i don't see why not. ou lost to something like a 28 point underdog at home. a team that would go on to lose 41-7 to iowa state (and based on when iowa state played us, them beating anybody 41-7 seems amazing). i would say that's at least as bad as a 30 point loss to lsu or alabama. and lsu/alabama have been similary dominant in their other games compared to ou's wins. but we all know how this works. ou always gets the benefit of the doubt. however many losses they have, they are the highest ranked of those teams. if there are 3 teams for 2 spots, they get 1 of the spots. hell, in 2008 we beat them, then beat 2 more top 11 teams (crushing missouri) the next 2 weeks and then lost on a last second play to an undefeated team on the road, while ou played no one of consequence i believe. and where did the polls have a 1 loss ou versus a 1 loss texas, a mere 3 weeks after we had just beaten them in the most hyped game of the season to that point? 3 spots below ou. un-friggin-believable.
Wait - have they played one or none? Your story seems to be changing. Is Georgia a good team? You keep talking about hypotheticals, but I'm using actual results. By definition, that's NOT hypothetical. What is your basis for saying the middle-tier SEC teams are any good? Show me the evidence without using past results - because as you said, we're not allowed to look at the past.
They beat 1 team that is barely ranked and you and everybody else in America wants to crown them because they like fairytales. I get it. 1% of America controls all of the wealth -- LSU, Bama, big conferences... America wants the little guy to win. I get it. But it doesn't make it right. Those teams/corporations EARNED their cut fair and square. Deal with it. Put mom & pop out of business. The sooner the better.
I see you continue to avoid the question of how you've determined any of the SEC teams are any good without using past results.
Huh? Lost me bro. If BSU beats an SEC team in a BCS game I'll donate to Clutchfans even though there is no NBA anymore. I'll wear a Big 12 dress and go to the UT/Baylor game next year. Whatever.
There will just be excuses. Like when Utah laid the wood to SEC runner-up Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. "Oh, it was a let-down game." "Alabama just can't get as excited about playing Utah as Utah can get about playing Alabama." "You can't expect a team to play the schedule that Alabama had and still have something left in the tank in January." "If they would have been in a rematch with Florida, they would have played harder." "It was in New Orleans for New Years, and those Mormons don't party."
"Alabama's star tackle was out for the game" Seriously though, that game was epic. I've watched BSU play in BCS games and didn't come away impressed. Utah laid the WOOD on Bama. They punched em' in the mouth and beat them into submission. I've never seen anyone do that to Saban. That Utah team proved something to me that year. Meanwhile Boise State is running pee-wee (pee-pee) league plays so they can get on the cover of EA Sports NCAA Football and recruit more non-NFL talent.
Simple - you wanted evidence that a Boise would be better than a 1-loss SEC team. I gave some to you. Now I want evidence that a 1-loss SEC team is better than Boise. I think the SEC this year is Alabama, LSU, and a bunch of mediocrity, so that one loss SEC team won't have any wins better than Georgia AND will have a loss. So, without using past history - your standard, not mine - I'd like to see the evidence that a 1-loss SEC team would be great. (To save you time, it's going to be impossible if you refuse to use past performance to show that a team is good. And if you do use past performance, you have to look at Boise's history as well.)
Just a note here -- I said if Bama was in whatever conference BSU was in and played the same schedule I wouldn't want them in the title game because they wouldn't deserve it. I wouldn't want them in a BCS game either unless things shook out the right way... this isn't who's better, it's who's deserving. That 1-loss team will have been tested every weekend, they've out-recruited BSU, they'd have a championship proven coach, and would have either gone into freaking University Park and won or handled last year's BCS championship game participant, they'll be ranked higher than GA, that's for sure.... do you mean past performance this year? I don't think you do. So yeah, past performance doesn't hold any weight for me aside from things like coaching, how well the fans travel, that kind of thing. There's my evidence, not that any team is better, simply more deserving to sit at the big boys table. I still don't get this. All I was trying to say was that BSU's win over OU 4-5 years ago shouldn't factor into where their team stands now. The players are completely different. The only factors that matter would be how well the fans travel, their coaches track record, things like that. The computer doesn't factor in past performance.
I know Ziggy is a Texans fan, so here's a picture of your hero, Jared Zabransky, in a Texans uniform. Broncos 4 evar!
My point is that to determine that BSU's schedule sucks and that the SEC schedule is difficult, you are using past performance. Otherwise, there's no basis to say that 4-4 Air Force is not as good as 4-4 Mississippi State. Your whole argument is circular because you're starting with the idea that the SEC is a superior conference - and that is based entirely on past performance. Penn State, Georgia, and Oregon (if they lose to Stanford) are all likely to be ranked around the same level. So a 1-loss LSU, 1-loss Alabama, and 0-loss Boise would have about the same quality best win. And Boise's coach is pretty damn well proven, and has consistently shown an ability to compete against NFL quality recruits without his own. I'm not sure how fans travel has anything to do with who is deserving for a bowl bid. It certainly influences the process, but not in a good way. But the computers have Boise ranked higher than your 1-loss SEC teams and Oregon. So it doesn't seem like you're in agreement with the computers. Computers have Boise at #4, while polls have them at #4/#5. There seems to be agreement between people's eyes and a purely analytical level of how good Boise is. Interestingly, Sagarin rates their schedules as such: LSU: #18 Boise: #31 Alabama: #39 With each of them being 2-0 against top 30 opponents. Obviously, that will change as the season progresses, but thus far, the computers don't seem to think Boise has played "no one" any more than the other teams.
I'm going on what I've seen on the field THIS season. I'll just stop trying though, you're trying to play set-in-stone pee-pee games so fine, show me how Boise's schedule is superior to Alabama's. My take is simple and I will not waver -- Boise hasn't played anybody, they don't deserve a BCS bid. You cant play 1 game against an unranked SEC team and expect to get crowned. That's r****ded. Walk the walk. I don't care what team you are -- walk the walk.
Why bother? You have yet to show any facts to support your position, changing your story as you move along when the facts don't fit. You're starting with "SEC is awesome (except Georgia)" to conclude with "SEC is awesome".
They beat 1 team, they had to get up for 1 game. Against an unranked team. How is that a worthy schedule? Texas Tech could win out with that schedule. Should they be in a BCS game? You trying to tell me BSU's schedule is just as worthy as Alabama's is laughable and you know it. You've just got a stick up your ass.
