In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1678
Online now 1503 Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
"You shouldnt be allowed to play for a national championship if you don't win your conference championship."
I don't recall ever hearing a sport's analyst or announcer ever mention this until this last year, and I dont even recall hearing this last year until after the first LSU/Alabama game.
I remember Nebraska in 2001 and the Sooners in 2002 getting raped in their conference championship games and still going to the national championship. I dont ever recall anyone using that the above phase then.
My thought is that the only reason that this was said was to attempt sway voter opinions (those who basically hate the SEC and tired of the dominance). Say it had been Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. or Oregon and Stanford instead of Alabama/LSU. Do yall think this phrase would have ever been used? I seriously doubt it
lou holtz said it alot before the rematch.i thought he was talking out both sides of his mouth bc by his reasoning his beloved notre dame would be ineligible every year.and we all know he picks the irish to win it all every year.
I think it was Urban Meyer when Florida jumped Michigan in the polls to beat Ohio State.
Alabama will always be the most criticized team in america.
It was when Michigan and Ohio State were 1-2 in the polls a few years back.
And neither Nebraska nor Oklahoma had the #1 team in their conference (Nebraska didn't even play in the conf championship game). Teams ranked behind them won the Big 12, so there was no leverage for the argument that the two best teams were in the same conference and one deserved to play without winning the conference championship.
At least with Michigan in 2006, you could make the argument that they were deserving of being ranked #2 because the #1 team was also in the Big Ten. I thought it was a bad argument because I thought Florida was better than both them and Ohio State that season, but it could be argued without twisted logic.
I heard talk of it going into the Nebraska game in 01 and heard it alot immediately after the game. I also remember hearing it a good bit a few years ago when UGA was being talked about as playing for a NC (I think it was the year LSU went but I could be wrong).
No sane person who watched the national championship game would tell you Alabama wasn't the best team in the country last year. I don't really care about not winning the SEC. We were voted #2 and beat the #1 ranked SEC champion. If there are some sour grapes from other team's fans, I'm willing to reach out to them and show them our championship trophies when they visit Tuscaloosa.
A good argument against that mindset is the playoffs in all pro sports.
Just about all of them have division winners and "wildcard" playoff teams.
And every pro sport seems inclined to add more teams to the playoff
mix, not fewer. Of course, we all know that's all about $$$.
And as I recall, a handful of NFL teams have won the Super Bowl as a wildcard
team. Oakland and Pittsburgh, if memory serves.
Bottom line, no team in college football raises the pundits' ire currently than Alabama.
Because we're Alabama, we're in the south, and we have the HATED, evil Nicktator
as our head coach. Screw 'em all!!!
I don't think any team should be able to play in the BCS National Championship game unless the could beat any team in the country and Bama could and did!!!
FYI: being in the south has nothing to do with it.
But if you think about it.. If there was a playoffs, I'm pretty sure it would be Alabama and LSU in the BCS Championship.
Spot on with UGA. UT blew them out and played for the SEC, but everyone thought UGA would have beaten LSU if they'd played late in the year, so UGA came into the next year as the #1 team. Then, they got posterized.
The problem is, NO, they want to PREVENT that from ever happening by ONLY ALLOWING conference champs to participate, which would've kept us OUT, and will eventually bite us, so we've gotta fight this thing now...
1960 Les Paul
Its weird cause the people who throw that out do so as if its a sports axiom that has been true forever. College football is the only sport where that myth exists.
Totally agree. This is why the Big Ten and Pac-12 are supporting a playoff now. They want the champion from each division (plus maybe Notre Dame) to be eligible for a 4 team playoff. This would gaurantee only one SEC team - which is the best they can hope to do right now. If we go that route, we're going to be in an even bigger disadvantage by having so many good teams in the same conference.
I actually am in favor of a playoff, but I think it needs to be the best teams in the country playing to see who wins. I would even be in favor of having conference champions automatically advance - so long as there are some "at large" bids as well (and not just for Notre Dame). The more the merrier in the playoffs.
Since the conferences are not equal (in number of teams, quality, champion rules, etc.), you can't treat them equally when it comes to playoffs. Especially if we are only going to do a 4 team playoff.
We actually had a much better argument than 01 Nebraska and 03 OU. Nebraska got blown out in their last regular season game, 62-36 by #14 Colorado. It was a bloodbath. Colorado went on to the Big 12 title game and Nebraska stayed home but still made the BCS title game. At least we lost in OT to #1.
03 OU got blown out in the Big 12 championship game, 35-7 by #10 Kansas State. They at least won their division but they didn't win their conference and were beaten by 4 TD's by a 10th ranked team...not by a FG in OT by #1.
If anything, the team that didn't make it had a better case than we did...06 Michigan. They lost to #1 Ohio State by 3 points on the road. We lost at home.
Interesting yet irrelevant topic. We got our shot, took full advantage, and anyone who doesn't like it can lick our crystal balls.
Just in response to the OP, I remember a lot of talk about that after OU got murdered by K-State in the BigXII championship in 2003 and still played. However, you had undefeated AU sitting right there, so I think it was a stronger argument then. But I do remember hearing people say that being a conference champion should be a requirement then.
Wrong year. AU went unbeaten in 04 but OU and USC did too so Auburn got left out.
You're right about that. Heavy drinking made those first few years of college a little mashed together.
I stand by the rest of my comment regarding OU and not being conference champions. USC, OU, and LSU all had 1 loss at the end of the season in '03 (with OU losing its conference championship game). However, USC and LSU were conference champions. Lot of argument about a requirement of winning your conference that year.
Thanks for the responses. I was a lot younger then and wasn't as hardcore football as I am now so I just wante to see if that argument had ever come up before last year. Thanks!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports