- 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: strength of schedule complaints
Posted on 5/27/09 at 1:18 pm to Nuts4LSU
Posted on 5/27/09 at 1:18 pm to Nuts4LSU
I bitch because I just want to see good games. I'd rather them lose in OT to Texas at home than watch them beat UL Monroe 56-3.
I realize is all about no losses and winning the BCS, but it's hard to get excited about going to these games sometimes.
I realize is all about no losses and winning the BCS, but it's hard to get excited about going to these games sometimes.
0
Posted on 5/27/09 at 1:25 pm to King Joey
quote:
then turn the tables and consider 2002 if Mauck hadn't hurt his foot. The way the team was clicking at that point, winning out after Florida was a real possibility. What would our chances have been of making the National Championship Game at 11-1, ahead of undefeated Miami and undefeated Ohio State? Considering we were just one spot behind Ohio State in the preseason polls, leapfrogging them with an undefeated season would not have been out of the question. Replace that VT opener with a home game against Rice, North Texas, etc., and we are seriously in the debate. But after that loss in Blacksburg, it was all over. How many times should we just concede any shot whatsoever at the National Championship Game in the hopes of a dominating win over a top 10 opponent someday getting us back into the National Championship Game with two losses again?
After that VT game in 2002, VT was squarely in the hunt for the NC until they faltered later. That's the point. Elite teams play these games, like we and VT did in '07. Somebody (LSU) wins, and puts themselves in a great position to win the NC. Somebody (VT) loses, and maybe is out of the picture. Somebody else (Kansas) plays complete crap and they go to the Orange Bowl with an 11-1 record while a two-loss team plays in the NC game.
Posted on 5/27/09 at 1:49 pm to Nuts4LSU
Next year might be a little weak, but we still play a BCS team and no IAA teams; plus coming off a rough year with a new QB its probably a good idea to avoid any juggernauts early in the season (and playing a tough OOC game in the middle of SEC play is just stupid).
But I really don't see how anyone could be too upset with our 2010 and 2011 seasons.
2010
West Virginia
Southern Miss
Tulane
TBA
2011
West Virginia
Houston
Tulane
TBA
West Virginia is a legit BCS opponent.
I know everyone hates playing Tulane, but they are at least a CUSA team. Houston and Southern Miss are pretty solid teams. No matter who TBA turns out to be, I think any schedule much tougher than that and you're just asking to be knocked out of the national championship.
But I really don't see how anyone could be too upset with our 2010 and 2011 seasons.
2010
West Virginia
Southern Miss
Tulane
TBA
2011
West Virginia
Houston
Tulane
TBA
West Virginia is a legit BCS opponent.
I know everyone hates playing Tulane, but they are at least a CUSA team. Houston and Southern Miss are pretty solid teams. No matter who TBA turns out to be, I think any schedule much tougher than that and you're just asking to be knocked out of the national championship.
Posted on 5/27/09 at 2:41 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
That's the point. Elite teams play these games, like we and VT did in '07. Somebody (LSU) wins, and puts themselves in a great position to win the NC. Somebody (VT) loses, and maybe is out of the picture. Somebody else (Kansas) plays complete crap and they go to the Orange Bowl with an 11-1 record while a two-loss team plays in the NC game.
Nuts ,I totally agree . The only reason VT was hurt losing to us in 07 ( and that was only for a while ) was that we beat them so badly . That usually doesn't happen in these games. UF , UG & USCe all have traditional rivalries outside the SEC , Arky is taking on the big Texas schools ,
Tenn always schedules a big out of conference game , Auburns done it & Bama's doing it. We don't have to schedule a top 5 or even a top 10 ooc game each year. But we should should have at least 1 top 30ish occ each year.
lets put it this way / in 2007
lose to VT = no chance for NC
beat VT = chance for NC
not playing VT = no chance for NC
I like the odds of us playing them & winning !
Posted on 5/28/09 at 7:51 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:i was referring to people who want both; consistently winning the ncg and having a schedule with all heavyweights. nothing in the history of college football suggests a team can win the former with the latter on a regular basis.
Nobody is asking for that. We just want SOME opponents who are big names, and no I-AA teams.
quote:if you look back at the scheduling for the last 30 years, you know that last year's schedule was more the exception than the rule.
Last year was pathetic. Appy State, Middle Tennessee, Tulane and Troy?
quote:i've already replied that the non-sec top 10 teams weren't exactly taking "risks". they were merely trying to get their sos up to par with a normal sec schedule.
