Blogpoll Ballot Final
by BoilerTMill on Jan 10, 2012 8:13 AM EST
in Football
Email
PrintWarning, be prepared for what will be perceived as abusrdities, as this is the final blogpoll ballot of the 2011 college football season. Let's get on with it. As usual, the explanation of my madness will come after the jump:
Hammer & Rails Ballot - Week 16
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys |  1 |
| 2 | LSU Tigers |  -1 |
| 3 | Alabama Crimson Tide | -- |
| 4 | Oregon Ducks | -- |
| 5 | Boise St. Broncos | 1 |
| 6 | Houston Cougars | 5 |
| 7 | Arkansas Razorbacks | 1 |
| 8 | Stanford Cardinal | -3 |
| 9 | South Carolina Gamecocks | 8 |
| 10 | Michigan Wolverines | -- |
| 11 | Wisconsin Badgers | -4 |
| 12 | Baylor Bears | 2 |
| 13 | TCU Horned Frogs | -4 |
| 14 | Michigan St. Spartans | -2 |
| 15 | West Virginia Mountaineers | -- |
| 16 | Kansas St. Wildcats | 3 |
| 17 | Clemson Tigers | -4 |
| 18 | Virginia Tech Hokies | -3 |
| 19 | Georgia Bulldogs | -3 |
| 20 | Oklahoma Sooners | -2 |
| 21 | Northern Illinois Huskies | 2 |
| 22 | Southern Miss. Golden Eagles | -2 |
| 23 | Cincinnati Bearcats | 1 |
| 24 | Ohio Bobcats | -- |
| 25 | Purdue Boilermakers | -- |
| Dropouts: Nebraska Cornhuskers, Arkansas St. Red Wolves, Penn St. Nittany Lions | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings "
- I went with Oklahoma State No. 1 because I cannot in good conscience vote a team No. 1 that couldn't even win its own division.
- LSU stays No. 2 because their overall profile was light years better than Alabama. In the regular season they beat the Orange, Rose, Cotton, and BCS title game winners.
- Alabama goes at No. 3 because it was a complete farce that they were even in the title game, which, in the end, served to make SEC fans argue that a plus 1 scenario would result in yet another rematch.
- Boise State and Houston were robbed of BCS bowls and dominated their overmatched competition. It is just a shame that Boise missed that field goal against TCU, because they would have been an interesting opponent for LSU.
- There is no USC because of their bowl ban, as was established at the beginning of the season. The same will be true next season, as Ohio State will not be eligible on my ballot all year.
- I'm surprised there hasn't been a riot in SEC country to have Arkansas No. 3 because their only losses were to LSU and Alabama.
- The rest of the ballot is throwing crap at the wall, with special attention paid to mid-major bowl winners Northern Illinois, Ohio, and Southern Miss who all finished with 10 plus wins.
- Finally, that is Purdue at No. 25. The Boilers are there for one reason only: to point out the absurdity of the poll system. What is stopping some crazy wealthy alumni of a school from bribing a number of voters to put his or her team No. 1 regardless of record? Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Well, ask T. Boone Pickens where his whereabouts were in getting four No. 1 votes in the AP Poll for Oklahoma State. With enough money applied in the right places even 7-6 Purdue could be a National Champion this year.
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
hey, did you know there was a NC game played last night?
kidding of course. You’ve justified your poll and who really cares anyway with the whole system being broke. But damn, ’Bama held the team with best “overall profile” to 92 total yards in the NC game when it counts the most and shut them out. The first ever in NC game history. Enough said. Plus their only loss was to the same team by 3 in overtime. Not a bad resume either.
This is like > “I’m surprised there hasn’t been a riot in SEC country to have Arkansas No. 3 because their only losses were to LSU and Alabama”
so funny.
Really dumb.
Alabama proved they’re the best team in the country last night.
by Bloomington.Boiler on Jan 10, 2012 8:36 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
only because Oklahoma State never had a chance
And I guess we need to totally ignore that they also lost to the team they just beat.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
+1000000000000000
To your call once more we rally....
by BoilerPaulie on Jan 10, 2012 9:49 AM EST up reply actions
Look, I think SEC vs. SEC is an awful, awful idea.
