Wisconsin would deserve to be in the playoff this year. Or the Big East champion every year.

This year I think we agree that Bama deserves to be in. Had Oregon beaten Stanford, they'd obviously be in and I'd have no problem with that.

I can go along with this.

It's been earned over time.

No, it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy, for lack of a better term. Years ago, media became convinced the SEC was a mega conference for football, because the SEC learned that to beat the BCS, you don't play mega OOC games, you play a bunch of nobodies, so when the conference schedule starts, you have a bunch of teams with great records, drawing attention to the conference. Over time, that mentality became "truth" even though the fact is the SEC is no different than any other conference in a normal year; a couple top teams, a couple of good teams beneath them, and a bunch of mediocre and bad teams.

If they got in and kept losing, I'd get it because then it's like "why keep putting them there?", but they've won them.

But that's not a good argument. First of all, we'll disqualify last year's game because the SEC had no chance to not win the title. So basically, your argument is they deserve to be there because they've won a grand total of five games, a month or more after the regular season, two of which were home games and the other which were played on a neutral field in favorable weather conditions. I'm sorry, that's just not a good argument to explain why the SEC should continuously be granted every benefit of the doubt.

The only argument you have as to why Florida's defense shut down a record breaking offense is the crowd?

No, you're missing the point. I'm not taking anything away from the 5 games won by teams who play in the SEC. I'm showing the advantages the SEC seems to hold every time.

If Florida had played that game in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, are you telling me you wouldn't have thought that unfair before the game started? Of course you would have, and so would I. Is that the reason Florida defeated Oklahoma? Maybe, maybe not. But it DOES show, once more, how the SEC has held every advantage. And that's my point.

Ok, now it's time to talk weather. The major issue I have with what you are saying is that we're talking about an early January game. These kids aren't paid like NFLers to go out there in January and play like that. They are students. To put them in cold weather is a tough sell to ADs and schools.

But Ohio State sold it. Notre Dame has sold it.

You don't seem to be disagreeing that cold weather can change the dynamic of the game. You also don't seem to be disputing that kids who play in cold weather are used to it and are better prepared for it. So I would assume you would agree that a team used to playing in the cold would be better prepared for it.

Ultimately, you WANT these kids to play in good conditions to see who the best is without distraction.

No, you WANT these kids to play in a "normal" setting, and for teams like ND and Ohio State, cold is normal.

That's why the Super Bowl is indoors or in good weather. It's to get a game not effected by outside conditions.

False.

It's also harder to sell seats to people when the weather is below zero.

Bingo.

The reason these games are played in warm weather places is for the fans, not for the game. It's much easier to sell an extremely expensive ticket to very wealthy people when the temperature is 70 degrees. You could still sell out a stadium in 25 degree weather with snow falling, but the people who would buy those tickets are not as likely to pay a premium price for the ticket.

This is all done for wealthy ticket buyers. But it doesn't change the fact it is still another situation which can be considered an advantage for the SEC school, or at the very least, prevent them from having any kind of disadvantage.

If your only argument is "well if it snows, then the SEC would lose!", your argument is weak.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about how every advantage breaks in favor of the SEC, and when every advantage breaks your way, you SHOULD have a good record. Which means the 6 titles in 6 years arguments is ridiculous to me.

It needs to be a neutral field game like the Super Bowl, but you can't just wait to see who gets in and then pick the field.

Agreed. Which is why we should be hosting national championship games all across the country, not just in places which are favorable to SEC schools, or at the very least, not a disadvantage to SEC schools. When Florida plays in Miami or LSU plays in New Orleans, that's an advantage. When Auburn plays in Arizona, that's not an advantage, but it's not a disadvantage either.

Once again, the SEC either has the advantage or isn't put at a disadvantage. That's what I keep saying.

Can't have it both ways.

EXACTLY! That's what I'm telling you! I'm glad you finally agree!

