True, but it doesn't explain why, knowing that the possibility of tenn being good the last two years was not good, they went ahead and gave you guys mizzo and kentucky to boot.

and even if we draw mizzo and then vandy, our chances of having repeated years of oppisite division opponents with both having losing records is nil.

if you guys draw fla and then ga, with tenn, the best it is a push with LSU, still better than the crap deal we've gotten the last two years.

Tell me again, how the bye week was a concerted effort to screw bama, but the bridge schedule is just "the luck of the draw" it's all bullshit
We will never get the smooth ride you guys get

How am I supposed to tell you that when it's something that's never crossed my mind, never been asserted, and it isn't something I believe to be the case?

Now let's look at this the way the voters and computer polls looked at it.

When a team has one loss to the #1 team in the nation versus another team having one loss to a team that's not ranked which loss is glaringly the worse of the two?

If I were comparing one loss teams, I would look at who they beat first then who they lost to secondly, if at all. Bama got everyone to change how they looked at things. "Never mind who we beat, just look who we lost to" and "We may not be the second best team, but we are the only team that stands a chance at beating the best (if we only had another chance)" are the two reasons Bama made it to the BCSCG.

Yeah, ha ha, gump logic. We lost to a better team than you lost to, so we should get another shot.

LSU having to beat Alabama twice to win a NC, while Alabama only has beat LSU once... no I can't draw any such conclusion from that. More like a 1-1 draw. Actually more like evidence of a system that is broke, which is why it's being scrapped.

I'm sure that came into play. Okie State played four ranked teams , Bama played five losing to one. SEC versus Big12. How is a voter going to look at those two schedules in terms of strength/difficulty?

"We may not be the second best team, but we are the only team that stands a chance at beating the best (if we only had another chance)"

That has my head spinning. If it's the only team that stands a chance at beating the best, wouldn't that make it the second best team?

There are a lot of things that came into play in the voters minds to make their decision. Certainly not lost among them are three missed field goals that would have changed the outcome that November Saturday.

So now, among all the theories, voters and computers use "gump logic."

The BCS: intended to put the #1 team against the #2 team in the NC game. You may not like the system, but it worked.

One would think there would be a wide gulf between being sore about a loss and being a sore loser. At times, the line is woefully thin.

Not necessarily and you know it, quit playing dumb with us (we already have to put up with that crap from Tusk).

I've been waiting on this excuse. Those field goals should have never been attempted. They were outside of your kickers' ranges and your "long range" guy actually had his higher success rate than his season average. Bama is lucky they didn't lose that game 10-3.

On a national level we had Florida and Florida State take each other on in the regular season only to see a rematch in the NC game. The reason, even though the Seminoles won the first contest, there was a belief among voters that the Gators were still more worthy then everyone else in the land. In the first meeting, the Seminoles were more then fortunate to escape with a win. In the rematch Florida proved that to be true and put a good whooping on the Seminoles.