Especially in the same division. And, I hope ESPN never uses their media power to do that again, but you still have to agree that Bama proved they were the best. Oklahome State lost to Iowa State late in the year.
by Bloomington.Boiler on Jan 10, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
I still think LSU was better than Alabama
They split their games, won on Alabama’s home field, and they also beat the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl champs in the non-conference away from home. LSU played a manly non-conference schedule. Alabama played the likes of Kent State, Georgia Southern, north Texas, and a Penn State team that lacked an offense.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
by BoilerTMill on Jan 10, 2012 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
LSU's resume is more impressive.
But how can you keep ignoring that title game?! Seriously got manhandled when it mattered the most.
by Bloomington.Boiler on Jan 10, 2012 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
Easy to ignore
It should have never happened. Alabama didn’t belong at all.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
by BoilerTMill on Jan 10, 2012 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
You're really confusing me
by saying it’s easy to ignore THE biggest game of the year, haha. Seriously?
by Bloomington.Boiler on Jan 10, 2012 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
but... their first meeting was "THE GAME OF THE CENTURY!"
To your call once more we rally....
by BoilerPaulie on Jan 11, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
Not only did they absolutely
dominate them…they actually outplayed them in the first game, but couldn’t kick it in the ocean.
I believe its clear that Alabama is the better team…and that these 2 teams were heads above anybody else in the country.
Yep, the kicking game doesn't matter one iota
I guess we shall now forfeit our wins over Ohio State and MTSU, while Rice will give their’s back over us.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
by BoilerTMill on Jan 10, 2012 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
You penalize Alabama for beating Penn State, but then reward Houston for beating them in their bowl game. I don’t understand how Arkansas, who had their only 2 losses to the best two teams, or even 2 of the 3 best if you don’t agree with the championship game, can be below Houston. Arkansas killed a good KSU team and Houston killed a Penn State team “that lacked an offense.” Sure, Houston only lost one game, but it was to Southern Miss and they really beat no one. If you’re basing your rankings solely on how many losses a team has, then do you think that Murray State is one of the three best basketball teams in the country right now?
And how in the world did Oregon fall 2 spots after winning the Rose Bowl, yet Houston jumped 6 after winning the TICKET CITY BOWL!?!? I’m glad you don’t have a vote when it really counts, because you’re punishing TEAMS for your hate of the SYSTEM.
Houston moved up more on their overall body of work
I didn’t realize until afterward that Oregon dropped. I’ll fix that.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
by BoilerTMill on Jan 10, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
OSU lost to Iowa State
Alabama lost to LSU… Huge difference there.
OSU’s lost their chance when they lost that game.
And there inlies the problem.
For any non-SEC team to have a shot at the National Championship, they have to run the table. Meanwhile, teams from the SEC are allowed a loss, I bet they could even get away with 2 losses. I would not be surprised at all to see a 2 loss SEC team get the nod over a 1 loss team from any other AQ conference. It’s completely bogus. The proponents of “the system” and SEC fans alike stand on their pedestal and claim to be better than everyone else, and yet there’s no proof! LSU played Oregon this year, I’ll give them credit. Bama on the other hand? Who did they play outside of the SEC? SCRUBS! I’m so sick of this illusion of “SEC superiority”, and it’s so widely believed that they don’t even have to back it up. It’s like Mayweather refusing to fight Pacquiao. “LOOK AT ME! I’M THE BEST. NO, I DON’T HAVE TO FIGHT (PLAY) ANYONE ELSE, YOU SHOULD ALL JUST ACCEPT THAT I’M THE BEST BECAUSE I SAID SO!”
I have news for all these sycophants of the SEC, your players are still human, just like those on every other team in America. Your coaches were not born of virgins, your school was not constructed on holy land blessed by God himself. They are football teams, capable of winning and losing just the same as any other team. I refuse to accept any SEC team as being better than a team from any other conference until they’ve met on the field. Isn’t that why we play these games in first place? By the current system, SEC teams should just be granted an automatic 4-0 non conference record, because they are blatantly superior to all.
So, to TMill, love this poll. Alabama as the NC is a joke. OKST should have been in that game. Bama can be champions of the national championship game just like Purdue is the Little Caesar’s Pizza Bowl, but to annoint them the best team in the land? Show me the proof. Oh wait, they won’t play anyone outside of their precious SEC.
I think that’s enough rant. Back to work.
by AAMB Boiler on Jan 10, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
They have gotten away with two losses and being in the BCS Title game.
