WTG LSU!!!! I just don't understand WHY??? The georgia coach wants to act like such a baby!!! All Georgia had to do was win their division and they would have played for the sec championship game against LSU.We would have gladly played them. Why can't they be happy that a SEC team won the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP> Please let our team have their moment of glory, it is well deserved. Thanks Coach Miles for another great season

Stewart -

Thanks for all of your contributions to the sport this year...I've thorougly enjoyed reading your columns.

GJB

As a Gator fan, I've always found LSU fans to be class-acts. Congratulations on the win.

How is the LSU team well deserved? You lost to two awful teams in Kentucky and Arkansas. I do not care if it was in triple overtime or not, those are bad teams who are unranked at seasons end. When you are a two loss champion in a sport without a playoff, people are going to question your legitimacy. Deal with it. No one really knows if LSU or Ohio State deserved to be there over U.S.C., Georgia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, etc.

Leslie, Georgia isn't crying, they're trying to improve the system - you should jump all over that as should every college football fan. I have no problem at all if coaches/presidents/ADs do this every single year - even if it is the ones that "got screwed". The more teams that do this, the more momentum it will have.

Like LSU would not be crying big time if USC or OU had gotten in instead of LSU. Their president would be doing everything he could to change the system.

Though I've not been able to pull up dispatch.com today, I did find this tidbit on SI.com, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/ncaa/specials/bowls/2007/01/08/bc.fbc.bcs.ohiostatefan.ap/index.html. With the Buckeye's loss, fans in Columbus were subdued. Reports of criminal activity appear minimal.

OSU's football program has a fine tradition and an admirable record of achievement. The players who gave their all and the law-abiding Buckeye faithful have my sympathy and regard. However, for the Columbus emergency services, fire and police departments, I'm happy that the Buckeyes didn't win last night.

When the OSU community comes together and makes it plain that hooliganism will not be tolerated, then and only then will I look towards a possible Buckeye championship without trepidation.

Jason, you fail to mention that all your alternative teams had worse losses than LSU. Take U.S.C. - one word: STANFORD, who would be killed by either Kentucky or Arkansas. Georgia - got demolished by the team that LSU beat for the SEC championship. West Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri - LSU played and beat far more ranked teams during the season than them. So LSU was clearly more deserving than any of them.

There was an article on SI after the Indians blew their 3-1 lead in the ALSC to Boston in which they pit Cleveland against Buffalo as 'the most tortured sports city.' My contention is that Buffalo is without a doubt the most tortured because the comparisons arise every single time any team in any sport/year loses in spectacular fashion. Cleveland blew a huge lead; kinda reminds me of how bad buffalo sucks at everything. Well, here we go again, case in point...WTF does OSU losing two consecutive National Championships have to do with the Buffalo Bills? STOP THE INSANITY, I don't need to be reminded about how bad buffalo sports teams are every time another team loses.

I am overjoyed an SEC team won the title, and there is no team in the league, other than UGA, I would rather see win it. Adams (not the coach) is not upset we didn't play LSU for the title, or Ohio State for the title, he is upset because the PAC-10 and Big-10 and USC in particular have stonewalled for to long ideas that would put exciting matchups together at the end of the year. He is angry because UGA didn't play in the Rose Bowl. LSU has no reason to be insecure...y'all have all the trophies. Nobody else can claim the title. We at UGA can dream what might have happened had we played you, but at the end of the day, they are dreams. LSU might beat GA, we will never know, but one thing is for certain...we belonged on that field with LSU last night, as much as any other team did. Compare losses all you want...You beat TN, we beat KY. Stop it already. Next year began this morning. Bring it...we are coming to your house next year...and we want the trophy.

I agree that a lot of people are 'pouring it on Ohio State' as well as most of the rest of this column, but:
'It was certainly quite a different team than the one that got run over by Arkansas.'

run over? Run Over?? RUN OVER???

I think you need to go back and take a look at the box score and reports. How many overtime periods? And still only lost on a failed two-point conversion after touchdown.
If that was 'run over', what the heck do you call what happened to Ohio State last night???

Quentin, big difference between LSU's losses and Georgia's. LSU lost to Kentucky in triple overtime by 3 points, while Georgia lost by double digits to Tennessee in regulation. Plus, Kentucky didn't make it to the conference championship, while Tennessee did. So Georgia's losses were worse, and it's not nick-picky to point that out.

Stanford should have been playing last night, because the Cardinal clearly deserved the national championship.

Stanford is better than LSU -- Stanford beat UC Berkeley, who beat Tennessee, who beat Arkansas, who beat LSU.

Stanford is better than Ohio State as well -- Stanford beat USC, who beat Illinois, who beat Ohio State.

Georgia? Forget about it -- Stanford beat UC Berkeley, who beat Tennessee, who beat Georgia.

West Virginia is no problem -- Stanford beat Arizona, who beat Oregon, who beat South Florida, who beat West Virginia.

Stanford can dispose of Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas in one fell swoop -- Stanford beat USC, who beat Arizona St., who beat Colorado, who beat Oklahoma, who beat Missouri, who beat Kansas.

And as for the last pretender to the title, well, we all know that Stanford owns USC!

Now take tongue out of cheek and wait for howls of protest from people who took this seriously.

Every year there is controversey and there will continue to be until there is a play off system. Congratulations LSU, I'm happy for you. You are the National Champs. I just hope we can have a play off system like every other sport does, so this BS can be put to rest. GO DAWGS!!!

Does anyone really think that watching a national championship game (following the proposed 8 team playoff) with a majority of the in house audience made up of the "haves" in our society in a super bowl-like "sports entertainment extravaganza" would really be better than having a stadium filled with real college football fans? Georgia looked decent against a team that probably didn't belong, but they didn't win when it counted. I'll bet every dog down in Georgia will remember their 2 losses this season and wonder what could have been. Introduce a playoff, and who cares about 2 losses, cause they won't matter. Also, you'll just get the same debates over who the last 2 teams should have been. Be careful what you ask for, college football fans, because in the end, you might get it.

Congrats to LSU fans, but for the sake of my sanity please stop being so defensive. When you have multiple teams with the same record, and those teams don't meet on the field (as LSU, UGA, USC, and WVU never did), there is ALWAYS going to be a question about who really deserved the title shot. If you didn't want the controversy, you should have taken care of business against UK and Ark. And if those other teams didn't want the controversy, they should have taken care of their business as well.

But guess what? This controversy is legitimate because we are trying to determine our champion by who has better/worse looking losses, not by who lost more games. This highlights the problem with the BCS: choosing between multiple teams with the same number of losses is subjective, any way you slice it. Just be thankful that you even had the opportunity to play for this trophy and be proud of the good game you played against the Buckeyes. Accept your trophy, but also accept the fact that people will always wonder if LSU would have beaten USC, UGA, or WVU had they ever played head-to-head.

How is the LSU team well deserved? You lost to two awful teams in Kentucky and Arkansas. I do not care if it was in triple overtime or not, those are bad teams who are unranked at seasons end. When you are a two loss champion in a sport without a playoff, people are going to question your legitimacy. Deal with it. No one really knows if LSU or Ohio State deserved to be there over U.S.C., Georgia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, etc.

Uh, those two 'bad' teams were both teams with winning records who went to bowl games.
Southern Cal? Lost to Stanford.
UGa? Lost to (the original) USC
WVU? Lost to Pitt
OU? Lost to Colorado

Find me a winning team among those losses.

Mizzou might have had a case for the title game... had they not lost to OU... twice... including their conference title game.


But quit looking at losses. Look at wins. And they have to be pre-bowl season wins, because you decide your title game teams before the bowls are played. Find me another win anywhere as good as LSU's win over VaTech.

waiting

still waiting

waiting some more

UGa over Florida? Maybe. But that's the same UGa team that lost to non-bowl bound USC. And lost by a metric ton to Tennessee. Blow one out, lose one by blow out.

Hell most of these teams don't have a win as good as LSU's over Mississippi State. You know that you thought "it's only Miss St..." when they won that game, but Miss St finished 8-5 with a bowl win.

Yes LSU lost to an only fair Arkansas team,and also lost to a slightly better Kentucky team. I call these two games, "Grudge matches". Two high rivarly teams, that were out to redeem themselves. Let's remind ourselves, any team can get up for one game and beat a top team,eg. USC, OHIO were beaten by two lowly teams, that didn't stand a chance.
Don't forget that these two teams took three overtime periods in order to beat the now BCS Champion. There are many other team's that were deserving of a bigger bowl game, or even to be invited to a bowl game. It's sad they didn't. Make no mistake, LSU deserves all the praise deserving of a National Champion. By the way, all you naysayers should be ready again next year, LSU will be back in the thick of it. If they make it back to the BCS Championship Bowl Game again, they most probably will be the Champs again. Never bet against LSU in a Bowl Game.

T.R.,

Darren McFadden had 206 rushing yards against the Tigers. So yes, they were run over.

Wrong, Matthew. Both Kentucky and Arkansas have winning schedules. You can't say that about Stanford, or Pittsburgh. So those losses are objectively worse than LSU's, not subjectively. As for Georgia, it's not subjective that they didn't make it to their conference championship due to a loss to the team that LSU beat for that championship. So how is this subjective again?

T.R. when he said "run over" I think he was referring to the fact that Arkansas gained 385 rushing yards against LSU. He didn't mean "run over" as a euphamism for getting beat badly. He ment it literally... Arkansas ran all over LSU to the tune of 385 yard.

Congrats to LSU. I guess the BCS has done its job- college football is more popular than ever- just look at the arguing going on.

BTW, Not sure if Tulane fans would agree on the graciousness of LSU fans.

Bowl record this season

SEC: 7-2
Big-10: 2-6

says it all

Thanks Matthew. You summed it up perfectly.
As regards to Albert, last night's ratings were down 17% from last year and that one was down from the year before when Texas beat USC.

Leslie, the reason Georgia fans are "crying" is because they did exactly what LSU did this season. LSU went 10-2 in the SEC regular season. Georgia went 10-2 in the SEC regular season (In a clearly better division of the conference). Thats why theyre mad. And I cant wait for October 25, 2008 in Death Valley. LSU loses 10 of 22 starters while Georgia loses just 4. Georgia is gonna WAX THAT ASS!!!

"USC, OHIO were beaten by two lowly teams, that didn't stand a chance." -'Buffalo' Bill

First of all, Bill, it is Ohio State, not Ohio. The team from Athens, OH is not very good and shouldn't be in the discussion.

Secondly, to say or otherwise insinuate that Arkansas or Kentucky are superior to Illinois this year is a farce. Deservedly or not, the Illini made a BCS game and treats OSU as a rival. This semantics about "grudge matches" and whatnot is simply shoddy logic. Stick to the facts.

Here're a few as examples: OSU got hammered last night. The SEC is a better conference.

I come from a family of rabid Buckeye fans and we're all disgusted, heartbroken, and sick over the loss. But we all agree that LSU deserves their accolades and OSU deserves their ridicule... to a point. I mean, I'm not gonna take crap from a Vandy or 'Bama fan because they're in the SEC. Wisconsin (who lost but played well) and Michigan both proved that the Big Ten can hang with that vaunted conference. Ohio State was picked 3rd in their conference pre-season. THIRD. IN THEIR CONFERENCE. They arrived a year ahead of schedule. If given a chance (and I can't advocate that the prognosticators should extend them one), I think they'll be even better next year.

Beanie Wells for Heisman. That is something it'll be hard for ANYONE to deny.

Tom...

"I mean, I'm not gonna take crap from a Vandy or 'Bama fan because they're in the SEC."

Excuse me? Our crappy team, which has gone .500 over the past two season, came closer BOTH years to the Champs then your mighty Buckeyes.

Georgia, bulldogs sound better barking than whining..Try winning your freakin division before you talk about National Championship games. USC.ya lost @ home to Stnaford...don't go any further Idaho and Nebraska were not big wins. Oklahoma ought to play Ohio St so we can determinme who can bettter dump on oneself. WVU you choked on A BIG PITT (4-7) Mizzou great year but you Buckeyed your 2 games with the Sooners. Kansas (see Georgia......but at least you aren't whining.

Your team SUX!
NO...YOUR team SUX!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Y O U R team sux!!!
geez
Yeh, always improve the system, when u can, but give the Tigers their due. Their stars aligned, "your's" didn't (this time). Get over it.
GEAUX TIGERS!

Okay, an eight team playoff. Five will have to come from "BCS" Conference champions. Three will be at large bids. Does that mean that one will have to come from a conference like the WAC or MWC? How about Conf USA? It has not been so long ago that a CUSA team was ranked high enough. That won't really mean that the SEC will have two teams, three or even more teams in a BCS (quasi-playoff). The biggest reason that Georgia went to the Sugar was that it was the highest ranked SEC team not in the BCS championship game. They did not win their conference, but got in because they were an SEC team - not because they were "hot" at the end of the year. Some playoff or quasi playoff may be great for TV and especially ESPN (ESPN will prosper because they have so many talking heads and they are actually better talking heads than the four at Fox last night), but it will not be any noticably different than what we have today in CF.

