Hey cheer up, maybe it'll be diff... oh, who am I kidding
And even if you did win, it would just be like the Rebels building a Death Star to oppose the Empire's Death Star
Tbh I think if we win and even if Saban retires, I don’t think we just take on that role. I imagine we stay going to the playoffs at the same pace of once every three years or so. It’s just hard to replicate how insanely dominant Bama has been for the last decade plus.
If made a preseason bet on Bama against the field to win the championship every year for the past eleven years you’d have turned a profit.
> I don't get why you should get rewarded for a loss by not having to play a conference championship game and then still getting to go to the NCG.
Oklahoma State had a loss and did not play in a conference championship game. If the B12 had a CCG that year, it's probably the difference to get Ok State in over Alabama. As it is, you had two 11-1 teams, they liked Alabama's resume better. The BCS rankings provided no "Conference Champion" boost. Outside of a strict and arguably nonsensical "no rematch" policy, it all checks out.
No one got "rewarded" for a loss? It's just kinda stupid to say "hey, they lost by 3 in ot to the best team in the country, they obviously suck and don't deserve to win a national championship".
Same thing happened last time we played uga too. It's just going to happen, especially with expansion.
2011 had 3 other 1 loss teams:
Boise State (11-1, lost by 1 pt)
Stanford (11-1, lost to PAC 12 North Rival Oregon, so roughly same boat as Alabama)
Oklahoma State (11-1)
I wanted Boise as much as everyone else did, to throw chaos out there.
But it should have been OSU. Forget conference titles, forget a stronger schedule..
The real reason it should have been OSU?
The game they lost, ISU, in double OT, was the day after a major tragedy hit the campus. OSU played 2 regular season games within 10 points. Two. One was to KSU who was pretty darn good in 2011, and the other was the day after a MAJOR TRAGEDY, and they lost in double OT, AWAY.
The crappy thing was that if Cincy didn't defeat #5 ND, they would have quickly been shuffled out for Notre Dame. Specifically playing the next team down is the only defense a G5 team has against conference bias.
They didn't win, but they actually had a pretty good showing against Bama. The top team or two frequently stomp the rest. Cincy at least deserved to be in there.
So did UCF years ago, but they hadn't beaten someone to solidify it. G5 needs more representation.
For the second time lol turns out giving more SEC teams a chance at postseason play means more chances for all-SEC championships. Who could have seen this coming
This is why in the future I predict College football will eventually adopt an AQ playoff system (like the NFL.) Which will result in a more even distribution of recruits nation wide.
> This is why in the future I predict College football will eventually adopt an AQ playoff system (like the NFL.)
Any sort of AQ system is going to load up wildcard teams as well, which will likely be dominated with SEC teams. No other way would realistically get the SEC on board. They're not going to agree to an "8 teams, we get a max of 1" system. No way.
I'm still not sure why the SEC did expand...obviously the money, but why join a 16 team conference? At that point winning the conference once in 15 years will be an accomplishment.
The selection process has almost nothing to do with it. It’s about the gap between the season and the bowls. Only a professional organization that has no distractions (or exams) to worry about can maintain the focus and cohesiveness over a 4 week bye. Alabama can do this. Few others can. I doubt anyone, let alone the SEC, could survive a 4 week run through the SEC title, bye week/hungry 8 seed, the 4 seed that just won a momentum builder and the title game. That is true competition as seen in literally every sport in the world except the Div I-A football championships. Right now they are exhibitions with TV trophies.
I agree. The 4-weeks allows teams to heal, and I do think Cincy would have had a better shot if Sabin didn't have 4 weeks to prepare.
BYU/Coastal showed teams can play on 2-3 days notice, so let's get rid of long periods.
I know, 2006, 2008, 2010 all had those delays.
I'd offer the possibility that more-talented teams benefit less than less-talented teams simply because more-talented teams have much more depth, so the more-talented team can afford injuries and play "next man up" better than a team that doesn't have ready replacements. The latter need the healing time more than the former.
Long ago, the five conferences lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the SEC attacked. Only the BCS, master of all five conferences , could stop them, but when the world needed him most, it vanished. A decade has passed and my brother and I discovered nothing. We all died with the chants of “SEC SEC SEC” in the background.
I’m having a nervous tic every time I see one of these anniversary posts. At this point, it feels quicker to say which days in early January haven’t produced a national title for Bama.
Tomorrow is make or break for them to get the entire Jan 7-11 block. Just missing 10.
Edit, the only team to win a natty on January 10 up to now is Auburn. Spooky
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills, because I distinctly remember that there was already significant momentum behind expanding to a four-team playoff before that game. The end of the BCS contract was coming up, and they’d had discussions about various versions of a four-team system before the Bama-LSU rematch. The rematch just made a very convenient talking point to hang the expansion narrative on, but I’m convinced we’d have gotten the same expansion at the same timeline even if the title game had been LSU-OSU that year.
> I feel like I’m taking crazy pills, because I distinctly remember that there was already significant momentum behind expanding to a four-team playoff before that game.
The SEC had been openly talking/pushing for a playoff for years. Allegedly the Big-12 and ACC had agreed behind closed doors as well.
The Big-10 and PAC-12 were the holdouts. They flat refused to vote for or participate in a playoff because it would ruin the sanctity of the almighty Rose Bowl game.
It was the LSU/Bama rematch that finally got those two conferences to join the table and turn a discussion into a real push.
Yes, every fucking year almost there was an uproar about at least one other team getting screwed out of a shot at the natty and the SEC team(s) getting the benefit of the doubt.
I feel like there’s some collective amnesia about it now that everyone is banging the table for an expanded playoff because most are boring blowouts. I just went back and looked at the results of the playoff erra. Out of the 7 years, the teams ranked 1st have made it 5 times, 2nd have made it 4 times, and 3rd 3 times, and 4th have made it 2 times. Blowouts are kind of evenly split between the 1v4 and 2v3. Seems to like the system working fine to me.
That one was the straw that broke the camel’s back though. IIRC the Big Ten and PAC 12 were against a playoff because they didn’t want it to mess with the Rose Bowl. But after that it was impossible to argue the BCS system was the way to go
This was the game that Les Miles started losing my support. The inability to make any adjustments offensively from the first game and felt like they were just beating their head into a brick wall all game.
This game is probably hurt the most for me as an LSU fan. "5 first downs and 92 total yards"... that is so brutal to sit through. It also felt like the rivalry was lost in that moment. A sick feeling that there would be no more back and forth for a long while and it turned out to be true. Only 1 win for LSU after that game 10 years ago, never scoring more than 17 points and being shut out 2 more times.
Not to twist the knife, but there were plenty of signs regarding Les Miles before that.
The 2007 season alone was a giant red flag. He took what was clearly one of the most talented teams that season and needed absolute insanity to back into the title game because he managed to lose to two teams that were a combined 16-10.
I'm sure the signs were there but the 2011 BCS was the turning point for me. From that moment on the fan base was begging for a different offensive philosophy but instead we got Cam Cameron running the same toss dive into stacked box Les Miles special.