Either Bama and the SEC are jerks because they schedule one or two "weak" games, or teams in weaker conferences are at a disadvantage since they player very few, if any, tough games.

Look at what you just said and flip it around.

TCU doesn't deserve to play because they play weak teams, but Alabama does deserve to play even though they play weak teams. You're right, you can't have it both ways, but the SEC does. Once more, that's an advantage held by the SEC.

I agree with you in that two teams from the same conference shouldn't play for the National Championship.

So you don't agree with 6 titles in 6 years either then, right?

No we can't. You can't have it both ways. Either it needs to be conference champions only or it doesn't. You can't say Alabama shouldn't have been in last year but Michigan should have been in that year.

You're right, you can't have it both ways. But the SEC has.

Again, that's been my point all along. The deck has been stacked in their favor at every turn. At this point, you're even making my arguments for me.

Both OSU and LSU won their conferences and finished 1 and 2 in the BCS. Not sure what your argument is here.

This was a road game for Ohio State. Had the game been played in Cincinnati, the game could have been very different. That was my argument here.

Oklahoma had their chance and lost.

And if the game had been in Oklahoma City, maybe they win. Maybe they don't, but as a Florida fan, would you have been happy with the game being played in Oklahoma City before the game started? I highly doubt it. And let's not kid ourselves, it's not like Florida blew out Oklahoma. It was 24-14, and tied at 14 in the fourth quarter.

I'm kind of with you on this. I believe OK State should have been in the game, but it's no slam dunk that they'd win.

It's not a slam dunk they'd win, LSU is a very good team. And as was mentioned by AndThat'sTheBottomLine earlier, it was played in New Orleans, so LSU certainly would have held the advantage (again).

But as long as the SEC is granted favor ahead of everyone else, it's hard to know.

I know you'll say that LSU was at home basically, but they did lose the game to Bama so it's not like it helped.

Tuscaloosa is a 4 hour drive from New Orleans and Baton Rouge is an hour and a half. It's not like it was exactly a road game for Alabama, certainly not compared to the 11 and a half hour trip from Stillwater, Oklahoma.

OK State should have been there though

Glad we agree.

I love the best offense vs. best defense "who will break" matchups. That's great stuff. We saw it with Florida/Oklahoma and with Oregon/Auburn. It's fun stuff.

Not really. Auburn wasn't really a defensive juggernaut, they were far more an offensive team than defensive.

The thing is, in both those cases, the SEC team won. All you gave me is the location stuff. Put the games wherever you want. You can't put them outside in January because these kids aren't being paid to play so to put them in potentially hypothermic conditions at under 21 years of age is kind of a tough sell. However, put them in domes around the country and it's all good. I don't care where the games are held. It's like the Super Bowl. You put the two best teams in fair conditions so that there are no outside factors. Then it's "may the best team win". Put them anywhere and I still think the SEC comes out on top most, if not all those times. We'll get to see again this year with Notre Dame. I think they have a better chance than the rest actually because they do play defense. Should be a fun game and if ND wins, I'll happily say they were the better team. If they don't, I will say Bama was the better team. That's how it goes.

I just won't buy into the clear bias stuff because you still have to play the game, and every time a game has been played, the SEC's athletes have beaten the best from around the country. Until someone beats them, there's really no argument. It can start with Notre Dame. Lets see if it does.

You don't seem to be fully grasping my argument here. My argument isn't about the wins and losses. My argument is about how the SEC is given every advantage in the BCS. Whether it's contradiction on conference champion playing, or the home field advantage, or the weather, or weak schedule argument (like last year when OK State had a tougher strength of schedule) or one loss teams getting in ahead of undefeated teams, there has not been ONE time in the last 6 years where you can say the SEC wasn't granted any advantage which may have existed. You yourself noted two such "you can't have it both ways" situations.

That's my argument. The SEC is given every favor which exists, so when I'm told the SEC is the best conference because they've won 6 games, I am not at all inclined to grant that argument any merit.