11-28-2011, 10:13 AM
I am not saying Alabama has no case, but I think it oversimplifies things if you just look at the 1 losses. If that was what mattered, the Pac-10 would have had much different BCS opportunities in the past.
In 2001, Nebraska had a 62-36 loss to Colorado (courtesy of Chris Brown, remember him--no). Meanwhile Oregon (Joey Harrington) was 11-1 and their only loss was to us by a touchdown. Yet Nebraska went to the title game, not Oregon.Â
In 2000, Washington had 1 close loss to Oregon, but had beaten Miami... but the BCS sent a 1-loss Florida State to the title game, even though FSU had lost to that same Miami team who Washington beat.Â
Different situation, but in 2004, Cal had its only loss to $C in a very close game. But did they get a rematch with USC? No, they didn't even get into the BCS-- they got passed by Texas who had been shutout that year by Oklahoma.Â
Anyway, my point is that historically speaking, you can't just compare the 1 loss. The BCS is supposed to look at the whole body of work, and I think Stanford has an argument.Â
In 2001, Nebraska had a 62-36 loss to Colorado (courtesy of Chris Brown, remember him--no). Meanwhile Oregon (Joey Harrington) was 11-1 and their only loss was to us by a touchdown. Yet Nebraska went to the title game, not Oregon.Â
In 2000, Washington had 1 close loss to Oregon, but had beaten Miami... but the BCS sent a 1-loss Florida State to the title game, even though FSU had lost to that same Miami team who Washington beat.Â
Different situation, but in 2004, Cal had its only loss to $C in a very close game. But did they get a rematch with USC? No, they didn't even get into the BCS-- they got passed by Texas who had been shutout that year by Oklahoma.Â
Anyway, my point is that historically speaking, you can't just compare the 1 loss. The BCS is supposed to look at the whole body of work, and I think Stanford has an argument.Â