Five (read BCS)Conference champs, plus three at-large. Right now everyone has what they want, really. The good teams get to a bowl, the schools earn lots of money for other programs, players get more exposure, coaches get to coach, commissioners get more also, TV gets more money, radio gets more money. No plus-one will be different than we have now. Well, actually it might. The NCAA will seed the teams, so that is much different than what we have now with the coaches, computers, etc. doing what the NCAA will do in a 8 team playoff. A plus-one scenario is bogus because the teams that get to the bowls are all do so by bowl committees. So, what's the big deal down south? Is there really any proper way to do it and ensure that everyone wins? Everyone wins right now, and if you don't win, then create your own bowl and bring in the best teams there are and crown your own national championship. Yea, I think I will write the NCAA president, and the congress, and US president...maybe the UN should get involved and investigate all the human rights abuses too that are a result of the current bowl system/national championship system because they are now the true defenders of the disenfranchised. Hey, let's get the NY times to write up a piece to. Maybe co-write it with the Wall-Street Journal so that both-sides of the aisle will by into it.

Let's get god into this also.

UGA's schedule will be their biggest challenge in '08. Road games at LSU & Auburn, non-conf at Arizona State. But who will care when their heads are so big they choke in their opener to Georgia Southern, not exactly a I-AA pushover.

With the way college football is changing, I expect there to be another Kansas-like team come out of nowhere. How about Iowa? Check out their schedule. Another possibility would be a Florida State team get hot and make a run.

My guess at the title game in '09: Ohio State vs Oklahoma. Someone will have to win.

Anthony,

It is subjective because LSU never played against the other teams with two or fewer losses. Ergo, you have no objective proof that LSU is actually better than the other teams.

Your claim that LSU's losses were not as bad is simply subjective. I can argue that Ark's and UK's records combined are about the same as TN's and S.C.'s (UGA's losses), and as Pitt's and USF's (WVU's losses). As for UGA, I can argue that they simply had the misfortune of playing in a division where 2 SEC losses wasn't enough to play in the Champ. game, whereas LSU was fortunate to play in a division where 2 SEC losses was enough to get them to champ. game. Point is, arguments from both sides are subjective and not based on number of losses or head-to-head competition.

Let me boil it down for you in simple terms: the only objective proof that Team A is better than Team B is if it has fewer losses than Team B, or, as a tie-breaker, it beats Team B head-to-head. LSU cannot claim either against USC, UGA, KU, or WVU.

Again, congrats, but stop whining! Accept the fact that there will be controversy, but be proud that your team at least got recognized as champions. You are making the rest of your fan base look like a bunch of sore winners.

Hey sean, can I buy u n God a beer and discuss this further? I really think u r on to something.

Matthew, it's ironic that you accuse LSU fans of whining when the entire point of your argument is a gigantic implicit whine about Georgia's fortunes. Your argument that LSU never played against the other teams with two or fewer losses falls flat, because no one in the SEC this year had better than 2 losses. So since that can't be the measuring stick, you have to use other criteria, like which teams played more opponents that had winning records and which teams won conference championships. When you bring in those FACTS (not subjective opinions), then LSU's schedule was clearly superior.

So stop whining please, as well as hypocritically projecting that very accusation onto LSU fans.

Stewart, Thanks for a great year of coverage of the maddening, memorable, maniacal 2007 season.

Everyone else, Desist from the ridiculous rehahing of that same season. It's over, LSU won, let's move on. Michael Adams' proposal is about the future. Do you want a playoff? Then, get with the program. Adams has a lot of haters within the Bulldog Nation; but, do not underestimate him. He got away with forcing Vince Dooley to retire a year early and he has led UGA to prestige in the academic world (2 Rhodes scholars in 2007 and continuing movement up the ladder of USN&WR ratings etc) and great success across the board in athletics. He is one president that might get something going here.

And back to Stewart, speaking of the next season, nice job of predicting the 2008 rankings. The Dawgs are locked and loaded. Can't hardly wait!

Ouch. That should have been "ridiculous rehashing." Like, eating cold leftover hash because you're too lazy to cook up a new batch... selah

Wow. I come into this comment bag, and even after an SEC team wins; OMG, they're still bitching about something!??!?! Can't you guys ever be happy? If only you'd beaten the evil North a 150 years ago......

Seriously, LSU outplayed Ohio State. I can only wonder though why it's always an SEC coach who barks about there being a need for a playoff, and yet no one from the Pac 10, Big 10, or Big 12 makes such a ruckuss. First it was Tuberville, now it's Richt. I'm guessing next year it will be Saban's turn...

I'd like to remind everyone south and west of the Ohio River that this year, Ohio State was a pre-season #12. LSU was #2. Next year was supposed to be the year we take another crack at you guys. If anything I'm proud of the Buckeyes and glad that they made it this far. Please note, this is one Buckeye fan (and one Ohio State employee) that is satisfied with his schools accomplishments, and will gladly congratulate his teammates despite their loss.

OK!! Enough! LSU beat Ohio State straight up, head-to-head on the only place that matters, the football field. LSU fans should not care about Ohio State any longer. What LSU fans should care about is the back-handed compliments coming from the UGA fans. "Glad an SEC team won, BUT..." What that "BUT" means is the UGA fans think they deserved it more than LSU. Let's knock off the "SEC is better than God" crap and let's see two SEC teams go at one another, as it should be...Inter-conference rivals going at one another for dominance. UGA needs to get back to hating Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, and Steve Spurrier. Please do not pull for any of the above mentioned, just because they happen to be in the SEC. What would your precious Herschel Walker or Vince Dooley say? UGA...LSU...Go to your corners and come out firing! :-) LOL I love college football!!

moo strength wrote: "I can only wonder though why it's always an SEC coach who barks about there being a need for a playoff, and yet no one from the Pac 10, Big 10, or Big 12 makes such a ruckuss."

That's easy to explain. They know that if there was a playoff system, they'd never reach a championship again. SEC coaches, on the other hand, have an actual chance.

Stewart, why does no one mention the fact that a couple of florida guys who could have jumped to the pros stayed last year and they won an NC. This year it was Dorsey (who made a huge difference) and they won an NC. OSU's (my alma mater) guys jump to the pros in droves. Ergo no chance at an NC.

Seriously, LSU outplayed Ohio State. I can only wonder though why it's always an SEC coach who barks about there being a need for a playoff, and yet no one from the Pac 10, Big 10, or Big 12 makes such a ruckuss. First it was Tuberville, now it's Richt. I'm guessing next year it will be Saban's turn...

Actually, you notice the only SEC coaches that want a playoff are the ones who haven't already won a title. And that population is shrinking every day.

MIles
Saban
Meyer
Spurrier
Fulmer

5 out of 12 ain't bad. No wonder the SEC is a sumbitch.
These guys pretty much have an idea of what they're doing.

Any other conferences got a percentage like that (I'm too lazy to count right now - long day at work today)?

disappointed Buckeye wrote: "Stewart, why does no one mention the fact that a couple of florida guys who could have jumped to the pros stayed last year and they won an NC. This year it was Dorsey (who made a huge difference) and they won an NC. OSU's (my alma mater) guys jump to the pros in droves. Ergo no chance at an NC."

Please, you guys had the Heisman trophy winner last year! What difference does it make what YEAR your players are if you've got the best player?

I think "debacle" is kind of harsh. They got hammered in the second quarter and had two bad game changing plays. Congrats to LSU. Nice classy team. I've had a soft spot for them after they got screwed by the media in 2003. (Not soft enough to root against the Buckeyes, though!).

I'll take 1 for 3 in the decade so far. Nice to have a a couple of teams that are have been consistently in the hunt the last few years.

Oops, to explain the end of my last comment: BSEE '92 from VaTech and MS '95 from OSU

Hey Anthony, before you get so high on your horse, I'd like to remind you that Urban Meyers and Les Miles both grew up in Ohio, and played high school ball in Ohio. Meyers first coaching job was at Ohio State. Pelini not only grew up in Ohio, he played here, and was a captain his senior season.... Bet you didn't realize that.

LOL, moo not only did I realize that, but I relish in it, because we're not oblivious down here to the rivalry between Michigan and OSU. So the fact that you beat Michigan and then lost to a Michigan man just adds to our joy.

Don't embarrass yourself again by assuming your interlocutor doesn't know something.

I'm somewhat happy with what the Buckeyes accomplished, but it really saddens me to read the quote from Alex Boone. Saying that even in the huddle the buckeyes were pointing fingers at one another, and worrying more about themselves than about the game. You could just see them become totally deflated once the momentum shifted towards LSU. And a comment I haven't seen made yet involves the officiating. I know I'm going to be thought of as whining because my team didn't win, but I think it's only fair the the officiating be fair to both teams. OSU got called for a late hit out of bounds when they hit the guy before he even stepped out of bounds. Our guys got hit twice after they had taken 3 steps... THREE STEPS out of bounds, and didn't see a flag either time. No replay was shown of the so-called personal foul penalty by Steve Rehring (don't confuse that with the stupid thing our DE Heyward did). Plus nobody looked at the roughing the kicker penalty that helped LSU keep their drive going and put the nail in the coffin. It looked like the ball was spiraling end over end which does not happen if he gets the ball of cleanly. And finally, the dropped touchdown by Robiskie.... He caught the ball at the two, went into the end zone before dropping the ball. Did he have possession as he crossed the goal line? If so, that's a touchdown, but it was not reviewed. I cannot blame the loss on the officials, but anybody that watched the game without a bias can remember at least thinking "Was that really a penalty?" about at least one of those things throughout the game.

CORRECTION:

In any given year, the odds that the two best teams in the country actually get to play for the BCS Title is quite small. If you don't believe this, look at NCAA basketball where there are both polls and a tournament. In the 29 years since they started seeding teams, two number one seeds (teams ranked in the top four in the country) have only met in an NCAA championship final 6 times. On 23 other occasions at least one team that ranked outside the top four earned the right to play for the Championship. The four #1 seeds have never all made it to the same final four. A couple of unranked teams (teams ranked lower than #25) have won the NCAA championship and teams ranked #1 in at least one major poll have only won the tournament 6 times. The only reasonable conclusion from all this is that pollsters don't have a clue.

The problems with polls is that ranking teams that play different schedules in different conferences is an exercise in futility. It's like comparing apples vs. oranges. As a result, the BCS Title is more of a popularity contest than sports championship.

Anthony:

"Don't embarrass yourself again by assuming your interlocutor doesn't know something".

Actually, you must not know that the Big 10 finished 3-5, not 2-6 (Purdue, Penn State and Michigan all won). Not much better than 2-6, I admit, but I figured you'd want to know that you made a mistake.

Congrats again to LSU. We got beat fair and square by a really great team. As many have noted (and as I've said numerous times here) we're proud of what OSU did this year...we didn't expect to get as far as we did, didn't ask for it nor whine for it, but they played as hard as they could, and we're damn proud of what they did, and look forward to next year. Yeah, it hurts to lose, but I look on it as two years in a row, we played the best team in college football. We lost, but we've won before and we will again. I'm hoping that we'll have the juniors come back for next year rather than jump to the NFL, and hopefully next year we'll get rid of that pesky little SEC bug that we seem to have lately. A good indication will be our early game with USC.

"You can take the measure of a man by the way he accepts defeat, for defeat with honor is but victory delayed."

Take care all, and Go Bucks!

Larry wrote: "Actually, you must not know that the Big 10 finished 3-5, not 2-6 (Purdue, Penn State and Michigan all won). Not much better than 2-6I admit, but I knew you'd want to know that you made a mistake."

LOL - I actually realized my mistake and thought about editing my post, but decided to let it stay in the hopes that an OSU fan would actually have the audacity to try to one-up me by saying that the Big-10 went 3-5, not 2-6! LOL thanks

USC,UGA,UWV have no claims to the title. LSU beat the fire out of OSU and they deserve the title. UGA is not better than LSU, because they didn't win the SEC. It is just that simple. If UGA beat Tenn then they get a shot at LSU. As for USC they didn't deserve a shot because they couldn't beat the cream puffs on their schedule. Beat Stanford and they get a shot at the title.
Same for UWV, beat the cream puff Pitt Panthers and they play for a title. You have to beat the teams on your schedule before you can look ahead. LSU was the best in the best conference without a doubt. The only team that shouldn't have been in the Superdome was OSU. Truth be told. UGA or TENN would have beaten OSU too. The only thing I wanna see is a conference championship game for each BCS conference and then let there be a 4 team playoff. 4 teams instead of 8 teams will eliminate the Cinderellas. Also with 8 teams we will have too many 3 and 4 loss teams trying to make a case for a title. The only way to make the final four is to win your conference. Plus each school should be required to play 2 non conference teams from a BCS conference. Obviously if a team wins its conference and non conferences games there is no way they get left out. Because lets face it. There will never be 4 really good conferences in the college football, the PAC 10 and ACC come to mind. But with teams required to play inter conference games, this will have the effect of a year long playoff. Eventually, the cream will rise to the top and make the final four.

To Anthony:

Actually, audacity is the last thing my post displayed. I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. It certainly didn't require daring of any sort, nor was I trying to "one up" you.

To All: It's been a fun blog season, so take care Sas, Charles BGault et al.!

Disappointed Buckeye:

On the jumping to the pros thing, I certainly understand and feel the same way. While I can understand the players wanting to do it, it sure would be nice to see them stick around. If there's any silver lining to last night's game, it might be that some of our players might decide to stick around and boost their stock with a likely stronger performance next season.

