2012 NCAA Football thread

[thespleenenator]

The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

That is extremely debatable.

I like a challenge.....

Ok, we'll assume that today's date is January 6th. The BCS national title game has yet to be played.

I'll take Notre Dame and Alabama as the two teams playing for the national title. Using everything we know about the 2012 FBS college football season through Jan. 6th, your task is simple: You have to come up with another team besides Notre Dame and Alabama that should be playing in the NCG. There are 118 (or more) choices for you to choose from. State your case as to why that team should be playing for the national championship.

And....go!

Stanford should be playing in the national championship game because

1. They won their conference

2. The only reason they lost to Notre dame was on a botched call

3. They beat Oregon at Oregon

The early loss the Washington was a fluke. Also, nobody is playing better right now in the country than them (except for Alabama). It should be Alabama v Stanford.

[MellowTheMyth]

But I think the real problem is that when they "hand select" teams based upon record, they don't look pay as much attention as they should, to the teams they have played to become undefeated. Let's admit, Notre Dame had at least 4-5 games they should have lost to teams they were clearly better than. I feel as though that should be something to look into. So, clearly, Notre Dame wasn't worthy of a shot at the Title before or after the game was ever played.

[rams80]

Or, South Carolina should just go Independent. Let the NCAA make up some special rules for them, too.

In 20 seasons of independence, South Carolina went to 6 Bowls. It doesn't really matter, but they lost all of them (including a depantsing by Indiana, which LOL).

If you guys want to return to that, go ahead.

[rams80]

Because there is the possibility that you didn't play your conference champion and there are 2-3 really great teams in that conference...in comparison to a conference whose champion may not snuff .500 in the aforementioned.

Most of those leagues have championship games, as well as round robin play in the division. With that in mind, if you didn't play the Champion, I think you lost to somebody and GTFO with your whining. Win all of your games next time.

[rams80]

So yes, I agree there is an issue but I also know it is how the conference is setup and the facts are how I stated them: you may possibly be a 1-loss team that never played your conference champion and I don't think you should be eliminated from proving you are the best, if your resume backs it up.

Every team controls their destiny at the start of the season. If you lose a game, don't complain because you frittered away your chance. You only have 12 and only 3 or 4 of those you stand a realistic chance of not winning. My sympathies for your "plight" are kind of strained if you still fail to run the table and yet complain how unfair it is you can't get a seat at the championship table.

[DEAD!]

So yes, I agree there is an issue but I also know it is how the conference is setup and the facts are how I stated them: you may possibly be a 1-loss team that never played your conference champion and I don't think you should be eliminated from proving you are the best, if your resume backs it up.

Every team controls their destiny at the start of the season. If you lose a game, don't complain because you frittered away your chance. You only have 12 and only 3 or 4 of those you stand a realistic chance of not winning. My sympathies for your "plight" are kind of strained if you still fail to run the table and yet complain how unfair it is you can't get a seat at the championship table.

That didn't stop Alabama from getting to (and winning) the BCS title game last year

In all seriousness, I didn't have a problem this year with the Alabama-Notre Dame title game. Alabama won their conference, which I believe is currently the best and Notre Dame went undefeated, which had some good teams in there.

Had (The) Ohio State been eligible (and won their conference), I probably would have gone with Notre Dame-Ohio State.

[Lights Out]

The BCS was created to find the best two teams. The BCS did just that. Hence, it's not flawed.

That is extremely debatable.

I like a challenge.....

Ok, we'll assume that today's date is January 6th. The BCS national title game has yet to be played.

I'll take Notre Dame and Alabama as the two teams playing for the national title. Using everything we know about the 2012 FBS college football season through Jan. 6th, your task is simple: You have to come up with another team besides Notre Dame and Alabama that should be playing in the NCG. There are 118 (or more) choices for you to choose from. State your case as to why that team should be playing for the national championship.

And....go!

I was going to say Stanford, but spleen beat me to it.

Stanford/Bama would have been a better game, too.

[Kramerica Industries]

The difference between Stanford's play with Josh Nunes and Josh Hogan duly noted, you cannot put two loss Stanford, who lost to Notre Dame, over the Irish in the National Championship. That is as inane as it gets. I would actually argue with Hedley that we shouldn't use information we know through 1/6 in this discussion, because that includes bowl games for everyone else, except Alabama and Notre Dame. Information should only be valid through 12/1, when the regular season ended for every team (except Army and Navy).