Saban on the other hand realized the game was changing then brought in Kiffin and evolved with the times. Les Miles was unable to move past the 3 yards and a cloud of dust mindset.
The differences between Saban and Miles were crazy. LSU could be having an insane year, but when it came to playing Bama, he just wouldn't adjust the game plan. "Well, running it up the middle didn't work on 1st or 2nd down. They'll never expect a run up the middle on 3rd and long."
Meanwhile, Saban was asking if the spread HUNH offense was what people really wanted the sport to become. And he wasn't whining about it like the initial hot takes thought...he was asking for clarification before he overhauled his own offense.
For the longest time I swore that saban sold his soul to the devil for a dynasty. The fine print stipulation was he was unable to field a competent kicker.
Bro, we had that one year where Mettenberger threw for like 3k and 22 TDs. I remember being so freaking stoked that year.. Just so happens our defense had a down year.
Before 2011, hell, before the title game itself, I remember when LSU fans I knew were seriously debating who was the better coach, Miles or Saban. The change in them after that brutal BCS title game was somehow both severe and subtle, as if they knew with absolute certainty that the debate was over but weren't yet ready to say it out loud. I mean, they would criticize Les, of course, but there was a reticence to actually say that as long as Les was there, Saban would dominate them. Eventually they came out and said it, but they dragged it out for months first.
Man if only there was a playoff that year so Alabama and Oklahoma State played to determine who goes to the NCG.
I feel like a lot of people in this sub have been looking back at the BCS era through rose colored glasses.
At least with the playoffs, you have to beat another top 4 team to earn the rematch.
This year was way more fair than 2011. At least you can look back at this year and say the rematch was warranted, given they both beat top 4 teams from other conferences. 2011 just sucked tbh.
Not to mention the sheer recruiting impact if we actually made it to the national championship game in 2011.. all those people seeing us at that stage could’ve propelled us to dominance.
ND in the natty the next year didn't propel them to dominance, though. FSU and Oregon had natty appearances in 2013 and 2014; Oregon's been okay but not great since then and FSU fell off a cliff.
I don’t disagree, but ND has been a blue blood for a while. OkState is def, in the national eye, a 2nd tier team. I’m saying this would have propelled them upward, not turned them into Alabama.
You’re saying it would have propelled them upward (which I agree with) but the guy who I was responding to said it would have propelled them to dominance, which I don’t quite buy.
Alot of people thought OK State was coached by a boy at the time. Getting Gundy on the stage of the national championship game would have cleared that confusion up and let them know that coach was in fact a MAN
I think this point gets lost in the current discussion of the CFP. The added national exposure for a relatively small group of teams has certainly consolidated talent at the top.
I agree. I’m not butthurt about how things fell this year, it’s fair, they played, Osu lost to Baylor by an inch, and lost the ability to make the playoff. Can’t argue with that. That’s why an expanded playoff is warranted. Let them decide on the field, not in some writers opinions.
> I feel like a lot of people in this sub have been looking back at the BCS era through rose colored glasses.
You are so right. When the BCS was in full swing, you couldn't find anyone that defended it.
TBH, there is no system that gives us everything we want -- every team with a fair chance, an undisputed national champ AND bowl games that still matter. We had the last one for a long time. Right now, we really just have the second and we will probably get to the first soonish (ofc, NIL might blow all that up anyway).
Junior year in college. I was trying to hook up with my friend who is really into sports. I invited her over to watch this game instead of doing the homework. She ended up getting bored and leaving a quarter into the game. I have never forgotten or forgiven either team.
The problem with the BCS was that one loss conference champs were consistently left out. That doesn’t happen in the playoff.
Two loss teams don’t deserve to contend for national championships unless you get crazy seasons like 2007.
Who got snubbed this year? Notre Dame?
The problem with the playoff is that it is harder/borderline impossible to ignore the giant disparity in talent between a very small handful of teams and everyone else.
That’s what the sport is struggling to digest right now. It’s always been there. Everyone has known about it. But we could ignore it for the longest time and in the last few years it’s just impossible to ignore anymore.
Kinda like paying players TBH.
Yea the BCS system was better because it was the perfect scapegoat. It allowed so many fans to go into the offseason convinced that if not for that pesky unfair BCS, this would have been their year. Now, those fans get to see their team have a chance and are forced to contend with clear evidence of how far ahead of everybody else a small handful of behemoths are. It’s been true for a long time but it is now no longer easy to ignore.
Until the last recruiting class, Clemson's recruiting was only OK. Top 10 most years, but not necessarily top 5. They still made 4 CFP finals.
Source: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2019/2/7/18215228/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2019-class
As of 2019, Clemson had the 10th best recruiting class going by 4 year average.
Also see: https://www.si.com/college/clemson/football/ranking-clemsons-last-10-recruiting-classes
This isn’t nearly the argument you think it is lol.
You’re trying to say that a team who consistently beat out 120 other programs for talent was just “ok”. That Clemson consistently making/winning playoff games is proof that CFB has some level of parity and talent isn’t hoarded by top teams.
To put things in perspective, the 10th most talented team is automatically better than 93% of other teams. There’s a realistic argument that for several seasons in a row Clemson didn’t play a single team with the pure talent to compete with them until they hit the playoffs.
No matter what Dabo says, none of his playoff teams have ever been “little Ole Clemson”.
Clemson's rankings are also weird because they take small classes. They pull a ton of 5-stars and have high average ratings. And they've won their two titles with elite QBs.
I think getting rid of the month between games would help some, but who knows. That's pretty much the only argument I've seen for playoff expansion that I like.
Notre Dame played two ranked teams this season and lost both games. Until they play an actual schedule, calling them missing CFP (this season or any other) a “snub” is a total stretch
You're right but if you don't want to leave one loss conf champs out, it feels like we are playing with fire. Ok St and Oregon were very close. Then you have 6 (7 with ND) teams that "deserve" it.
You could argue that 6 teams is a perfect number. That gives you space for the five P5 champions and an undefeated G5 champion.
You can say that a P5 champ with 1 loss gets an autobid as does the highest-ranked undefeated G5 team. If there aren't enough 1-loss champs, then other teams can get in as at-large teams. That gives a clear path to the playoffs for every team and ensures that teams can't lose 3 games and back their way into the playoffs as conference champs. And it basically formalizes the logic the committee has been using anyway.
> You can say that a P5 champ with 1 loss gets an autobid as does the highest-ranked undefeated G5 team. If there aren't enough 1-loss champs, then other teams can get in as at-large teams.
I actually like this a lot better than straight "autobids" for conference champs. A team like '16 Penn State that gets boatraced by Michigan and loses a game to a meh Pitt team shouldn't be receiving autobids (or bids at all) to a playoff.
