Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the best one loss team should play for the title. Alabama's loss to 4th ranked Auburn was better than Mizzou's loss to 8th ranked South Carolina. And very few people would agree that Mizzou is a better team than Alabama.
Why compare losses? Mizzou would be 3-1 against top 25 teams (Bama is 2-1) have the SEC hardware, a tougher schedule, a better record and a better win. No brainer to me.
Why compare losses? Mizzou would be 3-1 against top 25 teams (Bama is 2-1) have the SEC hardware, a tougher schedule, a better record and a better win. No brainer to me.
Because who you lose to matters. I remember OK State fans complaining a couple of years ago when they lost to some unranked team. Fans argued that the "quality of their wins" should be considered rather than the opponents they lost to. I think both should be considered. In this case, it took a Top 3 team to take Alabama down, not some silly unheard of program.
And Alabama is simply better than Missouri. Pretty much everyone knows and understands this besides Mizzou fans. Alabama just had the misfortune of having to play in a tough division in a tough conference. If Bama played in the Big 10, they would probably would have given up fewer than 10 scores on the entire season. There's no way in hell they would let Michigan take them down to the wire.
Playoffs make it possible for a team who loses when they shouldn't, have a chance to go back out and win like they should.
So are you against the playoff system?
No, why would you automatically jump to that conclusion?
Everyone knows an 8-team play-off would be a major improvement over what we have now and even what we're expecting next year. Short of that, their really ought to have been a rule that would preclude a team like Bama sneaking past a team like Mizzou.
As we've already seen, a team cannot even play in their conference title game and still get a slot in the title game.
If Ohio State and Florida State win their conference titles, it's going to take a ton of lobbying from the SEC to get a 1 loss Bama, Auburn or Missouri into the title game.
It doesn't matter how Ohio State performed in their previous title game trips. They would sit at 13-0, Big Ten Champs and deserve their spot in the title game based on the current system.
If OSU and FSU win and get to Pasadena, it's going to be fun listening to all the SEC fans cheapen the title game because both teams don't have to face off against an SEC team.
I don't see it that way. Alabama, imo, would be the best one loss team among the pack. If both OSU and Auburn lose, then I think Bama should play for the title.
I think that Alabama's the best team in the Southeastern Conference, and they could still be the best team in the nation for all we know. Even so, I don't think that the presumed superiority of Alabama should matter. If they can beat Auburn, then Mizzou is more deserving than Alabama. Full stop.
On one hand, I'm tempted as you are to give Alabama the nod. For many reasons, I think they're actually the better team. Auburn's lucky that, unlike my beloved LSU tigers, they don't have to play a Nick Saban coached team that has a month to simmer over a close loss and all that time to tweak its game in a rematch - there's no way Auburn would win a second time. Yet As sucky as it was for us, I reluctantly accepted the fairness of the 2011 rematch because Alabama could at least say that they had defeated the champion of their own conference en route to winning a national championship. There's at least an argument to be made there. I also argued, as you did, that the SEC was clearly the superior conference and that LSU and Alabama were playing at a different level than the other 1-loss teams in the nation. I stand by that, as I'm sure you do.
In the case of Mizzou (assuming they win of course), I think we're dealing with circumstances, which, albeit only slightly different, are nevertheless significant. Even with its close-shave loss to top-ten SC (with a back QB I'd add), Mizzou would actually have a higher winning percentage and thus a better record statistically than Alabama. And it's not like Mizzou beat up on teams in an inferior conference or took the easy road to get here. If they somehow win out, they will have defeated more top-25 BCS teams; they will have defeated the team that dethroned Alabama; and they will have outright won the conference they both belong to. If Mizzou wins the SEC title, I don't see how anyone can make an academic argument in favor of Alabama over Mizzou, other than the assumption that Alabama's better and that they both have only one loss. I'm sure Bama fans will point out that they kicked the Tigers all over the field last year, and that might have been true -- last year. It could have been true again this year -- if Alabama had just finished off a team they really should have beaten by two touchdowns. I'd probably agree: Bama is better than Mizzou. But lots of 'better' teams and 'would be' champions eventually lose opportunities to play in championships. It should be about what's fair, based on how teams have already played on the field, not how we assume they might play if given second chances.
Last edited by chickenfriedbananas; 12-02-2013 at 04:31 PM..
I think that Alabama's the best team in the Southeastern Conference, and they could still be the best team in the nation for all we know. Even so, I don't think that the presumed superiority of Alabama should matter. If they can beat Auburn, then Mizzou is more deserving than Alabama. Full stop.
On one hand, I'm tempted as you are to give Alabama the nod. For many reasons, I think they're actually the better team. Auburn's lucky that, unlike my beloved LSU tigers, they don't have to play a Nick Saban coached team that has a month to simmer over a close loss and all that time to tweak its game in a rematch - there's no way Auburn would win a second time. Yet As sucky as it was for us, I reluctantly accepted the fairness of the 2011 rematch because Alabama could at least say that they had defeated the champion of their own conference en route to winning a national championship. There's at least an argument to be made there. I also argued, as you did, that the SEC was clearly the superior conference and that LSU and Alabama were playing at a different level than the other 1-loss teams in the nation. I stand by that, as I'm sure you do.
