Should teams be penalized for losing their conference title games??

[Codaxx]

Both Alabama and Oklahoma St lost 1 conference game. Alabama lost their conference game to the #1 team who happened to be in the same division, Oklahoma St lost their conference game to a team that wouldn't have a winning record.

So the only reason Oklahoma St won their conference and Alabama didn't is because Oklahoma St lost to a crappy team who wasn't even in contention for their conference.

Basically, what you are claiming is Alabama should lose to a crappy team like Kentucky rather than a good team. Losing to a crappy team in your opinion makes that team more deserving.

I think that is a bunch of horseshit.

I think measuring an athlete or team by their worst output is odd, when almost everyone measures an athlete or team by its best performance. Either way, I think it is time to let it go. Bama won a NC, no need to bring it up at every opportunity.

 

[MarkOU]

Both Alabama and Oklahoma St lost 1 conference game. Alabama lost their conference game to the #1 team who happened to be in the same division, Oklahoma St lost their conference game to a team that wouldn't have a winning record.

So the only reason Oklahoma St won their conference and Alabama didn't is because Oklahoma St lost to a crappy team who wasn't even in contention for their conference.

Basically, what you are claiming is Alabama should lose to a crappy team like Kentucky rather than a good team. Losing to a crappy team in your opinion makes that team more deserving.

I think that is a bunch of horseshit.

I think Alabama getting a second shot at LSU was horseshit.

LSU got hosed here.

The beat Alabama.....@ Alabama.
The won the SEC

Alabama should have been sent packing to New Orleans for their "consolation bowl" as Nick likes to put it.

Oklahoma St got fucked for the sake of the bullshit you just presented right there.

Our LOSS was better...................... argument for best loss is horseshit and best not made. You got your bullshit chance, won it. Just celebrate that and move on and stop trying to make a horseshit case for which team had "the best loss".

 

[4down20]

I think measuring an athlete or team by their worst output is odd, when almost everyone measures an athlete or team by its best performance. Either way, I think it is time to let it go. Bama won a NC, no need to bring it up at every opportunity.

I think Alabama getting a second shot at LSU was horseshit.

LSU got hosed here.

The beat Alabama.....@ Alabama.
The won the SEC

Alabama should have been sent packing to New Orleans for their "consolation bowl" as Nick likes to put it.

Oklahoma St got fucked for the sake of the bullshit you just presented right there.

Our LOSS was better...................... argument for best loss is horseshit and best not made. You got your bullshit chance, won it. Just celebrate that and move on and stop trying to make a horseshit case for which team had "the best loss".

While Alabama is the example in this case, it's not just about Alabama. It's about deciding who gets the shot in that scenario. I'm really just highlighting the absurdity of "conference champion" being some holy grail when 1 team can do better and not be a conference champion, while some other team can totally shit the bed against a cupcake and still make it as conference champion.

And btw, people compare losses ALWAYS. I'm not sure where you guys get this idea that 2011 was the only time that's happened. It's done every week by people who vote in polls, done by computers, etc. It's part of it.

 

[nddulac]

Basically, what you are claiming is Alabama should lose to a crappy team like Kentucky rather than a good team. Losing to a crappy team in your opinion makes that team more deserving.

I don't think that is what he/she is saying at all. First off, the reason Oklahoma State won their conference championship was because they only lost one conference game. The next best team had two conference losses. Secondly, Alabama blew their chance to beat LSU in Tuscaloosa. Alabama did not deserve a second shot. the championship game should have been LSU and Oklahoma State (in my opinion, of course - your mileage may vary.)

 

[ericd7633]

While Alabama is the example in this case, it's not just about Alabama. It's about deciding who gets the shot in that scenario. I'm really just highlighting the absurdity of "conference champion" being some holy grail when 1 team can do better and not be a conference champion, while some other team can totally shit the bed against a cupcake and still make it as conference champion.

And btw, people compare losses ALWAYS. I'm not sure where you guys get this idea that 2011 was the only time that's happened. It's done every week by people who vote in polls, done by computers, etc. It's part of it.

Sounds like Florida in 2008, no?

 

[4down20]

Sounds like Florida in 2008, no?

You mean with Texas vs Oklahoma rematch instead?

 

[ericd7633]

You mean with Texas vs Oklahoma rematch instead?