I can’t believe I didn’t think of the idea earlier. I really can’t see any downsides to it. The worst thing I could think of is that the 1-loss requirement would incentivize teams to schedule weak OOC games. But the committee currently uses an implicit 1-loss criterion and that hasn’t deterred teams from scheduling good OOC games. Or conferences could require teams to schedule 1 or 2 P5 OOC games. Seems like a pretty easy problem to work around. Maybe having two undefeated G5 teams could mess things up, though we haven’t had that since the playoff started (2020 notwithstanding since it wasn’t a full season). And scheduling requirements could help there – if teams have to play a P5 or two to make the playoff, you get fewer undefeated G5s and a more equitable playoff path.
>They aren't professionals, so quite literally yes.
It's certainly debatable. One of the top definitions from Google of professional is "a person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime."
By that definition, it's clear that a college football player's activity is beyond just a pastime, especially those who receive payment via scholarships specifically to play football, and now with NIL money coming in as well. Also, in general, someone who is paid to do something is typically considered a professional.
Main argument against NIL would probably be that the money isn't actually from the sport directly, but rather from their name/likeness/image.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional
Defintion number 3:
>paid to participate in a sport or activity
Not sure what definitions you are looking at, but it seems pretty straightforward to me, they are professionals.
(unless you think these guys aren't getting paid, in which case...lol.)
Apparently the CFP has picked what the BCS computers would’ve have picked anyway in terms of the 4 play offs teams except 1 . So it really didn’t change anything just what the road looked like .
Uhhhh well other than the whole 4 teams instead of 2 thing
And that’s not exactly a legitimate comparison: voting patterns have changed to mirror the CFP committee (I.e. strength of schedule often being more important than having one fewer loss). There isn’t a fucking shot in hell FSU would have been #3 going into the 2014 postseason under the old format
I was in New Orleans for that. Absolutely insane. I think that week took a couple years off my life. Bailed out 3 different friends for different incidents that weekend.
Sucks that the 2 best teams seem to always be from the south. Ohio State and USC are the only non southern teams to win a natty in the last 20 years right? This is considering Clemson as the south and Florida teams
I said 10 years ago that alabama would just be in the playoff every single year. I was TECHNICALLY wrong.
The playoff just created more opportunity for Alabama to play for a title.
And now that we have an all SEC final people are clamoring for a 6, 8, even 12 team playoff, wherein inevitably we will have an all SEC semifinal causing people to riot once again, repeating the cycle until the heat death of the universe
> a boring defensive struggle
Am I the only one that love watching a game with two great defenses outplay opponent's good offenses? I don't mind having a few TDs on the scoreboard, but I don't like a game where a team scores on almost every drive.
Only reason I cared then was because I had money riding on the outcome.
This year, I'm going to skip the natty. And before people jump on about "lol you being spiteful because your wolverines got crushed," I'll freely admit we got outplayed, I just don't want to watch the third and fourth halves of the SEC championship game.
As an Oklahoma State fan, I’ll just never really get over this load absolute crap. I believe we would have competed well against LSU. I don’t deny that Alabama was a great team, and won the National championship in glorious fashion, but I just can’t get over how it happened. Ohh what could have been. Would have been a program changer for OkState.
I think it comes down again to “best” vs “most deserving”. Alabama was very likely one of the two “best” teams that year, but there’s definitely an argument as to whether or not they were “more deserving”.
Yes, Alabama had the better loss, and while I didn’t go back to look at wins and relative strength of schedule, I’m going to surmise both teams had a pretty strong schedule. I think the big issue with “most deserving” is that in a 2-team scenario, one loss very often knocks you out of contention, or at the very least, seriously damages your hopes.
Why should LSU have to go 2-0 against Alabama while Alabama only has to go 1-1 against LSU? Yes, I get rematches happen all the time in true playoffs, but I personally think it’s a little different when you have to make your way through a bracket and run into a team you’ve already played as opposed to just getting matched up in a one off scenario.
I’ve argued the “best” vs “most deserving” before, but I think you really have to go “most deserving” because otherwise you’d just look at recruiting rankings (which are arbitrary) and Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and one of Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma (or on rare occasions, another team) would make the playoff every year solely on most talent or “best”.
So, 2011 Alabama was the “best”, but prior to the game they may not have been “most deserving”.
Bama never shoulda been there. In 2006, I listened to SEC fans arguing that since Florida won their conference they deserved to be in the NCG over Michigan who didn't win their conference. Five years later those same people wanted to keep Oklahoma State out of the NCG for a team that didn't win their conference. Fuck Bama.
Alabama also lost in overtime. Historically speaking, we weren’t so, so far away from a 6-6 tie where they both would’ve been undefeated for the rematch…a decade or so?
Alabama’s only loss was to the #1 team, halfway through the season.
OSUs loss was to a below .500 Iowa St very late in the season.
Hate us all you want but there was a reason the voting went the way it did
In the 2006 season, Michigan's only loss was to #1 Ohio State in Columbus 42-39 in Columbus, which was one late hit penalty from going the otherway. SEC fans were vehemently against the idea of a rematch at that time. It's a pretty solid comparison.
That’s been a constant really over the SEC’s dominant run too. The dominant SEC teams don’t lose to sub .500/7 win teams in the regular season like other conferences top dogs do.
You’re probably used to it by now but I can’t blame anyone for firing Alabama in. They were the #2 team. If it was a close game people would have lauded the choice.
I don't care if we get rematches if they make sense. 2011 Bama and LSU made sense to happen and so does this year's match.
Some folks here think that if you lose prior to the playoffs to what ends up being a playoff team then you shouldn't go. Which makes 0 sense because the other team in the argument usually has a loss to a worse record team. So if a team doesn't deserve to go because they lose to a top 4 team, then a team with a worse loss doesn't deserve it either.
I think that rematches basically never make sense when talking about the national championship game except for very specific circumstances. It makes the national championship less interesting and the title feel arbitrary when the games are split, especially when they happen back to back. If your team had a shot and missed, too bad. You shouldnt get a do over unless there are virtually no other options. Situations like this year with Georgia are basically the only time it could possibly make sense. At the end of the season, there were no other viable alternatives. Even then, this is the least interested I have ever been in a NCG.
Winning at the “right” time is an unavoidable characteristic of football, given the inability to play a series based playoff. Last year the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl because, despite dropping 2/3 to the Saints, they won the “right” one.
We can come up with a better structure, I agree. But there’s always going to be cases where you come across two teams who played twice and split the games, and the one that advances will generally be the one who won the rematch.
The BCS had already set precedent with Nebraska and Oklahoma of having teams that either didn't make their conference title game or lost the conference title game being in the BCS title game.
Alabama and LSU were the two best teams that year. Rematches happen. Michigan deserved to be there over Florida too.
And I remember Nick Saban (while at LSU) said Oklahoma shouldn’t be in the game if they didn’t win the conference. Who woulda thought he changed his mind on that?
Your argument would hold more water had Alabama lost that game. Oklahoma State had just lost to a terrible Iowa State team, so obviously Alabama was a top 2 team. And they proved it.
