@miktoxic said:

do you like pina colodas? gettin caught in the rain?

Ha! Funny...

Zombo

As it will stand in about 2014 after all the realignment comes down you will have the following conference lineups:

BIG TEN, 12 members:

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mich. St., Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio St., Penn St. Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue

PAC 12, 12 members:

Arizona, Ariz. St., Cal, Oregon, Ore St., Stanford, UCLA, USC, Wash., Wash St., Colorado, Utah

BIG 12, 10 members:

Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Kan. St., Oklahoma, OK St., Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, West Virg.

SEC, 14 members:

Alabama, Ark, Auburn, Fla, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St., So. Caro., Tenn. Vandy, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big East, 11 members:

Cinci, L-ville, UConn, Rutgers, South Fla., Temple, Boise St. Houston, Memphis, SMU, Cent. Fla.

ACC, 14 members:

Boston College, Clemson, Duke, FSU, Ga. Tech, Maryland, Miami, NC, NC ST., Virginia, Va. Tech, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse

Mountain West, 11 members:

Air Force, Colo. St., New Mex., San Diego St., UNLV, Wyoming, Fresno St., Hawaii, Nevada, San Jose St., Utah St.

Conf.-USA, 12 members:

East Carolina, Marshall, Rice, So. Miss., Tulsa, Tulane, UAB, UTEP, Fla Int'l, North Texas, UT-San Antonio

Sun Belt, 10 members:

Ark. St., Fla-Atlantic, Lou-Lafayette, Lou-Monroe, Mid Tenn. St., Troy St., West. KY, So. Alabama, Georgia St., Texas St.

MAC, 13 members:

Akron, Ball St., Bowling Green, Buffalo, Cent. Mich, E. Mich., West. Mich., Kent St. Miami O.,

N. Illinois, Ohio U., Toledo, UMass.

WAC, 2 members:

Idaho, N.Mex. St.

Independents, 4:

Army, Navy, Notre Dame, BYU

Clearly some additional changes will be forthcoming. Obviously the WAC will seemingly go under. Not sure why the MWC doesn't just absorb those last two members.

That is 121 schools that are in now 10 viable confereces plus 4 independents.

Maybe 10 Automatic plus 6 at large is a number that my proposed playoff system could work with.

@the-gipper said:

Fair enough Who Am I. (Who are you, oo, oo, oo, oo)

Back to my bracket, if you took last year's results you would have a field that looked like this more or less:

ACC Clemson

Big 12 OK St.

Big East Cincinnati

Big 10 Wisconsin

Pac-12 Stanford

SEC LSU

C-USA Houston

MAC N. Illinois

WAC La. Tech

Mt. West TCU

Sun Belt Arkansas St.

At Large: Alabama, Oregon, Boise St. Michigan St. Arkansas

If some of the conferences were consolidated, then add Va. Tech and either Georgia or South Carolina to the At-Large spots.

It would not also bother me if you made LSU and Alabama the #1 and #2 seed, and put them at either end of the Brackets.

And you would have had first round matchups like this (per "The Gipper's seeding system):

#1 LSU vs. #16 La. Tech

#2 Alabama vs. #15 Ark. St.

#3 Oklahoma St. vs. #14 No. Illinois

#4 Stanford vs. #13 Clemson

#5 Wisconsin vs #12 Cincinnati

#6 Oregon vs. #11 Houston

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 TCU

#8 Michigan St. vs. #9 Boise St.

You could play around with these seedings a little, but I think they are fairly good. There are actually some good regional matchups in this first round....and in several cases travel distances could be minimized. Sorry, but a couple of teams have to go west coast.

If chalk held, second round matches would have looked like this:

LSU vs. Mich St.

Alabama vs. Arkansas

Oklahoma St. vs. Oregon

Stanford vs. Wisconsin

Again, if chalk held you would have:

LSU vs. Stanford

Alabama vs. OK. St.

Then the title game could have been LSU v. Ala......but at least then these two would have faced a serious gauntlet to get there, and who knows what would happen along the way.

That is completely acceptable. Too many teams such as Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.. get passes sometimes due to name. I don't doubt this helped Alabama last year. They aren't always the better team though. For example, a few years ago, Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl because they were the better team. I would much rather have a playoff.

btw, WhoAmI is a reference to a song I like by Dave Matthews Band.

