2011 Blogpoll: BC Interruption's Final Ballot Of Season
by Brian Favat on Jan 11, 2012 10:30 AM EST
in BlogPoll
Email
PrintLSU probably deserves a share of this year's National Championship.
The Tigers beat everyone they were asked to during the regular season, including the Pac-12 (and Rose Bowl) champ and the Big East (and Orange Bowl) champ, in addition to six then-ranked SEC opponents during the year -- #25 Mississippi State, #17 Florida, #20 Auburn, #2 Alabama, #3 Arkansas and #14 Georgia in the SEC Championship Game. Alabama beat half as many ranked SEC opponents, while the Tide's lone non-conference marquee victory was at #23 Penn State.
Everyone loves to focus in on the loss column. "Alabama's loss came to LSU in overtime" you might say. "If Oklahoma State wanted a shot at the National title, all they had to do was beat Iowa State" says SEC fans and defenders of the BCS. But frankly, that's only one half of the equation.
One could easily make the case -- as one brave AP voter did -- that Alabama only drew even with LSU on Monday night, and that LSU, not Alabama, deserves the 2011 national title. The two programs are 1-1 against one another, but LSU won at Alabama on November 5 while Alabama waxed LSU in the rematch on a neutral field.
I suppose Oklahoma State Cowboys fans also have a legit claim at this year's title. The Cowboys were undefeated in regulation and nearly managed to traverse the Big 12 gauntlet unscathed, the nation's toughest conference, statistically.
That said, you can also make the case that LSU was fortunate to come away with the victory in Tuscaloosa (four missed field goals and an INT at the LSU 1) and the Tigers no-show in the BCS title game ultimately did LSU in.
Gripes about the current college football postseason format aside, after considering all of the above, sadly I couldn't put together a compelling argument to vote anyone other than Alabama #1 in our final Blogpoll ballot.
And here is our final ballot in all its glory.
As a reminder, Jeff and I average out our ballots so there may be some polling oddities like No. 13 Kansas State (11-3) over No. 15 Oklahoma (10-3), a team that crushed K-State in Manhattan ... and ... Michigan over Michigan State ... and ... Virginia Tech (!) over Clemson. Oh boy.
Then again, if there's one thing I learned from this past college football season, it's that every game matters, until it doesn't.
BC Interruption Ballot - Week 16
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama Crimson Tide |  2 |
| 2 | LSU Tigers |  -1 |
| 3 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | -1 |
| 4 | Oregon Ducks | 1 |
| 5 | Arkansas Razorbacks | 3 |
| 6 | USC Trojans | -- |
| 7 | Stanford Cardinal | -3 |
| 8 | Boise St. Broncos | 1 |
| 9 | Wisconsin Badgers | -2 |
| 10 | South Carolina Gamecocks | -- |
| 11 | Baylor Bears | 3 |
| 12 | Michigan Wolverines | 1 |
| 13 | Kansas St. Wildcats | -1 |
| 14 | TCU Horned Frogs | 2 |
| 15 | Oklahoma Sooners | 5 |
| 16 | Michigan St. Spartans | 1 |
| 17 | West Virginia Mountaineers | 8 |
| 18 | Southern Miss. Golden Eagles | 5 |
| 19 | Virginia Tech Hokies | -4 |
| 20 | Clemson Tigers | -9 |
| 21 | Houston Cougars | 3 |
| 22 | Florida St. Seminoles | -1 |
| 23 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | -4 |
| 24 | Texas Longhorns | -- |
| 25 | Missouri Tigers | -- |
| Dropouts: Georgia Bulldogs, Penn St. Nittany Lions | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Virginia Tech should be ranked over Clemson. 11-1 with an OT Sugar Bowl loss to Michigan aside from Clemson games. Sounds like a matchup problem to me. Clemson lost to 4 different teams two of which finished the season unranked.
by Jeff Martyn on Jan 11, 2012 11:48 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Beating a team twice by a combined score of 61-17 is more than just a matchup problem.
Clemson wins (10-4): #21 Auburn, #11 Florida State, @ #11 Virginia Tech, vs. #5 Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech wins (11-3): @ #21 Georgia Tech
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Jan 11, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
On probation and off the radar
USC should be #4 and possibly #3. Yes, two losses, but a road win at Oregon and a 10 win season is pretty convincing to me. Although we don’t want to “diminish the regular season” in anyway (didn’t we do that by having Alabama make the title game after losing to LSU and not winning the SEC West or SEC championship?), USC was playing as well as anyone in the country by year’s end and would have been a very tough out in any playoff format.