Last year, EVERY team that finished in the top 10 took those risks.
quote:and so does lsu most of the time and you know that
EVERY team in the SEC (sans LSU) took those risks.
quote:as i have already said twice, non-sec elite teams have to take on those opponents just to even out their weaker conference schedule. you're not listening.
Most elite teams DO take those risks. You are dead wrong on this point.
quote:and we're vying for team of the decade whereas other sec teams are not (with the obvious exception of florida). you do the math
Not necessarily every year, but the SEC teams in general have been ramping up their non-conference scheduling. We are the notable laggers in this trend.
quote:again, those sec teams you refer to aren't challenging for team of the decade. if i had to choose between our scheduling this decade and tenn's, i choose us.
The argument that "we're in the SEC, we don't need good OOC games, and our conference schedule is too tough already" doesn't seem to hold water with 11 of the 12 schools in the league.
quote:florida was the exception to the rule this past year: winning with a very respectable schedule. props to them. you know as well as i do that bama just happened to take advantage of an unusually weak sec west and they didn't face fla in the regular season. kudos to bama but again, they were an exception. if lsu, auburn and ark are playing at their usual level, bama doesn't win as many games thus strengthening my point
And why exclude UF and Bama anyway? That's 20% (actually about 27% if you count Georgia) of the top 10. Both of them scheduled tough OOC games and both remained solidly in the hunt for the NC until they played each other for what everyone knew was a virtually guaranteed slot in the BCS NC game.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 7:55 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:good grief, you're making my point for me. replace the lsu win with a win over usf and they might have won those games down the stretch you're referring to. someone has already pointed out that had we not played va tech, we might have beaten ky or ark. if those situations play out, as they usually do in college football, then you're talking about 1 loss or maybe undefeated as opposed to a 2 loss team getting TONS of help or va tech on the outside looking in
After that VT game in 2002, VT was squarely in the hunt for the NC until they faltered later.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 9:41 am to bfniii
quote:
bfniii
You're off base with the ... "if that hard opponent wasn't there then the other losses wouldn't have happened" argument.
quote:
replace the lsu win with a win over usf and they might have won those games down the stretch you're referring to. someone has already pointed out that had we not played va tech, we might have beaten ky or ark.
You sound like a democrat.... unproven evidence (while not false, nor true) to back your arguments. Your argument can never be proven.
Truth is... Last time a team won the NC without play a quality OOC was in fact LSU in 2003. So, your argument that playing quality OOC hinders NC is false.
2008 Fla beat FSU, Miami, and Hawaii
2007 LSU beat VA Tech
2006 Fla beat FSU
2005 Texas beat OSU
2004 USC beat ND, Va Tech, Col St, and BYU
2003 LSU beat Arizona(2-10)
No one wants to play Va Tech quality opponents for all 4 games. We just don't like paying all this money for 1 really great game, 2-3 okay games (Vandy??), and then 3-4 really crappy games. Claims for quality product is very valid in this case.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 11:18 am to Tigershatebama
The NCAA could fix this problem:
1. They could eliminate the Division 1-A (FBS)/Division 1-AA (FCS) matchups. Sure the 1-AA team wins occasionally, but typically it's a terrible game from the fans' perspectives.
2. They could move all teams who can't average 25,000 fans per home game down to D1-AA. Yes, I know this would eliminate the most of the MAC and WAC and more than likely all of the Sun Belt, and half of CUSA and Mountain West (then combine the remnants of the MAC and CUSA as well as the WAC and Mountain West into two conferences), but it would provide much better matchups on a weekly basis. The Verge Ausberrys of the world couldn't go out and schedule the Central Rhode Island State Polytechnic Institutes for that 12th game.
3. They could produce a eight-team playoff. Only the conference champions would be eligible for the playoffs (forcing the Independants like Notre Dame to join a conference). Scheduling cupcakes for automatic wins would not be necessary since all you have to do is win your conference.
Unfortunately, these things will never happen because NCAA football is no longer for the fans. It's now simply about the colleges and universities making money.
1. They could eliminate the Division 1-A (FBS)/Division 1-AA (FCS) matchups. Sure the 1-AA team wins occasionally, but typically it's a terrible game from the fans' perspectives.