LSU and Florida I believe both got in with 2 losses in previous years.
Yea I think you’re right, but if I remember correctly, no one really had a gripe about it because there was no one else to put in over them.
Which there was an argument this year that someone should have been put in front of them.
There have been so many times in the BCS where certain teams are punished far harder than others for losses.
Nebraska got murdered by Colorado but played in the title game.
LSU lost in only two overtime games (both to unranked teams) yet got in over USC who lost to unranked Stanford and at ranked Oregon by a total of 8 points in 07-08.
Florida got in over Michigan even though their loss was definitely worse than Michigan’s in 06-07.
Cal in 04-05 literally got screwed by Mack Brown calling voters and pleading them to put Texas ahead of Cal in the Rose Bowl.
In 03-04 USC had one loss in triple OT to 8-5 Cal but was denied a title game bout in favor of LSU who had a 12 point loss to 8-5 Florida.
Yes, I understand the BCS is a bad system.
It favors big market teams. It’s not consistent. It’s all about money. I could go on. I am not defending them, so you don’t have to convince me. I just made a point about those LSU and Florida teams.
The system is more than bad
It gets influenced by bias in favor of certain teams from certain conferences. That is not how a system should work. Alabama going by previous matchups should NOT have been in the championship game. Michigan was denied a rematch in favor of Florida and LSU got in over USC based on a stronger schedule. The fact is, the SEC gets more excuses to put their teams in the championship games than any other conference.
There was also Kansas State getting denied
two years in a row a BCS game even though they were ranked #3 and #6 those two years.
There was the 00-01 season were both Miami and FSU only had 1 loss to another team with one loss, and the one loss Washington only had 1 loss and beat Miami (#2 in both polls) and #5 Oregon State. Miami and Washington got denied a championship game in favor of the team Miami beat (FSU).
By the way, in 03-04 LSU got in over USC because they had a “stronger schedule”. An argument that was made this year in favor of Oklahoma State but was deemed irrelevant.
Why do you think that I’m the BCS spokesman? I can’t stand the system either! I think everyone here knows it’s flawed.
I'm just listing all the examples since you said there was no argument.
There was plenty of argument. And if you look at the schedules, scores, etc, LSU should not have gone either of the two years they won the title. Florida in 06-07 should not have gone either, because Michigan’s loss was by less points on the road against the number one team in the nation.
That is why I can’t and won’t say Alabama deserves the title. They should have never been in the game in the first place, especially if you look back at previous reasons why some teams didn’t go to the title game.
Iowa State
They lost that chance when they lost to a no so good Iowa State team. The whole regular season is a playoff. I do like seeing Purdue as number 25 though. Sweet.
So Alabama gets a rematch?
That isn’t how playoffs work.
So with the way BCS rematches work
Can we assume that Michigan is now the 2006 National Champion?
Volleyball Correspondent for Hammer and Rails
BTFU or GTFO
So did LSU this year.
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 10, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Who didn't get kicked in the ass that year in the BCS bowls?
Volleyball Correspondent for Hammer and Rails
BTFU or GTFO
Oops, didn't mean to enter that right away
I meant to say after that it seemed like every BCS bowl game way a blow out (LSU>ND, USC>UM, FL>OSU). I was just attempting failed sarcasm at saying that Michigan should be 2006 Champs.
I wonder though, had OSU and Michigan played at the beginning of November like Bama/LSU, would there have been a rematch?
Volleyball Correspondent for Hammer and Rails
BTFU or GTFO
Funny thing, I remember people complaining about how Michigan was the second best team and was hosed from a title game. So they complained about the BCS that way.
Then this year comes, a team gets that second match. People complain.
Point is, you’re almost always going to have complaining over it unless you have two clear cut undefeated teams and only two teams.
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 10, 2012 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
x2
You are gonna have critics no matter what. If LSU beat ‘Bama, ppl would say ’Bama shouldn’t be there. If Ok St gets to play in the NC game and ’Bama shut down Andrew Luck, ppl will say ’Bama deserves a second chance.
Yes, UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, yes, unless you have only two clear cut best teams, you’ll have controversy. If we can extend the system to include more teams, than at some point the drop off is large enough that it is obvious who should or should not be eligible to play for a national championship.
