Its not a losing record, nice try.
So whats your point? I have not seen anyone claim it as such.
The fact is Alabama beat 3 teams with a WINNING record. You can make your own conclusions about what that means, but I don't understand why you insist on arguing facts.
\So whats your point? I have not seen anyone claim it as such.
The fact is Alabama beat 3 teams with a WINNING record. You can make your own conclusions about what that means, but I understand why you insist on arguing facts.
'Bama's loss to #1 Lsu vs Okie lite loss to unranked Iowa St.. Bama deserves to play over Okie lite. Thats my point !!! Its about the loss , both have 11 wins.
Alabama first choice Okla St. Wouldn't be a bad game either. I do have a hard time imagining a national champ that lost to Iowa St.
And you know this how?
LSU beat Alabama. They were better. If they stomp OSU into the dirt what has changed. LSU beats Alabama, LSU beats OSU. No argument; LSU is NO 1.
LSU beat Alabama. Alabama beat LSU. OSU does not get to play. Arguments out the gazoo. Who and what is better served? Who is NO 1?
\
'Bama's loss to #1 Lsu vs Okie lite loss to unranked Iowa St.. Bama deserves to play over Okie lite. Thats my point !!! Its about the loss , both have 11 wins.
Why is it that only the loss matters?....Both have 11 wins, both have one loss.....so why make it about one game? I constantly hear the argument from the experts about why certain teams (SEC) should be ranked ahead of others (Boise St for example) and they cite the "body of work". So why does the whole "body of work" not apply in this situation to evaluate Alabama and OSU? The loss should be taken into account, but so should the wins.....Alabama's loss is better, OSU's wins are better IMHO.