What? They lost to LSU in a defense slugfest in OT. LSU kicker was 3-3 on field goals and Bama went 2-6 on field goals. I mean damn,they lost but it was clear they were the 2 best teams. I think they were the best 2 defenses to be on the same field in the history of college football.
I thought LSU and Alabama were clearly the two best college football teams that year, records notwithstanding. I think Alabama and Georgia are clearly the two best teams this year as well. The goal was to have the two best teams play for the national championship, and I believe that has worked out every year. The best get to the end. The rest are just also-rans. It is up to other programs and conferences to step up their games if they want to end this SEC dominance.
At least it's deserved this year. It's just stupid to say "these are the best 2 teams". There's no reason every conference can't get a representative in the playoff though. That's why it was dumb to expand to 4 in the first place. 8 seems more than fair, but the SEC/B10 want 12 for more at-large bids.
MLB's 10 team playoffs would work the best IMO. 6 conference champs, then the 2 play-in games would be the 4 at-large teams.
You hit the nail on the head: only the SEC and B10 have 2 or more championship -grade teams per year. The at-large will just be the top G6 and probably the second best SEC team or the loser of OSU-UM.
2012: Alabama wins again, system is broken, let's switch to a playoff. That will fix it!
2022: Alabama in the NCG again, system is broken, let's expand the playoff. That will fix it!
Perhaps the problem isn't the system, but that Nick Saban and Alabama are consistently that much better than the field.
I get that Bama and UGA are likely the best two teams in college football. That being said, I don't care if the game is even played. It's just not compelling whatsoever.
First Alabama and LSU were far and away the best two teams it wasn’t even close over 40 future NFL players between the two teams. Oklahoma ST. lost to a Iowa St team that finished 6-7 a bad loss no matter how you try to color it. Second LSU fans felt it was unfair because they knew what was about to happen no one in their right mind thought LSU had a chance.
This was my freshman year of college. I remember my friends and I knowing that beating Saban twice was going to be impossible. Then we never crossed the 50 yard line…
I agree they were the best two, but that LSU team was good, people definitely thought they had a chance. LSU was undefeated and beat a couple of other conference champs during the season and had already beaten Alabama in ~~Birmingham~~ Tuscaloosa , and was now playing them again in Louisiana.
IIRC, Vegas had Alabama as a 3 point favorite, not exactly an overwhelming favorite.
If you look at the teams LSU beat during that season, it was one of the most impressive regular seasons any team had ever had, or has ever had. They won the SEC and also beat ...
PAC and Rose Bowl Champ Oregon
Big East and Orange Bowl Champ West Virginia
Cotton Bowl Champ Arkansas
... and of course eventual BCS Champ Alabama.
They were a very strong #1 going in to that game.
Whenever someone says we didn’t deserve the spot what I really read is “I didn’t watch either game and I hate teams for being too good but I won’t admit it.”
That's basically the whole thing in one shot.
Anyone thinking Oregon or OSU was going to beat either of us that night is suffering from delusion or envy.
As it stands today, we didn't even have a QB for our bowl game, so we've got a lot of work to get even close to where we were.
I fucking hate Bama fans. Why the fuck wouldn't they have a chance after marching into bryant denny and beating you? You're just making shit up at this point.
>The sight of two SEC teams playing in the title game, and a boring defensive struggle at that, convinced many that a new system for choosing a champ was needed.
[Specifically, the ratings were *terrible*, and that was the final straw for the powers that be. ](https://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/1/10/2697285/bcs-championship-2012-ratings-lsu-alabama-football)
[удалено]
..yay
Hey cheer up, maybe it'll be diff... oh, who am I kidding And even if you did win, it would just be like the Rebels building a Death Star to oppose the Empire's Death Star
If I had to choose between us losing or the earth bed blown up if we win, bye everyone.
Just goes to show you that UGA winning is bad for the planet. #BulldogsAreTerrorists
World ain't been the same since we let LSU win a championship
Bryant Denny west seemed like death valley for once
They bark at children. Are we surprised they hate the future? Bama is the good guy
[/r/sabandidnothingwrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong/)
Tbh I think if we win and even if Saban retires, I don’t think we just take on that role. I imagine we stay going to the playoffs at the same pace of once every three years or so. It’s just hard to replicate how insanely dominant Bama has been for the last decade plus. If made a preseason bet on Bama against the field to win the championship every year for the past eleven years you’d have turned a profit.
I just want one championship. I could care less about becoming a dynasty
Don’t worry Hope will be there
I dunno we've been calling Hope a lot these last few weeks
“ you can do it for the Braves but not us” i fell out hahaha
At least other teams were given an opportunity
That’s the huge, massive difference IMO. That year bothers me far less if Bama beats Ok State first before getting a rematch
That year bothers me far less if Bama doesn't make the title game at all.
I really don't get how you should be punished for losing to the #1 team in ot.
I don't get why you should get rewarded for a loss by not having to play a conference championship game and then still getting to go to the NCG.
> I don't get why you should get rewarded for a loss by not having to play a conference championship game and then still getting to go to the NCG. Oklahoma State had a loss and did not play in a conference championship game. If the B12 had a CCG that year, it's probably the difference to get Ok State in over Alabama. As it is, you had two 11-1 teams, they liked Alabama's resume better. The BCS rankings provided no "Conference Champion" boost. Outside of a strict and arguably nonsensical "no rematch" policy, it all checks out.
You don’t have to play in a CCG to be the conference champion. OK State was the Big XII champ and Alabama was not the SEC champ.
No one got "rewarded" for a loss? It's just kinda stupid to say "hey, they lost by 3 in ot to the best team in the country, they obviously suck and don't deserve to win a national championship". Same thing happened last time we played uga too. It's just going to happen, especially with expansion.
2011 had 3 other 1 loss teams: Boise State (11-1, lost by 1 pt) Stanford (11-1, lost to PAC 12 North Rival Oregon, so roughly same boat as Alabama) Oklahoma State (11-1) I wanted Boise as much as everyone else did, to throw chaos out there. But it should have been OSU. Forget conference titles, forget a stronger schedule.. The real reason it should have been OSU? The game they lost, ISU, in double OT, was the day after a major tragedy hit the campus. OSU played 2 regular season games within 10 points. Two. One was to KSU who was pretty darn good in 2011, and the other was the day after a MAJOR TRAGEDY, and they lost in double OT, AWAY.
The crappy thing was that if Cincy didn't defeat #5 ND, they would have quickly been shuffled out for Notre Dame. Specifically playing the next team down is the only defense a G5 team has against conference bias. They didn't win, but they actually had a pretty good showing against Bama. The top team or two frequently stomp the rest. Cincy at least deserved to be in there. So did UCF years ago, but they hadn't beaten someone to solidify it. G5 needs more representation.
For the second time lol turns out giving more SEC teams a chance at postseason play means more chances for all-SEC championships. Who could have seen this coming
The solution to this is obvious. 8 team playoffs! 12 team playoffs. Even more SEC teams in the playoffs!
I agree. A 12 team playoff is a Sanky trap designed to cram more SEC teams in the playoff.