The final reason is the most absurd
How long have there been wealthy alumni? How many times have they bribed poll voters just so their alma mater would get a bump in the polls? Zero, as far as I know.
It’s even more absurd considering the example you used. You put Oklahoma State number one yourself, with some logic behind it. Then you cast aspersions on four other voters for doing the same thing, because OSU has a wealthy alumnus? Does that mean you, TMill, were also paid off?
Stop being so silly.
by Todd S. on Jan 10, 2012 9:15 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
That's exactly why I suggested it
It is absurd, but just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it never will.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
A lot of things could happen
It doesn’t mean that they will, or that they are particularly likely to happen. By mentioning the four voters who chose OSU #1 and brining up T. Boone Pickens, you intimated that there was impropriety. Unless you have specific evidence, I think that’s irresponsible journalism. And I personally hold bloggers to a higher standard than the old media outlets.
Love the site and all your hard work; I just hated where you went with your last point on this post.
I would still
have
1. LSU
2. OK St.
3. Alabama
LSU played a tough schedule and beat every team they played. People argue that OK St lost to Iowa St. but they also beat much better teams than Alabama. It was the same argument made against Houston, yeah…but who have they played?!?!
Are you sure??
Alabama’s 2 best wins: #2 LSU, and #5 Arkansas.
Ok State’s 2 best wins: #7 Stanford, and #13 Baylor.
You sure they beat “much” better teams??
Tmill, I appreciate the hard work you put into this site...
…which is why I’m surprised you’d go out of your way to discredit the brand you’ve worked so hard to create here by putting something like this out there. Your justifications at the top of the poll just reek of an agenda.
Look, I hate, hate, HATE the S.E.C. and I think you’d be hard pressed to find an American football fan out there who hasn’t had relations with a cousin who wouldn’t prefer to have seen OSU in the championship game, but the two best teams n the country this year can’t help that they play in the same division. They couldn’t be co-champs, and OSU would’ve been underdogs against either. And though the score from the first game says LSU won, they were also outplayed by Alabama in that game too. Yes, that’s implied and not based on results, but so is the argument that LSU was better based on their resume and not the head-to-head matchups in a vacuum. Until we have a playoff system, the NC game should feature the two best teams, and conference biases shouldn’t affect that.
I get that you’re making a point, but your arguments are just as emotionally-driven as the people you’re claiming to rail against. I wouldn’t make a point at the expense of my credibility, but that’s just me.
Loud noises!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 10, 2012 11:35 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Most of T-Mills commentary
is emotional driven. That’s why his site is popular. If you want non-emotional bullshit coverage, go read USA Today.
That said, he’s flat wrong on this one….Alabama is clearly the best team in the country. That defense performance was insane last night. I hate the SEC and the title game being a rematch of schools from the same conferense sucks. But hate on the system, not the fact that ’Bama is the best team.
They aren't "clearly" the best team in the country
They’re weren’t even in their own conference, but sadly, we’ll never know who was the best this year.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
by BoilerTMill on Jan 10, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
I think that just because they didn’t win their conference doesn’t mean they aren’t the best team in their conference. It just so happened this year that there was an undefeated. Bama still only had one loss. For example, a couple years ago, Florida got upset by Ole Miss at home. Did anyone really think that Ole Miss was better than Florida? No. Florida went on to win the title pretty easily. You keep saying that Alabama is a team that “couldn’t even win its own division”, but saying that makes it sound like they aren’t on the same level as the team that did. I know they didn’t win their division, but they just happened to play in the same division as one of the best teams in a long time.
a conference champion, by definition, is the best team in the conference
If they didn’t want to bitch about it they wouldn’t have lost. Kicking is part of the game too. As the 1991 Buffalo Bills. I’d be saying the same thing if they had beaten LSU, but still had the rematch too. In that case, LSU wouldn’t deserve to go.
I said the same thing 10 years ago when Nebraska got into the title game despite not even winning their Big 12 division. If can’t win your conference you shouldn’t be eligible for the BCS title game no matter how much to thump your other opponents.
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
Okay, I see your point. I have a couple questions (I think Ok St should have been in also, I’m just playing devil’s advocate). Are you against rematches or against putting in non-conference champions? Also, do you think Ok St should have been in based on their resume compared to Bama, or that they won their conference? Because you say that if Bama won the first game, LSU wouldn’t deserve to go. I would say that had that happened, there is no argument as to who had the better resume between LSU and OkSt. They both would’ve had one loss, but LSU’s would’ve been much better and had better wins. Wouldn’t they be much more worthy than Alabama was?
