- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question about the 2012 LSU Football team
Posted on 6/13/12 at 12:59 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
Posted on 6/13/12 at 12:59 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
My Lord, move on man..
LOL. Uhhhh. I have moved on. I'm just facing the reality of what CFB has become now. This is now a situation "lesser teams" have to deal with. If you knew my post history here, you would know this. As an LSU fan, I know my place. That is LSU's place. We have to beat you guys twice now in any given year. More power to you guys, though.
quote:
but some of you act as though beating bama means nothing because oh well they'll just get a rematch because they're bama.
So what's wrong with this line of thinking? I see nothing wrong with it. Lots of things besides the Mulligan have happened within the conference and outside the sport of football "because it was Bama". And no, this isn't some inferiority complex either. I love LSU and know hundreds of schools envy what we have, but let's face it, we aren't on Bama's level when it comes to special considerations in anything.
quote:
It was hard to decipher wich team was better in november and the scoreboard reflected that.
Yes, I know. The standard of losing your most important game during the regular season, nor winning your conference isn't important anymore, hence my point above.
quote:
In '96 the best 2 teams played for the title because they were clearly the best 2 teams in the country..they played on the last weekend of the regular season and the game was decided by 3 points, it didn't happen again for 15 years
That's not how it happened in '96, but I understand the need to rewrite history in order to fill the talking point.
1
Posted on 6/13/12 at 1:24 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
That's not how it happened in '96, but I understand the need to rewrite history in order to fill the talking point.
Number 1 florida state beat number 2 florida by a slim margin.
Number 2 florida fell to number 3
The new number 2 lost a game allowing a rematch for the national championship, do you not see the parallel there?
This happens once in a blue moon, it baffles me how anyone can say alabama didn't deserve to be there. It can be argued sure because there were other one loss teams (who all lost to a team nowhere close to the caliber of LSU) but to spout off as an undeniable fact that alabama didn't deserve to be there is ludicrous.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 1:46 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Number 1 florida state beat number 2 florida by a slim margin.
Number 2 florida fell to number 3
The new number 2 lost a game allowing a rematch for the national championship, do you not see the parallel there?
Actually, Florida fell further than #3. Other teams lost, allowing them to move back up to #3, but they still went into the bowls ranked #3. Of course, there were other factors, too, such as that Florida was still the champion of their conference, a factor that also carried the day for them in 2006 when voters rejected a rematch between two teams from the same conference in favor of allowing conference champion Florida (with a far inferior loss--by ten to Auburn vs. by 3 at #1 Ohio State) to leapfrog Michigan.
quote:
it baffles me how anyone can say alabama didn't deserve to be there.
Because they posted the same record as a team that A) played a tougher schedule, B) won the championship of a tougher rated conference and C) was the consensus #2 in the computers. Alabama won on a completely subjective "eye test" because voters just subjectively thought they were "better". At what point does the actual accomplishment on the field overcome the totally subjective "eye test"?
What if Alabama had had an unbelievable rash of freak turnovers and bad calls from the officials in the second half of the Tennessee game and lost it. Would they have been any less "better" of a team because of that? No. But they would have been out of the NC race because performance on the field (2 losses in this case) would have mattered. But the thing is that performance on the field favored Oklahoma State even without a hypothetical second loss by Alabama. What's the difference? Why does performance on the field outrank the "eye test" in one case but not the other?
Posted on 6/13/12 at 1:49 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
The drubbing they put on #1 would have at least earned them a split title, would you agree?
No. Zero chance of that.
But, more to the point. They wouldn't have PLAYED #1 in the BCS era. They would have been left out of the NC game while #1 played #2. Which did not happen in 2011. There is no parallel. You are wasting your time trying to invent one.
The only year in modern history that was parallel to 2011 was 2006. Michigan was ahead of Florida even after the loss to Ohio State, but voters voted against a rematch because Michigan had their shot (and lost by 3) and it was deemed fair to give someone else a shot. Someone who had the same record against a tougher schedule and won the championship of a tougher conference. The opposite happened in 2011 because Oklahoma State is not Florida. And for no other reason.