I'm happy to see athletes stick around and I really think it helps...think about the OSU/Florida basketball game...we had, what, 3+ starting true freshmen against primarily seniors and juniors? The fact that the Florida players stayed says a lot (I mean that as a compliment to them), and it really helped them. It would have been great if Odem et al. had stuck around and given us another year or two rather than go to the NBA, but again, I guess I understand.

Looking forward to next year! This one's already in the books!

Disappointed Buckeye:

I wasn't sure if your statement was another excuse for OSU but it shouldn't even be mentioned considering other teams could have the same argument. For example, if the Gators returned some of their juniors from last year such as Jarvis Moss, Reggie Nelson, Brandon Siler, and Ryan Smith, UF probably would've been the one to stomp on OSU again this year instead of LSU.

Anthony wrote:

"Your argument that LSU never played against the other teams with two or fewer losses falls flat, because no one in the SEC this year had better than 2 losses"

Sigh. I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps I should just stop trying to reason with you because you seem incapable of following a simple argument.

I'll try again, but i'll break it down into bullet points to make it easier for you.

1) There were multiple teams with two losses or fewer losses that were argued should be in the title game. You know who they are.

2) Normally, teams are placed into title games by the objective win-loss column. However, since, every team had the same number of losses, that was impossible to use.

3) Stay with me here; this is where you got lost. Another objective tool is to go by head-to-head matchups. Since few teams played each other head-to-head, however, this was also not useful for determining the title participants. You see, LSU never actually played USC, KU, UGA, or WVU, so they could not definitively claim that they deserved a title shot over them. Notice that the SEC had nothing to do with that statement, though you seemed to believe otherwise.

4) Because of this predicament, the powers that be were left to try and decide who had the best resume. Trying to evaluate losses is a subjective undertaking, even though you believe that it is objective (probably because they picked your favorite team to play in the game). While you think UK and Ark are better teams combined than USF and Pitt, Tenn and S.C., Mizzou, or Stanford and Oregon, many other college football fans and pundits would disagree with you, or they would say that it's hard to tell.

5) Many different arguments can be made for many different teams (and I threw some out there in my earlier post as EXAMPLES, not as expressions of my own personal beliefs). This is an indication that of a subjective process, my friend.

As far as the whining thing goes, I think i really struck a nerve with that one and got you really defensive, so I'll let it rest. All I'll say is that your posts make LSU look really bad, and it's a shame because it's a great football team that had a great win last night. Enjoy your championship; just understand that people will rightfully wonder which two-loss team would have won in head-to-head matchups had their been a playoff.

Signing off on this thread....

Well, I had hoped the Buckeyes were telling the truth about this year being different, but it was all a lie.

The most disappointing thing was seeing how badly they reacted to adversity, the personal fouls being the most obvious manifestation. This is what happens when people tell you you're inferior--when the breaks seem to be going against you, you lash out. I'm not sure how Ohio State gets over that at this point.

Most of you may disagree, but I think the mental side of things is a bigger issue for the Buckeyes than the physical, at least when it comes to January. The NFL draft year in and year out proves that OSU has the talent, but they aren't getting prepared correctly. Clearly Jim Tressel and his Geritol-chugging staff can no longer be regarded as big game coaches. Maybe we should trade with Oklahoma, since Bob Stoops likewise seems to have lost his touch.

I won't be here to read them, but everyone should feel free to pile on. The Buckeyes fully deserve all your contempt.

Reply to the comment above reading:
" Stay with me here; this is where you got lost. Another objective tool is to go by head-to-head matchups. Since few teams played each other head-to-head, however, this was also not useful for determining the title participants. You see, LSU never actually played USC, KU, UGA, or WVU, so they could not definitively claim that they deserved a title shot over them. Notice that the SEC had nothing to do with that statement, though you seemed to believe otherwise.

4) Because of this predicament, the powers that be were left to try and decide who had the best resume. Trying to evaluate losses is a subjective undertaking, even though you believe that it is objective (probably because they picked your favorite team to play in the game). While you think UK and Ark are better teams combined than USF and Pitt, Tenn and S.C., Mizzou, or Stanford and Oregon, many other college football fans and pundits would disagree with you, or they would say that it's hard to tell."

How about the wins column?
LSU defeated more Top 25 teams than any of the other that you mentioned.
These include Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, and if you look at the pre-bowl rankings with LSU #2, you only have to go down the list one notch to find #3 VTech that LSU defeated 48-7!

Print out the win/loss record of all the competitors for a slot in the National Title game. You will find that it is not subjective - LSU has the best resume, with clearly better wins, and yes, less egregious losses (both losses coming to teams with winning records - who else can say that).

Did anyone else thing those game Announcers were awful, I had to mute them and turn on espn radio, and the espn game day crew had a great half time and post game show (no commercials) FOX had way to many. and that FOX game color Commentato; he was beyond awful.

You see, LSU never actually played USC, KU, UGA, or WVU"

As far as UGA, LSU was in Atlanta for the SEC Championship Game.
Georgia did not do their part and show up. Instead, they sent the guys who beat them, Tennessee. Georgia had their chance to meet LSU, but chose to lose to Tennessee and to a 6-6 South Carolina team. They beat Auburn and Florida, but so did LSU. Out of conference, their best win is Georgia Tech, where LSU defeated #3 (pre bowl game) VTech.

Ditto for USC.
USC and LSU were pre-season #1 and #2.
LSU made it to the title game, admittedly largely by strength of schedule having beaten more Top 25 teams than USC (and others).
USC did not do their part, with their loss to a 4-8 Stanford team.
LSU fans would have loved to meet USC in the National Title game, but alas, they did not show up.

So don't impune LSU for not meeting these teams head to head.
We were there - they were not.

Hey Media, want an easier fix to the BCS? Have the guts to demand the Pac 10 expand to 12 teams with a conference championship game. And demand that the Big 11 admit ND and have a conference championship game. ONLY champions should be considered for the BCS. Sorry Georgia.

ww

Matthew wrote: "I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps I should just stop trying to reason with you because you seem incapable of following a simple argument."

As I teach university level logic, you might want to hesitate before embarrassing yourself with such a comment again, as you do below.

"There were multiple teams with two losses or fewer losses that were argued should be in the title game. ... Normally, teams are placed into title games by the objective win-loss column. However, since, every team had the same number of losses, that was impossible to use."

which I said.

"Stay with me here; this is where you got lost. Another objective tool is to go by head-to-head matchups. Since few teams played each other head-to-head, however, this was also not useful for determining the title participants. You see, LSU never actually played USC, KU, UGA, or WVU, so they could not definitively claim that they deserved a title shot over them. Notice that the SEC had nothing to do with that statement, though you seemed to believe otherwise."

Considering that UGA is in the SEC, and I was specifically talking about UGA in my LAST reply, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion that that you are as incapable of following a logical argument as my freshman year students. I accept your apology.

"Because of this predicament, the powers that be were left to try and decide who had the best resume. Trying to evaluate losses is a subjective undertaking, even though you believe that it is objective (probably because they picked your favorite team to play in the game)."

I will put it in bullet points for your junior college level mind:

1. Some teams have played more opponents with winning records than others. That's not subjective, but measurable fact.

2. Some teams did not win their conference championships. That's not subjective, but measurable fact.

I am teaching an introductory level logic course this semester. You are welcome to apply.

"While you think UK and Ark are better teams combined than USF and Pitt, Tenn and S.C., Mizzou, or Stanford and Oregon, many other college football fans and pundits would disagree with you, or they would say that it's hard to tell."

Name one college football pundit who states that UK and Ark are not superior to Pitt and Stanford.

waiting...

still waiting...

"Many different arguments can be made for many different teams (and I threw some out there in my earlier post as EXAMPLES, not as expressions of my own personal beliefs). This is an indication that of a subjective process, my friend."

Examples can be appropriate or inappropriate for the point you are trying to argue. This is an indication of logic, my friend.

"As far as the whining thing goes, I think i really struck a nerve with that one and got you really defensive, so I'll let it rest."

I am not the only one in this thread who has easily seen beyond your ruse. You obviously favor a one of the teams in your examples. So stop whining, and state the obvious: LSU was OBJECTIVELY more deserving than any other of the teams you mention, by the OBJECTIVE measurements indicated above.

"All I'll say is that your posts make LSU look really bad, and it's a shame because it's a great football team that had a great win last night. Enjoy your championship; just understand that people will rightfully wonder which two-loss team would have won in head-to-head matchups had their been a playoff."

LOL - it's so obvious...

Many congratulations to LSU. You are far and away the best team in college football this year.

I'm not in the least bit surprised to read Boone's quote, and Stewart hits on a key point by publishing it. That attitude he speaks of was clearly evident while watching the game on tv. Things went wrong, and they didn't know what to do. I guess that's what happens when you don't face much adversity in the regular season. Hopefully some of the new guys coming in will provide better leadership. When you think about it, the last great OSU team was the Troy Smith/AJ Hawk squad that beat ND in the Fiesta Bowl. They were comrades who had the fighting spirit on both sides of the ball. Oh well. I've had enough of this "hobby" until next fall. Thanks for giving us this forum to blather away on, Stewart. It was fun.

The USC apologists (Lee Corso) are already at work. Stop whining Pete Carroll..just beat Stanford and maybe you'll get to the BCS championship. LSU would have beaten USC this year AND in 2004! Geaux Tigers.

Anthony.. You keep talking about 2 loss teams. LSU has 12 wins!!

Only Mizzou and Kansas have 12. So, that makes LSU much better than USC, UGA or any other 2007 wanna-be.

LSU was the most powerful team in the country on Jan. 8. Rested, healed and mean.

Congrats to OSU for making it to the NC game in back to back years-a terrific accomplishment in itself! You OSU fans keep your heads high as all other fans wish thier temas could have been in that game also!
And congrats to my LSU Tigers for winning their 2nd NC game in 5 years and becoming the most decorated team in the BCS era!

Congratsualtions to OSU for making it to the NC game in back to back years-a terrific accomplishment in itself!
And congratsualtions to my LSU Tigers for winning their 2nd NC game in 5 years and becoming the most decorated team in the BCS era!

ww.... the Big 10 has tried several times to add notre dame, but ND refuses to accept the invitation... Why would they when they are treated like their own conference and don't have to share the money with anyone. But I do wish all conferences were forced to have a championship game. You would find very few people who were against it actually. Except those that matter of course, which happens to be the ad's and presidents of the schools

Can LSU win a BCS National Championship when the NC game is held somewhere other than the Superdome? Were I an Oklahoma or OSU fan I'd have a real problem with calling the playing field "even". Come on Stewart! Talk about something that really affects the outcome of title game instead of slobbering all over the SEC.

Did the replay officials ever find the OSU "late hit" that supposedly took place early in the second quarter? I know that they nervously looking for it after it was called but never saw anything. The exact quote was "nothing there, nothing there, nothing there, next play". After the game ESPN indicated that they couldn't find it, either. No problem, but the call did extend and LSU drive and help change the game's momentum. Maybe that is just part of playing LSU in New Orleans and championship teams should overcome home field advantage(s).

Ummmm, GATORCHOMP...We play 'em where they tell us to play 'em...we wouldn't begrudge you Gators if y'all got to play for the NC at Dolphins Stadium (or wherever they're playing the Orange Bowl these days)-even if it was against us...as to the officiating, as long as it's NOT the SEC crew from the '06 Auburn/LSU game I'm cool with it.

Wonder how Urban felt with all those Tigers surrounding him??

Stewart, enjoyed reading your columns this year and look forward to reading them in the '08 season. GEAUX TIGERS!!

Hey Tiger Fan-

LSU seems to do best in the Superdome. In fact, LSU hasn't won a national championship outside of it. From my perspective, take the home-field advantage and officiating out of the 2008 BCS NC mix, and LSU would have ended up losing to OSU. The officials kept LSU in the game during the first half and everyone knows it. The pro-LSU officiating was just just too blatant for the world to ignore.

Case in point: The first LSU touchdown drive was extended by personal foul penalties. The first was supposedly a late hit out of bounds and the second was by a blatant (15 yard) facemask. Fox initially couldn't find any evidence of a late hit (first 15 yard penalty) and found evidence of only an incidental facemask (5 yard penalty) on the second personal foul penalty. That's a 25 yard pro-LSU giveway on a crucial drive. Since then, ESPN, ABC, NBC, BBC, CBS, PBS, FRA, Radio Moscow, Voice of Free China, Radio Brussels, Big Ten Network, etc. have failed to find either infractions on tape. So, what's the real score here? Home field advantage + home town officiating = anything other than an LSU win.

While the world is at it, did anyone happen to notice the LSU defensive backs holding OSU receivers as if they were fiances? On the first LSU interception it was blatantly obvious. The OSU receiver was held as if he had just robbed a bank. Then again, perhaps playing according to the rules of football apply only to those playing outside of the Superdome. How else can so many recent LSU victories be explained?

Sasquatch-

Bluster aside, how does LSU fare on a neutral site? Nobody knows because they've never played an NC game on one. They have never won a national championship on one, so you really cannot speculate. Take the Tigers north to 25 degree weather and they probably wouldn't compete against Mt. Union.

For Gatorchomp:

Hmmm . . a questionable call? 38 to 24 and you are questioning one call? Ok . . . I'll be sure and take another look . . . . LOL!

