- 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: Coaches Poll history - blantant homerism, conference nepotism and odd voting
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:12 pm to Finkle is Einhorn
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:12 pm to Finkle is Einhorn
quote:
Damn do you lsu fans know how whiny and bitchy you sound? Lsu got demolished in the biggest game of the year. That's how bama proved they deserved to be there. If lsu was so good they should have came to play. Remember this was "the greatest lsu team of all time". And they got embarrassed. No way I'd be saying shite right now if the same thing happened to me cause it makes you look pathetic
You talikin to me BITCH??????????? I know Bama KICKED LSU'S arse ON 1/9. But they had their shot in the 1st game and didn't deserve a 2nd. The BETTER team WON. LOOK PUNK. Post your replies to someone else. GOT IT????????
1
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:21 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Oh, and sorry y'all got snubbed in '03. We were just playing by the rules. I'm sure you understand. It's not personal. Strictly business.
Don't blame LSU at all for that, or OU for that matter. It is kinda nice though, to know that when the BCS is long dead, the AP (which deemed USC Champs in 03 and 04) will outlast it.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:21 pm to dukke v
Are you Hulk Hogan irl?
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 10:57 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:24 pm to FightOn4ever
quote:
Does anyone see the irony in that some LSU's fans are complaining about Bama being selected for the BCS NC game (e.g., they did not deserve to be there, they already lost to LSU, etc)
Well LSU already beat them once AT BAMA. There is a cause for this.
quote:
espite the BCS procedures being followed?
WERE THEY?????????
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:27 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Oh, and sorry y'all got snubbed in '03. We were just playing by the rules. I'm sure you understand. It's not personal. Strictly business.
It was not in reference to 07, but it also applied. I am well over 2003. Glad to have the AP and never bitched. But your post exemplifies my point exactly.
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:27 pm to loweralabamatrojan
quote:
Don't blame LSU at all for that
You could even thank us for beating Oklahoma.
No split title if we didn't beat them.
Ask the 2001 Oregon Ducks how much that sucks.
quote:
It is kinda nice though, to know that when the BCS is long dead
BCS isn't going to die. It's just evolving into a playoff.
Which you can thank the SEC for. If hadn't been for an all SEC BCSNCG and six in a row, then the other conferences wouldn't have relented and given us the 4 team playoff.
Pac 12 and Big Ten have been holding up the show all along. I get the Rose Bowl tradition. But I'd rather see 4 teams play for all the marbles. We've seen too many times now that 3 doesn't fit into 2. I thought Auburn getting jobbed in 2004 would change that but I vastly underestimated the stubbornness of the other conferences. Glad they've finally seen the light.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:31 pm to FightOn4ever
quote:
But your post exemplifies my point exactly.
I've never once bitched that Bama didn't belong in the game.
I would have rather played any school but Bama though.
The minority of folks in my fanbase who think Bama didn't belong aren't going to be persuaded otherwise. Either that, or they just be trolling.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:36 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
In '09, he ranked Oregon (10-2) No. 7 while he put Boise State, who defeated the Ducks head-to-head AND finished 13-0, at No. 9. In 2008,
optimized for embarrassment
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:38 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
I've never once bitched that Bama didn't belong in the game.
I did not mean you did. It exemplfied my point about a few others who bitched about USC or the media not "playing by the BCS rules" in 2003, are now also moaning the bama got in to the game (while Bama was also selected by the rules).
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:40 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Yes. After 2007 we should be the last team to bitch about such things. I get it.
And I bitched that the BCS was an awful terrible system in 2007 as well. I thought 2007 gave LSU fans the moral clarity to condemn the system despite being a beneficiary of it.
I hated the BCS in 2007. I hated in 2011. I hate it now. It has nothing to do with LSU. It has to do with how it does not reward accomplishments, but values name brand and gaming the SOS. And, of course, the deeply flawed human polls. The BCS formula is nothing but the human polls with the illusion of mathematics to make it look like it isn't.
You can go through my post history. I've been ranting about how awful of a system the BCS is long before 2011. I bitched about the focus on the losses instead of wins back when Texas used that argument in the three-way Big 12 tie. It was an awful argument then, it's an awful argument now.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:48 pm to Baloo
quote:
I thought 2007 gave LSU fans the moral clarity to condemn the system despite being a beneficiary of it.