This post was edited on 6/13/12 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 6/13/12 at 1:51 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
But they would have been out of the NC race because performance on the field (2 losses in this case) would have mattered. But the thing is that performance on the field favored Oklahoma State even without a hypothetical second loss by Alabama. What's the difference? Why does performance on the field outrank the "eye test" in one case but not the other?
Look, oklahoma state blew a 17 point lead against a pitiful football team, a team of vanderbilt caliber. They had close games against kansas state and texas a&m...alabama destroyed every team on the schedule save lsu, including arkansas who went into the final week ranked 3rd. It was very VERY obvious that oklahoma state was not elite and didn't deserve to be there anymore than alabama did
Posted on 6/13/12 at 1:54 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
No. Zero chance of that.
So a one loss SEC champion that beats an undefeated number 1 ranked team by 36 points would have zero chance at a split title pre bcs. Whatever you sayPosted on 6/13/12 at 1:59 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Look, oklahoma state blew a 17 point lead against a pitiful football team, a team of vanderbilt caliber.
Iowa State was a bowl eligible team, but again, I understand the need to embrace the talking point. Not to mention the tragedy of OSU players losing friends and I think family in one case due to the crash the day before. Of course, that tragedy didn't get much play in the media because, well, they were Okie "lite". No excuses for a team like Okie Lite. Excuses for loses are only valid for the entitled.
quote:
They had close games against kansas state and texas a&m...alabama destroyed every team on the schedule save lsu
Yes, Alabama's schedule: the weakest of any participant in the BCSNCG in the BCS era.
quote:
It was very VERY obvious that oklahoma state was not elite and didn't deserve to be there anymore than alabama did
Again, I can understand why you would say that. It isn't "VERY" obvious to the rest of the country that a one-loss division/conference champion (of a major conference I might add) is not elite in that particular season.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:00 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Look, oklahoma state blew a 17 point lead against a pitiful football team, a team of vanderbilt caliber.
Florida lost by 10 to Auburn in 2006. Michigan lost to Ohio State by three. "Better loss" point to Michigan.
quote:
They had close games against kansas state and texas a&m...alabama destroyed every team on the schedule
Florida barely escaped South Carolina at home in 2006 by blocking a FG on the final play. Michigan steamrolled ranked opponents like Notre Dame (which played in the Sugar Bowl). "Eye test" point goes to Michigan.
quote:
It was very VERY obvious that oklahoma state was not elite and didn't deserve to be there anymore than alabama did
Equally obvious in 2006 was that Ohio State and Michigan were the two best teams and that Florida, with little offense and having to win ugly against mid-tier SEC teams, did not belong there. Again, "eye test" point to Michigan.
2006 and 2011 are identical except that Oklahoma State is not Florida...oh, and the Michigan coach didn't spend a couple of weeks jumping in front of every TV camera he could find to beg and plead for another chance.
If you want to say Alabama was the best team in the country in 2011, fine. But if you don't think media bias for Alabama is what got them in the game, you're being dishonest. And it's certainly not unreasonable to think that it will happen again just because they are Alabama (although I personally don't think it will any time soon).
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:04 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
So a one loss SEC champion that beats an undefeated number 1 ranked team by 36 points would have zero chance at a split title pre bcs. Whatever you say
First, it was 1996. Being SEC champion wasn't as big a deal then. Arizona State was Pac Ten champions. A wash at best. Plus, Arizona State would have been undefeated. No chance at a split title for Florida in that scenario.
Second, as stated earlier, they wouldn't even have gotten to PLAY the #1 team because Arizona State would have been there.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:17 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
Not to mention the tragedy of OSU players losing friends and I think family in one case due to the crash the day before. Of course, that tragedy didn't get much play in the media because, well, they were Okie "lite". No excuses for a team like Okie Lite. Excuses for loses are only valid for the entitled.
OSU was leading by 17 at the half, while a tragic event it was not a valid excuse for the loss unless they were told about it in the locker room before heading out for the 3rd quarter.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:23 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Equally obvious in 2006 was that Ohio State and Michigan were the two best teams and that Florida, with little offense and having to win ugly against mid-tier SEC teams, did not belong there. Again, "eye test" point to Michigan.