LSU 38, tOSU 24, with a garbage time touchdown. You can argue officials taking momentum away from your team, but I think that is pretty decisive.

Plus, I watched the game (did you?). After the first 10 points by tOSU, a 31 to 0 run by LSU. Was that the officiating? No . . THAT was football played pretty well with a minimum of penalties, no halftime fighting amongst players pointing fingers, or letdowns (Doucet touchdown should not have happened if tOSU players had not already surrendered). Rewatch the game, if you can bring yourself to.

There is a lesson here. You can diss LSU for being part of the confedaracy. You can (wrongfully) question their academics. You can say that playing in the SEC is no big deal and does not prepare you for the NCG compared to Big 10 football. You can say that all SEC coaches are from the Big 10 (inaccurate, but go for it) except the one that did not go back there. You can say that those players in purple and gold are all "inbred rednecks" (really hard to decipher if you watched the game). You can say the game should have been played on ice in Marietta. You can say that you were in a "rebuild mode." You can defend a victory against the Akron Zips and denigrate a win against Tulane. You can say that tOSU has more riotous (15 arrests after the loss) than LSU (no arrests I'm awared of). You can say that the arsonist from 100 years ago (Sherman) destroyed much of the the South (except for Louisiana . . he was a prewar Superintendant of LSU). You can say that you have a "finer tradition" (although I don't really think so). You can blame the officiating. You can say "Go Buckeyes" to your last breath. You can say all that, and more.

What you CAN'T say is that tOSU are "National Champions."

That particular honor belongs to the LSU Tigers. All four tropies this year (including AP, USC).

Congrats to you, OSU, for all your brags this year, for your tradition, and for one quarter of good football in the NCG. I respect your school, program, and football team. Frankly, I think it is great that you were even there this year . . . I grew up watching you get stomped by the PAC10 in Rose Bowls but still thought (and think) that you are still pretty good (team, not fans, for the most part). Yep.

Go beat USC next year. Please. That, together with an LSU win over UGA, would give me another reason to write something like this to the pompous.

To Larry, BGault, Eric Y-Town, and other rational tOSU fans . . thank you for good reading, good conversation, and civiility. It will be remembered!

Geaux Tigres!

Sas

Stewart Mandel summed it up eloquently in a recent article:

"3. Of that bunch, I truly believe LSU was the best team in the country, and certainly the most deserving champion. In a season where the top six teams in the final AP poll all had two losses, the Tigers were the only ones that could say they a) were champions of the nation's toughest conference; b) destroyed two other BCS-conference champions (Virginia Tech and Ohio State); and c) suffered their two defeats to a pair of eight-win teams, Kentucky and Arkansas -- not 4-8 Stanford, not 5-7 Pittsburgh, not 6-6 South Carolina. Their losses came in triple-overtime, not by three touchdowns at Tennessee."

So, don't call LSU fans "sore winners" when there are suggestions that their championship is discredited.
This year is no different to many others. One can always wonder if their team of choice might beat the National Champ if given the chance.
Nonetheless, LSU is the rightful National Champ, not by subjective measure, but by objective analysis as displayed above.
LSU deserves all the rights and honors associated with the Title.

Back to back years in the NC Game and back to back losses to the SEC. One would say being in the NC Game in consecutive years would show an accomplishment. However, when you play a patty cake schedule all year, it's no wonder your record would maybe show you deserve to be there when indeed you do not. People get sick of hearing the ESPN Gameday Crew sit and make you guys out to be something you are not. How can you honestly look at your schedule and tell me your wins were over worthy opponents. Nobody gave UF a chance against you last year and UF blew your doors off. Then this year, the talk was Ohio State is hungry, they remember the beating they took last year and it will not happen again. Well, it did. This should tell you something. The SEC plays a tough schedule which has them prepared for big games. At any rate, I am a Georgia fan and as bad as I would have loved to play in the NC Game, I understand we did not win our conference. I can almost accept this if exceptions had not been made in the past. i.e Oklahoma after getting blown out by Kansas State. Why was it an issue this year? There is not a team in the Country I would be afraid to play. I was very pissed to see OU,VT and LSU jump us and none of those teams jump Ohio State. ESPN got the game they lobbied so hard for. They all make me sick. They don't know crap. Corso and May picked Hawaii over Georgia because they felt Hawaii's offense wouldn't be able to be stopped. We proved different. The next day I was waiting to see what they had to say. Instead of saying UGA took them to the shed, they said "well, Hawaii was overmatched and shouldn't have been there." This is a day after they said Hawaii would beat us. Then they turned around to say USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in College Football only for Oklahoma to go out and get waxed. I hope Corso never puts on the DAWG headgear. Our University President along with others are pushing for a playoff. Guess which conferences do not want one. Big 10, Pac 10. Why guys? Are you afraid the "media darling" blanket wouldn't be able to back you in the title game? You would have to actually win it on the field. This shows the Presidents of these two conferences have no confidence in their teams. Oh well, I'm finished.

Back to back years in the NC Game and back to back losses to the SEC. One would say being in the NC Game in consecutive years would show an accomplishment. However, when you play a patty cake schedule all year, it's no wonder your record would maybe show you deserve to be there when indeed you do not. People get sick of hearing the ESPN Gameday Crew sit and make you guys out to be something you are not. How can you honestly look at your schedule and tell me your wins were over worthy opponents. Nobody gave UF a chance against you last year and UF blew your doors off. Then this year, the talk was Ohio State is hungry, they remember the beating they took last year and it will not happen again. Well, it did. This should tell you something. The SEC plays a tough schedule which has them prepared for big games. At any rate, I am a Georgia fan and as bad as I would have loved to play in the NC Game, I understand we did not win our conference. I can almost accept this if exceptions had not been made in the past. i.e Oklahoma after getting blown out by Kansas State. Why was it an issue this year? There is not a team in the Country I would be afraid to play. I was very pissed to see OU,VT and LSU jump us and none of those teams jump Ohio State. ESPN got the game they lobbied so hard for. They all make me sick. They don't know crap. Corso and May picked Hawaii over Georgia because they felt Hawaii's offense wouldn't be able to be stopped. We proved different. The next day I was waiting to see what they had to say. Instead of saying UGA took them to the shed, they said "well, Hawaii was overmatched and shouldn't have been there." This is a day after they said Hawaii would beat us. Then they turned around to say USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in College Football only for Oklahoma to go out and get waxed. I hope Corso never puts on the DAWG headgear. Our University President along with others are pushing for a playoff. Guess which conferences do not want one. Big 10, Pac 10. Why guys? Are you afraid the "media darling" blanket wouldn't be able to back you in the title game? You would have to actually win it on the field. This shows the Presidents of these two conferences have no confidence in their teams. Oh well, I'm finished.

joeya-

Interesting how a win over Hawaii suddenly gives Georgia license to play the "victim of media bias" card. It's especially funny when these complaints occur on a web-site (CNNSI.com) where the senior college football writer has picked Georgia to win the national title in 2008. How silly can college football get?

Stewart's claim that this season was unusual is true only in the superficial sense that there were fewer teams that either went undefeated or that suffered only one loss during the regular season than is typical in most years. The fundamental problem remains that there is really no way of knowing whether a team that achieves a record of 11-1 or 12-0 in one conference is better than a team that is 12-0, 11-1, 10-2 or 9-3 in some other conference. This year was no exception in that regard. The unfortunate result is that the BCS football championship is more of a popularity contest than it is a sports competition.

If NCAA basketball is any indication, sportswriters and coaches don’t do a very good job of identifying what the results would be if top teams from different conferences actually got to square off in head-to-head competition. In the 29 years since they started seeding teams in the NCAA tournament, two number one seeds (teams ranked in the top 4 in the nation) have only met in the NCAA basketball final 5 times. Teams ranked #1 in the nation in at least one poll have only won the NCAA title 6 times. On a couple of occasions, teams ranked below 25 have won the Championship. I think this explains why people are angry about the NCAA football championships. There is a pervasive feeling that it is a sham.

joey a said:
"I understand we did not win our conference. I can almost accept this if exceptions had not been made in the past. i.e Oklahoma after getting blown out by Kansas State. Why was it an issue this year?"

LSU was chosen over Georgia for the National Title game not because Georgia did not win the conference, but because LSU had the better record.
LSU had:

-1 more win than Georgia

-More wins against Top 25 teams. Georgia beat Florida and Auburn. But LSU defeated those teams, as well as Tennessee and VTech (a Top 5 team and conference champion).

-Less egregious losses than Georgia. Both of LSU's losses came to teams with winning records, where Georgia lost to a 6-6 South Carolina team.

So, let's set the record straight.
Georgia was a great team destined to be even better next year.
But in 2007, LSU did more on the field and deserved the Title game spot over Georgia.

stevel said:
"The unfortunate result is that the BCS football championship is more of a popularity contest than it is a sports competition."

It was not a popularity contest at all.
The teams in the title game were more deserving than any others.

I challange you to construct a resume that is based upon objective factsfor any other team that demonstrates that they were more deserving to participate in the Title game than either Ohio State or LSU.

I feel that the BCS system worked great this year. The only complaining we hear comes on behalf of good teams, USC and Georgia, that choked miserably in the regular season. Those are just the facts.

1998 Tenn beat FSU
1999 FSU beat Virginia Tech
2000 Oklahoma beat FSU
2001 Miami beat Nebraska
2002 Ohio St. beat Miami
2003 LSU beat Oklahoma
2004 USC beat Oklahoma
2005 Texas beat USC
2006 Florida beat Ohio St.
2007 LSU beat Ohio St.

The SEC has been in four of them and won all four, even though they were ranked number 2 in all four.
The Big 10 has been in three, and are 1 and 2
The Big 12 has been in five and are 2 and 3
The Pac 10 has been in two and are 1 and 1
The ACC has been in five and are 2 and 3
The Big East has been in one and lost.
What does that tell you. Every one is down on Ohio State; but their BCS champs game record is as good as FSU and Oklahoma. And the GREAT Michigan has not made a single one of them. Also the SEC and the Big 12 are they only conferences to have three different teams play in the Champs game. Of course we all know who is the only team to win more than one. Go Tigers.

Stormy, Tennessee was #1 the year they played FSU. They were the only undefeated team going into bowl season, as FSU had lost to NC State in a shock upset early in the year.

At the time that Miami was playing for titles, they were in the Big East. So your conference standings are actually
ACC 1-2 (all FSU)
Big East 1-2 (Miami wins, Miami and VT lose)


Your basic points are still valid: Ohio State doesn't suck. Oklahoma has played for several. FSU hasn't been good in a while.

But you're a bit off on a few of your supporting facts.

One of the arguments for including LSU 10-2 in the BCS Title game and excluding USC also 10-2, is that USC lost to Stanford while Georgia never lost a game to such a low caliber team. The implication is that if USC they had achieved their 10-2 record by losing to Arizona State whom they beat and defeating Stanford that this would make them more worthy contenders for playing in the BCS Title game. Similarly if LSU had achieved their 10-2 record differently by beating Arkansas to whom they lost, while losing to Middle Tennessee whom they beat that they would no longer deserve to play for the BCS Title.
In essence, you give teams more "points" for losing to good teams and beating bad ones than you do for beating good teams and losing to bad ones. Maybe I am missing something, but this seems irrational to me. Mind you, I am not trying to make a case that USC belonged in the BCS Title game instead of LSU. Rather my point is that the arguments and rationalizations that people make for including specific teams while excluding others are, for the most part, a lot of hot air. There is no way to reasonably compare the quality of teams that play different schedules in different conferences except by head-to-head competition. If you don’t believe this, look at NCAA basketball where there are polls and a playoff and see how many times two number one seeds (teams ranked in the top four in the nation) actually made it to the NCAA final round. It happens less than 25% of the time. Teams ranked #1 in the nation in at least one major poll have only won the NCAA title 6 times in the 29 years since they began seeding teams. The truth is the Pollsters don’t have a clue. They simply don't know.

Sasquatch:

I never said a word about academics, the Mason Dixon Line, or the Confederacy. I'm up for good honest debate but please do not put words in my mouth.

All that I was saying is that LSU had a venue advantage (in both of their BCS NC wins) and had a crucial drive against OSU extended by some questionable calls. I am not the only one who is saying that. I also did not say that LSU didn't deserve their title or they were not the better team. Chill out, dude, and try not the read between the lines.

eng1 said:

"I challange you to construct a resume that is based upon objective factsfor any other team that demonstrates that they were more deserving to participate in the Title game than either Ohio State or LSU."

I can't construct arguments that demonstrate conclusively that LSU, Ohio State, USC or anyone of a number of other teams deserve to play for the BCS Title over any of the others. I could cite isolated facts and statistics to support a particular bias I might have, but that wouldn't prove anything. The only way to know who deserves to play in a BCS title game is through a playoff. You cannot accurately rank the quality of good teams that play different schedules in different conferences through any exercise in pure reason. The two top ranked teams in the polls almost never face each other in the NCAA finals of basketball. It is unlikely that the would face each other the majority of the time if there was a playoff in NCAA football.

On another note, I thought the Jacob Hester was awesome and that Chris Wells is an animal-perhaps another Jim Brown or Walter Payton.