In the case of Mizzou (assuming they win of course), I think we're dealing with circumstances, which, albeit only slightly different, are nevertheless significant. Even with its close-shave loss to top-ten SC (with a back QB I'd add), Mizzou would actually have a higher winning percentage and thus a better record statistically than Alabama. And it's not like Mizzou beat up on teams in an inferior conference or took the easy road to get here. If they somehow win out, they will have defeated more top-25 BCS teams; they will have defeated the team that dethroned Alabama; and they will have outright won the conference they both belong to. If Mizzou wins the SEC title, I don't see how anyone can make an academic argument in favor of Alabama over Mizzou, other than the assumption that Alabama's better and that they both have only one loss. I'd probably agree: Bama is better than Mizzou. But lots of 'better' teams and 'would be' champions eventually lose opportunities to play in championships. It should be about what's fair, based on how teams have already played on the field, not how we assume they might play if given second chances.
Good points. You are right... I agree with you that Bama "shouldn't" be in over Mizzou.
Having said that... Bama is still better than Mizzou.
As we've already seen, a team cannot even play in their conference title game and still get a slot in the title game.
If Ohio State and Florida State win their conference titles, it's going to take a ton of lobbying from the SEC to get a 1 loss Bama, Auburn or Missouri into the title game.
It doesn't matter how Ohio State performed in their previous title game trips. They would sit at 13-0, Big Ten Champs and deserve their spot in the title game based on the current system.
If OSU and FSU win and get to Pasadena, it's going to be fun listening to all the SEC fans cheapen the title game because both teams don't have to face off against an SEC team.
I don't know about other SEC fans, but for me, I'd hope that two undefeateds would play each other. I for one would not want to see an SEC team sneak in the backdoor. I don't think that not winning the conference necessarily matters in all cases, but there's just no case to be made for a one-loss team getting in the door this year if OSU and FSU win out. If it's Northern Illinois, then yeah, I'd raise hell. But going undefeated in the BIG two years running is a big time accomplishment. I still think they'd get crushed by FSU and Alabama would make for a better match-up, but that doesn't matter.
Im not sure I can definitively say yes. On a neutral field... I think ND may have been able to pull it out. like you said... OSU gives up points. And ND would have been able to score.
I'd take OSU in 2013 over 2012 ND, but it would be close. Yes, OSU gives up points, but I disagree with your assessment of ND's offense. Their output was terrible, which is one of the reasons why they had no chance against Alabama once they fell behind. I think OSU would score points and the ND offense would become more predictable. That's what happened to them in the title game last year. They'd have a better chance against OSU, but they'd still lose.
The real question is, how would OSU fare against FSU, which is probably a faster and more athletic group than Alabama in 2012. Alabama's 2012 was strong on the lines - the 2011 lines were even stronger. But FSU's lines are not exactly wimps and they have some freakishly athletic players once you get behind the trenches. Maybe some of the ACC opponents are making FSU look better than they really are, but what I've seen has impressed me this year. People keep calling FSU an SEC-like opponent. In truth, though, they remind me of the old Seminoles of 1999 and 2000. Muscular and fast - really athletic.
I'd take OSU in 2013 over 2012 ND, but it would be close. Yes, OSU gives up points, but I disagree with your assessment of ND's offense. Their output was terrible, which is one of the reasons why they had no chance against Alabama once they fell behind. I think OSU would score points and the ND offense would become more predictable. That's what happened to them in the title game last year. They'd have a better chance against OSU, but they'd still lose.
The real question is, how would OSU fare against FSU, which is probably a faster and more athletic group than Alabama in 2012. Alabama's 2012 was strong on the lines - the 2011 lines were even stronger. But FSU's lines are not exactly wimps and they have some freakishly athletic players once you get behind the trenches. Maybe some of the ACC opponents are making FSU look better than they really are, but what I've seen has impressed me this year. People keep calling FSU an SEC-like opponent. In truth, though, they remind me of the old Seminoles of 1999 and 2000. Muscular and fast - really athletic.
I think we are in agreement... Saying it different ways to get to the same outcome.
ND's offense in '12 is better than the '13 Fighting Illini's though.. And they scored almost at will against OSU.
As we've already seen, a team cannot even play in their conference title game and still get a slot in the title game.
If Ohio State and Florida State win their conference titles, it's going to take a ton of lobbying from the SEC to get a 1 loss Bama, Auburn or Missouri into the title game.
It doesn't matter how Ohio State performed in their previous title game trips. They would sit at 13-0, Big Ten Champs and deserve their spot in the title game based on the current system.
If OSU and FSU win and get to Pasadena, it's going to be fun listening to all the SEC fans cheapen the title game because both teams don't have to face off against an SEC team.
If OSU and FSU play for the national championship, OSU will get trounced like they have before and everyone, not just SEC fans will say they didn't deserve to be there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