Michigan beat ball state by 8 points and penn state by 7 points that year, it's not like they destroyed everyone on their schedule, not to mention they got destroyed by SC. That offense was no more powerful than floridas. The SEC was the power conference in '06, eye test to florida
This post was edited on 6/13/12 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:24 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
OSU was leading by 17 at the half, while a tragic event it was not a valid excuse for the loss unless they were told about it in the locker room before heading out for the 3rd quarter.
I do agree with you, but you are missing the point. Again, I understand where you are coming from and I understand why you don't share the same point of view of myself and the other poster you are talking with.
I would think the way you do as well if my team was the beneficiary of non-stop favorable media treatment, to the point where my team can lose its biggest game of the year and yet be treated as though they won the game in dominating fashion.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:26 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
It was very VERY obvious that oklahoma state was not elite and didn't deserve to be there anymore than alabama did
In addition to Nuts and EZE's great points, if this was so VERY obvious why did the computers give Okie an edge?
Conversely, Lil' Nicky voted Okie 4th, and several other voters placed them as low as 4th-6th. Can you give me an unbiased justification for such low votes?
To show you these are not only our beliefs read this SI.com article - if you dare.
LINK
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:33 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
Conversely, Lil' Nicky voted Okie 4th, and several other voters placed them as low as 4th-6th.
This is another point I get blasted for when I point out to the "true believers" that last year's voting was very much swayed by ESPN. I expect a lack of integrity from the coaches. In fact, I still can't believe Miles voted Bama #2, but there were Harris poll voters as well that dropped OSU after they beat OU. Strange. Very strange, especially when you consider these same Harris voters had OU as high as #1 for part of the year.
Think this can't happen again? Think again. ESPN runs college football now. That should concern everyone who isn't a fan of the 8-10 entitled teams.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:39 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Michigan beat ball state by 8 points
Florida beat 4-8 Vanderbilt by 6 points.
quote:
penn state by 7 points
A 7-point win on the road over a team whose only losses were to three BCS teams (including #1 and #2) and a 12-1 Wisconsin team is far and away better than having to block a FG to win by 1 at home over a 7-5 South Carolina team.
Michigan also beat 12-1 Wisconsin by two touchdowns, Sugar Bowl participant (and 10-2 at the time) Notre Dame by four touchdowns, and that same Vanderbilt team that took Florida to the limit by three touchdowns.
The so-called "eye test" was easily in Michigan's favor that year. You can squirm, stretch and outright lie all you want, but the truth is that the voters went for Alabama in 2011 but not Michigan in 2006 because Oklahoma State is not Florida, and for no other reason. If it had been Oklahoma or Texas instead of Oklahoma State, y'all would have been in the Sugar Bowl. Anybody with a brain knows this. And so do you.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:45 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
This is another point I get blasted for when I point out to the "true believers" that last year's voting was very much swayed by ESPN. I expect a lack of integrity from the coaches. In fact, I still can't believe Miles voted Bama #2, but there were Harris poll voters as well that dropped OSU after they beat OU. Strange. Very strange, especially when you consider these same Harris voters had OU as high as #1 for part of the year.
Think this can't happen again? Think again. ESPN runs college football now. That should concern everyone who isn't a fan of the 8-10 entitled teams.
I think everyone outside of Tuscaloosa knows this. I think that's a big part of the reason for the move to a playoff and the strong disagreements about how to select the teams. If all they have to do is finish in the top four, then Alabama could just take the season off and get in with a 7-5 record because they "look good" or people subjectively think they're "better" and don't want to be bothered by things like how the various teams actually performed on the field.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:46 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
In addition to Nuts and EZE's great points, if this was so VERY obvious why did the computers give Okie an edge?
Conversely, Lil' Nicky voted Okie 4th, and several other voters placed them as low as 4th-6th. Can you give me an unbiased justification for such low votes?