Back to my bracket, if you took last year's results you would have a field that looked like this more or less:

ACC Clemson

Big 12 OK St.

Big East Cincinnati

Big 10 Wisconsin

Pac-12 Stanford

SEC LSU

C-USA Houston

MAC N. Illinois

WAC La. Tech

Mt. West TCU

Sun Belt Arkansas St.

At Large: Alabama, Oregon, Boise St. Michigan St. Arkansas

If some of the conferences were consolidated, then add Va. Tech and either Georgia or South Carolina to the At-Large spots.

It would not also bother me if you made LSU and Alabama the #1 and #2 seed, and put them at either end of the Brackets.

And you would have had first round matchups like this (per "The Gipper's seeding system):

#1 LSU vs. #16 La. Tech

#2 Alabama vs. #15 Ark. St.

#3 Oklahoma St. vs. #14 No. Illinois

#4 Stanford vs. #13 Clemson

#5 Wisconsin vs #12 Cincinnati

#6 Oregon vs. #11 Houston

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 TCU

#8 Michigan St. vs. #9 Boise St.

You could play around with these seedings a little, but I think they are fairly good. There are actually some good regional matchups in this first round....and in several cases travel distances could be minimized. Sorry, but a couple of teams have to go west coast.

If chalk held, second round matches would have looked like this:

LSU vs. Mich St.

Alabama vs. Arkansas

Oklahoma St. vs. Oregon

Stanford vs. Wisconsin

Again, if chalk held you would have:

LSU vs. Stanford

Alabama vs. OK. St.

Then the title game could have been LSU v. Ala......but at least then these two would have faced a serious gauntlet to get there, and who knows what would happen along the way.

@miktoxic said:

do you like pina colodas? gettin caught in the rain?

Not really, but I could waste away in Margaritaville.

@whoami said:

So, here's some info about me. My name is Scott, I am 31. I have lived in Atlanta, Nashville, Cleveland, and currently Birmingham. I love the NFL, College Football, and MLB. If there is anything else I can provide that will help you get to know me better, let me know.

do you like pina colodas? gettin caught in the rain?

@whoami said:

hope that I can change the perception that I am a typical SEC homer that knows nothing about sports.

= username ballpeen

@the-gipper said:

A proper National Championship Playoff should simply be based on the same way they do things at all the other levels of college football, FCS D-II, and D-III, and should look like this:

Champions of the following conferenced get automatic bids:

ACC

Big 12

Big 10

Big East

Pac 12

SEC

Conf-USA

MAC

WAC

Mountain West

Sun Belt

Plus 5 At Large teams.

One caveat: I would suggest a merger between Mt West and WAC and Conf USA and Sun Belt. That would mean 9 automatic bids and 7 At large teams that would play off in a 16 team Bracket.

Of course you would have the Top Seed play the 16 seed etc. The Bowls could be incorporated into this. Perhaps the first round at least would be at the home field of the highest seed.

It all makes too much sense.

I know there are some logistics issues about getting fans to the games as the teams go on into the tournament...but so what? Fans are resilient. They will get to see their teams play, if they want. If not, other college football fans will go. I doubt there would be an unsold seat for any game. And the TV money would be astronomical.

No, it has only to do with those who are currently controlling things: ie, bowl committees, who would lose out. But, they really wouldn't either if the Final Eight/Four/Title games were played in the Rose Bowl/Sugar/Fiesta/Orange etc. bowls. Even some of the lesser bowls would do better.

I completely agree with this. Hopefully the realignment will calm down and this can come to fruition. There would be no need to find a better conference if there were 16 teams that would get an invite.

I am not disputing that there are more racists in Alabama than Cleveland, just my observance that their appears to be more apprehension in Cleveland (from my experiences) in interacting with other races than I have seen in Alabama. I should have read over that before posting.

As far as my social and my bank information, there isn't enough value there to waste your time with. Maybe this weekend when I am up there I will win the Lotto. If I do, I'll buy a round for any of you who want one.

Champions of the following conferenced get automatic bids:

ACC

Big 12

Big 10

Big East

Pac 12

SEC

Conf-USA

MAC

WAC

Mountain West

Sun Belt

Plus 5 At Large teams.

One caveat: I would suggest a merger between Mt West and WAC and Conf USA and Sun Belt. That would mean 9 automatic bids and 7 At large teams that would play off in a 16 team Bracket.