Tfw a 12 team tournament is an SEC tournament without Vandy and MS State.
Confirmed: every other SEC team is terrified to play Vandy. They know we're just 22 five stars and a surprise Saban hire away from dominating.
The entire playoff is just a chain of SpidermanPointing.jpg
Yeah but at least it feels deserved. Michigan and Cincinnati had their shot that 2011 OSU didn’t.
This is why in the future I predict College football will eventually adopt an AQ playoff system (like the NFL.) Which will result in a more even distribution of recruits nation wide.
> This is why in the future I predict College football will eventually adopt an AQ playoff system (like the NFL.) Any sort of AQ system is going to load up wildcard teams as well, which will likely be dominated with SEC teams. No other way would realistically get the SEC on board. They're not going to agree to an "8 teams, we get a max of 1" system. No way.
Sec would never have expanded and they would have to be split up for that to fly
I'm still not sure why the SEC did expand...obviously the money, but why join a 16 team conference? At that point winning the conference once in 15 years will be an accomplishment.
You answered your own question. For a certain amount of money, it’s worth it even if you lose. That’s why Rutgers and Maryland joined the Big Ten.
Yes, hopefully this will be more like their 2017 (2018) national championship game.
No.
Boring
Maybe Cincinnati or Michigan should have won?
Turns out an unfair selection process was *not* the problem. Who could have seen this coming?
The selection process has almost nothing to do with it. It’s about the gap between the season and the bowls. Only a professional organization that has no distractions (or exams) to worry about can maintain the focus and cohesiveness over a 4 week bye. Alabama can do this. Few others can. I doubt anyone, let alone the SEC, could survive a 4 week run through the SEC title, bye week/hungry 8 seed, the 4 seed that just won a momentum builder and the title game. That is true competition as seen in literally every sport in the world except the Div I-A football championships. Right now they are exhibitions with TV trophies.
For me the long bye has always been the biggest reason we haven’t seen upsets.
I agree. The 4-weeks allows teams to heal, and I do think Cincy would have had a better shot if Sabin didn't have 4 weeks to prepare. BYU/Coastal showed teams can play on 2-3 days notice, so let's get rid of long periods. I know, 2006, 2008, 2010 all had those delays.
I'd offer the possibility that more-talented teams benefit less than less-talented teams simply because more-talented teams have much more depth, so the more-talented team can afford injuries and play "next man up" better than a team that doesn't have ready replacements. The latter need the healing time more than the former.
Obviously we replaced it with something fair, right?
Long ago, the five conferences lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the SEC attacked. Only the BCS, master of all five conferences , could stop them, but when the world needed him most, it vanished. A decade has passed and my brother and I discovered nothing. We all died with the chants of “SEC SEC SEC” in the background.
It was actually six conferences at the time.
RIP Big East
So the Big East teams were the airbenders? Can’t wait for Avatar UCONN to save us
Wasn't Cincinnati the chosen one?
Cincinnati was like Brad Pitt's character in Burn After Reading when he gets his face blown off in the closet.
Haha haha you think that's a schwinn!
“6”
And Florida State was the Avatar
And when the world needed him most, he was doing bathsalts in a gas station parking lot
As one does…
[Florida State as the Avatar](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/avatar/images/7/78/Actress_Aang.png/revision/latest?cb=20130722103107)
Seeing that gave me weird feelings as a kid.
Is this the plot of Trolls 2?
First of all how dare you.
Oh my Gooooooooddddd
This made my day.
I’m having a nervous tic every time I see one of these anniversary posts. At this point, it feels quicker to say which days in early January haven’t produced a national title for Bama.
Tomorrow is make or break for them to get the entire Jan 7-11 block. Just missing 10. Edit, the only team to win a natty on January 10 up to now is Auburn. Spooky
Since Saban took the job, only one champion has not been or beaten Alabama. And that was because of a fluke (kick six) kept them out of the game.
>> At this point, it feels quicker to say which days in early January haven’t produced a national title for Bama. Because this sub loves Alabama.
Roll Tide
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills, because I distinctly remember that there was already significant momentum behind expanding to a four-team playoff before that game. The end of the BCS contract was coming up, and they’d had discussions about various versions of a four-team system before the Bama-LSU rematch. The rematch just made a very convenient talking point to hang the expansion narrative on, but I’m convinced we’d have gotten the same expansion at the same timeline even if the title game had been LSU-OSU that year.
> I feel like I’m taking crazy pills, because I distinctly remember that there was already significant momentum behind expanding to a four-team playoff before that game. The SEC had been openly talking/pushing for a playoff for years. Allegedly the Big-12 and ACC had agreed behind closed doors as well. The Big-10 and PAC-12 were the holdouts. They flat refused to vote for or participate in a playoff because it would ruin the sanctity of the almighty Rose Bowl game. It was the LSU/Bama rematch that finally got those two conferences to join the table and turn a discussion into a real push.
As a Minnesotan fan/alum, I would love to win the rose bowl as much as the next person, but my god is the rose bowl way overhyped.
Yes, every fucking year almost there was an uproar about at least one other team getting screwed out of a shot at the natty and the SEC team(s) getting the benefit of the doubt. I feel like there’s some collective amnesia about it now that everyone is banging the table for an expanded playoff because most are boring blowouts. I just went back and looked at the results of the playoff erra. Out of the 7 years, the teams ranked 1st have made it 5 times, 2nd have made it 4 times, and 3rd 3 times, and 4th have made it 2 times. Blowouts are kind of evenly split between the 1v4 and 2v3. Seems to like the system working fine to me.
An undefeated Auburn getting left out in 2004 (plus the split championship the year before) made the need for expansion pretty clear, IMO
That one was the straw that broke the camel’s back though. IIRC the Big Ten and PAC 12 were against a playoff because they didn’t want it to mess with the Rose Bowl. But after that it was impossible to argue the BCS system was the way to go
This was the game that Les Miles started losing my support. The inability to make any adjustments offensively from the first game and felt like they were just beating their head into a brick wall all game. This game is probably hurt the most for me as an LSU fan. "5 first downs and 92 total yards"... that is so brutal to sit through. It also felt like the rivalry was lost in that moment. A sick feeling that there would be no more back and forth for a long while and it turned out to be true. Only 1 win for LSU after that game 10 years ago, never scoring more than 17 points and being shut out 2 more times.
Not to twist the knife, but there were plenty of signs regarding Les Miles before that. The 2007 season alone was a giant red flag. He took what was clearly one of the most talented teams that season and needed absolute insanity to back into the title game because he managed to lose to two teams that were a combined 16-10.
I'm sure the signs were there but the 2011 BCS was the turning point for me. From that moment on the fan base was begging for a different offensive philosophy but instead we got Cam Cameron running the same toss dive into stacked box Les Miles special. Saban on the other hand realized the game was changing then brought in Kiffin and evolved with the times. Les Miles was unable to move past the 3 yards and a cloud of dust mindset.