We can argue whether Notre Dame had the talent of a #1 or #2 team, and whether they had any chance to hang with Alabama in a head-to-head game. The answer to both those questions is no, and hindsight is not needed to know that. But a 12-0 team who played a number of solid teams over the course of the season, and beat them all? Those credentials cannot be argued. Notre Dame deserved to be there more than Georgia, Florida, Stanford, South Carolina, LSU, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Oklahoma...need I go on?

[Rockstar Matt]

Every team who plays in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC, controls their destiny at the start of the season.

Fixed for accuracy.

[thespleenenator]

The difference between Stanford's play with Josh Nunes and Josh Hogan duly noted, you cannot put two loss Stanford, who lost to Notre Dame, over the Irish in the National Championship. That is as inane as it gets. I would actually argue with Hedley that we shouldn't use information we know through 1/6 in this discussion, because that includes bowl games for everyone else, except Alabama and Notre Dame. Information should only be valid through 12/1, when the regular season ended for every team (except Army and Navy).

We can argue whether Notre Dame had the talent of a #1 or #2 team, and whether they had any chance to hang with Alabama in a head-to-head game. The answer to both those questions is no, and hindsight is not needed to know that. But a 12-0 team who played a number of solid teams over the course of the season, and beat them all? Those credentials cannot be argued. Notre Dame deserved to be there more than Georgia, Florida, Stanford, South Carolina, LSU, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Oklahoma...need I go on?

Did they deserve it under the BCS system? Sure. But I'm trying to prove that the BCS system shouldn't exist in the first place. The great thing about a playoff is that the pretenders who happened to get a high seed get knocked out. Notre Dame would not be in the championship game under a playoff system.

[dfwabel]

Since the 2012 football season is over, I would not mind to see this thread put in "The Graveyard" since the majority of the posts are looking at the end result of the season to question the process of the selection for the BCS title game. The process to decide the title game was correct, the result was not what you wanted or expected. Especially if you denounced LSU v. Alabama last season. Why clamor for Oregon this year when you did not for Alabama last year? I know why...the first LSU v. Alabama game was 9-6 and the defenders were ballin!

The season is done and 'HedleyLamarr' is correct. The BCS was not developed and agreed to by conference commissioners to make a playoff, the conference commissioners (through their chancellors/presidents) made a system to match #1 vs. #2. When a portion of their formula disagreed (the AP), they changed the process.

The BCS last just one more season and it will go away.

For all of you who still b!tch, get ready to b!tch about the selection committee. Did you read the comments from Bill Hancock on Monday afternoon, regarding the future?

From Dennis Dodd (CBS Sports)

--The selection committee is expected to have 15-18 members. Hancock said the composition could include college administrators, commissioners -- even, perhaps, a retired media member.

“It will be the most prestigious committee in college sports,” Hancock said. “It will be the most scrutinized in college sports.”

--Hancock keeps making the comparison to the basketball committee, to the point that the playoff-selection process may not include providing standings updates during the season. That would only provide a template against which the final pairings could be compared.

A personal observation: The committee would be best to provide only a list of teams under consideration during the season. The traditional human polls almost certainly will lose relevance in the playoff era. The coaches' poll is currently in charge of giving its final No. 1 vote to the winner of the BCS game.

In the future, Hancock joked, “We might give out a crystal kicking tee.”

“It will come down to the eye test,” he said of the selection process. “It will come down to common sense. Who did you play? Did you win your conference? Who was injured when you played that day? What about common opponents? What about head to head?”

[Cola]

So yes, I agree there is an issue but I also know it is how the conference is setup and the facts are how I stated them: you may possibly be a 1-loss team that never played your conference champion and I don't think you should be eliminated from proving you are the best, if your resume backs it up.

Every team controls their destiny at the start of the season. If you lose a game, don't complain because you frittered away your chance. You only have 12 and only 3 or 4 of those you stand a realistic chance of not winning. My sympathies for your "plight" are kind of strained if you still fail to run the table and yet complain how unfair it is you can't get a seat at the championship table.

You are delusional. You use whatever is convenient to make your argument yet when I state the same thing for mine, my idea is crazy. I have used this EXACT argument to say why last year's NCG wasn't such a BCS mistake because...Oklahoma State and the others who wanted to be in Alabama's place didn't take care of business and do one thing to get them in the NCG: WIN when it mattered! However, that is your rebuttal to me now since it works for you.

[Cola]

Because there is the possibility that you didn't play your conference champion and there are 2-3 really great teams in that conference...in comparison to a conference whose champion may not snuff .500 in the aforementioned.

Most of those leagues have championship games, as well as round robin play in the division. With that in mind, if you didn't play the Champion, I think you lost to somebody and GTFO with your whining. Win all of your games next time.