OSU needs to dispense with their cupcake in-state schedule and play some SEC (or other worthy) teams during the regular season. The Buckeyes really lost their emotional cool against LSU after some minor adversity. LSU kept theirs after some MAJOR adversity in the first quarter. That LSU cool probably came from having played high-intensity football almost every weekend.

Stocking the schedule with heavyweights means that OSU won't get to the big dance nearly as often but when they do hopefully the would be better prepared.

Plus, no matter how you cut it, the bowl games of both LSU and USC were home games. If we ever go to a playoff system that is one variable that warrants elimination.

SteveL:'

I agree completely. A playoff would eliminate so much of this debate and associated nonsense. I do feel very strongly that home-field advantage needs to be eliminated unless it is applied equally (meaning that, for example, in the case of LSU vs. OSU we flip a coin to decide whether the game is played in Columbus or Baton Rouge in January). It would be easier to just have the playoffs in Glendale (Arizona teams don't have a habit of playing for the NC).

I believe that a good argument can be made for including USC this year, but Georgia's wailings in my opinion should fall of deaf ears-that didn't even PLAY for their conference championship.

SteveL wrote: "One of the arguments for including LSU 10-2 in the BCS Title game and excluding USC also 10-2, is that USC lost to Stanford while Georgia never lost a game to such a low caliber team. The implication is that if USC they had achieved their 10-2 record by losing to Arizona State whom they beat and defeating Stanford that this would make them more worthy contenders for playing in the BCS Title game. Similarly if LSU had achieved their 10-2 record differently by beating Arkansas to whom they lost, while losing to Middle Tennessee whom they beat that they would no longer deserve to play for the BCS Title."

Your argument assumes that Arkansas is no better than Middle Tennessee, or South Carolina (Georgia's bad loss). But comparing their respective season records show otherwise.

SteveL wrote:
"I can't construct arguments that demonstrate conclusively that LSU, Ohio State, USC or anyone of a number of other teams deserve to play for the BCS Title over any of the others"

But you can; you just refuse to do the work.

Do this please.
Print off the pre-bowl schedules of each of the teams mentioned and the pre-bowl rankings.
You will find that LSU had superior wins (more Top 25 teams defeated) and less egregious losses (only to teams with winning records) than any other team.

What I did is make several copies final week's BCS Top 40 rankings. For each team discussed, I highlighted the teams that they defeated in yellow, and the teams that they lost to in red. For losses to Stanford (USC) and South Carolina (Georgia), you will have to write those in at the bottom, because these teams did not make the BCS Top 40 (where both of LSU's losses did).

When you see it graphically, you might be impressed with the top level teams that LSU defeated vs. the others. This is what makes LSU clearly the choice to participate in the title game.

Please do this and then respond and discuss.

I am not saying that a playoff would not be more conclusive.
I am saying that, without a playoff, the choice of LSU in the Title game was not random, or even subjective. LSU was the clear objective choice.

gatorchomp said:
"I believe that a good argument can be made for including USC this year,..."

Do you mean a good argument to included USC in the Title game, displacing LSU?

I would like to hear that argument, after you take an objective look at the rankings of the opponents that LSU defeated v. USC (see my message to SteveL above).

Anthony wrote:

"Your argument assumes that Arkansas is no better than Middle Tennessee, or South Carolina (Georgia's bad loss). But comparing their respective season records show otherwise."

Ooops, I made a mistake. I didn't mean Georgia. I meant LSU. If everywhere that you see the word "Georgia" you replace it with the word "LSU", then my statement makes more sense.

Replace "Georgia" with "LSU"? Ok:

"One of the arguments for including LSU 10-2 in the BCS Title game and excluding USC also 10-2, is that USC lost to Stanford while LSU never lost a game to such a low caliber team. The implication is that if USC they had achieved their 10-2 record by losing to Arizona State whom they beat and defeating Stanford that this would make them more worthy contenders for playing in the BCS Title game. Similarly if LSU had achieved their 10-2 record differently by beating Arkansas to whom they lost, while losing to Middle Tennessee whom they beat that they would no longer deserve to play for the BCS Title."

That's exactly right, so what's the problem? USC losing to Arizona St. instead of to Stanford would be an improvement, while LSU losing to Middle Tennessee instead of Arkansas would be worse. So naturally, that would make LSU objectively less worthy and USC more worthy, had that happened. So the fact that that DIDN'T happen makes LSU objectively more worthy, and USC less so. So what's your argument??

Eng1 wrote"

"But you can; you just refuse to do the work...

What I did is make several copies final week's BCS Top 40 rankings. For each team discussed, I highlighted the teams that they defeated in yellow, and the teams that they lost to in red. For losses to Stanford (USC) and South Carolina (Georgia), you will have to write those in at the bottom, because these teams did not make the BCS Top 40 (where both of LSU's losses did)."

So using your reasoning if LSU had crushed Arkansas instead of losing to them and instead had lost to Middle Tennessee, who is not in the top 40, by a few points they would be less worthy of playing in the BCS title game? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Second, the argument that a team should be ranked higher when they beat teams that are ranked highly sounds like circular reasoning to me. I have serious doubts about the accuracy of any rankings that compare teams that play different teams in different conferences in the first place.

To my mind calling the BCS Title game a "championship" is a joke. Calling it a beauty contest is closer to the truth. My biggest problem with the BCS system is that I like to watch good bowl games and I am convinced that the current system produces too many lousy match ups like LSU vs. Ohio State, Oklahoma vs West Virginia, and Georgia vs. Hawaii. I would have preferred to see LSU play USC irrespective of whether they called it the National Championship or not. My SUBJECTIVE side says this would have been a good game. USC is always competitive. Win, lose, or draw they always got more combined yards rushing and passing then their opponents this year, in bowl games in recent years, and with a couple of exceptions in every regular season game they have played in the past 5 years. In the Pete Carroll era, they have never lost a game by more than 11 points and that includes the year 2001 when they went 6-6. Mind you, I am from Minnesota and since the Gophers never play in a game in
a bowl game of consequence I root for the Big 10. However, its clear to me that a much better match up for Ohio State this year would have been Oklahoma and that last year Ohio State had as much reason to play for the BCS Title as Hawaii would have had this year.

Anthony wrote:

"That's exactly right, so what's the problem? USC losing to Arizona St. instead of to Stanford would be an improvement, while LSU losing to Middle Tennessee instead of Arkansas would be worse. So naturally, that would make LSU objectively less worthy and USC more worthy, had that happened. So the fact that that DIDN'T happen makes LSU objectively more worthy, and USC less so. So what's your argument??"

My argument is that I fail to see why losing to a good team and beating a bad one means that a team is better than it would be if it had lost to the good team and beat the bad one. This seems irrational to me.

Stevel wrote: "So using your reasoning if LSU had crushed Arkansas instead of losing to them and instead had lost to Middle Tennessee, who is not in the top 40, by a few points they would be less worthy of playing in the BCS title game? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me."

I am sorry, but your reply makes no sense to me. Are you incapable of nuance? It depends on how much it crushed Arkansas, and had bad the loss to Middle Tennesse was. For example, did USC lose to Stanford in triple overtime? Did Georgia lose to South Carolina in triple overtime? Did Stanford and South Carolina end up with winning records (as opposed to Kentucky and Arkansas, which did)? All these things matter, but you leave them out. Of course if you leave these things out, it will be hard for you to construct an argument proving that LSU was more worthy than USC or Georgia. If you put them in, however, you will discover the argument you are seeking.

Stevel wrote: "My argument is that I fail to see why losing to a good team and beating a bad one means that a team is better than it would be if it had lost to the good team and beat the bad one. This seems irrational to me."

Well, of course if you leave out all nuances, one doesn't seem better than the other. Put the nuances in, however, and you'll find the rational argument. Is losing to Arkansas, and in triple overtime, as bad as losing to Stanford or South Carolina, in regulation? Did Arkansas and Kentucky end up with winning records, as opposed to Stanford or South Carolina? If you want to leave these out, then fine - just don't try to analyze the issue until you consider all the facts involved.

Anthony wrote:

"Well, of course if you leave out all nuances, one doesn't seem better than the other. Put the nuances in, however, and you'll find the rational argument. Is losing to Arkansas, and in triple overtime, as bad as losing to Stanford or South Carolina, in regulation? Did Arkansas and Kentucky end up with winning records, as opposed to Stanford or South Carolina? If you want to leave these out, then fine - just don't try to analyze the issue until you consider all the facts involved."

I don't think you can accurately assess the relative strengths of teams that play different teams in different conferences based on "subtle nuances". The NCAA basketball tournament proves just how inaccurate rankings of teams based on pure reason really are. Number one seeds have only made it to the NCAA finals 6 times in the 29 years since they starting seeding teams. Personally, I think they should dispense with the idea of an NCAA football title until such time that they can have a playoff and focus instead in creating the best possible match ups in the bowl games.

Stevel wrote: "I don't think you can accurately assess the relative strengths of teams that play different teams in different conferences based on "subtle nuances"."

Well, UGA is in the SAME conference as LSU, so you should have no problem with the choice of LSU over UGA. As for USC, in order to maintain your position, you would have to say that Stanford might actually be on the same level as Arkansas and Kentucky. Can you cite any sports journalists who specifically entertain that possibility? If not, then you're alone in this.

"The NCAA basketball tournament proves just how inaccurate rankings of teams based on pure reason really are. Number one seeds have only made it to the NCAA finals 6 times in the 29 years since they starting seeding teams."

True, but we're not just talking about #1 seeds here. We're talking about whether Stanford is on the same level as Arkansas or Kentucky. Again, cite one sports journalist who has entertained that possibility.

Anthony said

"Well, UGA is in the SAME conference as LSU, so you should have no problem with the choice of LSU over UGA. As for USC, in order to maintain your position, you would have to say that Stanford might actually be on the same level as Arkansas and Kentucky. Can you cite any sports journalists who specifically entertain that possibility? If not, then you're alone in this."

I have never suggested that Stanford is a better team than Arkansas. I believe the opposite. However, I also believe that this question has very little bearing on USC's overall quality as a team vs. Ohio State or LSU. I happen to believe that USC would have been a far better match for LSU than Ohio State even though Stanford is far inferior to the Illinois and LSU teams that defeated Ohio State this year). My suspicion is that most sport writers who voted Ohio State into the BCS Title game agree with me even though they might not admit it. Prior to the title game, LSU was heavily favored by odds makers and most sports writers. However, if USC had against played LSU instead of Ohio State, I believe the odds would have been much closer and the opinions of sport writers about the outcome would have been more evenly divided; regardless of the loss to Stanford. USC is now ranked higher than Ohio State even though they had the same number of losses and even though USC lost to Stanford team that would undoubtedly have been clobbered if they ever played the Illinois and LSU teams that defeated Ohio State. Comparisons about the quality of teams that never get to play against one another and that play completely different teams fall in the realm of speculation.

"True, but we're not just talking about #1 seeds here. We're talking about whether Stanford is on the same level as Arkansas or Kentucky. Again, cite one sports journalist who has entertained that possibility."

The point is that teams who get to be #1 seeds (teams ranked #1-#4 in the nation) in basketball often do so on the basis of rationalizations analogous to your football one about the superiority of Arkansas over Stanford. Then when they go out and play and some #2 seed, or 4 seed, or 8 seed (a team ranked 29th or lower) ends up winning the
Championship. Two #1 seeds (teams ranked 1-4) have only made it to the NCAA finals 6 times in 29 years. So much for using subtle nuances to identify the best
teams.

SteveL said:
"My argument is that I fail to see why losing to a good team and beating a bad one means that a team is better than it would be if it had lost to the good team and beat the bad one. This seems irrational to me."

You do not see why losing to a bad team means is a greater strike against a team than losing to a good team?
How can you not?
For example, if the best teams happens to match up against 2nd best, someone must lose.
Does this mean #2 must definitely be somthing less than #2?

The math there does not work.
What do you think a playoff is going to produce?
A mediocre team will be a bad team, then face a good team an suffer a knock-out loss.

Also, your comment:
"So using your reasoning if LSU had crushed Arkansas instead of losing to them and instead had lost to Middle Tennessee, who is not in the top 40, by a few points they would be less worthy of playing in the BCS title game?"

Yes, you have got it!
This makes no sense to you?
Well, it makes sense to me, this anthony chap that has been wieghing in, and apparently a system of 65 AP sportswriters and 60 college coaches!

Now, in your example, LSU would be less worthy, but still the choice for the title game, because their body of work included more wins against top ranked opponents.
LSU was the obvious choice for the title game.

Listen, I know a playoff would be superior system with regard to eliminating controversy.
My only point remains that there is no playoff.
I would like one, along with Warren Buffett's money and Tony Romo's girlfriend.
But it is not in place.
Without a playoff in place, can you arrive at a better answer for choosing the two teams to have played in this year's title game?

Also said:
"However, its clear to me that a much better match up for Ohio State this year would have been Oklahoma "

What did this mean?
Oklahoma should have been matched up with Ohio State in the Title game instead of LSU, or Ohio State should have been in a lesser bowl game against Oklahoma.
In either case, who are you displacing from the National Title game, and why?

Stevel wrote: "I happen to believe that USC would have been a far better match for LSU than Ohio State even though Stanford is far inferior to the Illinois and LSU teams that defeated Ohio State this year)."

