What years did the BCS get it wrong

[ericd7633]

So why did OU deserve it over Texas and Florida?

You have ignored the reasons 2008 and 2011 were completely different.

OU had more quality wins than both Texas and Florida. All had one loss. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[4down20]

OU had more quality wins than both Texas and Florida. All had one loss. Seems pretty clear to me.

Doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[Tharvot]

I think most of us can agree that for the most part the BCS did it's job to get the top 2 teams to play in the nation championship game but what year do you feel did the BCS screwed it up.



A year that comes to the top of my head is 2007. LSU jumped from 7 to 2

That only happened because everyone else lost in front of them. Ohio State dumb lucked their way into the championship game that yr and had no business being in it IMO.

 

[Smotis]

Definitely 2001 and 2011.

Nebraska had no business going against Miami after we got curb stomped by Colorado. Most Nebraska fans will agree that we shouldn't have been in that game.

I don't think Alabama deserved 2011 over Oklahoma State. Sure Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State but everyone discredits Iowa State. They are actually a pretty decent team with sparks of greatness. They win a lot of games they aren't favored in and then lose a bunch of stupid ones. I'd take Iowa State over any mid-level/bottom feeder team from any other conference. They play hard every game.

 

[potzer25]

So you felt OSU was more deserving?

Any team that loses to a team like Iowa St is not more deserving.

Did not win their own conference championship game? Didn't even win their division? = not deserving.
For me that's where it ends. You can decide who is most deserving after that.

 

[Payton]

2013-Should have been a Bama/Aubie rematch. FSU's 62nd ranked SoS was pitiful.

That argument only works when the alternate team loses... We beat the team that you were not able to beat. Why you believe you get a second chance at Auburn before another team gets a first is beyond me...

 

[4down20]

Did not win their own conference championship game? Didn't even win their division? = not deserving.
For me that's where it ends. You can decide who is most deserving after that.

OIC. Both Alabama and Oklahoma St lost 1 conference game. Alabama happened to lose a conference game to the #1 team in the country and so that game actually mattered. OSU on the other hand lost their conference game to a crappy team that finished the season with a losing record, thus they were still able to win the conference.

So in your opinion, if Alabama had lost to Kentucky rather than LSU, Alabama would have been more deserving.

Nice logic barner.

 

[Bamabino]

That argument only works when the alternate team loses... We beat the team that you were not able to beat. Why you believe you get a second chance at Auburn before another team gets a first is beyond me...

Just dude.

 

[potzer25]

OIC. Both Alabama and Oklahoma St lost 1 conference game. Alabama happened to lose a conference game to the #1 team in the country and so that game actually mattered. OSU on the other hand lost their conference game to a crappy team that finished the season with a losing record, thus they were still able to win the conference.

So in your opinion, if Alabama had lost to Kentucky rather than LSU, Alabama would have been more deserving.

Nice logic barner.

Yes. Because I think "eye-tests" and opinions that are influenced by the name next to the record are for stupid sports. It should decided by the results on the field. In a tough division? Tough shit. OSU won their conference. Teams should be rewarded for WINNING, not for who they lose to - that is your argument.

 

[4down20]

Yes. Because I think "eye-tests" and opinions that are influenced by the name next to the record are for stupid sports. It should decided by the results on the field. In a tough division? Tough shit. OSU won their conference. Teams should be rewarded for WINNING, not for who they lose to - that is your argument.

When it's better to lose to a crappy team without a winning record than it is to lose to the #1 team in the country, then your method is stupid.

As for "Tough Shit" - it would seem to me that applies in the other direction as Alabama went to the NCG and won. I'm not the one crying about the results.

 

[ericd7633]

When it's better to lose to a crappy team without a winning record than it is to lose to the #1 team in the country, then your method is stupid.

As for "Tough Shit" - it would seem to me that applies in the other direction as Alabama went to the NCG and won. I'm not the one crying about the results.

Yet the same thing happened in 2008 when Florida lost to a crappy team and the voters seemed to over look it that time.