Of course you would have the Top Seed play the 16 seed etc. The Bowls could be incorporated into this. Perhaps the first round at least would be at the home field of the highest seed.

It all makes too much sense.

I know there are some logistics issues about getting fans to the games as the teams go on into the tournament...but so what? Fans are resilient. They will get to see their teams play, if they want. If not, other college football fans will go. I doubt there would be an unsold seat for any game. And the TV money would be astronomical.

No, it has only to do with those who are currently controlling things: ie, bowl committees, who would lose out. But, they really wouldn't either if the Final Eight/Four/Title games were played in the Rose Bowl/Sugar/Fiesta/Orange etc. bowls. Even some of the lesser bowls would do better.

@whoami said:

If you had taken time to read my posts, you would see that I didn't come in here trying to sell anyone to you. I can't make it any clearer than that, but maybe by again referencing my original post. I said you guys got a talented player in Trent Richardson. That's it. In no way does that translate into "Trent is my favorite player, you guys are soooooo lucky to have him." I have been active in enough message boards to know that some people do that. I didn't. If you in particular feel the need to try to call me out for something that didn't happen, then go right ahead. If you disagreed with my post, tell me. Telling me to "get bent" and referencing "my kind" doesn't add anything constructive to any of this.

I can understand that you guys don't know me and my first post while not intended came across jaded. So, here's some info about me. My name is Scott, I am 31. I have lived in Atlanta, Nashville, Cleveland, and currently Birmingham. I love the NFL, College Football, and MLB. If there is anything else I can provide that will help you get to know me better, let me know. I am going to stay on the board. I chose this one because I like the Browns and hope that I can change the perception that I am a typical SEC homer that knows nothing about sports.

Can you provide your social security number and bank account numbers along with your ATM PIN?

You said you wanted to get friendly!

@whoami said:

"I don't think the lack of a playoff can be laid directly on the backs of the Big 10/Pac 12. Plenty of players have the hand in the pot....protecting the pot. Particularly the Bowl Committees."

That is a fair point. The majority of what is televised points to keeping the tradition of the Rose Bowl has kept the two conferences from wanting a playoff. This isn't helped by the Pac-10(at the time) being reluctant to join the BCS.

Well, I think their should be a full national championship playoff, not this silly BCS, so it doesn't bother me if one or two of the conferences are reluctant to join it.

"Now you are shuffling, big time. My in laws live in South Carolina...and it IS reality there. Sorry. It ain't Cleveland that thinks that the SEC winning a few silly football games makes up for losing the Civil War. That is your SEC mentality."

I said that racism exists in Alabama, but also in Cleveland. I have lived both places and the South receives more negative coverage of race issues, but that to say the entire state = racists as was said is ignorant.

I don't think anyone is saying the entire state is racists, by no means. But I would stick to the fact that there are still a greater percentage of racists there in the south...still, than in the north. (and of course Cleveland, like every other major city has its racial divides)

What does the SEC winning football games have to do with the Civil War? Yes, there are people who talk about the South "rising again", but did I imply this in any way?

You answered your own question...that some see SEC dominance in football as the proof that the "South rose again". The things that allowed the "South to rise again" is air conditioning, and the desire of snowbirds to get away from snow drifts and high heating bills.

I don't see how I am shuffling big time.

I was talking about your comment that there are more racists in Cleveland than Alabama. That my friend is clearly doing a Stepin Fetchit Shuffle (was that racist to call it that?)

@taco918 said:

I'm not disputing the overall coaches poll. My problem is with Saban's voting. He didn't need to pad the lead yet he still did. Evidently he wasn't confident enough his team's merits to make it into the championship game so he put his main rival (Oklahoma State) at a disadvantage by placing them 4th.

Again, to me, it is a flaw in the system. You say, apparently, that because Saban voted Ok St. 4th, that that single coaches vote put his team in the NC game ahead of someone else, right?

If it really came down to that small of a margin of error, then, again, something is wrong with the system.

First off, it creates a conflict of interest to me. The BCS should NOT be allowing those who are involved in the competition to vote.

It would be like say, letting Mary Lou Retton to not only be a competitor in her gymnastics event, but also letter her be one of the judges of the event.

It would be like allowing OJ Simpson to sit on the jury of his own trial.