2. They could move all teams who can't average 25,000 fans per home game down to D1-AA. Yes, I know this would eliminate the most of the MAC and WAC and more than likely all of the Sun Belt, and half of CUSA and Mountain West (then combine the remnants of the MAC and CUSA as well as the WAC and Mountain West into two conferences), but it would provide much better matchups on a weekly basis. The Verge Ausberrys of the world couldn't go out and schedule the Central Rhode Island State Polytechnic Institutes for that 12th game.
3. They could produce a eight-team playoff. Only the conference champions would be eligible for the playoffs (forcing the Independants like Notre Dame to join a conference). Scheduling cupcakes for automatic wins would not be necessary since all you have to do is win your conference.
Unfortunately, these things will never happen because NCAA football is no longer for the fans. It's now simply about the colleges and universities making money.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 11:33 am to deSandman
quote:
Any 1 loss BCS team would've played in the National Championship
Like Kansas?
Posted on 5/28/09 at 11:44 am to bfniii
quote:
i was referring to people who want both; consistently winning the ncg and having a schedule with all heavyweights
]
Well, then you're just arguing with a straw man because no one is calling for that.
quote:
if you look back at the scheduling for the last 30 years, you know that last year's schedule was more the exception than the rule.
That's only because of the first 10 or 15 of those 30, going all the way back to the '70s, when we actually did play good opponents out of conference. Looking back at the last 10 or 15 years, last year was more the rule than the exception.
quote:
so does lsu most of the time and you know that
Three times in ten years, we've played a ranked non-conference opponent. Three times in 35 non-conference games is not most of the time.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 11:49 am to bfniii
quote:
replace the lsu win with a win over usf and they might have won those games down the stretch you're referring to. someone has already pointed out that had we not played va tech, we might have beaten ky or ark.
What in the hell did whipping us around in Blacksburg at the beginning of September have to do with their losing to whoever it was two months later? Playing us didn't hurt them in any way in 2002. It helped them a lot.
For us in 2007, you could argue that playing VT cost us in the losses later on because Matt Flynn did get hurt in the VT game, but that can (and does) happen against anyone.
quote:
if those situations play out, as they usually do in college football, then you're talking about 1 loss or maybe undefeated as opposed to a 2 loss team getting TONS of help or va tech on the outside looking in
Well, playing complete shite and finishing 11-1 didn't get Kansas into the NC game ahead of our two-loss team. They also finished behind two-loss Virginia Tech in the final BCS standings going into the bowls. Even playing that tough game and losing, and finishing with more losses, VT finished ahead of Kansas.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 11:54 am to bfniii
Someone most likely already said this but it's worth repeating until people get it.
We don't go to the NCG without beating VT....
Conversely, if VT plays Slippery Rock instead of LSU, THEY go to the NCG.....
Works for some, not for others,, moral, just win baby.
We don't go to the NCG without beating VT....
Conversely, if VT plays Slippery Rock instead of LSU, THEY go to the NCG.....
Works for some, not for others,, moral, just win baby.
Posted on 5/28/09 at 1:31 pm to Jaydeaux
The irony of 2007 was LSU & VT competing for that spot in the NCG !
VT was an improved team as the season went on.
LSU was not !
Along with the sympathy for VT , losing to us on the road early in the season was not in itself enough to keep VT out of the NCG. I think it had to do with the fact that LSU destroyed VT on national TV ! A close loss for VT against LSU might have made a difference for both teams.
But winning big in this game proved to be the difference maker for LSU in over coming 2 lack luster losses including 1 in it's final regular season game !
VT was an improved team as the season went on.
LSU was not !
Along with the sympathy for VT , losing to us on the road early in the season was not in itself enough to keep VT out of the NCG. I think it had to do with the fact that LSU destroyed VT on national TV ! A close loss for VT against LSU might have made a difference for both teams.
But winning big in this game proved to be the difference maker for LSU in over coming 2 lack luster losses including 1 in it's final regular season game !
This post was edited on 5/28/09 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 5/29/09 at 2:54 am to Tigershatebama
quote:we'll have to agree to disagree. i think history definitely shows tough games wear on teams
You're off base with the ... "if that hard opponent wasn't there then the other losses wouldn't have happened" argument.
quote:i've stated that if you observe college football history, teams with harder schedules tend to lose more games, more often than not. it's common sense
Your argument can never be proven.
