We're Number 2!

I think Oklahoma State deserves the spot, but I think for better or worse, we're at a point where the SEC wins every debate because of its recent run of dominance. The No. 2 spot is going to go to Alabama and the Heisman is probably going to an SEC player, Richardson or the Honey Badger (love that nickname). Hell, Les Miles' pitch for the Honey Badger is that he is the best player on the best team in the SEC.

On a completely different note, Oklahoma State's loss did come days after a tragedy at the school. It seems that is overlooked by some. It shouldn't excuse the loss, but it was a factor that is being overlooked by some.

 

BCS apologists/supporters have always said there was no need for a playoff because the regular season was the playoff. A rematch kind of blows that argument all to hell, doesn't it?

 

It's being overlooked because it wasn't a factor. Or at least it wasnt as they were building a three-touchdown lead.

It is really distasteful and embarrassing for OSU to keep bringing that up and I think they're going to regret using that to help their position in a football poll.

 

You are probably right, but I'd say only the people that played and coached that game really know the effect it had on them.

 

You are overthinking it. You can just ask two questions to get to what I think should be the answer:
1. Who had a better record? Answer: They are the same at 11-1.
2. Who had a tougher schedule to get to 11-1? Answer: Oklahoma State's schedule is, by any reasonable measure, tougher.

You aren't just evaluating Iowa State in a vacuum or LSU in a vacuum. You are evaluating two 12-game schedules. And Oklahoma State's is, without question, better.

 

Not seeing why the past 5 seasons should have any impact whatsoever in the 2011 discussion.

Not seeing why LSU's history has any relevance to the 2011 discussion.

Put the 2011 resume side by side and LSU is the clear No. 1, Oklahoma State is the clear No. 2 and Alabama is the clear No. 3.

 

I tacked on the last sentence after I made my argument. But you're right: It shouldn't be relevant.

Here are a few numbers that should be relevant:

Oklahoma State's average game score was 49.3-25.8.
Alabama's average game score was 36.0-8.8.

Oklahoma State recorded 322 first downs and allowed 302.
Alabama recorded 259 first downs and allowed 126.

Oklahoma State had 6,684 total yards and allowed 5,348.
Alabama had 5,201 total yards and allowed 2,295.

Oklahoma State scored 76 touchdowns and allowed 39.
Alabama scored 54 touchdowns and allowed 12.

Those numbers point to the clear observation that Alabama was a more dominant team overall than Oklahoma State. I recognize strength of schedule is a huge part of the formula, but I also think it's important to look at how the teams won those games. This goes right along with my belief that a team shouldn't be penalized heavily for losing to a better team. If you replaced LSU on Alabama's schedule with the New Orleans Saints, Alabama is still 11-1. And Alabama is still a better team than Oklahoma State.

It's a shame we can't prove this on the field. I'm all for a playoff. We don't have one. And I firmly believe there's more to a team than its schedule.

 

You're overthinking again. If Alabama played LSU every week it would be last in the nation in offense. But it didn't. It played a considerably easier schedule statistically than OSU, so it predictably had more dominant stats.

I'm sure Boise State has some impressive stats too.

Again. Two stats: 11-1. Both teams achieved that. Strength of schedule: OSU is 8. Alabama is 23 (may change a bit this week, but not much).

So if one team is 11-1 against the 8th toughest schedule and the other team is 11-1 against the 23rd toughest schedule, didn't the team playing the tougher schedule have a better overall resume?

 

I'd counter that you're oversimplifying heavily. Alabama dominated its 23rd-ranked schedule thoroughly with one exception. Oklahoma State dominated about half of its eighth-ranked schedule but allowed several teams to stay right in the games to the end. And nothing on Oklahoma State's schedule was nearly as tough as LSU. Nothing was even close.

Alabama lost to the best team in the country and no one else. Oklahoma State didn't have to play the best team in the country and still lost a game anyway.

Alabama's best win (against Arkansas) was against a team that was as tough or tougher than any of Oklahoma State's opponents.

Alabama did the job of the second-best team in the country by proving it was markedly better than anyone it played but the best team in the country. Oklahoma State lost to a mid-level opponent and played close with several other teams.

 

Not necessarily. You can also believe that LSU didn't play well that night. That's my position. I think LSU is a great team that had a very bad night. I think Alabama is a decent team that will never have a better chance to beat the Tigers than they did that night and failed to take advantage of it. I do not consider Alabama to be all that good of a team and I do not think they will keep a rematch with LSU close at all.

If anyone on this board has a vote, please do the right thing and vote for Oklahoma State.

 

Interesting stat: 46 percent of Trent Richardson's rushing yards came against North Texas, Ole Miss, Georgia Southern and Auburn.

Wins against current BCS Top 25 opponents: Oklahoma State 5, Alabama 2.

Wins against current BCS Top 50 opponents: Oklahoma State 7, Alabama 5.

Wins against bowl-bound opponents with winning records: Oklahoma State 7, Alabama 3.

Conference championships: Oklahoma State 1, Alabama 0.

Let's face it: If Oklahoma State went by another name -- Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Florida, etc. -- it would've been a slam-dunk choice to play LSU for the championship before the day even began (presuming it beat the Sooners, of course).

 

Again: OSU has the same record against a better schedule than Alabama. Given that, how did, as you assert, Alabama prove it was better?

If Alabama failed to win more games against an easier schedule, what did it prove?

It's a bottom line thing: Both teams get the exact same end result: 11-1. One team achieved its record against a tougher schedule. All the other stuff is rationalization for a team you'd rather see play. I too, would find Alabama/LSU a more compelling matchup. But it's not about what I think would be a better game. It's about who more deserves to be there. And, in arguing for OSU, I don't need to bring up anything about OSU's superior offense or the fact that Alabama doesn't have a championship-level QB or any of that. Don't need to. OSU has the same record against a tougher schedule. 'Nuff said.

Now, if you ask me who I think is better, I'll tell you Alabama. But I disagree with a point you made earlier: You say that's the question you need to ask yourself to decide who's No. 2. I say it's who has done more to be No. 2.

For example, let's say 1995 Nebraska inexplicably went to Hawaii and and the whole team went out and partied all night and they lose to Chaminade's NAIA football team (which it doesn't have, just dreaming up a Virginia-like upset). Then they suspended 30 of those players for drinking on the island and they lose again the next week. Then, like Georgia they ripped off 10 straight wins. 1995 Nebraksa is the best team ever. We know that now. But at 10-2, would you put them over 12-0 BCS power conference teams for a BCS title game? Of course not. The 12-0 team has done more to deserve to get there. Doesn't matter that the 10-2 Nebraska team is obviously better.

Point is: The eye test can't come first. It's resume first, eye test second. If the resume was so close you couldn't pick one over the other, then you may go to the eye test. But when one resume is better than the other, you have to go with the resume. In this case, the argument for Alabama's resume is OSU's bad loss. For OSU it's Alabama's lack of quality wins. How do you reconcile the two? How about overall strength of schedule? Makes sense because it takes the ENTIRE schedule into account.

And that's not close. OSU wins.