In the BCS era "every game matters!"

[8timechamps]

Isn't that one of the main arguments the anti-playoff folks use? That under the current system, every game matters and a playoff would take that away? IF Bama ends up in the title game, then that argument is not valid. Basically, the first LSU/Bama game didn't matter.

[En_Fuego]

Yes. everyone knows OSU lost to ISU. And everyone also knows that Bama lost to LSU at home. ESPN and their SEC love fest is going to backfire on them this time. I would rather see anyone else play LSU than Bama.

"At the end of the day" ....:miserable: Alabama lost to LSU at home. This ship has already sailed.

[8timechamps]

Yes. everyone knows OSU lost to ISU. And everyone also knows that Bama lost to LSU at home. ESPN and their SEC love fest is going to backfire on them this time. I would rather see anyone else play LSU than Bama.

"At the end of the day" ....:miserable: Alabama lost to LSU at home. This ship has already sailed.

If nothing else, maybe this will move enough people to make some serious changes in the BCS.

[jthomas666]

Isn't that one of the main arguments the anti-playoff folks use? That under the current system, every game matters and a playoff would take that away? IF Bama ends up in the title game, then that argument is not valid. Basically, the first LSU/Bama game didn't matter.Perhaps the first LSU-Bama does matter--but the OKSt-Iowa St. game matters more.

[C&CDean]

As much as evaluating each team's loss is important, what about evaluating who each team beat? The Big-12 top to bottom is better than the SEC.

[oumartin]

The Big-12 top to bottom is better than the SEC.

ROFLMAO

[rekamrettuB]

It did matter. LSU won and won out and is in NOLA. Bama lost a game (why does it matter to who really?) and has their fate in the hands of the BCS. Quit looking at the fact they played each other and just look at it as a W or L.

[8timechamps]

It did matter. LSU won and won out and is in NOLA. Bama lost a game (why does it matter to who really?) and has their fate in the hands of the BCS. Quit looking at the fact they played each other and just look at it as a W or L.

The game mattered to LSU, but not to Bama. My point is that the old BCS argument that EVERY game matters, doesn't hold true. Nobody can convince me that Bama, who already had a shot at LSU, and lost, deserves to play them again.

[8timechamps]

Perhaps the first LSU-Bama does matter--but the OKSt-Iowa St. game matters more.

I'm not arguing that OSU automatically deserves a shot, my argument is that the LSU/Bama game didn't matter in the end (if Bama gets in). The game was already played. I'm not even arguing necessarily that Bama shouldn't be in, I'm arguing that the old "Every game matters" thing isn't the case. And that's what a lot of those opposed to a play-off system use as the basis for leaving things the way they are.

[rekamrettuB]

The game mattered to LSU, but not to Bama. My point is that the old BCS argument that EVERY game matters, doesn't hold true. Nobody can convince me that Bama, who already had a shot at LSU, and lost, deserves to play them again.

So because Bama's loss is to the team waiting for #2 they should be disqualified? There's a bunch of better arguments out there for Ok State than that one. What you are saying is don't lose to the team that will be on one side of the NC game...lose to someone else.

[8timechamps]

So because Bama's loss is to the team waiting for #2 they should be disqualified? There's a bunch of better arguments out there for Ok State than that one. What you are saying is don't lose to the team that will be on one side of the NC game...lose to someone else.

You're missing my point. Since OU isn't in the NCG, I really could care less who is playing. My point has nothing to do with who gets in, it's about the system. The premise that "every game matters" is a false one, otherwise, EVERY game would matter.

[goingoneight]

What's funny is all the BCS lovers don't know how to answer the obvious questions every single year.

[rekamrettuB]

You're missing my point. Since OU isn't in the NCG, I really could care less who is playing. My point has nothing to do with who gets in, it's about the system. The premise that "every game matters" is a false one, otherwise, EVERY game would matter.
I'm not arguing for one side or the other either. Your argument would hold more water if you said "since LSU didn't lose any games and there are no other teams undefeated then they are awarded the NC w/out playing another game". If people's defense of the BCS is "every game matters" then this rule should be in place don't you think?

[OUinFLA]

I would think lsu would not like to be playing bama........ again

[8timechamps]

I'm not arguing for one side or the other either. Your argument would hold more water if you said "since LSU didn't lose any games and there are no other teams undefeated then they are awarded the NC w/out playing another game". If people's defense of the BCS is "every game matters" then this rule should be in place don't you think?

I'm just basing my stance on the fact that the BCS promotes their system with the "every game matters" mantra. IIRC, ESPN even has that on the into screen for college football. Thus, many of the pro-BCSers use the same mantra..."If we bring in a playoff, then it will make games meaningless", etc. etc.