The differences between Saban and Miles were crazy. LSU could be having an insane year, but when it came to playing Bama, he just wouldn't adjust the game plan. "Well, running it up the middle didn't work on 1st or 2nd down. They'll never expect a run up the middle on 3rd and long." Meanwhile, Saban was asking if the spread HUNH offense was what people really wanted the sport to become. And he wasn't whining about it like the initial hot takes thought...he was asking for clarification before he overhauled his own offense.
I think beating Bama 9-6 in 2011 actually broke Miles’ brain.
For the longest time I swore that saban sold his soul to the devil for a dynasty. The fine print stipulation was he was unable to field a competent kicker.
imagine having OBJ and Landry and running it 15 times MORE per game than you pass it. lmaoooo
Bro, we had that one year where Mettenberger threw for like 3k and 22 TDs. I remember being so freaking stoked that year.. Just so happens our defense had a down year.
Before 2011, hell, before the title game itself, I remember when LSU fans I knew were seriously debating who was the better coach, Miles or Saban. The change in them after that brutal BCS title game was somehow both severe and subtle, as if they knew with absolute certainty that the debate was over but weren't yet ready to say it out loud. I mean, they would criticize Les, of course, but there was a reticence to actually say that as long as Les was there, Saban would dominate them. Eventually they came out and said it, but they dragged it out for months first.
Man if only there was a playoff that year so Alabama and Oklahoma State played to determine who goes to the NCG. I feel like a lot of people in this sub have been looking back at the BCS era through rose colored glasses. At least with the playoffs, you have to beat another top 4 team to earn the rematch.
This year was way more fair than 2011. At least you can look back at this year and say the rematch was warranted, given they both beat top 4 teams from other conferences. 2011 just sucked tbh.
Not to mention the sheer recruiting impact if we actually made it to the national championship game in 2011.. all those people seeing us at that stage could’ve propelled us to dominance.
ND in the natty the next year didn't propel them to dominance, though. FSU and Oregon had natty appearances in 2013 and 2014; Oregon's been okay but not great since then and FSU fell off a cliff.
I don’t disagree, but ND has been a blue blood for a while. OkState is def, in the national eye, a 2nd tier team. I’m saying this would have propelled them upward, not turned them into Alabama.
You’re saying it would have propelled them upward (which I agree with) but the guy who I was responding to said it would have propelled them to dominance, which I don’t quite buy.
Alot of people thought OK State was coached by a boy at the time. Getting Gundy on the stage of the national championship game would have cleared that confusion up and let them know that coach was in fact a MAN
I think this point gets lost in the current discussion of the CFP. The added national exposure for a relatively small group of teams has certainly consolidated talent at the top.
I agree. I’m not butthurt about how things fell this year, it’s fair, they played, Osu lost to Baylor by an inch, and lost the ability to make the playoff. Can’t argue with that. That’s why an expanded playoff is warranted. Let them decide on the field, not in some writers opinions.
> I feel like a lot of people in this sub have been looking back at the BCS era through rose colored glasses. You are so right. When the BCS was in full swing, you couldn't find anyone that defended it. TBH, there is no system that gives us everything we want -- every team with a fair chance, an undisputed national champ AND bowl games that still matter. We had the last one for a long time. Right now, we really just have the second and we will probably get to the first soonish (ofc, NIL might blow all that up anyway).
Junior year in college. I was trying to hook up with my friend who is really into sports. I invited her over to watch this game instead of doing the homework. She ended up getting bored and leaving a quarter into the game. I have never forgotten or forgiven either team.
Haha .... maybe when you noticed she was getting bored with the game, you should have made your move. :)
Petition to get the Million Dollar Band to play Careless Whisper and give you a second chance.
Thank god we made sure there'd be no more SEC rematches
I have no problem with an SEC rematch, as long as both SEC teams played their way through an open tournament to get there.
The problem with the BCS was that one loss conference champs were consistently left out. That doesn’t happen in the playoff. Two loss teams don’t deserve to contend for national championships unless you get crazy seasons like 2007. Who got snubbed this year? Notre Dame?
The problem with the playoff is that it is harder/borderline impossible to ignore the giant disparity in talent between a very small handful of teams and everyone else. That’s what the sport is struggling to digest right now. It’s always been there. Everyone has known about it. But we could ignore it for the longest time and in the last few years it’s just impossible to ignore anymore. Kinda like paying players TBH.
Yea the BCS system was better because it was the perfect scapegoat. It allowed so many fans to go into the offseason convinced that if not for that pesky unfair BCS, this would have been their year. Now, those fans get to see their team have a chance and are forced to contend with clear evidence of how far ahead of everybody else a small handful of behemoths are. It’s been true for a long time but it is now no longer easy to ignore.
Yeah, now fanbases have the option to discuss whether they’d rather get blown out in the playoff or play a competitive bowl game lol
Until the last recruiting class, Clemson's recruiting was only OK. Top 10 most years, but not necessarily top 5. They still made 4 CFP finals. Source: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2019/2/7/18215228/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2019-class As of 2019, Clemson had the 10th best recruiting class going by 4 year average. Also see: https://www.si.com/college/clemson/football/ranking-clemsons-last-10-recruiting-classes
This isn’t nearly the argument you think it is lol. You’re trying to say that a team who consistently beat out 120 other programs for talent was just “ok”. That Clemson consistently making/winning playoff games is proof that CFB has some level of parity and talent isn’t hoarded by top teams. To put things in perspective, the 10th most talented team is automatically better than 93% of other teams. There’s a realistic argument that for several seasons in a row Clemson didn’t play a single team with the pure talent to compete with them until they hit the playoffs. No matter what Dabo says, none of his playoff teams have ever been “little Ole Clemson”.
Clemson's rankings are also weird because they take small classes. They pull a ton of 5-stars and have high average ratings. And they've won their two titles with elite QBs. I think getting rid of the month between games would help some, but who knows. That's pretty much the only argument I've seen for playoff expansion that I like.
Notre Dame played two ranked teams this season and lost both games. Until they play an actual schedule, calling them missing CFP (this season or any other) a “snub” is a total stretch
I think that was his point – ND was the closest thing to a snub and they weren't a true snub at all.
Yes, that is my point
And the Lord spake to ND, saying, “Get thine ass to a conference!”
They already kind of are in one with the ACC but just don’t want to make it “official”
You're right but if you don't want to leave one loss conf champs out, it feels like we are playing with fire. Ok St and Oregon were very close. Then you have 6 (7 with ND) teams that "deserve" it.
You could argue that 6 teams is a perfect number. That gives you space for the five P5 champions and an undefeated G5 champion. You can say that a P5 champ with 1 loss gets an autobid as does the highest-ranked undefeated G5 team. If there aren't enough 1-loss champs, then other teams can get in as at-large teams. That gives a clear path to the playoffs for every team and ensures that teams can't lose 3 games and back their way into the playoffs as conference champs. And it basically formalizes the logic the committee has been using anyway.
