- 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
0
Posted on 8/28/09 at 10:37 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
Difficult to place weight on mnc's as they are so subjective.
Absolutely, completely wrong. There are few people on this board who hate the BCS more than I do, but the MNC is NOT subjective. The criteria is stupid and ever-changing, but it most certainly IS objective. If we named a national champ by how many players have a "Z" in their name, it would be absurd, but it would still be objective.
I have no problem with USC being named #1. I think LSU is a little too low and Florida is certainly too low, but CFN came up with an objective criteria and they were married to it. It's a good place to start the argument.
And every SEC fan should be proud of how well we fared on that list.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 10:44 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
In my aboslutely honest opinion Penn St was right there with Oklahoma and UF. I put all 3 just under USC. It is hard to argue that Florida was just as good as USC last season in terms of overall talent and how they would have matched up against each other. Penn St was a damn good football team last season.
Penn St was overrated garbage last year and it showed in the Rose Bowl. They will be overrated garbage again this year because of their schedule. USC needs to venture away from that Rose Bowl tie in. It would be more interesting for everybody to see them play different teams. They are too good for the Big 10 matchups. UF and OU would've skullfricked them just like USC did. If that Rodgers kid tore the shite out of USC I would have liked to see what Harvin could've done.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:01 am to Baloo
BTW, only one of those programs got to be ranked so high while playing six home and six road games EVERY YEAR.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:30 am to Sophandros
quote:
BTW, only one of those programs got to be ranked so high while playing six home and six road games EVERY YEAR.
Well, winning on the road or at neutral sites does give you a boost in their rankings
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:33 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
CFN did a thing on the top programs of the past 5 years. Counted wins over FBS, quality wins, draft picks etc.. to come up with a scoring system.
If they ain't giving a trophy for it I don't really care
good way to start a discussion though
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:36 am to danfraz
Bowls and more importantly BCS Bowls, should weigh more, they are proving grounds.
LSU excels in them, especially BCS ones..UGA pulled a no-show vs WVU..then tried to rally at the finish..only to be once again daggered.
LSU excels in them, especially BCS ones..UGA pulled a no-show vs WVU..then tried to rally at the finish..only to be once again daggered.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:44 am to MJRuffalo
how in the blue hell can they possibly have UF behind texas, oklahoma, and ohio state? there is absolutely no logic in that choice at all
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:46 am to mburne4
Actually, there is a lot of logic behind it. Read the criteria.
Part of the reason that the others are ranked higher is that they play at a high level on a consistent basis.
Part of the reason that the others are ranked higher is that they play at a high level on a consistent basis.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:53 am to Sophandros
quote:
Actually, there is a lot of logic behind it.
No there isnt.
quote:
Best programs of the past 5 years
being successful is based on winning championships. end of story. they have 2 USC has 1, OSU has NONE, OU has NONE.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:57 am to BuckeyeFan87
quote:
SEC fans aren't going to like this list.
LSU should be ahead of UGA, other than that, I have no problem with that list
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:58 am to mburne4
If Team A goes 60-5 over five years and Team B goes 50-15 over five years with one championship and a 7-5 season thrown in, you think that Team B has been better over the course of five years?
You're fricking retarded. This is especially the case when there is no tournament to determine the champ.
You're fricking retarded. This is especially the case when there is no tournament to determine the champ.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 11:59 am to bbap
quote:
Michigan was just as good as those other teams as well.
yea..no
its funny that you say this, UM is a good program whether you want to admit it or not. BTW i like how SEC fans seem to forget that the following year UM beat florida
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:00 pm to mburne4
quote:
being successful is based on winning championships
if your standard is champions or failure, your standards are out of whack and you belittle the accomplishment of actually winning a championship.
This post was edited on 8/28/09 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:02 pm to H-Town Tiger
I think that his "NONE" statements refer to the last five years. But still, I agree that the "championship or nothing" mentality is an epic fail when discussing success.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:04 pm to Sophandros
quote:
If Team A goes 60-5 over five years and Team B goes 50-15 over five years with one championship and a 7-5 season thrown in, you think that Team B has been better over the course of five years?
Actually, it would be close.
I think those records are close enough that the championship carries enough weight to push it over the top. Banners fly forever. They are really, really valuable when evaluating a program. The gap might be too large in records, but it is within the range at which I'd trade the record for the title. Consistency is very valuable, but not as valuable as titles.
To put another way, I'm pretty sure everyone would rank the 58-7 program with a title over the 60-5 program without one. the question is: when does consistency start to be more valuable than the title?
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:05 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
its funny that you say this, UM is a good program whether you want to admit it or not. BTW i like how SEC fans seem to forget that the following year UM beat florida
Good program does not mean for that year they were on par with USC, LSU, OU.
Plus UF was running the da Zooker at that time. He can't coach his way out of a paper bag.
The rankings are interesting, but I think their methodology needs to be tweaked. The plateau system for Bad Loss v. Terrible Loss or Good Win v. Elite Win is fairly arbitrary.
There is no accounting for bowl wins and by extension BCS and NC wins.
Finally there is no account for home field.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:08 pm to Baloo
If we're using BCS titles as a measure, then I think that average final ranking should be a metric, as it combines both consistency and titles. Plus, if you toss in variance, you REALLY see who's consistent.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:09 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
UM is a good program whether you want to admit it or not
I didnt say they werent. I said they werent as good as okla,usc, and lsu.
did you even read the thread?
also, not sure what the next year's result against florida has to do with anything. for starters its a completely different year and secondly I'm pretty sure this mythical game never even took place.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 12:12 pm to Sophandros
I think ALL should be factors. But to argue that a title has no value is just as absurd as saying that it is the only metric with value. National titles matter.
The question for any system is this: how much does it matter?
The question for any system is this: how much does it matter?
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News