I can see where a more extreme case could occur, (and it probably has). I can see where a coach, like Nick Saban, could list a team that he is in competiton with for a title game spot

to not just vote them 4th instead of 3rd, but to vote them 10th.

In fact, I swear this has happened in the past where a coach turned in his ballot and didn't even rank another team in the top 25 that nearly everyone else ranked in the top 5.

@harry-buffalo said:

Basically what it comes down to is why you people feel a need to always come on here and hype about your favorite player and try to sell them to use? You make an account and you come on and post 3-7 times and your gone. Save us the trouble and just don't show up. Your not going to contribute more than you currently have and if you had taken just 5 minutes to look around you would find out we had to deal with more than enough of your kind already.

If you had taken time to read my posts, you would see that I didn't come in here trying to sell anyone to you. I can't make it any clearer than that, but maybe by again referencing my original post. I said you guys got a talented player in Trent Richardson. That's it. In no way does that translate into "Trent is my favorite player, you guys are soooooo lucky to have him." I have been active in enough message boards to know that some people do that. I didn't. If you in particular feel the need to try to call me out for something that didn't happen, then go right ahead. If you disagreed with my post, tell me. Telling me to "get bent" and referencing "my kind" doesn't add anything constructive to any of this.

I can understand that you guys don't know me and my first post while not intended came across jaded. So, here's some info about me. My name is Scott, I am 31. I have lived in Atlanta, Nashville, Cleveland, and currently Birmingham. I love the NFL, College Football, and MLB. If there is anything else I can provide that will help you get to know me better, let me know. I am going to stay on the board. I chose this one because I like the Browns and hope that I can change the perception that I am a typical SEC homer that knows nothing about sports.

@whoami said:

I don't see that I was talking up/selling Richardson by saying you guys got a talented player.

Apparently my theories about Alabama getting into the BCS game came off more crimson-shaded than intended. I was suggesting why the voters (not coaches) did what they did, not stating it as fact. I didn't say that Saban wasn't trying to keep Oklahoma State out of the game, just that he wasn't voting to keep from playing Oklahoma State. I said that Stanford and Oklahoma State were just as deserving as Alabama. That's a valid point. I also said that if we hadn't gotten in then we could only blame ourselves for losing. So, looking back at what I said, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I don't know what I am talking about? I would legitimately like to know, not intended as a cocky reply.

I'll be happy to discuss football (college or NFL) with you guys anytime. It wasn't a stir-the-pot and leave post.

I've actually never been to Muscle Shoals, but have heard that they have some decent music there.

Basically what it comes down to is why you people feel a need to always come on here and hype about your favorite player and try to sell them to use? You make an account and you come on and post 3-7 times and your gone. Save us the trouble and just don't show up. Your not going to contribute more than you currently have and if you had taken just 5 minutes to look around you would find out we had to deal with more than enough of your kind already.

@miktoxic said:

and i wasn't trying to flame you as much as i came off. it's just the fact that we all on here have heard it from certain members of the forum about TR and how great he is 3 months before the draft. everyday all day long.

some of us were thinking claiborn or blackmon. so we all didn't agree on what player to draft at #4 (3). so when you came in to tout TR it was like beating a dead horse.

i'm not the guy to talk college football and yes alabama deserved the national championship. i just really don't care about stats and end-of-year voting blah blah blah. there are other members on here that will argue that for me. yeah i like ohio state cuz i'm from ohio. but my best friend likes georgia. his son's best friend graduated alabama so there are some saturday afternoon blasts that are worthy of saying that hands down the SEC is the best conf. in college football. hopefully u. meyer can help change that. but who wouldn't want to go down south or out west to play ball with warm weather and hot blonds sucking your cock all day long? those teams have an advantage in recruiting that we up north can ever show these kids.

but i really don't care.

give me sunday football and a browns win and i'm happy as a pig in shit.

You mean PoeticG...

@whoami said:

I don't see that I was talking up/selling Richardson by saying you guys got a talented player.

and i wasn't trying to flame you as much as i came off. it's just the fact that we all on here have heard it from certain members of the forum about TR and how great he is 3 months before the draft. everyday all day long.

some of us were thinking claiborn or blackmon. so we all didn't agree on what player to draft at #4 (3). so when you came in to tout TR it was like beating a dead horse.

i'm not the guy to talk college football and yes alabama deserved the national championship. i just really don't care about stats and end-of-year voting blah blah blah. there are other members on here that will argue that for me. yeah i like ohio state cuz i'm from ohio. but my best friend likes georgia. his son's best friend graduated alabama so there are some saturday afternoon blasts that are worthy of saying that hands down the SEC is the best conf. in college football. hopefully u. meyer can help change that. but who wouldn't want to go down south or out west to play ball with warm weather and hot blonds sucking your cock all day long? those teams have an advantage in recruiting that we up north can ever show these kids.

but i really don't care.

give me sunday football and a browns win and i'm happy as a pig in shit.

