Are all of LSU's NCG Appearances "Controversial"?

We did have two losses but there was not other serious contender with a fewer numbers of losses (except Ohio St.). That was a crazy year, everyone kept losing!

quote:

---

Are all of LSU's NCG Appearances "Controversial"?

---

No, there is nothing about LSU's appearance in 03 or 11 that is controversial.

i'll never get the slight on 07. it's not like we got in over 5 undefeated teams. everyone beat each other that year and we were the best. it helped that everyone lost after us.

did we win our conference? yes

did we play the most worthy opponent? yes

did we beat team? soundly



edit: i agree with this:

quote:

---

Actually just the opposite. We will see many 2 loss champions very soon. Once the playoffs begin, 2 loss teams will make it every year. I could see a 2 loss SEC Champ winning it all repeatedly.

---

quote:

---

2003-we will always hear USC should have been there and they would have beat us. And why do they get labeled a co-national champ just because the liberal communist Hollywood media gave it to them when that is exactly why the BCS was created in 98? (See co-champions Nebraska and Michigan in 97).

---

Ah remember the good ole days when people said that Oklahoma didn't deserve to be in the game because they didn't even win their conference? We actually changed the BCS to make sure that never happened again...

quote:

---

2011- we will always hear that Alabama should not have been there because not only did we beat them but they did win their conference. And we would have creamed Okie State.

---

Oh wait...

quote:

---

Are all of LSU's NCG Appearances "Controversial"?

---

None of them are to me.

In 2003, the only team of the three possible teams in discussion that absolutely should have been there was LSU. Aside from the "If you don't win your conference, you can't be national champion" stuff (I'm looking at you, BAMA) Oklahoma based on the totality of their season could clearly argue they were one of the two best teams in 2003. It's been a while, but if I recall correctly what kept SC out was their strength of schedule...but none of that taints LSU's win. The fact that an organization like the AP gave SC a title became meaningless in the BCS era. The AP, at the time, was just one of the factors used to determine the contestants in the BCS Championship game. It was not a goal, nor part of the equation that in total gave one the "National Title." Therefore, not winning the AP titale in no way means there was a split title. There could only be a split if both parts were needed...they weren't. All programs understood and agreed to this before the season. And yes...I still mad.

2007 was a fluke, but not controversial. LSU was clearly the most deserving team in the country after conference championship weekend. For once, pollsters did the right thing and awarded a team a ranking based on it's entire resume, and not just the final few weeks of the season. Thankfully LSU had prison raped VT earlier in the year and based on that they jumped a then higher ranked VT into the title game.

Had LSU beaten BAMA in 2011, there would have been no real controversy that Okie St did not get a shot. Hell...not even Okie St's coach complained about not getting in over BAMA in 2011 as it was happening to his program, while Saban was out there politicking for it. No one on the national press would have stood up and banged the drum for OSU. Besides, had LSU pulled that off it would have been considered the greatest season in college football history.

quote:

---

where the rest if the nation

---

Personally I don't care...I really don't care.

quote:

---

How many 2 loss teams are in the top 4 typically? Not a lot. But I agree it would never happen again in the old format

---

Rankings and accomplishments won't matter as much, it will be much more subjective and be about the 4 'best' teams.

quote:

---

I don't think there was much controversy over 1958. But I was also 28 years from being born so I'm not 100%.

---

There was no NCG in 1958. IIRC, LSU had the national #1 ranking before the Bowl game. They didn't even count the Bowl back then.

No.


1908. Named Southern Champion and since there was no named national champion, LSU at 10-0 and outscoring opponents 484-27 and only unbeaten major team that year, could have been.


1958. Consensus #1 NC before beating Clemson in Sugar Bowl to go 11-0.


2003. Not controversial at all. LSU was in the Sugar Bowl/BCSNCG no matter what - as we were #2 in every single poll.
USC would have presented more of a challenge than Oklahoma, but remember LSU's maneating defense held #1 scoring and total offense team OU to: A 1/2 yard TD drive after a blocked LSU punt and a 30 yard drive after an INT. No doubt we would have done the same to SC. OU got 140 yards total offense, half of that in the last 3 minutes.



2007. LSU jumped all the other possible teams to #2 behind #1 tOSU via the BCS point system, SOS, and the fact that West Va, Kansas and Hawaii had dreadful SOSs and their calculated BCS points trailed LSU's dramatically.
Everyone saw what "underdog" LSU did to #1 Ohio State. outscoring the so-called #1 team 38-7 until the late meaningless TD by the Buckeyes.
And also, it's like CLM said, LSU went 12-2, and never lost in regulation - it's two losses were both in triple OT.


2011. No controversy on LSU's part. Outscoring a schedule that included 9 bowl teams to the tune of 500-123 and winning the SEC Championship, plus staying #1 most of the season.

The travesty was in allowing a "name" media darling team who everyone thought deserved a "do-over", even though, ACCORDING TO BCS RULES AND CALCULATIONS, their SOS was woefully short of Oklahoma State's. Add this to the fact that OSU was told if they somehow were to destroy former #1 Oklahoma and win the Big 12 Championship, which they DID by 5 touchdowns, they would jump Alabama into #2 in the BCS.
This did not happen BECAUSE, a faction of BCS Human Poll Voters and Coaches had the incredible audacity to vote #2 or #3 OSU (depending on the poll) FIFTH OR SIXTH in the final BCS Poll, EVEN THOUGH, all the other voters had OSU 2nd or 3rd.

That's not controversial my friends, that's downright nauseatingly unfair and a blatant travesty of the BCS..