USC's body of work this year says otherwise. Here's a list of BCS championship game contenders this year along with how many wins they have over opponents with winning records. Virginia Tech has 6; Georgia, LSU, Ohio State and Oklahoma all have 5. You know how many USC has? 2. Two. Same as Kansas. And they have a loss to Stanford to boot, by far the worst loss of the bunch. That's why USC had to stand in line - not only do they have fewer quality wins over other contenders, but they have FAR fewer quality wins. Better luck next year.

"USC's body of work this year says otherwise. Here's a list of BCS championship game contenders this year along with how many wins they have over opponents with winning records. Virginia Tech has 6; Georgia, LSU, Ohio State and Oklahoma all have 5. You know how many USC has? 2. Two. Same as Kansas. And they have a loss to Stanford to boot, by far the worst loss of the bunch. That's why USC had to stand in line - not only do they have fewer quality wins over other contenders, but they have FAR fewer quality wins. Better luck next year."

If this is the way you compare the quality of teams, USC wouldn't have ended the season ranked 3rd in the nation. They wouldn't have ended up in the top ten either. This is simply another argument that proves nothing about the relative quality of teams. There is no logical reason why a team that plays the worst schedule in the country couldn't be the best team in the country. If a team manages to win its conference title, then it has taken care of business and only a playoff provides any indication of how the compare with teams from other conferences.

As an aside, one of the PAC-10 teams that USC beat was CAL who soundly trounced the SEC's east champ Tennessee. This game wasn't a case where CAL won because of lucky breaks or because of turnovers. They simply overpowered Tennessee at the line of scrimage
and defeated them in all facets of the game. That's the only head-to-head competition between the SEC and PAC-10 I am aware of this year. However, I would be the last person to use this as any indication about the relative quality of these two conferences. It is simply one game just as USC's loss to Stanford, where they got 459 total net yards to Stanford's 235 and David Booty played with a broken finger was one game.

As far as next season is concerned, I am going to need a lot more than
good luck in order for the Minnesota Gophers to make it to a major bowl game.

All that I was saying is that LSU had a venue advantage (in both of their BCS NC wins)

To be fair, it's not like LSU asked for the game to be moved to New Orleans to play for the national title. It just happened to be there the two years they made it. They didn't put it there just for LSU.

Eng1 said

"You do not see why losing to a bad team means is a greater strike against a team than losing to a good team? How can you not?"

Of course I see why losing to a bad team is more of a strike against you than losing to a good team. However, that is only half of the equation. I also see why beating a good team counts more in your favor than beating a bad one. That is why if LSU had beaten Arkansas instead of losing to them and had lost to Middle Tennessee instead of beating them it wouldn't have changed my overall opinion of them. The strike against them for losing to Middle Tennessee would be offset by the fact that they earn more "points" in their favor for beating Arkansas than for beating Middle Tennessee.

Eng1

"This makes no sense to you?
Well, it makes sense to me, this anthony chap that has been wieghing in, and apparently a system of 65 AP sportswriters and 60 college coaches!"

Sportswriters and College coaches have clearly demonstrated that they don't have a clue who the two best teams in the country are in College Basketball. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that they are any more successful in College Football. If anything, people doing the rankings in college basketball have a larger number of games including more inter conference games on which to base their ranking then is the case in college football. Still, with very few exceptions the pollsters consistently fail to identify who the best teams are, often miserably. In the absence of a playoff system, I think we should abandon the idea of having an NCAA football champion and instead focus on producing good match ups in the bowl games. Sports championships aren't supposed to be won through voting like a beauty contest is. They are supposed to be won on the playing field.

stevel said:
"I think we should abandon the idea of having an NCAA football champion and instead focus on producing good match ups in the bowl games."

Well, that is exactly where we were 10 years ago, before the BCS system was in place.
What did that produce?
At least as much, and probably more controversy than exists today.
The pollsters will still rank the teams, and someone will stake a claim as National Champion, and others with similar records will dispute that ranking.

I agree that this year was full of bad match-ups in the bowl games. But any match-up would still have produced controversy. If USC and LSU had played, the winner of the Ohio State/ Oklahoma game would still lay claim to the #1 spot.
If that winner were Ohio State, they would be National Champs with only 1 loss. It that winner were Oklahoma, who do you propose gets the #1 ranking?

The only solution would be a playoff.
But, its not going to happen.

SteveL wrote: "If this is the way you compare the quality of teams, USC wouldn't have ended the season ranked 3rd in the nation."

Those figures (number of wins against opponents with winning records) were from the end of the regular season, and if I recall, USC did indeed finish the regular season ranked behind Ohio State, Virginia Tech, LSU, and Oklahoma, all of whom had more wins against opponents with winning records than USC. The only reason USC ended up 3rd is that they beat their bowl opponent afterwards, while Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma did not. So the number of wins against opponents with winning records did indeed determine their ranking at the time, contrary to your argument.

"They wouldn't have ended up in the top ten either. This is simply another argument that proves nothing about the relative quality of teams. There is no logical reason why a team that plays the worst schedule in the country couldn't be the best team in the country."

They could be. But there's no evidence, whereas there is evidence when a team plays the best schedule in the country and ends up 11-2. Do you see that?

"As an aside, one of the PAC-10 teams that USC beat was CAL who soundly trounced the SEC's east champ Tennessee."

True. But the BCS system rightly judged Tennessee's whole body of work during the season in giving them their rank. So this is not arbitrary or subjective - it is quite logical.

"This game wasn't a case where CAL won because of lucky breaks or because of turnovers. They simply overpowered Tennessee at the line of scrimage and defeated them in all facets of the game. That's the only head-to-head competition between the SEC and PAC-10 I am aware of this year. However, I would be the last person to use this as any indication about the relative quality of these two conferences."

Right, but it is an indication of the relative quality of Tennessee vs. USC (who beat Cal), which is part of the reason the BCS system ranked Tennessee lower than USC in the end. So you agree quite nicely with the BCS system here.

"As far as next season is concerned, I am going to need a lot more than good luck in order for the Minnesota Gophers to make it to a major bowl game."

I live in the Twin Cities, and yes, you will need more than good luck.

>>>To be fair, it's not like LSU asked for the game to be moved to New Orleans to play for the national title. It just happened to be there the two years they made it. They didn't put it there just for LSU.

You are right. While we are being fair, let's also admit that a virtual home game was an advantage that neither OSU nor OU had when the played LSU for all of the marbles. LSU did.

Anthony wrote:

"SteveL wrote: "If this is the way you compare the quality of teams, USC wouldn't have ended the season ranked 3rd in the nation."

"Those figures (number of wins against opponents with winning records) were from the end of the regular season, and if I recall, USC did indeed finish the regular season ranked behind Ohio State, Virginia Tech, LSU, and Oklahoma, all of whom had more wins against opponents with winning records than USC. The only reason USC ended up 3rd is that they beat their bowl opponent afterwards, while Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma did not. So the number of wins against opponents with winning records did indeed determine their ranking at the time, contrary to your argument."

No, the number of wins does not, per se, determine the ranking of teams. Consider that West Virginia ended up with 6 wins against winning teams, Kansas had 4 wins against winning teams, Missouri had 5 wins against winning teams, and Brigham Young had 5 wins against winning teams and all ended up being ranked lower than USC and in some cases substantially lower. Many of the above were also ranked lower than USC going into the bowl games. And by the way, Boston College had 7 wins against winning teams.

"There is no logical reason why a team that plays the worst schedule in the country couldn't be the best team in the country.
They could be. But there's no evidence, whereas there is evidence when a team plays the best schedule in the country and ends up 11-2. Do you see that?"

No I don't see that. In the absence of direct evidence that one team isn't as good as another, it's presumptuous to assume that one team isn't as good as another because they play in a weaker conference. It is also presumptuous to assume that one conference is better than another in the absence
of significant direct evidence to support this claim.

I assume that you are referring to LSU when speaking of the 11-2 team that plays in the best conference in the country. While it may be true that the SEC is the best conference in the country, there have been far too few inter conference games to substantiate this claim. For example, the only game I am aware of between the PAC-10 and the SEC this year occurred when a mediocre CAL soundly trounced the SEC Eastern champs from Tennessee by dominating them in all facets of a game not marred by turnovers and bad breaks. I wouldn't presume on this basis to make any claims about the relative quality of the SEC vs. PAC-10.

Stevel wrote: "No, the number of wins does not, per se, determine the ranking of teams. Consider that West Virginia ended up with 6 wins against winning teams, Kansas had 4 wins against winning teams, Missouri had 5 wins against winning teams, and Brigham Young had 5 wins against winning teams and all ended up being ranked lower than USC and in some cases substantially lower. Many of the above were also ranked lower than USC going into the bowl games."

Your memory is incorrect - West Virginia and Missouri were indeed ranked ahead of USC at the end of the regular season. Kansas had only 2 wins against teams with winning records - the same as USC - and they were ranked on par with USC at the end of the season (USC 7th, Kansas 8th). Add to that the fact that Georgia, LSU, Ohio State, and Oklahoma were all ranked ahead of USC at that time, and all have more wins than USC over teams with winning records, and the correlation becomes very strong. Not perfect, but very strong.

"And by the way, Boston College had 7 wins against winning teams."

Again, not perfect, but very strong - you cannot deny the pattern I just laid out. There are other factors too, which is why the pattern is not absolutely perfect. Nevertheless, very strong.

"In the absence of direct evidence that one team isn't as good as another, it's presumptuous to assume that one team isn't as good as another because they play in a weaker conference."

Isn't that like saying that in the absence of direct evidence that my car isn't run by invisible men turning cranks under my hood, it is presumptuous to assume that that isn't the case? The evidence for superiority I have presented doesn't correspond 100% to rankings, but it does correspond a significantly high percentage of times: wins over teams with winning records, conference wins, etc.

"It is also presumptuous to assume that one conference is better than another in the absence of significant direct evidence to support this claim."

Conferences can be rated in precisely the same way: number of teams that have wins over opponents with winning records; Sagarin's conference strength of schedule ratings been done for years on such bases.

"I assume that you are referring to LSU when speaking of the 11-2 team that plays in the best conference in the country."

Also Georgia.

"While it may be true that the SEC is the best conference in the country, there have been far too few inter conference games to substantiate this claim. For example, the only game I am aware of between the PAC-10 and the SEC this year occurred when a mediocre CAL soundly trounced the SEC Eastern champs from Tennessee by dominating them in all facets of a game not marred by turnovers and bad breaks. I wouldn't presume on this basis to make any claims about the relative quality of the SEC vs. PAC-10."

And you would be right not to presume that, precisely because that's just one game. That's why I've been telling you to focus on TOTAL BOWL RECORD of the SEC vs. other conferences. This year, the SEC went 7-2, better than any other conference. Last year, the SEC went 6-3, again better than any other conference. Over the past 10 years, the SEC has a 41-34 total bowl game record - better than any other conference. That's a much bigger sampling than just one game in one year.

From stevel:
"There is no logical reason why a team that plays the worst schedule in the country couldn't be the best team in the country."

Yes, they could be.
But there is no logical reason why the team with the tougher schedule is inferior to the team with the weak schedule, either.
So, you have to rank them (becasue we don't have a playoff!!!).
Which one do you rank higher?

If the team with the weaker schedule suffered a loss or two in this worst conference, compared to a team that suffered the same number of losses to stronger teams, you have an indication of these teams relative strength.
I by no means am saying that this indicates that if these two teams met on the field, the team with the stronger record would necessarily win every time.
But, again, these teams aren't meeting on the field. So, until we have a playoff (if ever), the logic behind the ranking for teams that do not decide things on the field is sound.

Look, take two hypothetical horses.
One won the Kentucky Derby last year.
The other is from fine stock, but has never won a race.
Which one would be favoured?
In this example, let's say it can't be settled by the horses racing each other. You are buying them both, and deciding how much to pay for each of them. Which horse do you think would attract more money (i.e. higher ranking); the proven or the unproven one?

Anthony wrote:

Your memory is incorrect - West Virginia and Missouri were indeed ranked ahead of USC at the end of the regular season. Kansas had only 2 wins against teams with winning records - the same as USC - and they were ranked on par with USC at the end of the season (USC 7th, Kansas 8th). Add to that the fact that Georgia, LSU, Ohio State, and Oklahoma were all ranked ahead of USC at that time, and all have more wins than USC over teams with winning records, and the correlation becomes very strong. Not perfect, but very strong.

Actually, Kansas had won 3 games against winning teams against winning teams prior to the bowl game in which they won their 4th. That is more than USC. Check it out. They also had the best won-lost record in the nation and still ended up ranked lower than USC. Boston College had 7 wins against winning teams and a better won-lost record than Florida prior to the bowl games and still was ranked lower. I am sure if you go up and down the list of rankings you could find a number of other examples.

"In the absence of direct evidence that one team isn't as good as another, it's presumptuous to assume that one team isn't as good as another because they play in a weaker conference."

Isn't that like saying that in the absence of direct evidence that my car isn't run by invisible men turning cranks under my hood, it is presumptuous to assume that that isn't the case?

