The Goat Pen

Alabama won on 2 of the computers, and both of the human polls.

I disagree spacer. OkSt lost to a 6-6 team on Nov 18. Just not enough time between Nov 18 and now to build back up.

For example, if we had not played LSU, but had lost to 6-6 Vandy on Nov 18, I do not think we would be in either.

That said, and all things equal, do SEC teams get a bump for being SEC teams? Of course.

Body of work versus "what have you done for me lately". I think T. Boone Pickens had the better list of victims overall, but Bama seems like the better team to me. There's no one OK State beat that I think would beat Alabama. Had the rest of the SEC not been dogshit this year, there would probably be less question.

The SEC has two A teams, one B+ team, two B- teams, one C+ team, three C- teams, two D- teams and one F- team.

AlabamAlum wrote:Alabama won on 2 of the computers, and both of the human polls.

I disagree spacer. OkSt lost to a 6-6 team on Nov 18. Just not enough time between Nov 18 and now to build back up.

For example, if we had not played LSU, but had lost to 6-6 Vandy on Nov 18, I do not think we would be in either.

It doesn't matter. You have the winner of a division essentially playing the wildcard of that division. Even if that team may be better (See San Francisco Giants the year they won 102 games and didn't make the baseball playoffs -before the wildcard). You have two teams with the same record, one team had the worse loss (although that field goal looked good), but that same team beat the most quality teams. If that was Ohio State or another big name program, I doubt seriously they wouldn't have ended up in the BCS. The winner of the top 2 leagues so to speak meeting in the playoff. Voters (and it was the voters, remember, not the Computers) would have listed more to an argument from a traditional power than Ok. St.

I still think they didn't have enough time to rebound from a loss to a 6-6 team that late. If they had lost to Iowa State the same week Bama lost to LSU, I think it likely they would have gotten the nod.

And the FG was no good. It went through the imaginary post.

AlabamAlum wrote:I still think they didn't have enough time to rebound from a loss to a 6-6 team that late. If they had lost to Iowa State the same week Bama lost to LSU, I think it likely they would have gotten the nod.

And the FG was no good. It went through the imaginary post.

The FG would have been called good at home; but the point I was making was if it were OSU or Oklahoma, they would have said it was enough time and would have jumped them over Alabama. 40 or 42 (I forgot which one it was) people changed and jumped Ok. St over Alabama in the final poll, if 44 had done so, then Ok. St. would be in the BCS. So for that many, it was enough time. If it were a traditional power, more would have done so.

Spacer,

Not quite. We would have had to have one of the computer polls that picked Bama #2 to flip AND 3 specific Coaches poll voters to flip Okie State to #2 (the 1 that voted Oklahoma State #5 and 2 of the 5 that voted them #4 would have to bump them to #2).

With the computers left alone. 16 Coaches poll voters would have had to bump OkSt to #2. To flip the Harris, would take even more changes.

We're not going to agree on this. Home or away, the FG is bad. Hopefully, the refs get it right, regardless. Just like they got the close INT call right against Bama ( and we were at home).

you missing the point, but it's your team, so I understand why you would. The point I'm making is that Ok. St. got a raw deal because it's Ok. St instead of Oklahoma or Ohio St., not because of when they loss

Oh, I got your point, Spacer. That's okay. You, after all, are a LSU fan. It's understandable.

Anyway, you're missing my point, that is, simply, that I disagree with you, to wit: (1) Okie State did not get a "raw deal". and (2) when you lose late, it takes a while to build back up to the top spot. Does Alabama have more prestige points than Okie State? Of course. Did it make the difference here? Not in my opinion. Losing to a 6-6 team on game 11 will cook you even if you are Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Michigan, Texas, etc.

Nebraska disagrees with you.

Nebraska? I bet you're talking about 2001. They lost to a 10-3 team late. That was a funny year. Weren't a lot of high profile top teams.

your argument is that it it even affects a big name program when they lose late. we'll nebraska lost late, big, to the buffs and still played in the MNC game.

My argument was 'this year it didn't matter'. Some years it does. We've all seen the Notre Dames of the world get an undeserved bowl bid. Depending on the situation, Alabama and other teams of that ilk, get a prestige bump with some voters that some other teams won't get. That wasn't the case this year though, IMO. Or, rather, I don't think the bump was enough to have flipped the outcome.

Anyway, let's talk about 2001:

2001 was a funny year. A bit different than this. That season was filled with a spate of two-loss teams - 4 of the top 7 had 2 losses going into the bowls. Of the three remaining teams, one was undefeated Miami and the others were 5th ranked Oregon and previous "strong #1" Nebraska (both with one loss).

Anyway, Nebraska was a solid #1 in the BCS going into that game with 10-2 Colorado and with a bit of luck only dropped to #2 in the BCS (much like people were saying LSU would only drop one spot if they lost to Georgia this year). And Luck? I say that because #3 and #4 lost, too (much like what Alabama saw happen after our game with LSU).

The BCS standings after the games of 11/17/2001 were as follows (different scoring - lower is better):

1. Nebraska (strong #1), 2.87
2. Miami (clear #2), 5.25
3. Oklahoma, 8.13
4. Florida, 9.95 (close to 3rd)
5. Oregon, 13.22 (note the wide divide between this score and #2)
6. Texas, 14.39
7. Tennessee, 14.95 (wide divide here, too)

If Oregon (or Tennessee) had been a solid #3, they would have bumped Nebraska, IMO.

As it was, the "solid #3" was Oklahoma - who lost that weekend, as well (ironically, to Okie State and their fiery new coach, Les Miles). Florida was 4th (they lost to Tennessee on 12/1) who was 7th that week. The 6th ranked team in the BCS was Texas. They lost to Colorado on 12/1 (going into that weekend, Colorado was 15th).

Owlman wrote:you missing the point, but it's your team, so I understand why you would. The point I'm making is that Ok. St. got a raw deal because it's Ok. St instead of Oklahoma or Ohio St., not because of when they loss

Okie St did not get a raw deal. They were voted on by the same people who voted on the other teams and came up lacking. Losing, when you are a 20+ point favorite, and you had a double digit lead, especially late in the season, will not get you a mulligan.

If they wish, they can take solace in the fact that the vote was close.

Yeah, but you're a Bammer. You're biased, gbjs.


Anyway, growing tired of this. We're in the game, and we plan to win.

Bammer. NOW they'll understand your post.

RBR's meltdown...it was a two parter this week with Alabama stealing the spotlight on Tuesday, and then the Big XII on Wednesday.

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2011/12/7/2 ... tdown-time

The lead-in for Ok St was pretty good...

Look out, ladies and gents, we have a boycott brewing in Oklahoma. Or maybe an investigation. We don't know when or how or what they'll look for or what they plan on doing with whatever they find, but something is brewing out in the midwest because they are infuriated and T. Boone Pickens has a ton of money or something. How will college football ever survive? Guess we might as well just cancel the rest of the season.

Not surprisingly, as it turns out the Pokes weren't too excited that the BCS didn't subsidize their choke job to a 6-6 Iowa State and award them a spot in the BCS National Championship Game simply because they took a 9-3 team to the woodshed at home. You almost want to sympathize with them at first and congratulate them for an otherwise strong season, but the whining and the pettiness quickly turns you off and in the end the tears just taste so, so sweet.

AlabamAlum wrote:Oh, I got your point, Spacer. That's okay. You, after all, are a LSU fan. It's understandable.

Not true. Against Ok. St., I would definitely have cheered for Ok. St. over LSU.

Even more bias, then. An Okie State fan. No wonder!