I can see one and only one scenario for a non-conference champion getting in
Had Alabama been in the east instead of the west, the rematch would have happened in the SEC title game. One could argue (quite successfully) that a third game between the two would have been a good way to settle things.
Still, it counts out a team like Oklahoma State that lost in a very similar fashion to Iowa State that Alabama lost to LSU. Granted, ISU is an inferior team to bama, but you have to agree that Alabama would get a lot more lauded for a close win over Florida than OK State had they pulled it out over ISU.
Since we have only resumes to choose from, isn’t LSU’s, with wins over Alabama, Oregon, West Virginia, Georgia, and West Virginia much better than Alabama’s even after losing to them?
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
LSU’s resume is definitely still better. But a resume only gets you in to the postseason. Whether you like the postseason or not, it’s what we have. The winner should have nothing to do with resume. Just like UConn last year in basketball. They were voted number one after the tourney. Did they have the best resume? No. Did they win the postseason? Yes.
Do NOT compare the BCS with the NCAA Tournament.
It is completely different. The first only two teams get to play for the title, no matter how many others have a claim they should play for it. The second has dozens of teams all with claims and they settle it by playing in a tournament with the winner being crowned the champion.
I’m not trying to justify the BCS. The only comparison that I made between the two are that they are the current postseason formats. Was I wrong?
It is more like exhibition games than a post season
Notice how the winner of the tournament is crowned as the “NCAA champion”, where as in football it is “The BCS Champion” or “The AP Champion”? The NCAA acknowledges the winner of the tournament as the national title winner. They do no such thing with football, because the system is flawed.
Yes they do. It’s different with football though. The NCAA contracts out the BCS to determine their champion. They have an agreement with the BCS that the winner will be the NCAA champion. It’s just that they also declare another champion if the voters think it’s necessary. Yes, it’s a flawed system. But yes, it’s still a postseason that the NCAA recognizes. The point of the argument is that no matter what you believe is right, Alabama should be number one because they played their way to it with the system we have in place. Hate on the system, not the team.
No it is not
They are “claimed” national titles. They are not definitive national titles like the NCAA tournaments for basketball and lower divisions of football are.
So are you saying that there has never been a
national champion for top tier football? Because the NCAA has NEVER been the organization to select a champion, yet they recognize whoever the selecting organization chooses as the NCAA champion. It’s completely different from basketball. But no matter what, it’s still the postseason, even if it’s only one game.
http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs
There have been claimed champions
But not definitive champions like in… well every other sport across the globe. That is why Div-1 football is the only sport to proclaim co-champions which they show on their website. You can’t be the undisputed champion when there are other teams you haven’t faced who also have the claim.
The only way to declare a true champion is either through a tournament or have every team face each other.
That is why the tournament winners are declared NCAA champions while the BCS, AP Poll, etc champions are not; hence why they use the term “claimed titles”.
Okay, so there has never been an NCAA champion in football. It doesn’t matter, they are all national champions. They won the national championship. It’s a technicality, and that wasn’t even the point of my argument. It is still the POSTSEASON. A POSTSEASON champion should always be recognized as number one, which Alabama is. And btw, there is nowhere on the NCAA basketball page where it says “NCAA Champion.” Just like the football page.
http://www.ncaa.com/history/basketball-men/d1
That’s also where everyone hates the system. We can look and think this isn’t right, but the objective of the BCS is to match up the best two teams, regardless of conference. It is not to reward a team for winning a conference. If the best two teams come from the same division, they will play. I think you would be hard pressed to say that those two teams weren’t the best two teams. Oklahoma St might be deserving to play in that game, but there is no way you could say that they would beat Alabama or LSU.
and I absolutely say they could beat Alabama
Jordan Jefferson was abysmal and at least deserved credit as their MVP. Oklahoma State could probably mange a few touchdowns, and who doesn’t want to see a high octane offense against a lights out defense just to see what happens?
