If Georgia was the 2nd best team why did they get beaten by 32 points? A better case could be made for a 2012 rematch between Georgia and Alabama
Bengal I agree with much of what you say but this is college not pro. It should be set up like the pros and we would have a true champion but it's not. The system is manipulated by those who can influence the outcome to their favor. That's what pisses so many people off, that little Nick got just what he wanted even though years earlier he was against it. College teams are not a custom to playing same opponent twice so they don't prepare for it. I think if the system was set up that way, like pros, then fans and players could better accept it. But as it is it appears that some teams, those with clout can get an unfair advantage. Our champion is someone's opinion of who's best because they are ranked by people instead of playing it out in a play off. Good discussion, I see you're line of reasoning.
If you and your whine & cheese crowd weren't so delusional I wouldn't have had to rephrase the obvious
The two best teams don't always end up playing in the Super Bowl. It's the two teams that win their way in. Okie St. may have lost to an unranked team but they won their conference so I'm not sure why you are using NFL examples to support your argument that the best teams should be in the NCG. By your own example of the NYG's who lost regular season games but played their way into the Super Bowl, you seem to be making the argument for Okie St being in the 2011 NCG.
That's because the Giants earned their way into the Super Bowl on the field in a legitimate playoff, not because their coach went on ESPN and lobbied for a second chance given to them by a vote, like it was some damned beauty pageant.
By default the team that wins the Super Bowl is the best team. The Giants were not the best team in the NFL for most of the regular season. The Patriots were. But when the two teams met in the Superbowl the Giants were the best team. That's no argument for Okie State. In every team sport at every level other than D1 college football there has long been a method to determine a legitimate champion. From high school to the lower divisions of college football to the NFL. The powers that were in D1 chose instead to use the BCS system to determine their champion. All the schools and all of the conferences agreed that that would be the rules they would go by. I have never agreed with that system but if that was the agreed upon system so be it. According to the agreed upon use of polls and computer rankings it was determined that the best two teams in 2011 at the end of the regular season were LSU and Alabama. I agree that in at least that one year they got it right. If there had been the 4 team playoffs that start this year Okie State as well as Stanford would have had their chances to rise to the top through head to head competition. I don't believe either one of them could have beaten LSU or Alabama that year but if sanity had prevailed when they set up a system they would have legitimately earn a shot at it. I don't think Okie State would have won out like the Giants did but they would have deserved their chance if the rules had been different. But the rules weren't different. Only two teams were availed of the opportunity to play for a mythical national championship. A lot of people bitching about having to play a rematch with a team LSU had already beaten are also Saints fans. If the Saints had somehow beaten Seattle in the playoffs last year they would have had to play the Carolina Panthers for the third time in one season. Nobody would have whined about that.