I have no problem with LSU being there. They have clearly earned it. My issue is with Bama getting a second chance. Kinda makes the whole system a joke. Not that Bama isn't the second best team (but again, there's no clear way to know that), it's just the a rematch makes the "every game mater" ideology weak at best.

[TitoMorelli]

I'm not arguing that OSU automatically deserves a shot, my argument is that the LSU/Bama game didn't matter in the end (if Bama gets in). The game was already played. I'm not even arguing necessarily that Bama shouldn't be in, I'm arguing that the old "Every game matters" thing isn't the case. And that's what a lot of those opposed to a play-off system use as the basis for leaving things the way they are.

While I think you've touched on some good points, you're making a claim that is false. Because the Alabama-LSU game mattered a lot. It knocked Alabama out of the driver's seat and into a situation in which they not only had to win out, they had to have help.

When OSU and Oregon (a second time) then fell, those games also mattered a lot. All OSU had to do was win out. But Iowa State's upset of them matters, too, just as it should.

[GreenSooner]

The only way that the BCS makes sense is if it's understood as a way to keep the revenue stream going to the traditional bowls and the power conferences (which is, in fact, exactly what it was designed to do). As a method of choosing a national champion it's at best totally arbitrary and, at worst, corrupt to boot. It's no wonder that all the "arguments" for it are so much empty nonsense. "Every game counts" is, as this thread makes trivially clear, nonsense. And it's nonsense every season in which there are not two--and only two--unbeaten teams at the end of the season...and those two teams end up in the MNC game.

Incidentally, Dan Wetzel, who's been hitting BCS-related softballs out of the park lately, has a good column up about the SEC's 2008 suggestion that the BCS become a four-team playoff (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sec_reaps_reward_rejection_120311), an idea that was ****canned by every other conference except the ACC. Dan Beebe looks particularly bad in Wetzel's retelling (no great surprise there), correctly predicting that the instant fans experience a four team playoff, they'll want to expand it, so even a four team playoff must be prevented from happening. After all, we can't please the fans at the expense of the folks currently making the most money off of college football!

[8timechamps]

While I think you've touched on some good points, you're making a claim that is false. Because the Alabama-LSU game mattered a lot. It knocked Alabama out of the driver's seat and into a situation in which they not only had to win out, they had to have help.

When OSU and Oregon (a second time) then fell, those games also mattered a lot. All OSU had to do was win out. But Iowa State's upset of them matters, too, just as it should.

I see your point, and I don't think the first Bama/LSU was completely meaningless. I guess my thinking is that a playoff wouldn't be any different in the "every game matters" regard. In the end, the games would still matter.

Also, it's just really hard for me to agree that Bama deserves a second chance to beat LSU, while other teams can claim they should be given a first shot. And that's the biggest problem I have, there is no clear cut way the BCS system works the same for everyone.

[8timechamps]

The only way that the BCS makes sense is if it's understood as a way to keep the revenue stream going to the traditional bowls and the power conferences (which is, in fact, exactly what it was designed to do). As a method of choosing a national champion it's at best totally arbitrary and, at worst, corrupt to boot. It's no wonder that all the "arguments" for it are so much empty nonsense. "Every game counts" is, as this thread makes trivially clear, nonsense. And it's nonsense every season in which there are not two--and only two--unbeaten teams at the end of the season...and those two teams end up in the MNC game.

Incidentally, Dan Wetzel, who's been hitting BCS-related softballs out of the park lately, has a good column up about the SEC's 2008 suggestion that the BCS become a four-team playoff (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sec_reaps_reward_rejection_120311), an idea that was ****canned by every other conference except the ACC. Dan Beebe looks particularly bad in Wetzel's retelling (no great surprise there), correctly predicting that the instant fans experience a four team playoff, they'll want to expand it, so even a four team playoff must be prevented from happening. After all, we can't please the fans at the expense of the folks currently making the most money off of college football!

Preaching to the choir my friend. I read Wetzel's book Death to the BCS a year ago, and have been pro-playoff (or more accurately, anti-BCS) since.

[SoonerorLater]

You're missing my point. Since OU isn't in the NCG, I really could care less who is playing. My point has nothing to do with who gets in, it's about the system. The premise that "every game matters" is a false one, otherwise, EVERY game would matter.

It will always be that way unless the both the number 1 and 2 teams are the only undefeated teams in the country. No getting around that. The voters will always have to weigh a teams body of work and make a subjective judgment. So yes in the end I guess Alabama's loss is irrelevant as far as winning a championship. That would be the case even if you had a playoff system other than one that included every team.

[8timechamps]

It will always be that way unless the both the number 1 and 2 teams are the only undefeated teams in the country. No getting around that. The voters will always have to weigh a teams body of work and make a subjective judgment. So yes in the end I guess Alabama's loss is irrelevant as far as winning a championship. That would be the case even if you had a playoff system other than one that included every team.