Florida lost to a shitty team and won their conference. Made the championship. Okie State did the same, is all I'm saying.

 

[4down20]

Florida lost to a shitty team and won their conference. Made the championship. Okie State did the same, is all I'm saying.

Right, so you are saying 2008 should have been a rematch between Texas and Oklahoma(who both had one loss)? Seems like that is the only other option for 2008.

Oklahoma won the conference and not Texas even though they both had 1 loss and Texas beat Oklahoma. Texas lost to Texas Tech(who also had only 1 loss). Oklahoma went on to beat Missouri in the conference game, and then onto the NCG against Florida.

Florida got a bit of a boost in the conference game by beating Alabama(#1 at the time) - but that is more about the previous discussion.

 

[ericd7633]

Right, so you are saying 2008 should have been a rematch between Texas and Oklahoma(who both had one loss)? Seems like that is the only other option for 2008.

Oklahoma won the conference and not Texas even though they both had 1 loss and Texas beat Oklahoma. Texas lost to Texas Tech(who also had only 1 loss). Oklahoma went on to beat Missouri in the conference game, and then onto the NCG against Florida.

Florida got a bit of a boost in the conference game by beating Alabama(#1 at the time) - but that is more about the previous discussion.

Yeah, Florida got in over Texas despite having a worse loss and not even having the better win as well. Did they get in because they won their conference?

 

[Codaxx]

While Alabama is the example in this case, it's not just about Alabama. It's about deciding who gets the shot in that scenario. I'm really just highlighting the absurdity of "conference champion" being some holy grail when 1 team can do better and not be a conference champion, while some other team can totally shit the bed against a cupcake and still make it as conference champion.

And btw, people compare losses ALWAYS. I'm not sure where you guys get this idea that 2011 was the only time that's happened. It's done every week by people who vote in polls, done by computers, etc. It's part of it.

people compare a lot of things. SOS and top 25 wins also, but holding on to just one seems to be a bit biased.

I understand both arguments. There is just a lack of data in College football. There are too few inter-conference games to be positive about measuring conference strength, especially prior to bowls. A 1 loss Pac team of SEC team that finished second may be better than a 1 loss Big 12 or Big 10 conference champ. A 2 loss SEC or Pac champion maybe better than a 1 loss Big 10 team that finished 2nd, but is ranked lower. If you realize that we dont have 100% confidence in our ratings, than it makes sense to err on the side of opportunity. Conference Champs had an opportunity and took advantage of that goal. Teams that finished second blew their chance.

The argument against is just as solid, there is no reason to outline that to you. This is why I have always wanted a larger playoff. Give Conference Champs their due and allow a couple of at-large teams to ensure that the "best team" was given a shot at the title. PLus it means more CFB for me, I like that

 

[4down20]

Yeah, Florida got in over Texas despite having a worse loss and not even having the better win as well. Did they get in because they won their conference?

Florida beat the #1 team(Alabama) in the conference championship game.

To me, the real 2008 argument is if Texas should have went in over Oklahoma. The Big12 got caught in a 3 way tie, as 3 teams all had 1 loss, so it came down to BCS rankings for the conference champion.

 

[4down20]

people compare a lot of things. SOS and top 25 wins also, but holding on to just one seems to be a bit biased.

I understand both arguments. There is just a lack of data in College football. There are too few inter-conference games to be positive about measuring conference strength, especially prior to bowls. A 1 loss Pac team of SEC team that finished second may be better than a 1 loss Big 12 or Big 10 conference champ. A 2 loss SEC or Pac champion maybe better than a 1 loss Big 10 team that finished 2nd, but is ranked lower. If you realize that we dont have 100% confidence in our ratings, than it makes sense to err on the side of opportunity. Conference Champs had an opportunity and took advantage of that goal. Teams that finished second blew their chance.

The argument against is just as solid, there is no reason to outline that to you. This is why I have always wanted a larger playoff. Give Conference Champs their due and allow a couple of at-large teams to ensure that the "best team" was given a shot at the title. PLus it means more CFB for me, I like that

Ok, so while on the topic of 2008.

In the Big12 you had 3 teams in 1 division that all had 1 loss to each other. On the other side of the conference you had Missouri(who Texas beat in the season). Missouri had 3 losses in the regular season, but went to the conference championship game.

