Wow that championship game...

[Lucky]

"Playing a day after Oklahoma State women's basketball coach Kurt Budke and three others were killed in a plane crash"....just sayin...

Sure, maybe OK State had a bad loss, but it's just too damn bad we'll never know if they could have beaten LSU or Alabama..hell it'ed be nice to see if Boise State could have beaten LSU or Alabama..but all we can do is argue about it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON THE FIELD. That's my gripe with this BCS bullsh!t.

Yeah, I hear you. And Arkansas played LSU the week on of their own teammates died. Who knows how either game could have been different. Arkansas is 3 -2 against LSU over the last five years.

But, I don't lose any sleep wondering whether Boise State could have beaten Alabama, as little as I care for the Tide.

[Mithrandir]

Yeah, I hear you. And Arkansas played LSU the week on of their own teammates died. Who knows how either game could have been different. Arkansas is 3 -2 against LSU over the last five years.

But, I don't lose any sleep wondering whether Boise State could have beaten Alabama, as little as I care for the Tide.

I don't lose any sleep either, but I think Boise has gotten the shaft these past few years just because they play in a lesser conference doesn't mean they couldn't beat LSU or Alabama...

[chancellor]

Too be blunt, i could give a **** about conferences..i'm talking individual teams.

Oklahoma State had wins over three currently ranked teams (No. 10 Oklahoma, No. 11 Kansas State, No. 17 Baylor).

Alabama had wins over two currently ranked teams (No. 8 Arkansas, No. 21 Penn State). And Penn State wasn't really that good.

Oklahoma State only played one sister of the poor in their non-conference schedule (Louisiana-Lafayette).

Alabama played three sisters of the poor (Kent State, North Texas, FCS Georgia Southern).

But i'm sure this won't mean anything to you...

Sure it does - it meant the Big 12 was bigly overrated this year. No. 11 K-State, as noted, was whupped by the 3rd best team in the SEC - Arkansas. Baylor managed to outscore the fourth-best or fifth best Pac 12 team. I'll concede Oklahoma should have been given a better bowl game than sucky Iowa, but at least they did beat the fifth or sixth best Big 10 team.

You left off the key other difference - their losses. 'Bama lost by 3 to the #1 team in the nation. Okie State lost to a mediocre Iowa State team.

[Judge Jude]

I was so bored with this junk that - like many around the country - I didn't even watch the title game.

But I wonder why it's so much worse to lose to a so-so team than a good one.
Alabama, playing what might be a lesser schedule, lost (barely) to one of the few top teams they played.

Not sure why it would have been worse to lose to a mediocre team instead.

[DMT]

I already said that OSU had a legit claim to play in the title game...but bitching about it now after Alabama dominated LSU is pretty pointless isn't it?

I broke my vow and actually watched a few of the games but didn't bother watching the 2nd half of the 'Championship' game. I agree that until they get a playoff system, college football is a sham of a sport.

[OaklandA's]

But I wonder why it's so much worse to lose to a so-so team than a good one.

Of course it is less impressive to lose to a mediocre team than a great one. If you truly are the best team, then the probability of losing to a mediocre team should be very small. The probability of losing to a Top 5 team is still close to 50%.

[OaklandA's]

Based on the way LSU played in the BCS title game, they didn't look like they deserved to play in the game.

This is hilarious. LSU had one of the most impressive resumes in the history of college football. They still finished the season with Wins over #1 (Alabama), #4 (Oregon, easy win by 13), #5 (Arkansas, easy win by 24), #17 West Virginia (easy win, by 26), #19 Georgia (easy win, by 32), plus bowl teams Mississippi State, Auburn, and Florida.

[Mithrandir]

This is hilarious. LSU had one of the most impressive resumes in the history of college football. They still finished the season with Wins over #1 (Alabama), #4 (Oregon, easy win by 13), #5 (Arkansas, easy win by 24), #17 West Virginia (easy win, by 26), #19 Georgia (easy win, by 32), plus bowl teams Mississippi State, Auburn, and Florida.