Also Michigan State gets no love at all. Jobbed by not getting a BCS game in favor of hated rival Michigan, they win their bowl game and get dropped below teams like Michigan and Oklahoma. In essence, they get punished for playing the extra game in the Big 10 championship and losing…close! Not right. Could make the case for them being as high as 11.
In essence, they get punished for playing the extra game in the Big 10 championship and losing
Sounds familiar.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Jan 11, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Every game counts
I am so sick of people using that phrase to mock Alabama’s inclusion in the NCG. Alabama shouln’t be there, but OKSt, should be? If OKSt got to play in the title game, then you would have to question why their loss to Iowa St didn’t count. If every game really counted, then there wouldn’t have been a need for a NCG this year and LSU should have been declared the champion because they were the only undefeated team.
And I’m very curious about the four voters who had OKSt #1. Who did they have as their #3 team? Was it LSU, the team that was the undisputed #1 at the end of the regular season, who beat the National Champion on the road. Or was it Alabama, the National Champion, whose only loss was to the undisputed #1 team at the end of the regular season?
Alabama should have been there
This is really a story for a different post, but my point was to take a swing at the BCS process, not at Alabama. The goal of the BCS Championship Game was to get #1 and #2 together and that it did and I think it got the best two teams and Alabama was and is a deserving #1 in that scenario. But, based on the idiotic statements of the folks at the BCS, who tell us that the regular season means everything, Alabama should have been excluded. By allowing Alabama in (as a non conference champion) and then to ultimately win, went against all they preach.
This is another one, I need to write up and post…its a great topic.
Exactly
This.
It is not an “Alabama was an undeserving title game participant” argument. There would be just as much outrage — if not even more public outcry — if the BCS National Championship Game paired up Oregon-Stanford or Florida State-Clemson or … (goes and double checks the Big Ten divisional composition) … Michigan-Michigan State.
The outrage is that the one key talking point that the BCS brass keeps shoving down the throat of college football fans is that the current system preserves the importance of the regular season. If the current system did actually preserve the importance of the regular season — if every game truly mattered — then Alabama would have been eliminated from title contention with the Tide’s OT loss to LSU on November 5.
The key tenet of the BCS’ argument as to why it could continue to exist is that a playoff would devalue the importance of the regular season. There are hundreds of playoff formats out there that would have done a better job this year at protecting the sanctity of the regular season.
At least the powers that be are finally getting the message that the current system is untenable. The lowest BCS title game ratings ever is pretty damning evidence, and what happens when you rely on the BCS formula to spit out a ultra-regional 1 vs. 2 matchup that’s a rematch of a regular season divisional game.
Editor, BC Interruption
Now if the Alabama-LSU field goal off part II had been preceded by wins over Oklahoma State and Oregon/Stanford, then both those programs earned the right to play for the title. Instead, LSU and Alabama were handed a title (and LSU was put in double jeopardy, if the regular season really is a playoff).
College football is truly the greatest sport on the planet with the worst possible postseason format.
Editor, BC Interruption
I don’t understand why all the outrage over an intraconfrence title game match-up. If those two teams are ranked #1 and #2, whether it’s LSU-Alabama or FSU-Clemson, let them play. This is the “playoff” format that college football has. Two teams, one game. If those two teams come from the same conference so be it. If you simply want to say that it is a ridiculous postseason format, I might agree. But to say that LSU and Alabama were “handed a title”, I can’t agree.
As for not preserving the importance of the regular season, both Alabama and OKSt had one loss. Why should Aabama’s loss count more than OKSt’s? Why should they have been eliminated from title contention with their loss to the #1 team, but OKSt should not have been with their loss to unranked ISU? Sure OKSt “won” their conference, but nobody ever said that you had to have teams from different conferences meet for the title game.
What if two teams from the same conference didn’t meet in the regular season? What if, say, FSU lost to Clemson early one year, but then won the rest of their games to ascend to #2 polls. Meanwhile, Clemson lost to BC, for their only conference loss and, by virtue of their win over FSU, finishes in first in the Atlantic division. (Due to their inexplicable loss to us, they are unranked.) Clemson then loses to #1 VT in the ACCCG. VT is #1, FSU is #2 and they haven’t played. Would it be OK then for an intraconference title game?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