A futile crusade to prevent mass ignorance
HammerAndRails, SBNation's Boilermaker Blog
I would have much rather seen that as well
I definitely think that OkSt COULD beat Alabama. I just don’t think it’s a definitive WOULD beat them. I know you could say that for anyone, but I just think that those were the two best teams. I think OkSt would be an underdog against either of them.
Well of course they could...
And it would have been much more compelling and probably more entertaining. But that’s not the point. Alabama outplayed LSU once and lost. Good for LSU. They outplayed them again and crushed them. Good for Alabama. The reality is that LSU laid waste to opponents all year in arguably the most impressive regular season ever, and the only team who was a thorn in their side the entire season was Alabama. Realistically, the only teams who SHOULD have had a shot at beating LSU or Alabama are LSU and Alabama. With a system in place that promises to pit the two best teams in the country against each other, you’d have to say that for OSU to be in the national championship, they’d be a favorite against one of LSU or Alabama, not if they COULD beat one of them. Clearly OSU knows something about teams that COULD win, even though they shouldn’t. As much as I hate the system, the system that’s in place got it right with the top two teams, and placing Alabama at #3 based on conference “fairness” logic instead of what can be seen just shows a clear agenda.
Loud noises!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 10, 2012 2:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It's hard to proclaim them the two best teams
When neither played Oklahoma State. I rather give another team a chance to prove they are better than LSU then just decide they aren’t.
They're clearly
the best coached team in the country with a month to prepare for a rematch. The way Bama played yesterday, there was no team in the nation that could have beat them and they probably just preserved the current BCS for the next 50 years, but that does not necessarily mean they would have or wouldn’t have won in a playoff system playing week in and week out against high caliber teams from other conferences. They made the most of their second chance, but it seems unfair that if the purpose of the BCS is to preserve the importance of the regular season, that they get a month (and one more week than LSU did) to completely undo the regular season home game.
Wonder what the game woulda been like if
it wasn’t 44 and 37 days respectively for Bama and LSU to play again. Thats like a whole new season. That long layoff is ridiculous.
"The goal remains the same"
by TimeToPlayHard on Jan 10, 2012 12:05 PM EST reply actions
No way Alabama should be third...
The title game was a borderline home game for LSU with the location (to some extent), but the fact that after a game literally decided because of kicking issues (or in other words, Bama outplayed LSU but struggled on special teams in the first matchup), there was complete and utter dominance last night by Alabama over LSU. Held LSU to zero points and less than 100 yards. By far the best defensive outing of the year by the nations best defense.
So you have a matchup Bama should have won and a matchup where Bama utterly destroyed LSU. Based on the two results combined it’s safe to say they had outplayed LSU. Also, it’s just silly to ignore the title game result because you don’t believe in the matchup that was set up.
The fact that is, everyone considered LSU to be the best team coming into the title game. Alabama literally destroyed that #1 team. 90 something total yards, no points, around 1.5 ypc, no passing game, nothing. One of the most dominating performances of the year against the team considered the best all season. To put them third makes next to no sense…
Oklahoma State blew their shot losing to Iowa State towards the end of the season. No excuse.
Boise State and Houston were robbed of BCS bowls and dominated their overmatched competition
Boise should have gotten a BCS bid over Michigan and Virginia Tech, but not Houston. That loss to Southern Mississippi was atrocious and while I know it’s one loss, I think everyone didn’t want a Hawaii fiasco to happen again
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 10, 2012 12:47 PM EST reply actions
"Should have won"?
The only time that phrase has an ounce of truth is if the refs make a blatantly terrible call that changes the outcome of the game. A team failing to get touchdowns or field goals isn’t “outplaying” their opponent. They are playing terrible and deserve to lose if that is the case, which Alabama did in fact lose.
What I was trying to point out
was that is a game Alabama had in their hands and lost. It wasn’t a blow out. Alabama KILLED LSU last night. It wasn’t like LSU blew out Bama and they returned the favor or LSU squeaked out a close one and so did Alabama.
LSU won a game that could have went either way and they were out played (and it took overtime). That game gives the edge to LSU, but barely. Then Alabama came in and utterly destroyed LSU.
If someones bitter, maybe an Ok. State fan or dislikes the SEC for whatever reason, then I can maybe see the stretch of putting Oklahoma State over Alabama. Bama is by far the better team and more deserving, but I can see how someone would stretch the reasoning to justify it.
