LSU-Alabama rematch for SEC title?

[Senser81]

"Deserving" is an opinion. Theres a difference between Georgia deserving to be in (totally subjective based on the person), and Georgia being in because they won their division and thats the way its set up. Im saying i would like it to be set up differently. Its just a suggestion. Even if no one agrees with it, id just like to state its simply a suggestion, nothing more.

Not in this case. Deserving is based on the process. SEC has two divisions, and each winner is deserving of playing in the SEC title game.

Whats funny to me is that all this blathering about Bama being more "deserving" than Georgia is that Georgia has the same conference record as Bama (6-1). So your argument is essentially penalizing Georgia for losing to out-of-conference #5 Boise State, while rewarding Alabama for scheduling such stalwarts as Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

bama:

Then why even point out that saying Georgia is "deserving" is subjective?

That's irrelevant to the entire discussion then.

Because it is subjective. Saying Georgia deserves to be in because they won their division is subjective. Saying any team deserves anything is subjective. Opinion can vary on what is deserving and what isnt deserving.

Saying Georgia earned their way in because they won their division and thats the way the system is set up is not subjective, its fact, and its the way the system is set up.

 

[NAHSTE]

Whats funny to me is that all this blathering about Bama being more "deserving" than Georgia is that Georgia has the same conference record as Bama (6-1).

I tried telling him that 40 pages and two threads ago.

 

[FirstTimer]

Not in this case. Deserving is based on the process. SEC has two divisions, and each winner is deserving of playing in the SEC title game.

Whats funny to me is that all this blathering about Bama being more "deserving" than Georgia is that Georgia has the same conference record as Bama (6-1). So your argument is essentially penalizing Georgia for losing to out-of-conference #5 Boise State, while rewarding Alabama for scheduling such stalwarts as Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern.

But the rankings!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NAHSTE]

Yeah, that game sucked. LSU-Alabama rematch wouldnt though.

I dont see it as "Alabama had their chance so now Georgia deserves one". If Georgia was so worthy of a chance they wouldnt have lost to Boise & South Carolina. Georgia had chances, too.

:yao:

Didn't realize non-conference games had any bearing on SEC standings.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

I guess its gonna be a huge argument about the word "deserving", what is deserving and what isnt. People can have different opinion on what is deserving, can they not?

Let me know what the proper process would be for someone to have an idea and present it, because thats all i been trying to do.

 

[NAHSTE]

I guess its gonna be a huge argument about the word "deserving", what is deserving and what isnt. People can have different opinion on what is deserving, can they not?

Let me know what the proper process would be for someone to have an idea and present it, because thats all i been trying to do.

You are asserting that Alabama is "deserving" of playing LSU again, by virtue of having the exact same record as a team that has not already lost to LSU.

 

[Bomberooski]

I guess its gonna be a huge argument about the word "deserving", what is deserving and what isnt. People can have different opinion on what is deserving, can they not?

Let me know what the proper process would be for someone to have an idea and present it, because thats all i been trying to do.

You lose "deserving" when you've already been beat by the team you'd play in the Championship and someone else with the same record has not.

It would be the same for LSU if they had lost to Bama and this arguement was flipped.

 

[NAHSTE]

It would be the same for LSU if they had lost to Bama and this arguement was flipped.

Except KNUBB and NAHSTE would be pro-rematch :shifty:

Oh wait, we would still side with logic.

The SEC CG is not intended to pair the best two teams. It is intended to pair the winner of the east vs. the winner of the west. LSU and Alabama have already settled things on the field.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

The SEC CG is not intended to pair the best two teams. It is intended to pair the winner of the east vs. the winner of the west.

Very well said. And im simply saying it would be better, in my opinion, if the participants would be chosen differently. I dont wanna get into who deserves what semantics & arguments, its simply a suggestion.

 

[Senser81]

I guess its gonna be a huge argument about the word "deserving", what is deserving and what isnt. People can have different opinion on what is deserving, can they not?

Let me know what the proper process would be for someone to have an idea and present it, because thats all i been trying to do.

This reminds me of a recent circle jerk argument I had on CCS...the issue was whether or not Carmelo Anthony was an "elite" player. The moron guy would say that Anthony wasn't "elite", then when Anthony's credentials would be listed, the moron guy would then say "but the term elite is so subjective..."

