Skip to main content

LSU deserves a share of the title

It seems as if I'm in the minority on this following Alabama's dominant 21-0 win over LSU last night in the national championship game, but I for one believe LSU deserves a share of the title - to be placed #1 in the AP Poll, while Alabama earns that spot in the USA Today/Coaches.

If there were a playoff system in Division 1-A college football and Alabama beat LSU in the title game, there would be no argument - Alabama would be the sole national champion and deservedly so. However, Division I-A college football works a little differently than any other sport. No, I don't like the current system. I loathe and despise the BCS in any and every way and hope it's disposed of in the very near future, BUT with the current format we have, I believe the team teams should share the championship honors. Let me explain why.

Before the wild card was implemented in baseball, each division was given one team to enter the playoffs. That was it. The first place team from each division entered the playoffs. Why then should a team which finished second in a division then be afforded the opportunity to win the World Series? Alabama didn't win the SEC. They didn't play in the SEC title game. They lost to LSU on their home field. Why should they be afforded the opportunity of winning the national championship? Given the fact they did win the second game, why should the 2nd place team of a division, which didn't qualify for the top two teams of the conference to play in the conference title game be rewarded the #1 spot in both polls? What's the point of playing tough non-conference schedules? Of having a conference championship game? Of beating a team like Alabama in the regular season if those games mean little to nothing in the end? The BCS proponents like to state that with the current system "every game counts". That was just proven false, because LSU's win against Alabama in Tuscaloosa and their win against Georgia in the SEC Championship Game really didn't count for anything, did they? Alabama was able to lose that game to the Tigers at home, not even play in the conference title game and wound up sneaking into the national title game, only to win it.

Some have made the argument that LSU only beat Alabama by 3 in the first meeting, while Alabama beat LSU last night by 21, so based on those numbers alone, the Crimson Tide should be rewarded the #1 spot in both polls. If over the course of a season, a series is tied in baseball or basketball 5-5 or 10-10, is the tie-breaker who outscored the other in the 10-20 games? "Well, there was that one game where the Dodgers beat the Giants 15-2, so even though they lost 10 of the other 19 games between the two, they should be given the tie-breaker." No. Nebraska pummeled Washington last year 56-21 in the regular season, but then lost to them in the rematch via the Holiday Bowl 19-7. Since Washington won the bowl game between the two - "the game that mattered" - does that really mean Washington was the better of the two teams? No. Nebraska manhandled them in the first game and as history seems to showcase, the losing team ended up on top in the re-match.


Also, if we want to look at numbers, how about these? LSU defeated the following this year: Oregon (12-2 and winners of the Rose Bowl) 40-27, Mississippi State (7-6 and winners of the Music City Bowl) 19-6 on the road, West Virginia (10-3 and winners of the Orange Bowl) 47-21 on the road, Florida (7-6 and winners of the Gator Bowl) 41-11, Auburn (8-5 and winners of the chick-fil-A Bowl) 45-10, Alabama (12-1 and winners of the title game) 9-6 in overtime on the road, Western Kentucky (7-5) 42-9, Arkansas (11-2 and winners of the Cotton Bowl) 41-17 and Georgia (10-4) 42-10 in the SEC title game. In these nine games against teams with winning records (only played 3 teams with losing records), they won by the combined score of 326-117 (an average of 36.2 - 13.0 = +23.2) versus teams with a combined record of 84-34 (.712). Including the 3 sub-.500 teams they beat, their opponents went a combined 96-58 (.623). At season's end, LSU beat the #1 team (Alabama), #4 team (Oregon), #5 team (Arkansas), #17 team (West Virginia) and #19 team (Georgia) by a combined 179-81 (average of 35.8 - 16.2 = +19.6). That's 3 of the top 5 teams in the country and 5 of the top 20, teams (all winners of at least 10 games) that went a combined 55-12 (.821).

In 12 wins against I-A competition, LSU played 3 with losing records (25.0%). In 11 wins against 1-A competition, Alabama played 5 with losing records (45.5%). While LSU defeated 5 top 25 teams at season's end, all of whom won at least 10 games and 3 of which were in the top 5, Alabama defeated 2 top 25 teams, both of which were in the top 5 and the only two teams they beat which ended up with 10 wins or more. Including last night, Alabama only defeated 6 teams with winning records of their 11 wins against 1-A competition (54.5%), beating: Penn State (9-4) 27-11 on the road, Arkansas (11-2) 38-14, Florida (7-6) 38-10 on the road, Mississippi State (7-6) 24-7 on the road, Auburn (8-5) 42-14 on the road and LSU (13-1) 21-0. These teams went a combined 55-24 (.696). Including the 5 teams with losing records, 'Bama's wins came against team with a combined record of 78-62 (.520). Excluding the win last night, their victories came against teams with a record of 65-61 (.516), barely over .500.

Again, if there were a playoff, Alabama would obviously be deserving of the championship by themselves. But, that's not how Division I-A college football is at the time. At season's end, we're supposed to reward the best team (or teams) the national championship. Do we base this off one really good game or the best overall season? Alabama, without question, dominated last night, yet their resume isn't nearly as impressive as LSU's. Due to that, I honestly believe LSU should be given the #1 ranking in the AP Poll. They played a far tougher schedule than Alabama, beat the Tide in Tuscaloosa and not only played in, but won the SEC Championship, which Alabama didn't even qualify for. As the poll results are in and Alabama has been given the reigns all to themselves, I think it's safe to say that Les Miles and the LSU Tigers got jobbed. Playoff, anyone?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"