No it isn't. I don't think I have to tell you why your example is absurd. Being from Minnesota, I can recall when the 1987 Minnesota Twins won the World Series even they played in the worst division
in baseball. If I looked through sports records in the NFL, NBA, College sports etc. I am sure I could find numerous examples where the best team played in weak or even the weakest divisions or conferences.

stevel said:
"I think we should abandon the idea of having an NCAA football champion and instead focus on producing good match ups in the bowl games. "

I think you have just made a circular argument and have your underwear in a bit of a twist here.

Isn't the national championship game all about producing the best matchup possible, #1 vs. #2?

You state that you think Oklahoma would have been a better opponent for Ohio State, rather than LSU.
Why?
I would guess it is because in your mind, YOU RANKED THEM, and produce a ranking where those two teams are about equivalent.

So, in order to get the best matchups in bowl games, you will have to rank the teams to decide who is on par with whom.

I think your argument centers around the fact that you feel USC was under-ranked and should have been in the title game instead of Ohio State.

Well, maybe.

But before the game was played January 7, Ohio State had only one loss against USC's 2 losses. How would you argue against Ohio State's appearance in the Title Game? Because you "think" USC is better? Surely not, because you have already stated that history has demonstrated that teams cannot be appropriately ranked unless they have played head to head.

In the system that we have, we must rank teams in order to decide the National Title game. In order to rank teams with similar records (such as 2 losses), one must peel the onion to the next level for the analysis. One part of that is presuming that a team that is more "proven" (i.e. defeated more highly ranked teams and lost to more highly ranked teams) has the greater probability of being the better team.

Not always accurate, but short of a playoff, have you got a better idea?

Stevel wrote: "Actually, Kansas had won 3 games against winning teams against winning teams prior to the bowl game in which they won their 4th. That is more than USC. Check it out."

I did and you're right. Guess what else they found? All three ended up with 6-5 records. In other words, all of Kansas' "winning" opponents were barely "winning."

"They also had the best won-lost record in the nation and still ended up ranked lower than USC."

Steve, you always do this - you take ONE stat and say that it can't be the determining factor. Well duh, of course, because MORE THAN ONE FACTOR determines ranking. That hardly means that they aren't objective factors, even if ONE of doesn't exactly corresponds to the final ranking. Yes Kansas had the best win/loss record, but they also played fewer ranked teams than USC, LSU, and Georgia. That ALSO counts. You are using a flawed argument over and over again - ONE factor doesn't correspond, therefore there are NO objective factors??

"Boston College had 7 wins against winning teams and a better won-lost record than Florida prior to the bowl games and still was ranked lower."

See above.

"I don't think I have to tell you why your example is absurd. Being from Minnesota, I can recall when the 1987 Minnesota Twins won the World Series even they played in the worst division in baseball. If I looked through sports records in the NFL, NBA, College sports etc. I am sure I could find numerous examples where the best team played in weak or even the weakest divisions or conferences."

Again, MORE THAN ONE FACTOR Steve. You can't just look at conference ranking ALONE, and therefore discount ALL factors. That's simply flawed argumentation.

Anthony said:

Steve, you always do this - you take ONE stat and say that it can't be the determining factor. Well duh, of course, because MORE THAN ONE FACTOR determines ranking. That hardly means that they aren't objective factors, even if ONE of doesn't exactly corresponds to the final ranking. Yes Kansas had the best win/loss record, but they also played fewer ranked teams than USC, LSU, and Georgia. That ALSO counts. You are using a flawed argument over and over again - ONE factor doesn't correspond, therefore there are NO objective factors??

When you first made the statement that we are arguing about, you made it sound like a blanket statement. I have no problem with the notion that this is one factor and that the weight assigned to it probably varies significantly from one pollster to the next.

The truth is that this ranking thing isn't an objective thing per se. There is no objective formula that assigns numeric weights to the specific factors except in the BCS computer and for whatever reason they have chosen not to depend on that exclusively in establishing rankings. The pollsters undoubtedly rely on a complex mix of impressions, objective facts, and personal bias that varies from one pollster to the next. If this was objective process you wouldn't need polls. No one has managed to come up with a magic formula that comes anywhere close to predicting what would happen if contenders for a championship actually get to square off on the playing field. That is why I think the current process of picking an NCAA Football Champion is such a sham.

Stevel wrote: "The truth is that this ranking thing isn't an objective thing per se."

If you mean that it isn't 100% perfect, then of course, no one would disagree with that. But if you mean that it isn't objective at all, that hardly follows from the arguments you've been giving. You have taken each component that goes into ranking, and one by one give a counterexample. That is an invalid argument, since no one is saying that each component is THE factor. You have been using this invalid reply over and over again, presenting it as if it in any way undermines the objectivity of the whole process. It only undermines using each component individually as the only determining factor, which no one is claiming. That in NO way refutes the objectivity of the whole process. And again, "objectivity" here doesn't mean 100% perfection - otherwise, you can stop watching the weatherman at night, since he never gives you 100% chance of anything.

Quote:
"Bowl record this season

SEC: 7-2
Big-10: 2-6

says it all"


This poster and anyone else touting that as some credible SEC superiority argument point is ignorant.

The only true measure of conference vs conference strength is head to head results...everything else is nothing but speculation. Do yourselves a favor and stop showing your stupidity by using such a useless stat.

Over the past two years, the SEC has a losing record against the Big 10. That my SEC homers is the true measure of RECENT conference vs. conference strength.

Speculate all you want...your denial of the purest evidence only adds to your lack of credibility.

Congratulations LSU and SEC fans on another Nat'l Championship!

Regards to all!

Dink wrote:

Quote: "Bowl record this season SEC: 7-2 Big-10: 2-6
says it all

This poster and anyone else touting that as some credible SEC superiority argument point is ignorant."

As I will now show, you yourself have just displayed total stupidity in your ignorant reply. Save yourself further embarrassment and read on:

"The only true measure of conference vs conference strength is head to head results...everything else is nothing but speculation. Do yourselves a favor and stop showing your stupidity by using such a useless stat. Over the past two years, the SEC has a losing record against the Big 10."

Uh, you are wrong. The Big-10 and the SEC are TIED in bowl wins against each other over the past 2 seasons: 3-3. You have just COMPLETELY embarrassed yourself by spouting off about someone else's ignorance while stupidly displaying your own. Do you see that? Yes or no?

"Speculate all you want...your denial of the purest evidence only adds to your lack of credibility."

LOL

Eng1 said:

Look, take two hypothetical horses.
One won the Kentucky Derby last year.
The other is from fine stock, but has never won a race.
Which one would be favoured?
In this example, let's say it can't be settled by the horses racing each other. You are buying them both, and deciding how much to pay for each of them. Which horse do you think would attract more money (i.e. higher ranking); the proven or the unproven one?

This is precisely my point. If you just run the race with the two horses that have the best odds, you don't really have a true horse race. A horse like 50-1 Giacomo would never have won the Kentucky Derby in 2005. Neither would the numerous other horses that have won the Derby with better odds than Giacomo, but which were not among the top favorites. And Villanova would never have pulled the greatest upset in NCAA Basketball History winning the Title as a number 8 seed (ranked no better than #29 in the nation). And all the teams ranked lower than 4th in the nation in NCAA basketball would never have made it to the NCAA Finals which they, in fact, did in 23 out of the 29 years since they started seeding teams in that tournament.

To my mind, winning a sports championship isn't necessarily about being the "best" team. It's about winning on the playing field in head-to-head competition. "Best" is ultimately a matter of opinion no matter how educated or reasoned that opinion may be. There are times when people say "the best team didn't win" and that is fine. However, opinions shouldn’t be used as a basis for determining sports champions. At the same time, I realize that the chances the NCAA will come to its senses and abandon the notion of an NCAA football championship in the absence of playoffs is slim to none. This culture has too much of an obsession with declaring someone a winner, regardless of the means used to achieve it.

SteveL said:
"This is precisely my point. If you just run the race with the two horses that have the best odds, you don't really have a true horse race. A horse like 50-1 Giacomo would never have won the Kentucky Derby in 2005. "

To my mind, winning a sports championship isn't necessarily about being the "best" team. It's about winning on the playing field in head-to-head competition."

The NCAA is not a horse race run with two horses. Many games are played, and much data is collected on the realtive strengths of teams.
However, all horses meeting each other on the field would not be practical.

I have already agreed that a playoff would be superior to the current system.
But, we do not have this in place at this time.

What I am looking for from you is a suggestion of some logical process, in the absence of this phantom playoff, that is superior to the logic that was applied in choosing the "Kentucky Derby" winner this year.

Do you agree, that in the absence of a playoff, the system used the data avaliable as best it could to produce a meaningful NT game?

Even with your playoff, there would be still be contention.
What are you thinking?
Eight teams? Number 9 will be loaded with arguments as to why they should have been included.
Sixteen teams? Same arguments.

And, you still haven't answered why you think Ohio State should have been matched against OU???

"I think we should abandon the idea of having an NCAA football champion and instead focus on producing good match ups in the bowl games. "

I think you have just made a circular argument and have your underwear in a bit of a twist here.

Ok. First, for reasons I have given in previous posts, I am opposed to any process where the decision about who gets to play for
a National Championship is based on polls and computers. That decision should be made through a playoff and if that isn't possible I'd like to see the NCAA football Championship abolished. I know, this will never happen.

As far as the bowl games are concerned, my impression is that the BCS voting process, may, in certain circumstances interfere with the establishing the best bowl match ups and I could be wrong about this. Let me explain. It isn't obvious to me when looking at the BCS rankings on the one hand and the the teams favored to win bowl games on the other hand that the two always jive. For example, Ohio State was ranked # 1 in the nation by most sports writers, but #2 LSU was favored to win the game. If I am not mistaken, Stewart Mandel ranked Ohio State #1 and then turned around and picked #2 LSU to beat them in the title game. He was not alone. Most sports writers picked LSU to win and so did the odds makers This begs the question why was Ohio State ranked #1 if LSU was favored to beat them? My suspicion is that Ohio State achieved the top ranking because they had a better won-lost record than LSU, but that LSU was favored in the title game because people thought they were a better team. I also believe that Stewart said, on more than one occasion, that USC and Georgia were probably the two best teams in the country at the end of the year. I suspect he was not alone in this thinking. If a BCS title wasn't at stake, maybe it would have been easier to create match ups like Georgia-USC, Georgia-LSU, or LSU-USC that reflect the prevailing wisdom about who the best teams and match ups really are. Oh yeah, USC was stuck with the Rose Bowl. That's another bowl problem that needs fixing.

The NCAA is not a horse race run with two horses. Many games are played, and much data is collected on the realtive strengths of teams.
However, all horses meeting each other on the field would not be practical.

I think the analogy is a good one. The horses the enter the derby have run in many races and there is loads of data available about their performances. If you don't believe that, check out a copy of the Daily Racing Form.

What I am looking for from you is a suggestion of some logical process, in the absence of this phantom playoff, that is superior to the logic that was applied in choosing the "Kentucky Derby" winner this year.

I have no suggestions. In the absence of a playoff, a National Championship makes no sense to me. Personally, I could live without an NCAA champion and enjoy the bowl games. I would prefer a playoff if that were somehow possible.

Even with your playoff, there would be still be contention.
What are you thinking?
Eight teams? Number 9 will be loaded with arguments as to why they should have been included.
Sixteen teams? Same arguments.

I am not sure what the answer to this is. In NCAA basketball there are 64 teams and there isn't much controversy. Because of the nature of basketball, they have the luxury of including all the teams that have a reasonable crack at the title as well as many other teams that have virtually no chance. The lowest ranked team that has won the NCAA title was ranked somewhere around 30th.

You are right that there would always be some controversy. I suspect that the level of controversy diminishes as you are able to include more teams. My guess is that you would want to have at least 8 teams and 16 would be more desirable. Given the nature of college football, I realize that this isn't likely.

And, you still haven't answered why you think Ohio State should have been matched against OU???

Well I said this partly to be facetious and partly out of frustration at seeing these same teams get blown out in big bowl games. Ohio State has been blown out by an SEC team in the BCS Title game for the past two years. Oklahoma has also lost two BCS title games and two other bowl games. A couple of those were blowouts and one loss was to a much lower ranked team. I figure that if Ohio State played Oklahoma, at least one of these teams would emerge victorious.

2007 Record vs. Teams FINISHING in the AP Top 15, end of debate:

LSU 5-0
Georgia 2-1
USC 0-0
Ohio State 0-1
W. Virginia 1-0
Kansas 1-1
Missouri 1-2
Oklahoma 1-1

Stevel wrote: "Most sports writers picked LSU to win and so did the odds makers This begs the question why was Ohio State ranked #1 if LSU was favored to beat them? My suspicion is that Ohio State achieved the top ranking because they had a better won-lost record than LSU, but that LSU was favored in the title game because people thought they were a better team."

Steve that is so superficially presented! People had REASONS for thinking that LSU was the better team - i.e., it isn't some mere subjective whim, as you suggest by your wording. LSU played 7 ranked teams and beat 6 of them, and had a higher Sagarin strength of schedule rating. OSU had played only 1 ranked team, but on the other hand, had a better win/loss record. So the ranking was a compromise between those two OBJECTIVE factors - it wasn't as if the ranking was determined by nothing but how people subjectively "felt"!

"I also believe that Stewart said, on more than one occasion, that USC and Georgia were probably the two best teams in the country at the end of the year. I suspect he was not alone in this thinking."

