Let’s take a break from drowning in hype for this Saturday’s LSU-Alabama game to ponder a scenario even more likely to blow up to mammoth proportions. I’m talking, of course, about Paul Finebaum’s wet dream, a rematch in the BCS Championship Game.
There are two clear schools of thought on this. One side contends that if LSU and Alabama are deemed the best teams in the country at the end of the season, the fact that they played each other already shouldn’t preclude the possibility of them squaring off in the title game. The other faction maintains that the loser of the regular season game would have already had its shot.
Allen Kenney: Personally, I’m in favor of rewarding the two teams that I think had the best seasons with a shot at a national championship. If those two teams are LSU and Alabama, then so be it.
Mind you, I wouldn’t find a rematch all that satisfying. I’d much rather see another team besides the loser of this game make a stronger case that it deserves a chance. I could easily envision a scenario, though, in which ‘Bama and LSU demonstrate greater BCS “worthiness” than any other major contender.
Where do you guys stand? (And, yes, I realize that I have just completely ruined the chances of this happening.)
Tom Perry: No way. They each get their shot this weekend. Think back to the classic showdown in 2006 when Ohio State was No. 1 and Michigan was No. 2. We kept hearing how these two might (and many felt should) get a rematch in the BCS Championship.
We would have all been fooled as Ohio State was crushed by Florida in the BCS Championship and Michigan lost to USC in the Rose Bowl.
Now I’m not trying to say that LSU and Alabama are this year’s OSU and Michigan, but a rematch doesn’t offer us any new insight into these two teams. So what if the loser comes back and wins the BCS Championship Game? That makes this weekend’s game meaningless. The regular season is the playoff and this is their chance to prove who belongs.
Matt Yoder: Here’s my issue with debating a possible LSU/Bama rematch. How many people have we heard emphatically state “you have to win your conference to play for a national championship” or “you have to at least win your division” after Nebraska’s embarrassment against Miami a decade ago. Plenty of college football pundits/writers/fans have been strident in this thesis for the last decade. It seems to me some folks are going to be willing to flip flop, revisit, and cave in to this unwritten rule of the BCS just because we’re dealing with the almighty SEC. (SEC West, really.)
This question goes all the way back to the roundtable we had earlier in the season… who should actually play in the BCS Championship Game? The teams we think are the “best” or the two teams that put together the best seasons on the field. Without a legit playoff, the next best scenario is the “regular season is your playoff” as Tom states. In that case, there’s no way I could conceivably consider an LSU/Bama rematch unless everyone else in the country has at least 2 losses.
Regie Eller: I always find it hard to reward a team, in any league, a national championship without winning their “league” “division” or what have you.
When evaluating “should” you must also think “will” they. The BCS is a consideration, because of the formula at hand.
I am not a pro-playoff guy, but it has been funny to me to see the pro and anti BCS’ers flip and flop around the subject of LSU and Alabama rematching.
Michael Felder: I just care about the two best teams playing. That’s it. Not the 2 best teams going through six other guys or whatever other number people have in their mythical playoff scheme.
Just the best two.
If we get a great game Saturday and the other teams; Oklahoma State and Stanford, don’t take care of business I’ve got no problem seeing a rematch. The difference between 2006 and now is we’ve still got plenty of season left for this to sort itself out. The Pokes still have Oklahoma, Kansas State and Texas Tech on their schedule. Stanford still has a date with Oregon and Arizona State in the Pac-12 title game.
And for all this rematch talk I think the most important aspect is seeing the game. If we get a blow out then this point is moot. Should we get a tight game but LSU loses to a very capable Arkansas team then again the talk is shelved.
As for the conference champ, not conference champ debate I’m not as tied to that ideal as others. Fact is a one loss LSU with the resume that they have (Oregon, WVU, Arkansas and their SEC grind) can still be considered one of the top teams in the nation, no? The loss, in a close game mind you, to the number one team Alabama will somehow make LSU “not as good” as some of the other teams out there? I can’t subscribe to that logic.
Regie Eller: Good points Michael.