That is a fair point. The majority of what is televised points to keeping the tradition of the Rose Bowl has kept the two conferences from wanting a playoff. This isn't helped by the Pac-10(at the time) being reluctant to join the BCS.

"Now you are shuffling, big time. My in laws live in South Carolina...and it IS reality there. Sorry. It ain't Cleveland that thinks that the SEC winning a few silly football games makes up for losing the Civil War. That is your SEC mentality."

I said that racism exists in Alabama, but also in Cleveland. I have lived both places and the South receives more negative coverage of race issues, but that to say the entire state = racists as was said is ignorant. What does the SEC winning football games have to do with the Civil War? Yes, there are people who talk about the South "rising again", but did I imply this in any way? I don't see how I am shuffling big time.

@miktoxic said:

the poster came into our little haven of cleveland football knowledge and brotherhood. then some newbie first timer comes in all dressed up in his crimson tide gear saying we got the best RB blah blah blah and started talking richardson up. we get you pal. alabama is the best college team ever and every player that has ever tied up his shoelaces down there deserve fans to promote their favorite player on teams web pages.

like i had asked before, did you hype up ingram on the saint's forum?

how'd he do last year for them? yeah, right.

so now this year you are on our board telling/selling the TR deliciousness campaign?

go back to muscle shoals where you might actually know WTF you're talking about.

this my friend is called smarm. not intended to do harm just a little smack to the back of your head.

I don't see that I was talking up/selling Richardson by saying you guys got a talented player.

Apparently my theories about Alabama getting into the BCS game came off more crimson-shaded than intended. I was suggesting why the voters (not coaches) did what they did, not stating it as fact. I didn't say that Saban wasn't trying to keep Oklahoma State out of the game, just that he wasn't voting to keep from playing Oklahoma State. I said that Stanford and Oklahoma State were just as deserving as Alabama. That's a valid point. I also said that if we hadn't gotten in then we could only blame ourselves for losing. So, looking back at what I said, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I don't know what I am talking about? I would legitimately like to know, not intended as a cocky reply.

I'll be happy to discuss football (college or NFL) with you guys anytime. It wasn't a stir-the-pot and leave post.

I've actually never been to Muscle Shoals, but have heard that they have some decent music there.

@the-gipper said:

I guess I am not following. Just what did Nick Saban do to manipulate the Coaches poll? He didn't hold a gun to anyone's head. If there is to blame, blame the coaches...or their SIDs who voted. Enough coaches ranked Ala. ahead of both Ok St. and Stanford or other contenders to give them the second place spot.

With an undefeated LSU out there having already defeated Alabama, I, personally would have disqualified them from playing LSU again in the title game. I would have ranked them no higher than probably 5th place.

If LSU had lost, and it appeared that Ok St. or Stanford would have gained a spot in the title game and LSU wouldn't, then it would have been fair game for Bama to come back in and be in the National Title picture.....but NOT when they had already lost to the #1 team that was going to be in that game.

I'm not disputing the overall coaches poll. My problem is with Saban's voting. He didn't need to pad the lead yet he still did. Evidently he wasn't confident enough his team's merits to make it into the championship game so he put his main rival (Oklahoma State) at a disadvantage by placing them 4th.

@hoorta said:

College football not big up North? Ever hear of Ohio State? Michigan?

Sorry one of out posters had to start slinging mud at you right off the bat.

We're not doubting Trent won't be good- however there's a contingent of Browns fans who question if Richardson will be that much better than several running backs who will be available in the second round.

I have heard of them, and even rooted for one all the time and the other every once in while, but in retrospect, was misguided.

Root SEC if you want to root for the best.