They lost to iowa state...Iowa state
Why did oklahoma state deserve to be ranked ahead of one loss stanford who lost to a good USC team and beat a pretty good oregon team?
The destruction of arkansas was more impressive than anything okie lite did all year.
You can say they didn't deserve to be there all you want, but it is obvious the voters got it right and the best team in the country played for and won the national championship, just how it is supposed to be. 2004 is the only year where it is debatable that the best team in the country didn't even have a chance
The fact is, if LSU had won the game in january you wouldn't even argue about who deserved to be there. LSU lost so the coping mechanism is well it's ok because they are just media darlings and shouldn't have been there anyway
This post was edited on 6/13/12 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 6/13/12 at 2:58 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
I think everyone outside of Tuscaloosa knows this. I think that's a big part of the reason for the move to a playoff and the strong disagreements about how to select the teams. If all they have to do is finish in the top four, then Alabama could just take the season off and get in with a 7-5 record because they "look good" or people subjectively think they're "better" and don't want to be bothered by things like how the various teams actually performed on the field.
Bingo. This too is why I'm opposed to a football final four. All teams like Bama, USC, etc have to do is schedule weak OOC opponents and finish third or higher in their conference. "Skipping" their conference championship game helps as well by getting a week off and also not having to face another tough opponent in a neutral site. Just sit back and wait for the media's favorable treatment and go win the title.
With the media just picking two teams, one of which more often than not is locked in due to their fantastic season, there is less liklihood of shennanigans. But then again, the shennanigans are worse when they have to promote that one team, a la Bama in 2011. What ESPN did during the SECCG was really shameless, but not surprising.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 3:04 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Why did oklahoma state deserve to be ranked ahead of one loss stanford
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they actually won their conference and Stanford didn't? Again, no one here expects you to see this because your team didn't have to do any of those things in order to get the mulligan.
quote:
The destruction of arkansas was more impressive than anything okie lite did all year.
Didn't Arkansas have 3 starters out for that game? The only reason I know this is because when the media stated Arkansas was going to upset LSU, that was their talking point: Arkansas was finally healthy and we would lose to a team that was now better than the one that had lost at Bama earlier in the year.
quote:
You can say they didn't deserve to be there all you want, but it is obvious the voters got it right and the best team in the country played for and won the national championship, just how it is supposed to be
Yes, a team that didn't win their division, their conference, and lost their biggest game AT HOME was the true champion. When does LSU get the rubber match in Baton Rouge? After all, 2011 Bama and 2011 LSU are 1-1 with one game AT Bama and the other at a neutral site? Oh yeah, that won't happen.....
quote:
The fact is, if LSU had won the game in january you wouldn't even argue about who deserved to be there.
What you don't get is that many here are also fans of the SPORT of CFB, myself included. Had LSU beaten Bama in January, I'd still complain. What happened with the Mulligan last year was bad for the sport overall. Again, I don't expect a fan of one of the entitled teams to see this.
Posted on 6/13/12 at 3:07 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Why did oklahoma state deserve to be ranked ahead of one loss stanford who lost to a good USC team and beat a pretty good oregon team?
You have it backwards. Stanford beat USC and lost to Oregon. By over three touchdowns. And Oregon wasn't a legit option because LSU had already beaten them. Stanford wasn't a viable option because they didn't even win their division, let alone their conference. Those things usually disqualify a team. Usually.
quote:
The destruction of arkansas was more impressive than anything okie lite did all year.
Oklahoma was probably as good as Arkansas, or at least pretty close. Okie State slammed them 44-10. And got DROPPED in the polls for it (by some Harris voters).
Also, Oklahoma State played several ranked teams over the course of the year and beat them. One game, no matter how big the margin, is less impressive than four or five. And, of course, Oklahoma State won a conference championship (in a conference consistently rated tougher than the SEC throughout the season).
quote:
it is obvious the voters got it right and the best team in the country played for and won the national championship
A number of "best teams in the country" over the years didn't win the national championship because they didn't earn their way into the game. It's a lot easier when you don't have to.
This post was edited on 6/13/12 at 3:12 pm
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News