I dove into LSU and Alabama separately today. Looked at them from every possible angle: 1-through-4 quarters. 1-through-4th downs. Offensively, defensively. Conversions, offensively and defensively. Tracking back to 2006 – I agree – on the surface this appears different. LSU-Alabama very well could be the two best teams. If they happen to be in the same division, should that be held against the loser?
What we have going for us as CFB guys is there will still be plenty of season left to finish this book. If LSU loses to Alabama, close, and it comes down to the wire and then they take care of Arkansas (and Ole Miss – hah) then it could happen.
Obviously Stanford and Oklahoma State have stakes in this and if they run it they’ll be there but if they both lose, there is no way in hell I’ll be for Boise being place in a game over LSU – in the scenario I laid out.
Time will tell.
Kevin McGuire: For me I want to see the best two teams play for the championship, but I also side with the idea that if you don’t win your conference, or at least your division, then you should be ineligible for a championship shot. So, to me, even if LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the country I don”t think we should preparing for a rematch in New Orleans if there are are other teams who have completed the season undefeated.
But here’s the thing. The loser this weekend is not going to drop very far in the BCS standings (unless we see a 56-3 blowout) and if the regular season plays out the way I think it will, with Stanford losing to Oregon and Oklahoma State losing to Oklahoma, then whoever loses this weekend may work their way back in to position for a BCS title shot. I think it will be difficult to sway the voters to this weekend’s loser pass an undefeated Boise State but the computer rankings that play a part will surely favor the SEC team any day over the Broncos (and for that matter the Houston Cougars).
While it may not be the most desirable match-up I have in mind, I could live with seeing it if it happens to be the case. I prefer bowl games to be match-ups between different conferences but the idea of the BCS is to pair the two best teams in the country for the championship game, and given the circumstances this may be the rare year when they may just be in the same conference, and division.
Aaron Torres: Great debate guys.
It’s interesting, because up until this season, I was one of those guys that Matt was talking about: I never believed a team could be one of the best two teams in the country if they weren’t even the best in their own conference.
The problem is, I don’t feel that way this year.
To Michael’s point, I am pro “Having the best two teams play for the title.” Period. And really, for all the flack that the BCS takes, that’s the only goal of their entire process: Figure out who the two best teams are and get them on the field together. That’s it. And while I don’t know what the formula of the BCS computers is (actually 
if you talk to Dan Wetzel, apparently no one does), what I do know is what I see with my own two eyes. And what these two eyes have seen is that so far this year, on November 3, 2011, they are the two best teams in college football and it’s not close. If the loser of this game goes on to play their next three opponents the way they have the first eight, then I would have no problem seeing them play for a title.
But that’s the one thing people don’t realize, and people aren’t talking about: There are still games after this. For the record, I’m not so sure one of these teams won’t get tripped up. Arkansas always gives LSU trouble (beat them last year, lost to the Tigers by a field goal in Baton Rouge the year before), and at the very least, we know Auburn won’t be afraid of Alabama. Not to mention that as you guys have all said so well, Oklahoma State still has a bunch of big games, and Stanford, well, they’re going to have their hands full with Oregon and then potentially Arizona State in a Pac-12 Championship Game if they win.
Point being, I don’t have any objection if these teams- or any two- get a rematch in the BCS National Championship Game, if most people are at a consensus that they’re actually No.’s 1 and 2. That was the biggest problem with Nebraska in 2001 and Michigan in 2006. There was no consensus.
Hopefully we’ll have some clarity by the beginning of December.
Matt Yoder: Taking this in a different direction, here’s the doomsday scenario for the BCS: Bama wins Saturday and goes unbeaten. LSU wins the rest of their games and finishes with one loss. Aaannd, let’s just say… Boise State is the only other unbeaten team. Who should play Alabama in the national championship game?
Regie Eller: LSU everyday of the week.
Aaron Torres: If Pat Forde was driving the “Boise Bus,” last year, I was his co-pilot. Nobody supported that team quite like I did, and nobody wanted them playing for a title more than (to quote Jon Gruden) “this guy” right here.
But again, seasons are independent from each other, and if it came down to those two, in the circumstance that you’ve laid out Matt, I’d take LSU any day of the week. You can’t simply look at these scenarios with a “this team has one loss and that team has zero, let’s take the team that’s undefeated.” You’ve got to go broader, bigger picture. And if you do that, it’s LSU, and it’s a no-brainer.
