College football mailbag: Sequels sometimes tough - College Football - Rivals.com
Double standard
In the discussion of comparing one-loss teams, everyone seems to obsess over the team that inflicted the loss. Why don’t fans ever discuss the other side of the ledger - who did you beat? By any objective measure, Oklahoma State played a more meaningful schedule and beat better teams than Alabama, but Alabama lost to the No. 1 team in the country. Isn’t the point to win games? Shouldn’t we be talking about opponents a team beat to get where they are? Why aren’t we comparing the scores in game won instead of games lost?
Brant
Raleigh
A lot of folks in Stillwater are asking the same question.
One-loss Alabama will play LSU in a rematch for the national championship, and one-loss Oklahoma State and one-loss Stanford meet in the Fiesta Bowl.
Oklahoma State and Stanford have more notable victories than Alabama, whose most impressive victories were over Penn State and Arkansas.
Oklahoma State beat four teams in the final BCS standings. Stanford beat USC, which I think is one of the premier teams in the nation.
What’s ironic is that for years, unbeaten teams such as Utah, Boise State and TCU were denied shots at the national championship because their schedules were deemed inferior to those of teams in “Big Six” conferences.
Now, we see teams with identical records that may have played a stronger schedule than Alabama, but the “inferior schedule” argument conveniently doesn’t apply.
That’s why I was kind of hoping Houston would’ve joined LSU as the only unbeaten teams. Based on records, Houston would’ve deserved to play for the national title. But people everywhere, especially in Alabama, would have contended that Houston’s schedule wasn’t strong enough to deserve a place in the national championship game.
So, then you would have had the argument that strength of schedule mattered in one case but not in another.
Alas, Houston didn’t finish unbeaten, so that chaotic scene was avoided … for now.
Frankly, I can see the understand both sides of the national championship issue – the arguments in favor of Alabama and those in favor of Oklahoma State or Stanford.
All they do is reaffirm that no matter what kind of lies or propaganda that the BCS folks keep trying to spread, the system used in college football is hopelessly idiotic.
Some sort of a playoff is needed, but in college football, fairness and logic are sacrificed so an entitled few can exercise power and accumulate more wealth. And they can because despite all the outrage and complaints, fans gather by the tens of thousands and pay hundreds of dollars to see their teams play in bowl games.
You notice he never actually answered the question, right?
Posts