That being said, the idea of LSU ahead of Alabama is absurd. Just because you don’t like the matchup doesn’t mean it suddenly doesn’t exist anymore or didn’t happen. And if you’re going to flat out ignore the results of the title game why should anyone take the poll seriously?
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 10, 2012 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
So you say LSU should be 2 and Bama 1?
In other words, you want to flat-out ignore the results of the 1st game which ohbytheway Bama had at home?
"Hey Jay, what time is it?"
"9:30"
"AND IU STILL SUCKS!"
by Boiler Bandsman on Jan 11, 2012 12:53 AM EST up reply actions
First game was an overtime match-up that they even outplayed LSU in but couldn’t make field goals and lost because of it. Second match-up was a domination of LSU. Eight quarters of regulation and an additional overtime and that #1 LSU team mustered up a total of nine points. Nine.
Or, let’s look at it like this:
Alabama won the title game.
In the NFL, New England beat Denver. If Denver beats New England this weekend will people be complaining about it since New England beat them the first time? No.
Better yet, they implement some sort of playoff or +1 setup for college football. Alabama beats LSU the second time. Do people complain and cite their first matchup? Most likely not.
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 12, 2012 4:11 AM EST up reply actions
That's apples and oranges.
Denver and New England aren’t playing in the Super Bowl, for one, and if either one of them gets there, then it is because they earned it by making a run in the playoffs.
The thing about a playoff is, when someone wins it all, you know that they earned it, because it had (at least in the NFL.. not so much the NCAA basketball tournament since there’s a selection committee) NOTHING to do with voters. In the NFL, the only way you can get into the playoffs is to have a better record than those who don’t. And from there, you have single-elimination opportunities to either win or go home.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that when you lose to someone (read as “one game”) in the regular season in the NFL, it doesn’t EVER eliminate you from the playoffs (or from the Super Bowl, for that matter) all by itself. In NCAA football, a single loss CAN (and for ALL BUT 1 or 2 one-loss teams, it does) eliminate you from the national title game and condemn you to a lesser bowl. In the NFL, redemption has always been necessary to declare a winner, unless your name is the 1972 Dolphins. That doesn’t necessarily mean that each Super Bowl champion has had to defeat a team they lost to already, but every other team has had to perform at their highest level when it matters, over a period of about a month. Everyone understands that, too, so you don’t really ever see anyone groaning about a “bad draw” in the playoffs – you get the seed that you earn, and it is then your opportunity to lose.
In the NCAA, you just get one chance to win a single bowl game. It’s a smaller sample size, so I find it a ridiculous way to name a champion by voting on it and sending the two teams that everyone “thinks” should play for the title. If LSU and Alabama had faced each other in the national championship game, AFTER going through a playoff of at least 2 rounds, then I would be okay with it. The way it is right now though, is just plain stupid.
To your call once more we rally....
by BoilerPaulie on Jan 12, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
well, ok
You’re obviously using your ballet to make a point. which is well-taken. Alabama might be better than OkSt (I say ‘might’, b/c obviously we’re not afforded the opportunity to prove otherwise), but OkSt probably deserved a chance to prove their worth more than alabama deserved a chance to redeem their loss against LSU earlier in the year.
Having said that…alabama lost to LSU (at home) by three points in OT, then a month later turned around and stomped them, shutting them out. If you want to vote OkSt as #1, I don’t have much of a problem with that, but no way LSU should be ranked above Alabama. Otherwise you’re valuing the ethereal notion of a “resume” over actual on the field results, which I believe, is most people’s problem with the BCS system in the first place.
http://therailroadtie.com/
Boiler up!
by therailroadtie on Jan 10, 2012 12:51 PM EST reply actions
It should be noted that...
that #1 LSU team could only score two field goals in regulation versus Alabama over eight quarters. Enough said.
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 10, 2012 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
I like it
The NC game is a joke anyways. If it’s going to be two SEC teams, hell, why not just get rid of the game for the “players” sake and just make it the SEC title game? Then you wouldn’t be placing an unneeded strain upon these “student” athlete’s bodies that we all know they can’t handle with playing extra games.
I understand the point being made
but it seems like every poll is being incredible generous towards Clemson which makes no sense.
