Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If it had been 20 years earlier, Alabama wouldn't have lost to LSU in the regular season.  They would have tied.  And we'd still have had a rematch. 

Many people seeing them play to a 6-6 tie, with Bama losing in OT, 9-6, was probably a reason to WANT a rematch. 

But it was not 20 years earlier. It was 2011. And they had a manner to leave that game with a winner and a loser.

Obviously there are rematches often, but usually there's a lot more stomach for them when they happen by way of rule rather than subjective selection.

I would't argue for anything drastic looking back. Bama got the prize of the mulligan for winning the beauty pageant. They made good on that mulligan, but they still got the a certain kind of treatment, simple as that.

Would OKST be the pick if it were objective? 
I just can't vouch for a team 107th in total defense.  I think the Cowboys avoided a very public ass-beating.

I thought  Bama was better but I thought Ok St was more deserving.

Would OKST be the pick if it were objective? 
I just can't vouch for a team 107th in total defense.  I think the Cowboys avoided a very public ass-beating.

I don't use total defense for anything. It's too pace-specific. I could point out they were top-20 in points allowed per drive. They weren't good in yards per play, though they were about average.

And I'm sure it would did save them an ass-beating, though what happened gave LSU one. 

Anyway, there's no exact "objective" to all of it. It depends how things are weighted and considered. I can argue I think having better top end wins and the same record against a better schedule should carry the day. Someone, maybe you, can counter, that style and murdering a lighter schedule, making the case a team is of higher quality but less accomplished, should carry it. (The computers favored OK State after the regular season, but they'd been neutered when it came to MOV/numerical style points) 

My main to arguments are this
-I don't think almost any other program would win a tiebreaker with the wins profile they had (the second-best team they beat threw 10 TDs all year, the third-best by record was outscored by 3.2 points a game and outgained by 70). I just don't. We'd be hearing about the low-quality schedule.
-And I think that if Ok State was let in and got housed, all but the most ardent Bama fans would have shrugged it off. They'd lament the missed chance, but in the end they lacked both hardware or resume and lost when they had their opportunity. They'd be like 2008 USC, a team that was hell on wheels but kind of forgotten by history. Bama had a monstrous defense, great tailback, explosive and underused backup tailback and a forgettable passing game. If they get passed over, the end up just one of those teams. 

(Of note, Heisman narrative prevented 2008 from being the year that pushed us to a playoff. We had four 1-loss P5 champs, two undefeated G5 teams, two Big 12 teams that lost an unsatisfying tiebreaker and no one was too mad because between CCGs and Bradford vs Tebow)

One could point out that the 2008 OU team's performance vs Florida hindered Oklahoma State's chances in '11.  Elite defenses tend to let the air out of elite offenses - and while very good, that Gators defense wasn't elite like '11 Bama's was.
Same with '09 Texas vs Bama.  McCoy didn't play, but it still happened.

Big-time Big 12 offense gets paired with a big-boy SEC team, and what happens?  It's not fair, but it may have influenced some people out there.

Perhaps that happened, and if it did, it would be kind of silly. Especially in terms of 2009. Bama smushed a backup QB, and weirdly couldn't even put Texas away despite that (Texas made it a 3-point game with like 6 minutes to go). 

The No. 68 team in total defense held that UF team to its worst point total of the season. Two years later, Oregon's defense held Auburn to just over half its average scoring output. These high-pace offensive teams with their maligned defenses somehow managed to hold good SEC offenses to worse numbers than the SEC did. But this is treated as relatively meaningless. 

Because in the end, patterns from three games should be treated as relatively meaningless. 

Again, the "I can trace a pattern off a few high-profile outcomes from previous years" is a great way to fill time on ESPN, but a relatively lousy way to articulate why a team is worthwhile or not. The rematch game was a quirky narrative thing that became real. It is what it is.  I'm just saying, if most 11-1 team's second-best wins was against a 9-4 team that was 104th in scoring offense and the third-best win (by record) was an 8-5 team that got outscored by 69 in 12 FBS games, it would have trouble getting a pass. 

I'm 100% certain voters find any number of horrible ways to rank teams. 

Yep. 

I'm still amazed how engrained what I call "poll logic" is in many folks. 

I could never understand this. Saban gets the best players from everywhere in the country. You'd think he could get a great kicker once in awhile.

thing is, he does. going back to 2009, when he's recruited a kicker (which is the year before the current one if a sr, so we always have 2 scholarship kickers) they've all been 3*, which for a kicker is elite. problem is they haven't panned out. to me, that's more to do with coaching. getting 1-2 that doesn't work out, fine, it happens. but 6-8? and none of them live up to expectations? something else is wrong.
2009 no kickers
2010 we got 2 3*s, 1 was #1 ranked kicker, other 22nd.
2011, no kickers.
2012, 1-3*, ranked #1.
2013, no kicker
2014, no kicker but got punter jk scott who also kicked. was a 3* and #2 ranked. he made his name punting and for good reason, but he was actually ok at kicking too. not great, but not our worst either. arguably our best during this run.
2015, no kicker
2016, no kicker
2017, 3*, #6 ranked
2018, no kicker
2019, 3*, #1 (note, this kid got hurt early season and was out all year, but he was looking good actually. so hopefully we've passed that curse. guess we'll fine out)

this doesn't include a couple/few transfers that were supposedly good. they didn't pan out either. but it's not for lack of recruiting highly rated kickers.

Gauging a kicker from HS seems impossible.  Sure, you have accuracy and distance on his kicks.  But you also have him kicking in front of 500 people to 80,000.  F- that noise.  No way of telling how he'll handle it.

Alabama kickers have probably sucked because they're scared of Saban.