I know there are flaws to even a playoff system, much like the NCAA hoops tourney. However, arguing that the #9 team or the #13 team missed the tourney wouldn't be as confusing or seemingly arbitrary as the way things are this year.

[TitoMorelli]

I know there are flaws to even a playoff system, much like the NCAA hoops tourney. However, arguing that the #9 team or the #13 team missed the tourney wouldn't be as confusing or seemingly arbitrary as the way things are this year.

Great point, 8time.

[GreenSooner]

I know there are flaws to even a playoff system, much like the NCAA hoops tourney. However, arguing that the #9 team or the #13 team missed the tourney wouldn't be as confusing or seemingly arbitrary as the way things are this year.

Exactly. Unless you go to a system in which all conference champions, and only conference champions, make a playoff, there will be some sort of human factor in the selection process. But when the argument is over bubble teams (as it is in the basketball tournament) it will have little to do with who eventually gets crowned champion.

[8timechamps]

Great point, 8time.

It's all about my massive brain! Spread the word :)

[StatesEye]

The real problem I have with a LSU-Bama rematch is the possibility of a Bama win. Let's see.....

LSU beats Bama at Bama
LSU plays an extra game against a ranked opponent and wins handily
LSU wins their division
LSU wins their conference championship
Bama then wins the second game (with a slight crowd advantage for LSU, most likely)and they are then BCS champs.....win the whole banana?

LSU and Bama split two games, with LSU being more impressive, they play an extra game, win their championship but Bama wins the BCS. Meh.

[SoonerorLater]

I guess if you win the championship game you are the champ. How about this? Not only does Alabama win but they win 9-6 on a neutral field. It would great to hear the flap from the talking heads on that. It would be a dream come true for a gasbag like Skip Bayless.

[8timechamps]

Oh yeah, an Alabama win would be perfect.

Bama fan: We're the champs!!!!

LSU fan: No, we beat you first, AND we won the SEC title game.

Bama fan: But we won the REAL title game!

and on and on and on...


It would be great!

[jthomas666]

I'm not arguing that OSU automatically deserves a shot, my argument is that the LSU/Bama game didn't matter in the end (if Bama gets in). The game was already played. I'm not even arguing necessarily that Bama shouldn't be in, I'm arguing that the old "Every game matters" thing isn't the case. And that's what a lot of those opposed to a play-off system use as the basis for leaving things the way they are.The logic is flawed:

Bama lost a game; at that point, they were out of the discussion.

Then all the teams between them and LSU went and lost games; that's how Bama got back in the mix.

Ergo, every game did matter.

[jkjsooner]

I know there are flaws to even a playoff system, much like the NCAA hoops tourney. However, arguing that the #9 team or the #13 team missed the tourney wouldn't be as confusing or seemingly arbitrary as the way things are this year.

I've been preaching this exact point for years. Anti-playoff guys are simply incapable of understanding your reasoning.

[jkjsooner]

(sarcasm) But what happens when a 6-5 team gets an at-large bid to the 4 or 8 team playoff ala NY Giants. (/sarcasm)

[8timechamps]

The logic is flawed:

Bama lost a game; at that point, they were out of the discussion.

Then all the teams between them and LSU went and lost games; that's how Bama got back in the mix.

Ergo, every game did matter.

It obviously didn't matter, or Bama wouldn't be getting another chance to beat LSU. I'm not arguing that Bama isn't qualified to be in the game, but no more qualified than OSU or Stanford.

The game didn't matter. If it had, the loss would have meant something. It clearly didn't.

[8timechamps]

I've been preaching this exact point for years. Anti-playoff guys are simply incapable of understanding your reasoning.

That's because most anti-playoff people are so sold on the status quo, that they won't listen to possible solutions to an obvious mess.

[Caboose]

Isn't that one of the main arguments the anti-playoff folks use? That under the current system, every game matters and a playoff would take that away? IF Bama ends up in the title game, then that argument is not valid. Basically, the first LSU/Bama game didn't matter.

In what way did it not matter? Do you think if Bama had lost that game by 50 they would have been in contention for to make it to the title game? Everything about that game mattered, down to the margin of victory. After that game there were a lot of people who were still uncertain that LSU was the better team due to how close the game was. Another game that mattered was the OSU/Iowa State game. It looks worse to a lot of voters to lose to Iowa State than to lose in a tough game to LSU. Sounds like you are defeating your own argument. You know what other games mattered? ALL of the other games played....the results of those games were used to compile records and rankings for the BCS.