I suspect he and those who agree with him were in the minority after the championship game. If the championship game had been close, then there would have been questions. But it was not, and the vast majority of articles since then have granted that LSU was most likely the best team in the country.

SteveL said:
" "The NCAA is not a horse race run with two horses. Many games are played, and much data is collected on the realtive strengths of teams.
However, all horses meeting each other on the field would not be practical."

I think the analogy is a good one. The horses the enter the derby have run in many races and there is loads of data available about their performances. If you don't believe that, check out a copy of the Daily Racing Form."

Yes, the analogy is a good one when properly applied, which is why I brought it up.
However, your corollary analogy of the Title game being a derby with only two horses does not fit.
Only two teams can play on a field at any given game, unlike a horse race with serveral horses. The two teams in this subject game are those that produced the best result from several races. There is no choice in any singular football competition other than to have two teams.

"I have no suggestions. In the absence of a playoff, a National Championship makes no sense to me. Personally, I could live without an NCAA champion and enjoy the bowl games."

Again, that is where we were 10 years ago.
However, you will still have voters (AP poll and coaches poll) ranking the team they believe to be #1 after the bowls, and there would be more controversy on whether the right team was chosen as #1 than there is today.

The National Title game is a attempt to give the best matchup possible - #1 vs #2. It doesn't always work, but it is better than where we were before there was a title game. In essence, the Title game is a playoff - a playoff between two teams. What you want is a playoff between more teams, which I agree would be superior. However, although it is only one small step toward the playoff that we both want, it is better than none at all.


"I also believe that Stewart said, on more than one occasion, that USC and Georgia were probably the two best teams in the country at the end of the year. I suspect he was not alone in this thinking."

Here is what Stewart Mandel said in his most recent article:

"3. Of that bunch, I truly believe LSU was the best team in the country, and certainly the most deserving champion. In a season where the top six teams in the final AP poll all had two losses, the Tigers were the only ones that could say they a) were champions of the nation's toughest conference; b) destroyed two other BCS-conference champions (Virginia Tech and Ohio State); and c) suffered their two defeats to a pair of eight-win teams, Kentucky and Arkansas -- not 4-8 Stanford, not 5-7 Pittsburgh, not 6-6 South Carolina. Their losses came in triple-overtime, not by three touchdowns at Tennessee."

Well stated, Stewart.

SteveL:

""And, you still haven't answered why you think Ohio State should have been matched against OU???"

Well I said this partly to be facetious and partly out of frustration at seeing these same teams get blown out in big bowl games. Ohio State has been blown out by an SEC team in the BCS Title game for the past two years. Oklahoma has also lost two BCS title games and two other bowl games. A couple of those were blowouts and one loss was to a much lower ranked team. I figure that if Ohio State played Oklahoma, at least one of these teams would emerge victorious."

Hindsight is 20/20, my friend.
Before the Title game, OSU earned its place by going through the season with only 1 defeat and winning the Big10 conference.

Your proposed throwback system (no Title game) will produce blow out games and lots of discussion about mis-matches after the fact.
Since we really can't rank teams that have not played head to head, we would end up with some miserable bowl match-ups, as we did before, and as we do today.

Al said:
"2007 Record vs. Teams FINISHING in the AP Top 15, end of debate:

LSU 5-0
Georgia 2-1
USC 0-0
Ohio State 0-1
W. Virginia 1-0
Kansas 1-1
Missouri 1-2
Oklahoma 1-1"

Although I agree that LSU is rightful national champion, there is a flaw in your agrument as presented.

LSU's 5-0 looks great up there.
However, we know LSU had 2 losses, the same as the rest of the list.
So, in isolation, those teams with a loss to a Top 15 team are actually have a los that is a notch better than LSU's losses. It is better to lose to a Top 15 team than a team that is lower than the Top 15.

Georgia, Ohio State, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma all lost to at leasat one team that was more highly ranked than either of LSU's losses.

However, often their other loss is inferior to either of LSU's losses (USC to Stanford, Georgia to South Carolina). More importantly, no one can compare with the caliber of Top level teams that LSU defeated. That is, in the 5-0, the 5 is a stronger point than the 0.

gatorchomp:

To be fair, LSU is the rightful champ and should be given the congragulations and respect as such.

The didn't get there by some unfair advantage, but by winning both games decisively on the field.
Sportswriters have described LSU's performance against Ohio State as domination, and Oklahoma never lead in the 2003 game.

One can always looks for nuances to discredit teams that they disfavour.
Instead of leading most of the public to question the wins, it usually brands the fans of the spokesperson as sore loosers.

Did someone in purple shirt kick sand in your face years ago?

"Yes, the analogy is a good one when properly applied, which is why I brought it up.
However, your corollary analogy of the Title game being a derby with only two horses does not fit.
Only two teams can play on a field at any given game, unlike a horse race with several horses. The two teams in this subject game are those that produced the best result from several races. There is no choice in any singular football competition other than to have two teams."

The correct football analogy to the Kentucky Derby is a playoff. The BCS title process provides as much insight into the quality of College Football teams as a two horse derby, selected through polls, would provide about the quality of 3 year old horses.

Your proposed throwback system (no Title game) will produce blow out games and lots of discussion about mis-matches after the fact.
Since we really can't rank teams that have not played head to head, we would end up with some miserable bowl match-ups, as we did before, and as we do today.

It is possible that the bowl games would not be any better if we eliminated the BCS. However, for the reasons I mentioned previously, its possible that people wouldn't feel compelled to match teams with
a good won lost record such as Hawaii and Ohio State against teams
that people believe are superior to them. It's pretty clear that people didn't believe that Ohio State was as good as their ranking. Why else would sports writers rank them #1 in the nation and then turn around
and pick LSU to win the title game?
I suspect that if OSU had faced Georgia or USC in a bowl game that they would have been the underdog in those games as well. #1 indeed.

Hindsight is 20/20, my friend.
Before the Title game, OSU earned its place by going through the season with only 1 defeat and winning the Big10 conference.

The only thing the Ohio State earned this year was the Big 10 title. I am convinced that the sports writers who ranked them #1 did not even believe they were the best team in the nation. Why else would they rank them #1 and then turn around and pick LSU to beat them in the so called title game?

Again, that is where we were 10 years ago.
However, you will still have voters (AP poll and coaches poll) ranking the team they believe to be #1 after the bowls, and there would be more controversy on whether the right team was chosen as #1 than there is today.

Your proposed throwback system (no Title game) will produce blow out games and lots of discussion about mis-matches after the fact.
Since we really can't rank teams that have not played head to head, we would end up with some miserable bowl match-ups, as we did before, and as we do today.

That might be true about the quality of the bowl games. Worst case scenario is that match ups are no better than they are now. However, if the NCAA renounced the various polls saying that they were merely the opinions of some sports writers and coaches and not sanctioned by the NCAA, at least it would eliminate the fiction that you can arrive at a National Champion based on opinion polls. Taking this step might even provide increase the pressure for establishing a playoff system.

"Why else would sports writers rank them #1 in the nation and then turn around
and pick LSU to win the title game?"

The majority of sports media, at least of those that I read and heard speak, picked Ohio State to win the game. I would guess that it was about 60%/40% in favour of OSU. Specifically, I recollect that these included Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit on the College Gameday broadcast on New Year's day.

"Worst case scenario is that match ups are no better than they are now."
Well, I don't agree with this either. If OSU had not made it to the title game, what would we have been subjected to instead? OSU against USC in the Rose Bowl, and LSU in the Sugar Bowl against Hawaii?

How about some of the matchups of the past? I assume by previous comments that you did not think OSU should have been in last year's NT game either (with hindsight), but how about USC v. Texas the year before? Would you have perferred to have watched USC against an overrated PAC 10 team in the Rose Bowl, and Texas in the Cotton Bowl?
Undefeated USC would not have met undefeated Oklahoma in 2005 (2004 season) without a NT game.
How about Tennessee (undefeated, I believe) in the first year in 1998?

I think you are applying highsight in your concept of better bowl match-ups here. If you rewind the season to pre-bowl status and match up without a Title Game, the games are no more compelling.

"Ok. First, for reasons I have given in previous posts, I am opposed to any process where the decision about who gets to play for
a National Championship is based on polls and computers."

I would like to see a 16-team playoff as well, but as you have stated, this will never happen.
But of course, you are still going to have to rank the teams to decide who gets a playoff berth.
In the absence of this expanded 16-team playoff, I maintain that a 2-team playoff is better than none at all.

gatorchomp;

"LSU seems to do best in the Superdome. In fact, LSU hasn't won a national championship outside of it. From my perspective, take the home-field advantage and officiating out of the 2008 BCS NC mix, and LSU would have ended up losing to OSU. The officials kept LSU in the game during the first half and everyone knows it. The pro-LSU officiating was just just too blatant for the world to ignore."

Are you a Gator fan?
Didn't the Gators just lose to Michigan in their home state?
What happened to the "home field" advantage there?

And on the officiating, yes, the world is ignoring this, because any biased officiating DIDN'T EXIST.
That's the oldest crock in the book, to blame the officials when your team can't win.
Only the sore losers like yourselves bring this up, as losers usually do.

LSU dominated the game, and a young OSU fell apart when they got behind.

The majority of sports media, at least of those that I read and heard speak, picked Ohio State to win the game. I would guess that it was about 60%/40% in favour of OSU. Specifically, I recollect that these included Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit on the College Gameday broadcast on New Year's day.

Most of the sports writers I heard said the opposite. As we also, know Stewart Mandel ranked Ohio State #1
and then turned around and picked them to lose the BCS Title game. The odds makers also picked LSU to win. Neither you or I has statistics on what sports writer's picks were on a percentage basis, but let's assume you are right and that only 40% of the sports writers nation wide picked LSU to win. That means that a large percentage of those who ranked Ohio State #1, picked them to lose to LSU. In essence, there a lot of the pollsters, including Stewart Mandel did not agree with their own rankings. In the final AP and USA Today rankings, Ohio State is ranked 4 and 5 respectively. What they are saying in essence is "Oops, the wrong two teams played in the BCS final. The truth about all this flip flopping around is that sports writers and coaches really don't have a clue who the best team in the country is.

Undefeated USC would not have met undefeated Oklahoma in 2005 (2004 season) without a NT game.

This is precisely my point. Oklahoma clearly demonstrated that they did not deserve to be in that Title Game. Wasn't Auburn also undefeated that year and weren't there some one loss and two loss teams that were at least as good as Oklahoma? Yes, USC-Texas was a good match up the following year, but then we got Florida OSU last year and LSU - OSU this year. If your argument is that we need the BCS system it produces better bowl games, there is no evidence that this is the true. Plenty of non-BCS games have proved to be at least as competitive as their BCS counterparts.

In the absence of this expanded 16-team playoff, I maintain that a 2-team playoff is better than none at all.

I believe that no playoff is better than a two team playoff and no NCAA Championship is better than one conducted in the absence of a playoff involving at least 8 teams.
The current system is unfair and the probability that the two teams who meet in the playoff are actually the two best teams in the country is quite small. This is something we can tell by looking at NCAA basketball. By disavowing the playoffs and declaring that there is no National Champion, the NCAA might actually provide some impetuous towards the creation of a playoff system.

How I enjoyed the NFL playoffs this past weekend and how much I would enjoy a similar format for the NCAA Div I football playoffs. No bowls, just the teams with the best records playing at home. Just imagine LSU taking the field against Ohio State in Columbus in early January, Florida taking the field against Michigan (even though the Gator got their asses kicked in DECENT weather), or USC enjoying the new year on a frozen, cold field in Champaign, IL on January 1. While we clamor for a playoff in college football, let's push for a real one with no warm-weather or home-field advantages like LSU, USC, and Miami have enjoyed over the years.

uh, warm weather doesn't just benefit the souther teams, gatorchump. It benefits BOTH teams to play in more ideal conditions. So that's no excuse for why LSU and USC and Tennessee kicked northern ass. As for home field advantage, do you how much Sagarin spots a team for home field advantage in his ratings? Three points. That's all. Now, how many points did LSU and USC beat their northern opponents by? Yep, that's right. No more excuses, please.

Yeaa.!! LSU Geau Ya'll

ohio basicly won

Soccer Database

Championship will always be the best part of every tournament. All fans will surely watch the game live or give their full attention while watching the game in t.v. We are also in excitement while watching our favorite team as if we are really part of the game,. We shout for very goal and mistake of the player.

Once again congrats to Ohio.

Hey guys,
If you're looking for a midweek laugh, here it is.

Stumbled across a pretty hilarious piece on college football tailgating that I'm passing on to you guys.
http://greenfaucet.com/lifestyle/tailgating-size-doesn-t-matter-really/60401
It's at UCLA and the one liners are amazing. Good luck to everyone and their teams this weekend

text "join buckeyes" to 88649 to see posts and comments made by former players delivered to your phone. Get info you won’t find on other blogs or ESPN.

What would be some pros and cons for adding a college football team?

I;ve never met a bad LSU person.

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/1953/Shaquille-ONeal/Shaq%27s-Grad-Speech

Go Tigers! LSU all the way. Ohio State had nothing on us!

Go LSU!! We did it! Nothing can stop us!

It was another great year for college football.

Anyone know where I can get a copy of the game online? Meanwhile I'll have to make do with this!