Inner-Conference National Championship Matchups

[Cola]

With South Carolina playing Florida in baseball tonight, I just realized that for the first time ever (?)...2 national championship games in major sports were played between two teams from the same conference. Has that ever happened before in the same year? Not only that, but both were in the same division within the same conference.

It kind of made me think about how a lot people's opinion on last year's NCG in football were "there is no way you can say 2 teams from the same conference can legitimately be the best 2 in the sport...someone is left out." Obviously, that is arguable in something like football since the BCS runs it...but in baseball, there is a difficult playoff and World Series to fight through- and that kind of kills that logic (referring to last year's Florida/South Carolina World Series Championship.

Thoughts?

[rams80]

What we were saying is that given the limited sample size of games played relative to teams of the regular season in college football, its hard to seriously suggest beyond reasonable doubt that two teams in the same division are the best and should have a rematch. As baseball has a mass playoff tournament structure leading up to the final game, those teams have been "proven" to have been worthy of playing for the championship beyond all others.

[WJMorris3]

What we were saying is that given the limited sample size of games played relative to teams of the regular season in college football, its hard to seriously suggest beyond reasonable doubt that two teams in the same division are the best and should have a rematch. As baseball has a mass playoff tournament structure leading up to the final game, those teams have been "proven" to have been worthy of playing for the championship beyond all others.

But the problem with that assessment implies that any of the teams are capable of winning the national championship in football, when in reality there's only 12 to 14 teams capable of winning it in any given year.

[Lights Out]

Aaaaaand moving right along from willmorristrollbot's usual spew, few people would have been opposed to LSU/Bama in the title game if they had to earn their way to a rematch through a playoff system. But the fact of the matter is, they were selected through a deeply-flawed system, and Oklahoma State (who won their conference) got screwed over in favor of a team that didn't even get to play for their conference title.

[Cola]

Aaaaaand moving right along from willmorristrollbot's usual spew, few people would have been opposed to LSU/Bama in the title game if they had to earn their way to a rematch through a playoff system. But the fact of the matter is, they were selected through a deeply-flawed system, and Oklahoma State (who won their conference) got screwed over in favor of a team that didn't even get to play for their conference title.

I guess the big thing is that people need proof...and only a playoff system will convince those people. Many people saw LSU and Alabama as the 2 best teams on performance and talent alone...but there would be constant complaining and opposition from others unless there was a playoff- no matter what. Being in the same conference, from many onlookers, automatically DQ'd one team from participation (in their minds).

I wonder how many of those same people would complain (or at least I'd be interested in their response) had the same result happened after a playoff.

We will never know, but it is odd that no complaints were heard when Carolina and Florida met in the World Series Championship series...the subject of 2 teams in the same conference within the same division wasn't even mentioned. It was just accepted that the 2 teams were the best of the bunch.

[HedleyLamarr]

Aaaaaand moving right along from willmorristrollbot's usual spew, few people would have been opposed to LSU/Bama in the title game if they had to earn their way to a rematch through a playoff system. But the fact of the matter is, they were selected through a deeply-flawed system, and Oklahoma State (who won their conference) got screwed over in favor of a team that didn't even get to play for their conference title screwed themselves by putting themselves in a position where they may not win a debate over "Who's #2?".

Edited for accuracy.

[rams80]

I wonder how many of those same people would complain (or at least I'd be interested in their response) had the same result happened after a playoff.

We wouldn't. However we just can't take "They s'posed to be SEC" alone as a justification for why they are the best. There does need to be at least a hint of battle testing against other elites outside of the SEC for both teams (to head off the "but LSU...") before we can feel comfort in taking that outcome.

/Of course, the other reason for a lack of a general national hue and cry might be the whole "college baseball is a regional sport in terms of attention given" bit.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

We're trying to say "intra-conference," right?

"Inner" makes it sound like the entire conference is lazing down the river in a rubber tube, which would be a different kind of championship altogether.

