A college football rant

The BCS National Championship game on January 9, 2012, will be between LSU and Alabama. Many fans are upset and believe that instead of Alabama, Oklahoma State should be LSU's opponent. The arguments basically go like this:
LSU is the country's best team, and everyone believes they belong in this game. They are undefeated, and have soundly whooped just about everyone they've played, except for when they played...
Alabama. That's right, LSU and Alabama have already played each other once this season. It was then that Alabama suffered its only loss of the year - a 9-6 overtime decision. Other than that one tough game, Alabama has pretty much smoked everyone they've played as well.
Oklahoma State is also a 1-loss team, killing most every opponent, but instead of losing to the best team in the country, their loss came against Iowa State.

I don't watch a lot of college football, and I don't really have a dog in this fight. Many believe that Alabama is somewhat clearly the #2 team, and so it makes sense for them to be playing for the BCS title. Others think Oklahoma State is that team that should face LSU in the championship. I understand the arguments for both sides. So why am I blogging about this?

Because yesterday (the day after the championship match-up was announced) I heard no less than SIX otherwise intelligent sports people make the one argument I simply will not listen to. Specifically, these people believe that the reason (in a few cases, the only reason) Oklahoma State should be in the championship instead of Alabama is because the BCS championship shouldn't be a re-match. That's it. That's the silver bullet to their argument. They say, "But what if Alabama wins? Then do they have to play again [because each team would have won a game against the other this season]? And if you believe that argument to be valid, please go back to 2nd grade and begin following sports again. In twenty years you may come back and apologize to me for being so stupid.

If you find the above argument compelling, then you must think that the 2007 Giants and the 2007 Patriots should have played one more game after the Super Bowl to see who the real champ is. And that situation happens fairly regularly. In the NFL, two divisional teams will often face each other in the postseason. What if the Giants beat the Cowboys twice this season, but Dallas makes it in as a wildcard and the two teams play each other in the first round of the playoffs. By your logic, they shouldn't play. No matter who wins, the Giants have won two games, so they should get an automatic bye past the 'Boys. You've got even more problems when it comes to baseball. Divisional teams in baseball square off some 18 times during the regular season! If the Brewers & Cardinals end up in the NLCS, does the winner of the regular season series automatically advance to the World Series? Or should they play it out?

I'll tip my hand. As far as I'm concerned, an OT loss to the undisputed #1 team is more impressive than a close loss to Iowa State (no offense meant, Jase. I like the 'Clones!). Even so, I'll listen to rational arguments about Oklahoma State (how they played a tougher schedule and had more impressive wins, etc.). I just won't listen to the re-match argument.

Sports isn't always about winning the most games (just ask the 18-1 2007 Patriots). It's usually about winning the right games.