BCS Standings - Dec. 4, 2011

Rank Team Harris Poll USA TODAY poll Computer rank BCS Average

1 LSU 1 1.0000 1 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000

2 Alabama 2 .9471 2 .9485 3 .9300 .9419

3 Oklahoma State 3 .9231 3 .9268 2 .9500 .9333

4 Stanford 4 .8710 4 .8719 5 (tie) .8000 .8476

5 Oregon 5 .8250 5 .8353 8 .7100 .7901

6 Arkansas 7 .7523 7 .7539 5 (tie) .8000 .7687

7 Boise State 6 .7777 6 .7647 9 .6800 .7408

8 Kansas State 10 .6028 10 .5953 4 .8500 .6827

9 South Carolina 9 .6376 9 .6583 10 .6700 .6553

10 Wisconsin 8 .7165 8 .7356 14 .4600 .6374

Now, Bama was ranked #2 in both the Harris and the USA poll. I blame them. Naturally you will hear them say: our job is to rank who we think is the best teams.

And I say: Bullshit. Your job simply is to vote on who should be in the National Championship game. Who is entitle to their "shot" at the national title. Having ranked LSU #1 and LSU having defeated Alabama....these voters should have said "Alabama eliminated".

I liken this to the Super Bowl. It would be like saying: " Well, we know that the Giants beat the Packers head to head.....but, really, the Packers were such the strong team all year long...so they should given a chance to play the Giants again in the Super Bowl....and lets see if the Packers can beat them this time".

No way in hell should that happen, but, essentially it did when Bama was granted a pass into the title game.

@taco918 said:

I'll admit I was quite intoxicated while writing that post and I was referring to Oklahoma State getting jipped out of the NC. Obviously Oklahoma State wouldn't have faced Alabama but what Saban did was a completely bush league. Saban manipulated the coaches poll to serve his own self interest. Oklahoma State was without a doubt the most dominant offense last year and were at worst the third best team in all of college football. Saban ranked them at 4 to do everything he could to ensure a rematch with LSU.

Now I'm sure bama fans rationalized it that he was merely doing his job as a head coach. What every other college football fan saw was a punk ass misusing the privilege of voting in the coaches poll for his own advancement. Thats not the purpose of the coaches poll. It never has been and never should be. Its purose is to give those involved with the game the chance to accurately judge which team is the best. Was Oklahoma State the 4th best team last year? Nope not after they manhandled OU in Bedlem. Hell even Les Miles sleazy ass voted Oklahoma State 3rd. If Les Miles outclasses you character wise then you should know you're doing something terribly wrong.

I guess I am not following. Just what did Nick Saban do to manipulate the Coaches poll? He didn't hold a gun to anyone's head. If there is to blame, blame the coaches...or their SIDs who voted. Enough coaches ranked Ala. ahead of both Ok St. and Stanford or other contenders to give them the second place spot.

With an undefeated LSU out there having already defeated Alabama, I, personally would have disqualified them from playing LSU again in the title game. I would have ranked them no higher than probably 5th place.

If LSU had lost, and it appeared that Ok St. or Stanford would have gained a spot in the title game and LSU wouldn't, then it would have been fair game for Bama to come back in and be in the National Title picture.....but NOT when they had already lost to the #1 team that was going to be in that game.

@whoami said:

I assume that you are suggesting they would have played Oklahoma State and Saban was worried about that. Actually, Alabama would have likely faced Michigan in the Sugar Bowl with LSU and Oklahoma State in the BCS National Championship Game.

So, the National Championship was a sham? How is Alabama undeserving of the game? I am an Alabama fan, but if we had not gotten a second chance against LSU, we would have only ourselves to blame. The one loss Alabama had was to LSU in overtime. If you watched the game, Alabama was clearly the better team with the exception of Special Teams, but we still lost. Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State as a result of a missed field goal, but the difference in the voters eyes would have to be that losing to the Iowa State is a much worse loss than losing to LSU. The same argument could be made for Stanford. They were just as deserving as Alabama or Oklahoma State. Alabama got the nod because of who they lost to, when they lost, and their dominance during the season. If it had been Ohio State instead of Alabama, don't you think they would get the nod over Oklahoma State or Stanford also? I'm not trying to justify it, just looking at why the decision was made. If Jim Delaney and the Pac-12 could get over the Rose Bowl game issue then we would have already had a playoff and this wouldn't be an issue.