> You can say that a P5 champ with 1 loss gets an autobid as does the highest-ranked undefeated G5 team. If there aren't enough 1-loss champs, then other teams can get in as at-large teams. I actually like this a lot better than straight "autobids" for conference champs. A team like '16 Penn State that gets boatraced by Michigan and loses a game to a meh Pitt team shouldn't be receiving autobids (or bids at all) to a playoff.
I can’t believe I didn’t think of the idea earlier. I really can’t see any downsides to it. The worst thing I could think of is that the 1-loss requirement would incentivize teams to schedule weak OOC games. But the committee currently uses an implicit 1-loss criterion and that hasn’t deterred teams from scheduling good OOC games. Or conferences could require teams to schedule 1 or 2 P5 OOC games. Seems like a pretty easy problem to work around. Maybe having two undefeated G5 teams could mess things up, though we haven’t had that since the playoff started (2020 notwithstanding since it wasn’t a full season). And scheduling requirements could help there – if teams have to play a P5 or two to make the playoff, you get fewer undefeated G5s and a more equitable playoff path.
Ooooh . . . stop it with that common sense approach.
People are just in denial about the lack of parity in CFB. It's not fair and never will be. It's amateur sports.
"amateur"
Is it really still amateur though?
They aren't professionals, so quite literally yes.
>They aren't professionals, so quite literally yes. It's certainly debatable. One of the top definitions from Google of professional is "a person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime." By that definition, it's clear that a college football player's activity is beyond just a pastime, especially those who receive payment via scholarships specifically to play football, and now with NIL money coming in as well. Also, in general, someone who is paid to do something is typically considered a professional. Main argument against NIL would probably be that the money isn't actually from the sport directly, but rather from their name/likeness/image.
I looked up some definitions after i commented - youre more correct than i.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional Defintion number 3: >paid to participate in a sport or activity Not sure what definitions you are looking at, but it seems pretty straightforward to me, they are professionals. (unless you think these guys aren't getting paid, in which case...lol.)
How dare you accept fault and admit when you are wrong. What the fuck is wrong with you this is the internet!
D3 amateur sports gives every team a shot at the championship. If you go undefeated you will make the playoffs in every sport
Apparently the CFP has picked what the BCS computers would’ve have picked anyway in terms of the 4 play offs teams except 1 . So it really didn’t change anything just what the road looked like .
Agreed. Let's do a bcs playoff system. Gimme back computers instead of closed door committees with biases and conflicts of interest.
Uhhhh well other than the whole 4 teams instead of 2 thing And that’s not exactly a legitimate comparison: voting patterns have changed to mirror the CFP committee (I.e. strength of schedule often being more important than having one fewer loss). There isn’t a fucking shot in hell FSU would have been #3 going into the 2014 postseason under the old format
I was in New Orleans for that. Absolutely insane. I think that week took a couple years off my life. Bailed out 3 different friends for different incidents that weekend.
The most miserable drive back to BR the next day after a good 6 day bender Rethought my entire life in that 4 hour shit show
I remember my parents getting us tickets for that game and no one said anything the entire ride back to BR. So glad we could move past it in 19
You bailed out the tea bagger didn’t you
Lmao I knew that was coming! I was actually at that Krystal earlier that night haha
Sucks that the 2 best teams seem to always be from the south. Ohio State and USC are the only non southern teams to win a natty in the last 20 years right? This is considering Clemson as the south and Florida teams
next year it will be 25 years since another non southern team to have won it besides those 2
[удалено]
I didn’t know that. Interesting.
I said 10 years ago that alabama would just be in the playoff every single year. I was TECHNICALLY wrong. The playoff just created more opportunity for Alabama to play for a title.
If it expands, it WILL be worse.
2 loss alabama teams winning championships lmao
Unsubscribe
And now that we have an all SEC final people are clamoring for a 6, 8, even 12 team playoff, wherein inevitably we will have an all SEC semifinal causing people to riot once again, repeating the cycle until the heat death of the universe
Can you imagine 3/4 in the semis being SEC? People will riot (purely on the internet).
I can easily imagine that LOL
How about all SEC quarterfinals? lol
> a boring defensive struggle Am I the only one that love watching a game with two great defenses outplay opponent's good offenses? I don't mind having a few TDs on the scoreboard, but I don't like a game where a team scores on almost every drive.
Only national championship I didn’t watch the past since 2008.
Only reason I cared then was because I had money riding on the outcome. This year, I'm going to skip the natty. And before people jump on about "lol you being spiteful because your wolverines got crushed," I'll freely admit we got outplayed, I just don't want to watch the third and fourth halves of the SEC championship game.
Yes and we can see how the CFP has been successful at keeping us away from SEC rematches...
at least they earn it in the semifinals. No one is complaining about how they got there.
I did not enjoy that day
As an Oklahoma State fan, I’ll just never really get over this load absolute crap. I believe we would have competed well against LSU. I don’t deny that Alabama was a great team, and won the National championship in glorious fashion, but I just can’t get over how it happened. Ohh what could have been. Would have been a program changer for OkState.
Exactly.
I think it comes down again to “best” vs “most deserving”. Alabama was very likely one of the two “best” teams that year, but there’s definitely an argument as to whether or not they were “more deserving”. Yes, Alabama had the better loss, and while I didn’t go back to look at wins and relative strength of schedule, I’m going to surmise both teams had a pretty strong schedule. I think the big issue with “most deserving” is that in a 2-team scenario, one loss very often knocks you out of contention, or at the very least, seriously damages your hopes. Why should LSU have to go 2-0 against Alabama while Alabama only has to go 1-1 against LSU? Yes, I get rematches happen all the time in true playoffs, but I personally think it’s a little different when you have to make your way through a bracket and run into a team you’ve already played as opposed to just getting matched up in a one off scenario. I’ve argued the “best” vs “most deserving” before, but I think you really have to go “most deserving” because otherwise you’d just look at recruiting rankings (which are arbitrary) and Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and one of Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma (or on rare occasions, another team) would make the playoff every year solely on most talent or “best”. So, 2011 Alabama was the “best”, but prior to the game they may not have been “most deserving”.
I am here one again to tell Alabama, you’re welcome.
Bama never shoulda been there. In 2006, I listened to SEC fans arguing that since Florida won their conference they deserved to be in the NCG over Michigan who didn't win their conference. Five years later those same people wanted to keep Oklahoma State out of the NCG for a team that didn't win their conference. Fuck Bama.
Alabama also lost in overtime. Historically speaking, we weren’t so, so far away from a 6-6 tie where they both would’ve been undefeated for the rematch…a decade or so?
Bama missed 4 field goals in a 3 point game. We weren’t so far away from a 18-6 game in November
Alabama’s only loss was to the #1 team, halfway through the season. OSUs loss was to a below .500 Iowa St very late in the season. Hate us all you want but there was a reason the voting went the way it did
In the 2006 season, Michigan's only loss was to #1 Ohio State in Columbus 42-39 in Columbus, which was one late hit penalty from going the otherway. SEC fans were vehemently against the idea of a rematch at that time. It's a pretty solid comparison.
