(01-02-2015 02:19 PM)Mimi Wrote: Such anger from some of you guys.
A decade of dominance...meaningless.
A nice stomping by TCU...all the meaning in the world.
Ahhh. Qualifiers left and right.
Oregon has been really good...title contending good...they had one shot, lost, now they get another one. Many schools outside the SEC have been title worthy, but lost the big game. Alabama was title worthy, they lost. The only big upshot from all of this is that in 2014, as it turns out,mAlabama was the only title worthy team in the SEC. A bunch of good teams but only really one elite...and they were not quite good enough yesterday.
Unless you guys are arguing that FSU undeserving to play yesterday because they happened to get goat stomped. Nonsense. They played a bad game and Oregon was really good and took full advantage. While Oregon looked to be the better team, If they played again, FSU absolutely could win.
I don't see the anger. Whatever.
Just noting that the "system" that had been in place was always a fraudulent prop up, so the effective outcome of the fraud somehow "proved" conference dominance?
In particular, the 2008 season, which had 5 one-loss teams (USC, Texas, Bammer, OU and Florida) and undefeated Boise and Utah (who waxed Bammer in the Sugar Bowl). Texas beat OU head to head but OU was higher in the BCS standings.
The 2004 season, with undefeated USC not playing undefeated Auburn and (undefeated) Utah not getting a shot at Auburn in the Sugar Bowl.
The 2009 season had five undefeated teams.
2012 1-loss Bammer gets in over 1-loss Oregon and 1-loss K-State.
Or the year Bama loses to LSU then gets the rematch and blows LSU up. Did that prove (by the outcome) that LSU didn't deserve to really play for the title? Because that was the narrative when Ohio State was humbled by UF and LSU. That one game "proved" the B1g couldn't compete. The secondary fallacy of the one game equals big picture thought process.
Those are just a sample of seasons in which there were multiple opportunities to "get the wrong best two."