Posted on 5/29/09 at 2:59 am to Sir Yin Yang
quote:i've often wondered what would happen if div-1 was broken up into divisions a la english premier league. each division could contain, say, 30 teams. win your division, move up next season. end up last, move down next season. it would eliminate bad matchups. you would definitely lose regional rivalries or conferences but the season would be tons more interesting.
The NCAA could fix this problem:
1. They could eliminate the Division 1-A (FBS)/Division 1-AA (FCS) matchups.
2. They could move all teams who can't average 25,000 fans per home game down to D1-AA.
Posted on 5/29/09 at 3:13 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:my observation differs.
no one is calling for that.
quote:you yourself stated that the sec as a whole was changing recently in that regard. "SEC teams in general have been ramping up their non-conference scheduling". that statement agrees with mine that lsu is not terribly different than the rest of the conference. not to mention that you're including years from the worst decade of lsu football ever. last year was the exception, not the rule. va tech, oreg st, ariz st, ariz, (when they were scheduled, they looked like they were going to be much better than they were).
Looking back at the last 10 or 15 years, last year was more the rule than the exception
quote:rankings are nearly impossible to predict. you should know that. you go with promising bcs opponents
Three times in ten years, we've played a ranked non-conference opponent. Three times in 35 non-conference games is not most of the time.
Posted on 5/29/09 at 7:28 am to Nuts4LSU
I just wish the legislature would keep their paws out of what our football team does. They can't even run the state properly, so leave the football games to LSU.
Now my vote for quote of the month!
If not even so a GREAT Quote!
Now my vote for quote of the month!
quote:
Agreed. Utah can say they were the best last year, but does anybody believe that besides a few Mormons? No. Why? Because they played a wack schedule. They didn't even lose and we all know they weren't the best team in the nation...except Bama. They think Utah is a jugernaught.
If not even so a GREAT Quote!
Posted on 5/29/09 at 8:03 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:And the other point is that we were not, even before we faltered.
After that VT game in 2002, VT was squarely in the hunt for the NC until they faltered later. That's the point.
quote:What two-loss team is going to get in ahead of an 12-1 SEC Champ? Kansas didn't go because they didn't win their division AND they played a laugher of a schedule INCLUDING their conference games. It is probabably mathematically impossible for an SEC team to have a schedule as weak as the one Kansas had that year. No 11-1 SEC team would have been left out for a 2-loss team because of SoS. If they were left out for a 2-loss team, it would be because they didn't win their division and thus didn't make the SECCG (the only way to finish 11-1).
Somebody (LSU) wins, and puts themselves in a great position to win the NC. Somebody (VT) loses, and maybe is out of the picture. Somebody else (Kansas) plays complete crap and they go to the Orange Bowl with an 11-1 record while a two-loss team plays in the NC game.
Bottom line is that no SEC Champion is going to be left out for a team with more losses. After the Auburn screwing in '04, and the performance of the SEC since then, it is virtually inconceivable that an SEC Champion would be left out for a team with the same number of losses. The winning formula for an SEC team to get the BCS Championship Game is: 1) win the SEC (90% of the battle), and 2) minimize opportunities for extra losses in OOC.
Given that one SEC Champion in the last decade has managed to go into the bowl season undefeated, a single OOC loss out of conference almost assures a team of finishing with two losses. And since about 20 of the 22 National Championship Game contenders have had one or fewer losses, a two-loss season is nearly a death knell to any hope of a National Championship opportunity. So the question then becomes, "which is more likely: an OOC loss that gives us a second loss for the season that keeps us out of the Naitonal Championship Game 90+% of the time; or a big OOC win that tips us into the National Championship Game in one of those rare seasons where less than two BCS Conference Champions finish with 1 or fewer losses?"
That sounds like an easy question to me.
Note: I don't actually advocate the scheduling of nothing but cupcakes, but I am simply clarifying that the arguments for it are in fact rock solid: if you are trying to maximize the opportunity for National Championships as an SEC team, go mid-Major or lower all the way.
Posted on 5/29/09 at 8:08 pm to bfniii
quote:Yep. That's pretty much why they are called "harder". Can't understand why some people aren't getting that.
i've stated that if you observe college football history, teams with harder schedules tend to lose more games, more often than not. it's common sense
Posted on 5/29/09 at 8:57 pm to gotclee
quote:
Bring back the Aggie rivalry!!!!
Good for recruiting....
agreed...I really enjoyed that tradition....unfortunately now that we actually can beat them, we no longer play them....
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News