Well, no shit the term "elite" is subjective...if it wasn't subjective we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place.

Its the same thing with this "deserving" cocksmoke of an argument. Whenever we list why Georgia is deserving (6-1 conf record, East Division champion, etc.), you fall back on the "But what does 'deserving' really mean??" philosophical treatise.

 

[Senser81]

Very well said. And im simply saying it would be better, in my opinion, if the participants would be chosen differently. I dont wanna get into who deserves what semantics & arguments, its simply a suggestion.

"So lets not bicker and argue over who killed who..."​

 

[ZoneBlitz]

This reminds me of a recent circle jerk argument I had on CCS...the issue was whether or not Carmelo Anthony was an "elite" player. The moron guy would say that Anthony wasn't "elite", then when Anthony's credentials would be listed, the moron guy would then say "but the term elite is so subjective..."

Well, no shit the term "elite" is subjective...if it wasn't subjective we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place.

Its the same thing with this "deserving" cocksmoke of an argument. Whenever we list why Georgia is deserving (6-1 conf record, East Division champion, etc.), you fall back on the "But what does 'deserving' really mean??" philosophical treatise.

Yes, because getting into the "who deserves what" argument is irrelevant. If the system were changed to my suggestion then you would have to say Alabama is deserving because they are the 2nd highest ranked team in the conference, even if you dont agree they are deserving, but thats how the rules go. So i wanna stay far away from saying who deserves what. Im simply proposing the participants of the conf championship game be chosen differently, that is all.

 

[NAHSTE]

Very well said. And im simply saying it would be better, in my opinion, if the participants would be chosen differently. I dont wanna get into who deserves what semantics & arguments, its simply a suggestion.

The issue though is that there will always be schedule inequity due to the amount of conference games. In a 12 (or 14 soon) team conference, there are teams that won't get to play. True, Georgia started 0-2 but they have won the same amount of conference games as Alabama has. They did not play Arkansas, Alabama or LSU this season. So how could we, with any certainty, pretend to know that Alabama is better than Georgia? They have identical conference records and did not play each other.

On the flip side, we know with certainty that LSU defeated Alabama on November 5.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

The issue though is that there will always be schedule inequity due to the amount of conference games. In a 12 (or 14 soon) team conference, there are teams that won't get to play. True, Georgia started 0-2 but they have won the same amount of conference games as Alabama has. They did not play Arkansas, Alabama or LSU this season. So how could we, with any certainty, pretend to know that Alabama is better than Georgia? They have identical conference records and did not play each other.

On the flip side, we know with certainty that LSU defeated Alabama on November 5.

Again, well said, and valid points. Im too exhausted to even defend my proposal anymore, but i just wanted to clarify that it was simply a proposal and nothing more.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yes, because getting into the "who deserves what" argument is irrelevant. If the system were changed to my suggestion then you would have to say Alabama is deserving because they are the 2nd highest ranked team in the conference, even if you dont agree they are deserving, but thats how the rules go. So i wanna stay far away from saying who deserves what. Im simply proposing the participants of the conf championship game be chosen differently, that is all.

So basically your SEC system would be a microcosm of the BCS....which you think sucks.

Great!

 

[ZoneBlitz]

So basically your SEC system would be a microcosm of the BCS....which you think sucks.

Great!

Yes! Because i think it sucks to pick from 120 teams, but is not so bad to pick from 12 teams. Just my opinion of how id like to see things changed.

 

[Senser81]

On the flip side, we know with certainty that LSU defeated Alabama on November 5.

But did they really "deserve" to beat Alabama? Alabama looked like the better team to me. So I would have Alabama play Georgia in the SEC title game.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yes! Because i think it sucks to pick from 120 teams, but is not so bad to pick from 12 teams..

So it's still bad.

Awesome!

And you wonder why your idea was met with resistance.

Hai guiz! Check out my kinda bad idea!


..............


Y u no like?

 

[ZoneBlitz]

But did they really "deserve" to beat Alabama? Alabama looked like the better team to me. So I would have Alabama play Georgia in the SEC title game.

If you're gonna clown on me you gotta do better than that, i havent said anyone deserves anything, ive stayed far away from that word.