Now, as far as a previous comment about Alabama= racists; I currently live in Alabama, and before that lived in Cleveland. Cleveland has more racism than Alabama does. The division among the communities is shockingly more present in Ohio than in Alabama. The media loves to portray the South as backwards in this regard when that's just not reality. There is plenty of racism here, but how is it any better to stereotype an entire segment of the population because you see only what executives at a television station want you to see.

I wish the Browns well this season and they have great fans for the most part. You guys have a really talented running back in Trent Richardson. I understand that as an Alabama fan, and an SEC fan, that we as a group are way too arrogant. Not all of us are like that though; the ones who are simply get the most airtime.

I'll admit I was quite intoxicated while writing that post and I was referring to Oklahoma State getting jipped out of the NC. Obviously Oklahoma State wouldn't have faced Alabama but what Saban did was a completely bush league. Saban manipulated the coaches poll to serve his own self interest. Oklahoma State was without a doubt the most dominant offense last year and were at worst the third best team in all of college football. Saban ranked them at 4 to do everything he could to ensure a rematch with LSU.

Now I'm sure bama fans rationalized it that he was merely doing his job as a head coach. What every other college football fan saw was a punk ass misusing the privilege of voting in the coaches poll for his own advancement. Thats not the purpose of the coaches poll. It never has been and never should be. Its purose is to give those involved with the game the chance to accurately judge which team is the best. Was Oklahoma State the 4th best team last year? Nope not after they manhandled OU in Bedlem. Hell even Les Miles sleazy ass voted Oklahoma State 3rd. If Les Miles outclasses you character wise then you should know you're doing something terribly wrong.

@whoami said:

I assume that you are suggesting they would have played Oklahoma State and Saban was worried about that. Actually, Alabama would have likely faced Michigan in the Sugar Bowl with LSU and Oklahoma State in the BCS National Championship Game.

So, the National Championship was a sham? How is Alabama undeserving of the game? I am an Alabama fan, but if we had not gotten a second chance against LSU, we would have only ourselves to blame. The one loss Alabama had was to LSU in overtime. If you watched the game, Alabama was clearly the better team with the exception of Special Teams, but we still lost.

My thinking about LSU having to replay Alabama is that it is a been there, done that deal. Why should they have had to prove that they are capable of beating Alabama when they had already done that?

Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State as a result of a missed field goal, but the difference in the voters eyes would have to be that losing to the Iowa State is a much worse loss than losing to LSU.

Yes, but they lost to LSU. They did not deserve a second chance any more than OK St. or or Stanford deserved a first chance. To me it was just a matter of fairness.

If you are not going to have a legitimate playoff....then the loss by Alabama to LSU should have constituted an elimination game in my view....despite the apparent strength of Alabama.

This is not to denigrate Alabama's capabilities, but to denigrate the system in place.

If they had say and 8 team playoff and Alabama was included and in the process they defeated everyone including LSU again, then I wouldn't have a problem. But they have a one game playoff. Alabama lost to LSU, nuff said, good night, go home.

The same argument could be made for Stanford. They were just as deserving as Alabama or Oklahoma State. Alabama got the nod because of who they lost to, when they lost, and their dominance during the season. If it had been Ohio State instead of Alabama, don't you think they would get the nod over Oklahoma State or Stanford also? I'm not trying to justify it, just looking at why the decision was made. If Jim Delaney and the Pac-12 could get over the Rose Bowl game issue then we would have already had a playoff and this wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think the lack of a playoff can be laid directly on the backs of the Big 10/Pac 12. Plenty of players have the hand in the pot....protecting the pot. Particularly the Bowl Committees.

Now, as far as a previous comment about Alabama= racists; I currently live in Alabama, and before that lived in Cleveland. Cleveland has more racism than Alabama does. The division among the communities is shockingly more present in Ohio than in Alabama. The media loves to portray the South as backwards in this regard when that's just not reality. There is plenty of racism here, but how is it any better to stereotype an entire segment of the population because you see only what executives at a television station want you to see.

Now you are shuffling, big time. My in laws live in South Carolina...and it IS reality there. Sorry. It ain't Cleveland that thinks that the SEC winning a few silly football games makes up for losing the Civil War. That is your SEC mentality.

I wish the Browns well this season and they have great fans for the most part. You guys have a really talented running back in Trent Richardson. I understand that as an Alabama fan, and an SEC fan, that we as a group are way too arrogant. Not all of us are like that though; the ones who are simply get the most airtime.