You took this out of context..I was making a snide remark in response to another post. Of course LSU belonged in the title game.

[Judge Jude]

"Of course it is less impressive to lose to a mediocre team than a great one. If you truly are the best team, then the probability of losing to a mediocre team should be very small. The probability of losing to a Top 5 team is still close to 50%."

But if you can't beat one of the few top teams you play, why should I be more impressed by that?
Still doesn't compute. If you're looking for great teams, a team that can't beat a team like that wouldn't seem like a great fit (this has nothing to do with Alabama post-game, obviously, just about who got picked to play in the dopey title game).

One generally good way of betting NFL postseason is attacking the teams that you seem to prefer - they never lose to a bad/mediocre team. The reason you bet against them is that usually you don't PLAY any such teams in the postseason, so that "skill" becomes useless. What you need at that level is to be able to beat really GOOD teams.

[OaklandA's]

But if you can't beat one of the few top teams you play, why should I be more impressed by that?
Still doesn't compute.

Three things:
1) If the two top teams play each other, one of them has to lose.
2) The fact that Alabama went to Overtime with LSU IS impressive. LSU had beaten every other Top team (Oregon, Arkansas, West Virginia) by at least two touchdowns.
3) The strength of Alabama's schedule compared to Oklahoma State is debatable. But what is clear is that Alabama dominated every opponent (besides LSU) in a way that OSU did not. Alabama beat every opponent by at least 16 pts, and for the year allowed less than 9 Pts/Game. Alabama's defense was historically good, and much better statistically than any other team in the country. Meanwhile OSU had a bad loss to Iowa State, plus close wins over Texas A&M and Kansas State (both teams that SEC #3 Arkansas beat more convincingly).

[Judge Jude]

I like points 2 and 3 a lot better than the "worse to lose to a bad team" angle. We'll have to agree to disagree on the latter.

[OaklandA's]

I like points 2 and 3 a lot better than the "worse to lose to a bad team" angle. We'll have to agree to disagree on the latter.

You can disagree, but you would still be wrong

How about this question? When was the last time a team won the National Championship while losing to a team with a losing record? I couldn't find any team in the last 30 years to do so. That should be a strong indicator that such a loss means you probably aren't the best team in the country.

[Judge Jude]

The Giants didn't exactly aid your point today.
They got their ass kicked twice this year by the Redskins.
Had they walloped the Redskins once and lost to the Patriots, I guess you'd say that it's better that they lost to one more good team and one fewer poor team.

The rest of us could see that the Giants seemed a more dangerous foe in the postseason precisely because their high side was winning in New England - if you can do that, you can do anything.

The fact that they couldn't handle the Redskins means nothing in the playoffs. So the loss to a bad team is not worse at all....

[OaklandA's]

Uh, JJ, the NFL has nothing to do with this discussion. The variance between NFL teams is very small, while the difference between college teams is huge. We're trying to determine the two best college teams based on 11-12 games out of a pool of hundreds of possible opponents. The fact that upsets are always possible doesn't mean that we should just allow any team into the championship game.

[Judge Jude]

"We're trying to determine the two best college teams based on 11-12 games out of a pool of hundreds of possible opponents."

Well, that's the main problem right there. It's impossible.

But I still think it's better for Okla St to have the maximum wins vs top 25 opponents, in making their case.
You'd rather they had one fewer quality win, while beating an irrelevant Iowa St team.

Okla St wasn't just "any" team, they were one which beat all of the top teams on their schedule.

I'm not even an Okla St fan, but why you seem to think that your take on this is so undebatable is a mystery to me. There's something to be said for avoiding bad losses, but also for beating the max number of quality teams. In a title game, it doesn't matter if a team slipped up against the sort of team they wouldn't be playing at that level. I see it more as how likely they are to be able to handle a very good team - and beating Iowa St and losing to Kansas St doesn't help me see that.

and with that, I'm out....