It is becoming more and more ominous for the Dawgs. Last night, almost every analyst on ESPN was lobbying for LSU to face Ohio State rather than Georgia. The only exception seems to be the ESPN SportsReporters this morning (who I think generally don't like college football and find glee in pointing out the ridiculous nature of the way the sport determines a champion). In any case, I've heard some interesting points that I thought I would share before the standings come out and we're disappointed.
See if this makes any sense. Suppose I'm trying to figure out the top two choices (in anything) and my methodology is to rank all possible choices and compare the top two. Then suppose after my ranking, new information comes out that says my top two choices are clearly not best. Would it make any sense for me to then compare my third and seventh choices? Of course not. That makes absolutely no sense. You would compare the third and fourth choices. Comparing third and seventh makes about as much sense as having a team that is a national champion, but not a conference champion.
Well, the BCS will rerank and choose today, probably Ohio State and LSU. So, does it make any sense that LSU would jump three teams that did not lose based on it's muddling performance against Tennessee (who looked nothing like the buzz saw Phil sliced us open with in Knoxville)? This argument was given by Coach Richt last night on ESPN. The voters knew UGA would not play in the SEC championship game and still rated us ahead of LSU. It makes no sense to do that if you will turn right around and have LSU jump Georgia seven days later. Why have these weekly BCS polls come out if they will be totally reengineered the day before the selection show?
Another pesky point I've heard from LSU fans is that Georgia's losses are worse than LSU's. LSU, after all, lost both their games in triple overtime whereas Georgia lost in regulation. If that's your argument, LSU, you have a national title you need to give to USC. In 2003, LSU and USC both had one loss. USC's was to Cal in overtime, at Cal. LSU's loss was in regulation, a 19-7 decision against the Gators in Baton Rouge. So, USC was "undefeated in regulation" in 2003 and didn't even get a chance to play for the national title. Was that fair? Of course not.
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking LSU. LSU is a wildly talented football team who is a formidable opponent for any team, although they haven't played like it recently. Both LSU and Georgia have legitimate arguments for their positions. The problem is that each argument advanced for either side has a sound counterargument. Neither team can claim the spot with a clear conscience. (I will gladly volunteer to remain conflicted while sitting at the BCS title game watching the Dawgs.)
The bottom line here is that the system is hopelessly flawed and anyone claiming a national championship should do so with a smirk. There is no logic to this season and no logic to picking its "champion."
Quinton
See if this makes any sense. Suppose I'm trying to figure out the top two choices (in anything) and my methodology is to rank all possible choices and compare the top two. Then suppose after my ranking, new information comes out that says my top two choices are clearly not best. Would it make any sense for me to then compare my third and seventh choices? Of course not. That makes absolutely no sense. You would compare the third and fourth choices. Comparing third and seventh makes about as much sense as having a team that is a national champion, but not a conference champion.
Well, the BCS will rerank and choose today, probably Ohio State and LSU. So, does it make any sense that LSU would jump three teams that did not lose based on it's muddling performance against Tennessee (who looked nothing like the buzz saw Phil sliced us open with in Knoxville)? This argument was given by Coach Richt last night on ESPN. The voters knew UGA would not play in the SEC championship game and still rated us ahead of LSU. It makes no sense to do that if you will turn right around and have LSU jump Georgia seven days later. Why have these weekly BCS polls come out if they will be totally reengineered the day before the selection show?
Another pesky point I've heard from LSU fans is that Georgia's losses are worse than LSU's. LSU, after all, lost both their games in triple overtime whereas Georgia lost in regulation. If that's your argument, LSU, you have a national title you need to give to USC. In 2003, LSU and USC both had one loss. USC's was to Cal in overtime, at Cal. LSU's loss was in regulation, a 19-7 decision against the Gators in Baton Rouge. So, USC was "undefeated in regulation" in 2003 and didn't even get a chance to play for the national title. Was that fair? Of course not.
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking LSU. LSU is a wildly talented football team who is a formidable opponent for any team, although they haven't played like it recently. Both LSU and Georgia have legitimate arguments for their positions. The problem is that each argument advanced for either side has a sound counterargument. Neither team can claim the spot with a clear conscience. (I will gladly volunteer to remain conflicted while sitting at the BCS title game watching the Dawgs.)
The bottom line here is that the system is hopelessly flawed and anyone claiming a national championship should do so with a smirk. There is no logic to this season and no logic to picking its "champion."
Quinton
