Yeah, we are. We already saw the game. It was awful. We really think that Alabama deserves another try?
Who did Alabama beat to get here? A 6-6 Florida team, a decent Penn State team, and an Arkansas team that beat everyone else in the SEC and three other bad programs. Those are their three wins against "ranked" teams. Only one finished the season that way. Just because a team beats up on their conference doesn't mean they're the second best team in the country. I won't deny that they are good, or even that the SEC is probably an above average conference. But, shouldn't a "NATIONAL" championship be decided from two teams around the country? Wouldn't it validate the Bayou Bengals more to beat a team they didn't play, rather than one they already did? Wouldn't the rest of the country respect the SEC as the dominant conference if they beat a team other than one from their own conference?
This seems like a very short-sighted decision. Oklahoma State deserves every opportunity to be in that game. It's not like their schedule was that much more difficult, but at least they beat the other marquee program in their conference. Even stanfurd, as much as I hate to admit it, should have been in the conversation.
In a column posted by an esteemed ESPN writer after the announcement, the points are made that clearly display the bias.
LINK HERE
But here it is:
Point 1:
Alabama started at No. 2 in that same poll, and that's where the Crimson Tide are now: No. 2 in the coaches' poll, the Harris poll, and, most important, the final BCS standings. They did it by having the least offensive loss of the one-loss teams, which isn't exactly the same thing as erasing all doubt.
Point 2:
No. 1 LSU was going to the Allstate BCS National Championship Game no matter what. It could have lost the SEC championship game (and for a while there, as the Tigers ended the first half against Georgia with zero first downs and trailing by three points, it seemed they might), but it wouldn't have changed the rankings math:
LSU = No. 1. Everybody else < LSU. Much less.
....So, because Alabama lost to the number one team and Okie St. laid the egg against Iowa St., the Tide should roll in a rematch. But then point two refutes that. If LSU lost to Georgia, they still would have been in the national championship?
Maybe we'll get an entertaining game. But when it's said and done, the BCS could have done a lot better to determine who was the national champion, and not just the champion of one conference, because now, that's all we'll know.
I just don't like the fact that it's a rematch. Sure, both OSU and Bama beat 4 ranked opponents, and sure OSU's loss was a little worse than Bama's. But Oklahoma St. is one of the most dominating and exciting teams to watch. They were conference champs, and they did it in style, on both sides of the ball, against a solid Oklahoma team.
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone want to watch an in-conference rematch over a matchup of not only two of the best teams in the nation, but victors of the two strongest conferences in the nation. I know the computers don't see it that way, and that voters are susceptible to biases, but this is just dumb.
Anyone remember 2007? No, not the nightmare that was Cal's football season. LSU started the season at #2 behind U$C. They rose to #1 the same week we rose to #2, after Tavita Pritchard pulled out the collective heart of a U$C fans. LSU lost the same day as a certain day of Cal football infamy. Several weeks later they ascended back into first after everyone else above them lost. LSU lost their second-to-last game and dropped back down a few notches, but a wild and voodoo-laden final weekend saw all but one team ahead of LSU lose, once again catapulting them into second, just in time to be selected for the BCS Championship Game. They of course won, and became the only team (probably ever) to be ranked #1 at three different times of the same season. Quite a feat, but proof that BCS mysteries are far from rare.