- 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: SEC Champ Rings
Posted on 6/16/12 at 9:56 am to TIGRLEE
Posted on 6/16/12 at 9:56 am to TIGRLEE
quote:
Dude stfu. I wonder if the 2001 SECC team has # 16 nationally engraved on the side of their rings? Point is, its a symobol of accomplishment and achievment for winning your conference. Your national ranking has shite to do with it, and IMO its stupid to put it on the side of the ring... as it seems to be by reading this thread a common opinion among other fans.
Which again, begs the question:
Why should the individuals who earned the ring, approved of the design of the ring, and will ultimately wear the ring, give a shite about what you or others who didn't earn it think of it?
Answer: They don't, therefore you shouldn't either!
1
Posted on 6/16/12 at 10:23 am to EZE Tiger Fan
at the risk of pissing people off. I have to agree with those thinking it's stupid. The ring should have memorialized their accomplishments. Not reminded them of a game that the rings weren't for. As someone else said, how does this motivate the seniors that left? It doesn't. Whoever approved putting 2nd nationally on it, failed the players big time. It's taken what was a proud acheivement in an undefeated SEC Championship run, and turned it into debate and ridicule.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 10:35 am to Alahunter
It is stupid. Also I aint buying into the motivation argument. That is about as stupid as the ring itself..
Posted on 6/16/12 at 11:30 am to TIGRLEE
"If you aren't not first, you're last" - Ricky Bobby
While winning the SEC is kickass and should definitely be celebrated....mentioning your final rankings is stupid. Did LSU put #13 nationally on their 2001 SEC Title Rings?
Maybe they were using as motivation for this year....but what about the Seniors who won't get a shot this year at them?
While winning the SEC is kickass and should definitely be celebrated....mentioning your final rankings is stupid. Did LSU put #13 nationally on their 2001 SEC Title Rings?
Maybe they were using as motivation for this year....but what about the Seniors who won't get a shot this year at them?
Posted on 6/16/12 at 11:55 am to TheTigerZone
I wonder if the baseball SECC rings will have "#9 Nationally" on them.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 11:56 am to Alahunter
quote:
The ring should have memorialized their accomplishments
It does. Last season was historical in many ways. If this was a different era of CFB, LSU would have been National Champs without having to worry about the unprecedented Mulligan Bama got.
quote:
As someone else said, how does this motivate the seniors that left? It doesn't.
Have you or any Tiger fans polled the Seniors to find this out? I'd guess "no".
quote:
Whoever approved putting 2nd nationally on it, failed the players big time.
Outside of the BCSNC ring, which is designed by the BCS, school/player rings are generally designed by the football staff and approved by coaches and players. I know this fact has escaped many who have posted here.
quote:
It's taken what was a proud acheivement in an undefeated SEC Championship run, and turned it into debate and ridicule.
Only amongst idiots in the fan base. I can promise you the team is proud of their accomplishments and many could care less about losing the mulligan game. The #2 is motivation to make sure that the 2012 game against Bama actually "counts". When Bama is granted another mulligan, that ring is a reminder to finish them off.
As for 2011 and the ring: What was left for them to prove to the nation after dominating a historical schedule, minus one game that apparently didn't count anyway? NOTHING. Hence the nice ring and future motivation.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 12:23 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Whoever approved putting 2nd nationally on it, failed the players big time. It's taken what was a proud acheivement in an undefeated SEC Championship run, and turned it into debate and ridicule.
This is a fact
Posted on 6/16/12 at 12:34 pm to Moustache
quote:
The guy does have a slight touch of retardation, but he is right that nationally, we're not viewed as SEC champs. Here in TX and in GA where my family lives, most everybody sees Bama as the best in the SEC last year. Truth fricking hurts man.
Which is why only conference champs should play for the NC. Otherwise, it diminishes the value of winning your conference since another member can "one-up" you by winning it all. It's even worse when the champ can be one-upped directly by a member of its own conference in the NC.
While winning the SEC was huge and we should be very proud, few people can reflect on it without thinking of the later drubbing on 1/9 at the hands of another SEC member. It sucks, but it's true.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 12:40 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
The #2 is motivation to make sure that the 2012 game against Bama actually "counts". When Bama is granted another mulligan, that ring is a reminder to finish them off.
Well it's a good thing we put it on the ring. Otherwise they may have forgotten.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 12:43 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
While winning the SEC was huge and we should be very proud, few people can reflect on it without thinking of the later drubbing on 1/9 at the hands of another SEC member. It sucks, but it's true.
This will pass with time I think. In years to come when fans review a clubs accomplishments within their respective conference and on national stage there won't be an * by 'LSU - 2011 SEC CC. It will be seen as what it is...the 4th in the new century...hopefully the 4th of 6 or 7 by the time CLM retires in 2020 or so.
