The "defending national champion" concept is bogus, as it

concerns ranking teams during the season. Why should Bama, or any other team for that matter, begin a new season ranked No.1 just because it won the BCS championship last time? This is a concept that seems to have been imported from professional boxing in which the reigning champion, in any weight class, has the title of champion conferred upon him. The big difference with boxing is that it is a solitary sport, not a team sport like football.

Bama's roster is not the same as last season's and many of its key players did not return. Thus, it seems the title of "defending national champion" is conferred upon a football program, not its current team. At least in boxing, the champion is the same guy who holds the championship belt. Whereas, Bama's current roster is different from the one that won the last BCS championship.

All Bama has to do is remain undefeated, no matter how unimpressively it wins, no matter how weak its schedule is, etc. Whereas, everybody else has to fight for recognition to be ranked No.2. Lou Holtz has challenged the "defending national champion" concept, as it affects the ranking of teams, and I hope he continues to do so.

 

So, if Bama beats A&M, LSU, and whomever appears in the SECCG and wins...

 

2012...

 

They should start seasons off unranked. Play 2 games and then do the rankings based on results

 

An exhibition game 5 weeks after the regular season ends is no way to choose a national champion.

 

I'd say first of October. Two games doesn't give a clue.

Consider A&M's first two games. Should they be ranked?

 

I agree. At least 3 games into season- especially with how most conferences have copied the SEC formula for success and is scheduling patsies, for the most part.

As to the hubla about "Defending Champions" etc. that's the way it's been so let it go. Only fans of teams who lose will bitch cause winning solves that problem. Well, the Bama rematch comes to mind so let me say most often, winning will take care of that problem. Sometimes winning twice may be necessary.

 

2009, 2011, and 2012... all in convincing wins against Texas, LSU and Notre Dame..... Seems legit to me... It only benefits us more if we beat them....

 

The "defending" champion is not always number one to start the season. I don't think LSU was number one to start 2008. Bama gets the benefit of the doubt because of name recognition, the schedule, and Nick Saban, in that order.

And while I'm on the subject...why does schedule actually count when they're talking about which teams are better? Personally, I think being "undefeated" is overrated, and teams are penalized too much for a loss. Case in point: we were number six in the nation. We lost a three-point game on the road to the number nine team. AT WORST, we should have dropped to number eight, while they rose to number seven. But who am I?