Oklahoma State at #1
is stretching it a bit far, but Tmill’s just trying to prove how dumb the BCS is. The only people that really wanted to see a rematch of LSU and Alabame were either fans of the SEC or Alabama. LSU didn’t want to play them again and the rest of the world didn’t want to see it. You can’t tell me a playoff would not benefit the game of college football.
Another point I’d like bring up is Michigan making it to a BCS bowl game over Michigan State. It’s like Michigan State got punished for losing in their conference championship. Sure doesn’t make sense to me.
I absolutely agree with you
You can’t tell me a playoff would not benefit the game of college football.
But B1G Commissioner Jim Daleny will be the first to oppose a playoff in CFB, and he holds a lot of weight.
It’s like Michigan State got punished for losing in their conference championship.
I get the same feeling too. But then, if MSU gets in, there will be folks arguing the other way. Frankly, neither Michigan or VT should be in but Boise State and TCU instead.
But instead...
Boise State gets put into a bowl game with Arizona State. ARIZONA STATE?!?! You put arguably one of the best teams (possibly top 5 IMO) against a 6-6 Pac 12 team. Come on…
by IUPUI_BoilerUp on Jan 10, 2012 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
All about money
Why do you think Boise is joining a BCS conference? So that won’t happen anymore. Sure, they’ll take their lumps against some tougher competition, but they will have a much better chance at bowl success.
Yes
At the end of the day, it’s a question of whether you want to invite the best team or the team that gets you the most money. The system is forcing those folks to make that decision, and their action speaks they value $ more.
But that’s just short-sighted. It isn’t either or. They can make a lot more $ while allowing the best teams to play if they simply adopt a playoff system like basketball.
Sadly, the current beneficiaries (the bowl organizers, and also including us, the B1G conf) don’t want to give up what they’ve already gotten, and hence we are stuck with the stupid system. Sigh.
I thought they didn’t want to go to a playoff because they would lose money? They would lose all of the big time sponsors that put their name in front of one of the BCS bowls. Wouldn’t it bring in a lot less sponsorship to have quarterfinals, semifinals and a championship than have 5 premier games that different sponsors can get behind?
You can still keep the bowl names
So make the 4 BCS bowls the quarter final games and keep the sponsorships. Or even better, ask two sponsors to pony up even more such that the winner of the game is eligible to compete in the national championship game (i.e. effectively make it the semi-final game).
I could see that. I just don’t know if the bowl execs would go for it. They wouldn’t want their game to be used as a stepping stone to the NC.
But how is that different from what Fiesta Bowl is now?
…when the two teams in the Fiesta Bowl aren’t even playing for a national champion. At least you get associated with NC b/c your bowl is a pre-requisite to be crowned national champ.
Hey now, look no further than well, well before the BCS (back in the 80s). BYU won the title game by beating a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl…
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 12, 2012 4:13 AM EST up reply actions
Purdue vs Alabama
I heard Danny Hope has agreed to play Alabama as long as he can use Drew Brees at QB
It all makes sense now
This is why computer’s were involved in the ranking system……because everyone seems to let emotions cloud the reality of the current college football landscape, the SEC is far and away better than any other conference (and frankly, it’s not really close). To say otherwise is quite laughable. What’s been done here is no different than the annual ranking of ND in the top 15 for no reason at all.
Maybe if we wanted to shut up all the EsPN rhetoric about the SEC being a superior conference, the BigTen should consider avoiding the traditional curb stomping in every bowl game that actually matters (and not squeaking out freaking Motor City bowls). Just a thought…Boiler Up!
Makers All?
That's the problem
The SEC is by far the best conference and is every year, year in and year out. The annoying part is when people take to any suspect bowl games to ‘call them out,’ (with games only competitive in part to the nice month long break before bowl games) which is no different then people complaining about Big East teams in the basketball tourney (that get too many teams in and literally beat each other out).
The SEC is the best, they are treated like the best. Then everyone else gets sick and tired of always hearing about how good the SEC is so they wait for anything they can try to use to complain and attack the conference with.
Part of the reason everyone is jumping for Oklahoma State is because they’re the ‘underdog.’ If Oklahoma State this year was actually a bowl eligible USC, do you think as many people (besides the west coast) would be complaining about it?
Hell, I remember less of a controversy and backlash when an undefeated Auburn team couldn’t play in the title game…
http://theboilermaker.blogspot.com/
by Bryan Steedman on Jan 10, 2012 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