[Cola]

We're trying to say "intra-conference," right?

"Inner" makes it sound like the entire conference is lazing down the river in a rubber tube, which would be a different kind of championship altogether.

Ha. I just noticed that...I was posting under the influence last night and my vocabulary was a bit limited.

[infrared41]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

[4_tattoos]

We're trying to say "intra-conference," right?

"Inner" makes it sound like the entire conference is lazing down the river in a rubber tube, which would be a different kind of championship altogether.

Ha. I just noticed that...I was posting under the influence last night and my vocabulary was a bit limited.

HA!!!!

[Cola]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

[The_Admiral]

Of course, the other reason for a lack of a general national hue and cry might be the whole "college baseball is a regional sport in terms of attention given" bit.

Hey, maybe at this rate, college football will be one, too. Fans in non-slave states need not apply.

[rams80]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

Do you even understand why people might be more accepting of an outcome arrived after a goddamn playoff system of something like 12 games involving 64 teams (itself played after a 50+ game regular season) versus an outcome that arbitrarily says, "welp after 12 games in which you only played conference mates, 3 soup cans, and one half of a good team, you get to play this team that beat you in Conference play"? Or was that course in critical thinking at South Carolina subbed out for "Proper Stadium Ettiquette or 'Don't Ogle The Sundresses'"?

[infrared41]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

Except that they weren't. I don't recall anyone around here using that "excuse." The big arguments against Alabama around here were either that they didn't win their conference or they'd already had their shot at LSU and lost. The argument wasn't against your beloved SEC. The argument was against the system itself.

That aside, your argument is still a ridiculous comparison. There is nothing at all similar about a baseball playoff that resulted in two teams from the same conference playing each other and two teams from the same conference being selected to play in a title game. The baseball teams earned their way to that match up. That's the difference; and it's such a big difference that your argument is absurd.

And I still can't believe you're still going on about this. Still, I have to admit that I do find it amusing. I've never seen anyone so in love with a football conference of all things. But you're not an SEC homer.

[illwauk]

Of course, the other reason for a lack of a general national hue and cry might be the whole "college baseball is a regional sport in terms of attention given" bit.

Given that only about 50% of the country usually has "baseball weather" before May, it certainly skews things towards Sun Belt teams, hence the abundance of California schools with relatively small athletic departments (Long Beach, Fullerton, etc.) who usually make the College World Series.

[Cola]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

Do you even understand why people might be more accepting of an outcome arrived after a goddamn playoff system of something like 12 games involving 64 teams (itself played after a 50+ game regular season) versus an outcome that arbitrarily says, "welp after 12 games in which you only played conference mates, 3 soup cans, and one half of a good team, you get to play this team that beat you in Conference play"? Or was that course in critical thinking at South Carolina subbed out for "Proper Stadium Ettiquette or 'Don't Ogle The Sundresses'"?

I noted that I recognized the extreme difference in my initial post. Did they teach inference and comprehension...at...whatever institution you may have attended?

My point was not comparing the way the two teams arrive in the game. My point was simply focused on the outrage that two teams from the same conference can even logically participate in "fairness".

[Cola]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

Except that they weren't. I don't recall anyone around here using that "excuse." The big arguments against Alabama around here were either that they didn't win their conference or they'd already had their shot at LSU and lost. The argument wasn't against your beloved SEC. The argument was against the system itself.

That aside, your argument is still a ridiculous comparison. There is nothing at all similar about a baseball playoff that resulted in two teams from the same conference playing each other and two teams from the same conference being selected to play in a title game. The baseball teams earned their way to that match up. That's the difference; and it's such a big difference that your argument is absurd.

And I still can't believe you're still going on about this. Still, I have to admit that I do find it amusing. I've never seen anyone so in love with a football conference of all things. But you're not an SEC homer.