They would still be a 1-loss team any way you want to look at it and they didn't play the conference champion! Just as equal to whoever else from another conference that would likely be playing in the NCG- newsflash, we don't see undefeated vs undefeated for the championship game every year.

Quit arguing with me because you will not change what makes complete sense and that is making room for more than 1 or 2 teams from a conference, because they could still be contenders for the national title! It is why basketball or baseball or the other sports don't just take the champions from each conference or division. It is why we rank teams and why early losses aren't judged as harshly as late losses. Step away from your anti-SEC mindset for a moment and you won't keep having a reason to rebut everything I post on this forum. Your replies are tiring because I feel like I repeat myself multiple times throughout the season and you can't comprehend.

[rams80]

Because Alabama didn't even win their ing division last season and Oklahoma State won what was team-for-team the best Conference in the land with the same record. That's what pissed everyone the off about that NCG selection.

[Cola]

Because Alabama didn't even win their ing division last season and Oklahoma State won what was team-for-team the best Conference in the land with the same record. That's what pissed everyone the off about that NCG selection.

I think Oklahoma State lost to somebody, so GTFO with your whining. They should win all of their games next time. Right?

Are we trying to put the best two teams in the NCG or not? There will be no pleasing this forum until the SEC loses...only then will the BCS be "correct" and have done it's job.

[thespleenenator]

So yes, I agree there is an issue but I also know it is how the conference is setup and the facts are how I stated them: you may possibly be a 1-loss team that never played your conference champion and I don't think you should be eliminated from proving you are the best, if your resume backs it up.

Every team controls their destiny at the start of the season. If you lose a game, don't complain because you frittered away your chance. You only have 12 and only 3 or 4 of those you stand a realistic chance of not winning. My sympathies for your "plight" are kind of strained if you still fail to run the table and yet complain how unfair it is you can't get a seat at the championship table.

You are delusional. You use whatever is convenient to make your argument yet when I state the same thing for mine, my idea is crazy. I have used this EXACT argument to say why last year's NCG wasn't such a BCS mistake because...Oklahoma State and the others who wanted to be in Alabama's place didn't take care of business and do one thing to get them in the NCG: WIN when it mattered! However, that is your rebuttal to me now since it works for you.

Neither did Alabama.

[rams80]

They would still be a 1-loss team any way you want to look at it and they didn't play the conference champion! Just as equal to whoever else from another conference that would likely be playing in the NCG- newsflash, we don't see undefeated vs undefeated for the championship game every year.

Except in all likelihood they actually did enough to win their Conference. So, no, they aren't really equal.

Quit arguing with me because you will not change what makes complete sense and that is making room for more than 1 or 2 teams from a conference, because they could still be contenders for the national title!

Not if they lose to one of their fellow contenders-which likely did have to happen for them to not win the Conference.

It is why basketball or baseball or the other sports don't just take the champions from each conference or division.

Point of order: They used to. They just saw more money in letting at larges in. Of course nowadays most people recognize that the NCAA Champion in those sports, while legitimate in that they won a playoff, might have difficulty claiming they were the best team in the land that season. (2010-11 UConn says "Hi!")

It is why we rank teams and why early losses aren't judged as harshly as late losses.

This sentiment, is, without a shadow of a doubt, INCREDIBLY stupid and the biggest structural problem with the human poll system today. A September loss should be just as damaging as a November loss (because that's how it is in league standings), only it isn't because athletic assistants and reporters are tards who can't see further than last week. Seriously, resolve circles of death by flipping a coin or aggregate score or which team looks better through the eye test if you're a pollster-all would be fairer than A lost to B, then B lost to C, then A beat C, so #1 A #2 B #3 C.

Step away from your anti-SEC mindset for a moment and you won't keep having a reason to rebut everything I post on this forum. Your replies are tiring because I feel like I repeat myself multiple times throughout the season and you can't comprehend.

I can comprehend just fine. It's called "not living in an echo chamber".

[Kevin W.]

Oklahoma State and the others who wanted to be in Alabama's place didn't take care of business and do one thing to get them in the NCG: WIN when it mattered!

Bama didn't take care of business, didn't win when it mattered and wasn't good enough to win the SEC last year. Your point is invalid.

[ninersdd]

Sure losing to Iowa State wasn't great, but didn't the school have a tragedy that day? Also OK State's conference wasn't exactly easy with Oklahoma, RG3, K-State, and A&M last year.

[cshookemHORNS]

Sure losing to Iowa State wasn't great, but didn't the school have a tragedy that day? Also OK State's conference wasn't exactly easy with Oklahoma, RG3, K-State, and A&M last year.

A&M was pretty bad last year.