This post was edited on 6/16/12 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 6/16/12 at 12:47 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
I can promise you the team is proud of their accomplishments
They should be..
quote:
and many could care less about losing the mulligan game.
Tier 1 media darlings would never have "we're #2" put on a ring..
Posted on 6/16/12 at 1:11 pm to getback
quote:
They should be..
quote:
Tier 1 media darlings would never have "we're #2" put on a ring..
No one should. A top 10 finish, a top 5 finish is something for fan chest thumping or telling kids on recruiting trail. An official recognition in the form of a ring? I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 4:42 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
I completely disagree with the fact that conference champions should be the only ones to play for the title.
It's unfortunate for LSU that the season played out like it did and they were forced to play a ridiculous Alabama team twice.
This is probably been beat to death a million times on this board so there is no sense in rehashing 1/9 again.
It's unfortunate for LSU that the season played out like it did and they were forced to play a ridiculous Alabama team twice.
This is probably been beat to death a million times on this board so there is no sense in rehashing 1/9 again.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 5:45 pm to obsessedgator
quote:
I completely disagree with the fact that conference champions should be the only ones to play for the title.
To each his own. IMO, if every game counts then conference championships should really count, and a non-champ conference member should not be allowed to claim a bigger prize than their conference champ.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 5:55 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
To each his own. IMO, if every game counts then conference championships should really count, and a non-champ conference member should not be allowed to claim a bigger prize than their conference champ.
Every regular season game does matter though. Bama and LSU basically played to a tie in the first game. I don't think anyone in the nation could come away from that game and say that either Bama or LSU was CLEARLY better than the other. Hence a rematch of the two best teams.
It would be different if LSU had won in regulation or if they won like 24-13
Posted on 6/16/12 at 6:10 pm to obsessedgator
quote:
Every regular season game does matter though.
If the "Game of the Century" at their house really mattered we should not have had to play them again, even if we'd won by only 1 point. Otherwise, you end up with a non conference champ having a bigger prize than the champ, which makes no sense to me. Which you rather have, the SEC title or the NC? As big as winning the SEC title was, IMO it was diminished by allowing Bama to win the NC.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 6:12 pm to Thunder Tiger
Undefeated SEC Champs has only happened 5 times in the history of the SEC. Entire HISTORY ! #2 Nationally is motivation just like when LM said that the title goes through Bama 3 years ago. LSU is not happy being #2. That will change in 2012.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 6:21 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
by allowing Bama to win the NC
They didn't. They put the second most deserving team in the national title game and they proved that they were clearly better than LSU.
Do you think losing to a 5-7 Iowa State team shouldn't count against Ok State? Their job is to get the two most deserving teams.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 6:39 pm to obsessedgator
My original point was that only conference champs should go to the NC for the reasons I gave, and I stated this before the NC. IMO not being conference champs alone should've disqualified Bama.
Just because Bama won doesn't mean they deserved to be given the chance to win. That's circular Gump logic.
Of course it should, and after considering everything, including this loss, the computers favored Okie. How can this be if Bama was so clearly the most deserving team? The human voters simply favored Bama, some voting Okie as low as 6th. Does that sound reasonable to you? Read this article if you think only LSU homers feel this way: LINK
quote:
They alone put the second most deserving team in the national title game and they proved that they were clearly better than LSU.
Just because Bama won doesn't mean they deserved to be given the chance to win. That's circular Gump logic.
quote:
Do you think losing to a 5-7 Iowa State team shouldn't count against Ok State?
Of course it should, and after considering everything, including this loss, the computers favored Okie. How can this be if Bama was so clearly the most deserving team? The human voters simply favored Bama, some voting Okie as low as 6th. Does that sound reasonable to you? Read this article if you think only LSU homers feel this way: LINK
This post was edited on 6/16/12 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 6/16/12 at 6:46 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
To each his own. IMO, if every game counts then conference championships should really count, and a non-champ conference member should not be allowed to claim a bigger prize than their conference champ.
Your logic is perfect. In a world where Conferences are competitive with each other.
We could of had a BCS style SEC where #1 v #2 and we play bama for Sec title, lose both the SEC and NC.
Bama doesn't get any blame as far as I'm concerned. Football gods did some freaky stuff to teams all over the country after GoTC. Take a look back at Alabama after that game and see what had to happen to get them the rematch with us. It's one of the most insane runs of luck I've ever seen. It was a perfect storm.
And at the end of the day, I don't think anyone outside LSU/Bama would of beaten LSU or Bama. Both teams were in their own league last year.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News