See my reply to rams80. I noted that the systems were totally different...even said mentioned how the BCS derives participating teams is totally different. My point was the response from the fans and onlookers. Maybe it wasn't on here so much, but a lot of people I came across felt that a rule should be made that 2 teams from the same conference should NOT be able to play in the championship game. Especially ones that played during the regular season because it was "already settled".

If you could get past my love affair with the SEC and read the point I'm trying to make, you would see that.

[rams80]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

Do you even understand why people might be more accepting of an outcome arrived after a goddamn playoff system of something like 12 games involving 64 teams (itself played after a 50+ game regular season) versus an outcome that arbitrarily says, "welp after 12 games in which you only played conference mates, 3 soup cans, and one half of a good team, you get to play this team that beat you in Conference play"? Or was that course in critical thinking at South Carolina subbed out for "Proper Stadium Ettiquette or 'Don't Ogle The Sundresses'"?

I noted that I recognized the extreme difference in my initial post. Did they teach inference and comprehension...at...whatever institution you may have attended?

My point was not comparing the way the two teams arrive in the game. My point was simply focused on the outrage that two teams from the same conference can even logically participate in "fairness".

Yeah, and Fox News anchors lead off their more off the wall statements with "some people say" as a way to deflect responsibility. Unfortunately for you coded language doesn't work on me. Some of us, such as me, are actually able to look beyond the words you write and the sheer intent behind them, and your intent is to once again try to defend the placement of a pair of SEC teams in college football's MNC game without any real attempt to prove their worthiness (beyond conference affiliation). So long as you have a 2 team playoff in a sport with as few games (compared to number of competing teams) as college football, there really shouldn't be a "rematch" in that playoff game.

[infrared41]

I can't believe you're still going on about this.

Anyway, on topic: It's a false equivalency. Two teams facing off in an "inner-conference" national championship game as the result of a playoff is nothing at all like what happened in this year's BCS title game. You're comparing apples to skyscrapers.

I think it's a fair comparison, actually. A lot of people opposing last year's football NCG used the excuse that "the odds of the two best teams in the nation coming from the same conference AND same division is really low", when in fact that same situation happened a few months before that game in baseball. With a playoff, but it still happened.

I just wasn't sharp enough to think of the comparison in last year's football mega-debate! Sue me.

Except that they weren't. I don't recall anyone around here using that "excuse." The big arguments against Alabama around here were either that they didn't win their conference or they'd already had their shot at LSU and lost. The argument wasn't against your beloved SEC. The argument was against the system itself.

That aside, your argument is still a ridiculous comparison. There is nothing at all similar about a baseball playoff that resulted in two teams from the same conference playing each other and two teams from the same conference being selected to play in a title game. The baseball teams earned their way to that match up. That's the difference; and it's such a big difference that your argument is absurd.

And I still can't believe you're still going on about this. Still, I have to admit that I do find it amusing. I've never seen anyone so in love with a football conference of all things. But you're not an SEC homer.

See my reply to rams80. I noted that the systems were totally different...even said mentioned how the BCS derives participating teams is totally different. My point was the response from the fans and onlookers. Maybe it wasn't on here so much, but a lot of people I came across felt that a rule should be made that 2 teams from the same conference should NOT be able to play in the championship game. Especially ones that played during the regular season because it was "already settled".

If you could get past my love affair with the SEC and read the point I'm trying to make, you would see that.

Maybe you should go talk to those other people about your "point" because a.) you're getting nowhere here and b.) what's the point in arguing with us if we aren't the people you're trying to convince?

Anyway, I still think your comparison is ridiculous. It's apples and railroad cars. With regard to everything else, I agree with Rams80. See his reply to you.

Yet again, I can't believe you're still going on about this. Maybe I'd get it if you were an Alabama fan. But you're not. This whole exercise is as silly as some Purdue fan coming on here an whining because Florida got picked over Michigan in the 2006 title game. You're a South Carolina fan, what do you care if people thought Alabama shouldn't have been in this year's NCG? It makes no sense. But you're not an SEC homer, right?