Are you to tell me that if Missouri had beaten Oklahoma in that championship game, been crowned conference champions they should have went to the national championship game or playoffs in the current case, over the other teams?

Because if you ask me, had Missouri beaten Oklahoma in your conference championship that green lights Texas, who wouldn't have played in the conference championship game, much less been conference champion for the spot in the playoffs/national championship.

And yes I would still have picked Texas over Texas Tech as well, even though Texas Tech had beaten Texas, because IMO Texas was the better team.

 

[ericd7633]

Florida beat the #1 team(Alabama) in the conference championship game.

To me, the real 2008 argument is if Texas should have went in over Oklahoma. The Big12 got caught in a 3 way tie, as 3 teams all had 1 loss, so it came down to BCS rankings for the conference champion.

Texas beat OU who finished #1 in the final BCS standings. Texas deserved it over Florida. Florida won their conference, that swayed the voters probably. Which is dumb IMO. Should be about most deserving.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Then Utah proved that the Florida win over bama wasn't all that impressive. At least a playoff will clean up some of this mess, but not all.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Ok, so while on the topic of 2008.

In the Big12 you had 3 teams in 1 division that all had 1 loss to each other. On the other side of the conference you had Missouri(who Texas beat in the season). Missouri had 3 losses in the regular season, but went to the conference championship game.

Are you to tell me that if Missouri had beaten Oklahoma in that championship game, been crowned conference champions they should have went to the national championship game or playoffs in the current case, over the other teams?

Because if you ask me, had Missouri beaten Oklahoma in your conference championship that green lights Texas, who wouldn't have played in the conference championship game, much less been conference champion for the spot in the playoffs/national championship.

And yes I would still have picked Texas over Texas Tech as well, even though Texas Tech had beaten Texas, because IMO Texas was the better team.

That's a big If though, that's like IF LSU would've lost in 2011 in the SEC title game, does bama deserve the spot now?

 

[ericd7633]

Ok, so while on the topic of 2008.

In the Big12 you had 3 teams in 1 division that all had 1 loss to each other. On the other side of the conference you had Missouri(who Texas beat in the season). Missouri had 3 losses in the regular season, but went to the conference championship game.

Are you to tell me that if Missouri had beaten Oklahoma in that championship game, been crowned conference champions they should have went to the national championship game or playoffs in the current case, over the other teams?

Because if you ask me, had Missouri beaten Oklahoma in your conference championship that green lights Texas, who wouldn't have played in the conference championship game, much less been conference champion for the spot in the playoffs/national championship.

And yes I would still have picked Texas over Texas Tech as well, even though Texas Tech had beaten Texas, because IMO Texas was the better team.

I agree. Had that scenario played out there is no way I'd want Missouri in the championship game. That would have made it easy for Texas to jump into the championship game. I would have picked Texas as well, even though they lost head to head based on their SoS numbers, and more quality wins.

 

[4down20]

Texas beat OU who finished #1 in the final BCS standings. Texas deserved it over Florida. Florida won their conference, that swayed the voters probably. Which is dumb IMO. Should be about most deserving.

I would think Florida beating Alabama was the factor rather than the label of "conference champion". Although I'm sure there are some voters out there who did take the label and run with it.

 

[ericd7633]

I would think Florida beating Alabama was the factor rather than the label of "conference champion". Although I'm sure there are some voters out there who did take the label and run with it.

And it probably helped that the game was at the end of the year as opposed to early October in the case of the RRSO. Which I also think is dumb about when the loss occurs.

 

[4down20]

That's a big If though, that's like IF LSU would've lost in 2011 in the SEC title game, does bama deserve the spot now?

Well it's a possible scenario that should be accounted for even if it's an if. And while Georgia would have been conference champions in 2011, yes I do believe Alabama would have been the better team than Georgia. But really I think in that situation it would have ended up with LSU going to the national championship anyway, and since 2 SEC teams would have had 1 loss, Alabama would have likely been left out.

But the main point there is that just being "conference champion" isn't some end all be all.

 

[nddulac]

Then Utah proved that the Florida win over bama wasn't all that impressive. At least a playoff will clean up some of this mess, but not all.

A playoff will probably make sure the two most deserving teams get in, but it will only serve to increase the controversy over who gets seeds #3 and #4. And the bigger the playoff expands, the lower the qualification bar will be and the greater the number of butt-hurt teams will be about being relegated to the periphery.