[8timechamps]

In what way did it not matter? Do you think if Bama had lost that game by 50 they would have been in contention for to make it to the title game? Everything about that game mattered, down to the margin of victory. After that game there were a lot of people who were still uncertain that LSU was the better team due to how close the game was. Another game that mattered was the OSU/Iowa State game. It looks worse to a lot of voters to lose to Iowa State than to lose in a tough game to LSU. Sounds like you are defeating your own argument. You know what other games mattered? ALL of the other games played....the results of those games were used to compile records and rankings for the BCS.

One of the main arguments from the anti-playoff camp is that bringing in a playoff would make games meaningless. How is that any different than what happened in the LSU/Bama situation? They played the game, Bama lost, yet Bama is sitting in the national title game getting a rematch. How can you tell me that the first LSU/Bama game meant anything? If it really was so meaningful, then Bama wouldn't be getting another shot.

Lets use simple logic:

Lets say that you and I are super-great beerpong players, so good in fact that we are nationally ranked. Then there's a couple of other people, we'll say it's Corey Nelson and Roy Finch (disclaimer: I have no idea if they are Beerpongers), and they are pretty good too. Lets say that we all play 10 rounds of beerpong. I play you and you beat me, but I win all of my other games. Corey and Roy play 10 games, but lose to a couple of knuckleheads. Myself, Roy and Corey all have one loss in our beerpong season, and you are undefeated in yours. When it comes time to pick players for the beerpong championship, you are a shoe-in because you're undefeated. So, we need to find an opponent. My argument for getting in over Roy and Corey is because I lost, but I lost to you! Roy and Corey are going to say "nonsense", you already played him, and you lost...he's already shown he's better at beerpong than you are. That makes sense, because I did play you, and I lost.

See, in that example, our game wasn't meaningless. You showed that you were better by beating me. Now, Roy and Corey could say they lost because of weather, illness, too drunk, whatever. But, I can't argue with them, because I already had my chance, and I lost. If I got another chance, it would mean my first game was meaningless. Because it would have been.

I like how I used Corey and Roy in a beerpong story. That should win the debate by itself.

[jthomas666]

It obviously didn't matter, or Bama wouldn't be getting another chance to beat LSU. I'm not arguing that Bama isn't qualified to be in the game, but no more qualified than OSU or Stanford.

The game didn't matter. If it had, the loss would have meant something. It clearly didn't.ah, the "I don't agree with you, so I'll just ignore your argument.

I get that some people aren't thrilled with the idea of a rematch. But this "every game doesn't matter" business is silly. If one game can disqualify a team from the title game, why don't we just skip all the bother and declare LSU the champ?

It's an imperfect system, and people are for some reason expecting perfect results.

[8timechamps]

ah, the "I don't agree with you, so I'll just ignore your argument.

I get that some people aren't thrilled with the idea of a rematch. But this "every game doesn't matter" business is silly. If one game can disqualify a team from the title game, why don't we just skip all the bother and declare LSU the champ?

It's an imperfect system, and people are for some reason expecting perfect results.

ah, the "I'm gonna go to another teams forum and explain why my opinion is the only one that could possibly be correct" argument.

I'm not ignoring your argument, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Bama had a chance to show they were better than LSU, and they lost. Pretty simple. If the game really mattered, that would have been it. Instead, they get to replay them because that's "how the system works". I want perfect results, and a perfect system...the BCS is not it.

Again, I'm not arguing that Bama doesn't deserve to be there, but no more so than OSU or Stanford. They all have one loss, the only differences is that Bama's loss was to LSU...so, if the game really mattered, it should have meant something. It didn't. Maybe in the BCS it did, but in common sense logic, it didn't.

[Since71ASooner4Life]

Basically, the first LSU/Bama game didn't matter.

Sure it did - along with the rest of their outstanding season, their lone loss being to an undefeated #1 ranked team showed that Alabama was no less than #2 and deserved to play for the title. It's more a case of bad luck for LSU that beating them once didn't get rid of them

[Caboose]

One of the main arguments from the anti-playoff camp is that bringing in a playoff would make games meaningless. How is that any different than what happened in the LSU/Bama situation? They played the game, Bama lost, yet Bama is sitting in the national title game getting a rematch. How can you tell me that the first LSU/Bama game meant anything? If it really was so meaningful, then Bama wouldn't be getting another shot.


This has already been explained. The voters watched the LSU/BAMA game and due to how close it was many were not convinced that LSU was the better team, or at least didnt think OSU was better than Bama. The game mattered because the outcome of it went a long way towards determining the order of the top 3 teams. Had either LSU or Bama been defeated soundly in that game OSU would probably have been #2. That didnt happen, ergo the results of the game were extremely meaningful.

[jthomas666]

apparently, the OU/OSU game didn't matter. How is that for logic?But it did matter. OSU climbed to 2 or 3 in just about all the polls. It just didn't matter enough to get them into the big game.

[SOONER44EVER]

Apparently OSU and Bama only played 1 game each. All we ever hear about is who they lost to, not who they beat.