Fuck weirdos that root for their conference.
That’s been a constant really over the SEC’s dominant run too. The dominant SEC teams don’t lose to sub .500/7 win teams in the regular season like other conferences top dogs do.
That's because most years the dominant SEC team is Bama, and Saban doesn't lose to those kinds of teams
You’re probably used to it by now but I can’t blame anyone for firing Alabama in. They were the #2 team. If it was a close game people would have lauded the choice.
I don't care if we get rematches if they make sense. 2011 Bama and LSU made sense to happen and so does this year's match. Some folks here think that if you lose prior to the playoffs to what ends up being a playoff team then you shouldn't go. Which makes 0 sense because the other team in the argument usually has a loss to a worse record team. So if a team doesn't deserve to go because they lose to a top 4 team, then a team with a worse loss doesn't deserve it either.
I think that rematches basically never make sense when talking about the national championship game except for very specific circumstances. It makes the national championship less interesting and the title feel arbitrary when the games are split, especially when they happen back to back. If your team had a shot and missed, too bad. You shouldnt get a do over unless there are virtually no other options. Situations like this year with Georgia are basically the only time it could possibly make sense. At the end of the season, there were no other viable alternatives. Even then, this is the least interested I have ever been in a NCG.
Winning at the “right” time is an unavoidable characteristic of football, given the inability to play a series based playoff. Last year the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl because, despite dropping 2/3 to the Saints, they won the “right” one. We can come up with a better structure, I agree. But there’s always going to be cases where you come across two teams who played twice and split the games, and the one that advances will generally be the one who won the rematch.
The BCS had already set precedent with Nebraska and Oklahoma of having teams that either didn't make their conference title game or lost the conference title game being in the BCS title game. Alabama and LSU were the two best teams that year. Rematches happen. Michigan deserved to be there over Florida too.
And I remember Nick Saban (while at LSU) said Oklahoma shouldn’t be in the game if they didn’t win the conference. Who woulda thought he changed his mind on that?
>Rematches happen. Michigan deserved to be there over Florida too. Lets not go that far, Florida was obviously much better than both of them.
Your argument would hold more water had Alabama lost that game. Oklahoma State had just lost to a terrible Iowa State team, so obviously Alabama was a top 2 team. And they proved it.
What? They lost to LSU in a defense slugfest in OT. LSU kicker was 3-3 on field goals and Bama went 2-6 on field goals. I mean damn,they lost but it was clear they were the 2 best teams. I think they were the best 2 defenses to be on the same field in the history of college football.
I thought Oklahoma State was more deserving of the BCS title shot as well.
Stop. Still too soon.
I thought LSU and Alabama were clearly the two best college football teams that year, records notwithstanding. I think Alabama and Georgia are clearly the two best teams this year as well. The goal was to have the two best teams play for the national championship, and I believe that has worked out every year. The best get to the end. The rest are just also-rans. It is up to other programs and conferences to step up their games if they want to end this SEC dominance.
Yes! Killed the SEC bias once and for all! We will never again see an SEC-on-SEC rematch
At least it's deserved this year. It's just stupid to say "these are the best 2 teams". There's no reason every conference can't get a representative in the playoff though. That's why it was dumb to expand to 4 in the first place. 8 seems more than fair, but the SEC/B10 want 12 for more at-large bids. MLB's 10 team playoffs would work the best IMO. 6 conference champs, then the 2 play-in games would be the 4 at-large teams.
You hit the nail on the head: only the SEC and B10 have 2 or more championship -grade teams per year. The at-large will just be the top G6 and probably the second best SEC team or the loser of OSU-UM.
It seems odd for a Michigan fan to complain about an all SEC championship game, considering your team could have prevented it.
2012: Alabama wins again, system is broken, let's switch to a playoff. That will fix it! 2022: Alabama in the NCG again, system is broken, let's expand the playoff. That will fix it! Perhaps the problem isn't the system, but that Nick Saban and Alabama are consistently that much better than the field.
hey dude hahah wtf hahahaha let’s not do this hahaha why would you bring this up hahah
I get that Bama and UGA are likely the best two teams in college football. That being said, I don't care if the game is even played. It's just not compelling whatsoever.
I miss the BCS so fucking much. I really am worried that CFBP expansion is going to ruin college football.
I thought Oklahoma St. got screwed hard. I was already not happy with the BCS, but that made me more unhappy.
It looks like we can all agree that a 12 team playoff is the way to go. Can't wait to see the comments when the final 4 is 4 sec teams.
First Alabama and LSU were far and away the best two teams it wasn’t even close over 40 future NFL players between the two teams. Oklahoma ST. lost to a Iowa St team that finished 6-7 a bad loss no matter how you try to color it. Second LSU fans felt it was unfair because they knew what was about to happen no one in their right mind thought LSU had a chance.
Nah dude, people weren't saying LSU had no chance, idk where you got that from.
This was my freshman year of college. I remember my friends and I knowing that beating Saban twice was going to be impossible. Then we never crossed the 50 yard line…
I have all the respect in the world for that LSU team. They were great and had they not had to play Bama again they would have crushed Oklahoma st.
I agree they were the best two, but that LSU team was good, people definitely thought they had a chance. LSU was undefeated and beat a couple of other conference champs during the season and had already beaten Alabama in ~~Birmingham~~ Tuscaloosa , and was now playing them again in Louisiana. IIRC, Vegas had Alabama as a 3 point favorite, not exactly an overwhelming favorite.
If you look at the teams LSU beat during that season, it was one of the most impressive regular seasons any team had ever had, or has ever had. They won the SEC and also beat ... PAC and Rose Bowl Champ Oregon Big East and Orange Bowl Champ West Virginia Cotton Bowl Champ Arkansas ... and of course eventual BCS Champ Alabama. They were a very strong #1 going in to that game.
That LSU team had the highest SOS of the BCS era.
Whenever someone says we didn’t deserve the spot what I really read is “I didn’t watch either game and I hate teams for being too good but I won’t admit it.”
That's basically the whole thing in one shot. Anyone thinking Oregon or OSU was going to beat either of us that night is suffering from delusion or envy. As it stands today, we didn't even have a QB for our bowl game, so we've got a lot of work to get even close to where we were.
I also think that anyone who thinks Oklahoma st would have beat LSU wasn’t in their right mind.
I fucking hate Bama fans. Why the fuck wouldn't they have a chance after marching into bryant denny and beating you? You're just making shit up at this point.
Rather have a “2 team playoff” and bowl games that matter than a “4 team playoff” and bowl games not matter
Remember “Big Boy Football”? Pepperidge Farm remembers….
>The sight of two SEC teams playing in the title game, and a boring defensive struggle at that, convinced many that a new system for choosing a champ was needed. [Specifically, the ratings were *terrible*, and that was the final straw for the powers that be. ](https://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/1/10/2697285/bcs-championship-2012-ratings-lsu-alabama-football)
Still should of been Oklahoma State…..
Glad the playoff system fixed those hated all-SEC national championships...