Michael Felder: LSU, provided the Alabama-LSU game is a close contest.
Was this question supposed to be hard?
Boise State won’t have the BCS numbers to make the game, especially with their number already sitting so low AND LSU still having a Top 10 Arkansas to boost their number. I think Chris Petersen is great but if we’re talking body of work and best season you can’t seriously tell me BSU’s body of work is better than LSU’s, even if the Bayou Bengals have one loss to Alabama; because if that’s the thought process then why not Houston?
Their body of work will be better than Boise State’s.
Matt Yoder: I didn’t think anyone would pick Boise (unless Pat Forde snuck his way into the roundtable), which leads to my larger point in a sinister sort of way.
If we’re saying a one loss team, who already got beat by No. 1 in the country should make the title game ahead of an unbeaten Boise (or Houston)… then what chance does a non-BCS school ever have of making the title game? It seems to me the above scenario would be the best and most realistic chance for a school like Boise (or fill in the non-BCS school in the blank) to make it, being only one of two unbeatens in the country. So, if we’re unanimously saying that wouldn’t happen, then shouldn’t all the mid major schools just pack up their bus, go home, and be content with their Humanitarian Bowls and funny colored turf?
Aaron Torres: So here’s the thing: Having gone to a school that has an FBS football team in name only (sorry Huskies fans), I feel like I’ve got a pretty fair take on this. I’m not a “big school” or “small school” guy as much as I am just a “two best teams” guy. As I said earlier.
To that point, I think that last year, had Oregon or Auburn lost, I would’ve had no objection to an undefeated TCU play in the title game. There was no tangible way to say that regardless of who they lost to, Oregon or Auburn was or was not a more impressive team with one loss than an undefeated TCU. In that case, it would’ve been hard to argue the merits of keeping an undefeated TCU out.
But this year, the circumstances have changed. Alabama and LSU are No. 1 and 2, and there’s no argument from anyone, anywhere about that. So if they’re the two best teams, and they just so happen to have to play each other given their geographic and conference alignment, then why should they be punished? Again, the only goal of the BCS is to get the two best teams on the field, not the ones with the two shiniest records.
Again, I’ll defer who those two teams are to the mysterious BCS computers. But I don’t think that saying that a one-loss LSU over an undefeated Boise automatically means that all the small schools should just pack it up. This is a unique year, and these are unique circumstances.
(And for the record, even if Stanford beats Oregon and goes undefeated, I probably wouldn’t have an objection to a one-loss LSU team making it into a title game over them. Again it’s about body of work, not shiny records. And I’d still take LSU’s body of work over the Cardinal’s. Again, given the circumstance.)
Michael Felder: Sure why not? If we ever get the separate division in football we can get rid of the issue.
However speaking to this being the perfect scenario I’d have to disagree. I think 2007 was a far better scenario. Everyone but Ohio State had multiple losses. Had a non-AQ, or in this case specifically, Hawaii, started up higher and actually played anyone on the season they would have been primed to fall backwards into a possible title shot.
LSU moved to No. 5 after losing to Arkansas but got to No. 2 after beating Tennessee. Ohio State was No. 1 but lost to Illinois and was No. 7 heading into the Michigan game. Oklahoma got up to 3 after being 9 heading into Big XII title game against #1 Missouri. Kansas at 5 after losing to Mizzou. WVU at 2 before losing to Pitt.
The point is a lot of movement plenty of chances to pick up spots just in the last 2 weeks of the season. Had Hawaii played real teams, started up in the rankings they’d be in a prime spot. Especially when teams had multiple losses.
Allen Kenney: Another Boise discussion? OK.
It all comes back to my original point. I want to see teams rewarded for putting together the best season. I don’t really care who I think the best teams are. I want the two teams that have made the best case that they deserve a shot. Boise should have done more to sex up its schedule out of conference to make its case.
Which brings me back to the original issue. Both alabama and lsu teams took on solid programs out of conference. Couple that with a difficult SEC schedule, and I don’t have a hard-and-fast objection to a rematch.
Follow the guys of Crystal Ball Run on Twitter as they debate all of college football’s biggest storylines @CrystalBallRun.