Look, in all seriousness, this is exactly why we need (and will soon have) a 4 team playoff.
Sure, somebody will bitch about being #5, but it's a vast improvement over what we have now. And what we have now is a vast improvement over what we had 20 years ago. Or even 40 years ago when bowls weren't even a factor in who the polls crowned a champion.
Just as long as it stays small. 4 works for me. 8 is the most I would ever want but I'd be very happy with 4.
But the argument that Bama didn't belong is tired and old. We need to just move on.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:53 pm to FightOn4ever
quote:
I did not mean you did. It exemplfied my point about a few others who bitched about USC or the media not "playing by the BCS rules" in 2003, are now also moaning the bama got in to the game (while Bama was also selected by the rules).
You are TOOO EASY... I agree that USC belonged in the 2003 title game. BUT come on. LSU would have MAULED them to no end. OU got 152 yds against that great D. I don't see anyway USC would have done better.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 7:58 pm to dukke v
quote:
You are TOOO EASY... I agree that USC belonged in the 2003 title game. BUT come on. LSU would have MAULED them to no end. OU got 152 yds against that great D. I don't see anyway USC would have done better.
Maybe, maybe not. I am not here for a pissing contest. I am here to point out the irony in a few who bitched about the media and whoever whining about 2003 USC, but are now whining about Bama making it to the 2012 game.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:32 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
8 is the most I would ever want
We'll get there some day, but I agree this is the most you'd want for practical purposes. Otherwise we'd see long cherished inter-sectional games and rivalries fade away, and with them the glory of College Football.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:40 am to FightOn4ever
nm
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 12:56 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:54 am to FightOn4ever
quote:
Maybe, maybe not. I am not here for a pissing contest. I am here to point out the irony in a few who bitched about the media and whoever whining about 2003 USC, but are now whining about Bama making it to the 2012 game.
What evidence do you have that the people arguing now in this thread that Bama didn't deserve a shot in last year's title were the exact SAME ones that complained in the past(or have a history of complaining) about what happened with AP voters after the 2003 title game?
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 1:25 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 5:38 am to Rocket
quote:
What evidence do you have that the people arguing now in this thread that Bama didn't deserve a shot in last year's title were the exact SAME ones that complained in the past(or have a history of complaining) about what happened with AP voters after the 2003 title game?
Have seen it. For one Peej has said it several times over. It should be in their posting history.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 5:47 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 8:32 am to FightOn4ever
ONE. Learn what irony means.
TWO. I actually think USC should've been in the 2003 title game. Oklahoma was the team that didn't belong for similar reasons to Bama in 2011 -- they failed to win their conference and USC played a tougher schedule. So, actually, 2003 and 2011 were quite similar, but not for the reasons you think. Also, USC was then given an AP title for their troubles and LSU was given nothing. So your false equivalency totally falls apart there.
THREE. The real equivalence is with 2006. Anyone who argued for Florida in 2006 and Bama in 2011 is just horribly inconsistent, and is guilty of the coaches' poll bias -- just voting for whose close. Your argument in favor of both is just that the SEC should always win all tiebreakers.
FOUR. I do admit to hating USC trolls who constantly post on this board. That has nothing to do with 2003 and everything to do with finding trolls obnoxious -- you, specifically. Get your own board. I don't need a new USC thread every day, or turning non-USC threads into USC threads. I don't care. This is not the Trojan Forum.
TWO. I actually think USC should've been in the 2003 title game. Oklahoma was the team that didn't belong for similar reasons to Bama in 2011 -- they failed to win their conference and USC played a tougher schedule. So, actually, 2003 and 2011 were quite similar, but not for the reasons you think. Also, USC was then given an AP title for their troubles and LSU was given nothing. So your false equivalency totally falls apart there.
THREE. The real equivalence is with 2006. Anyone who argued for Florida in 2006 and Bama in 2011 is just horribly inconsistent, and is guilty of the coaches' poll bias -- just voting for whose close. Your argument in favor of both is just that the SEC should always win all tiebreakers.
FOUR. I do admit to hating USC trolls who constantly post on this board. That has nothing to do with 2003 and everything to do with finding trolls obnoxious -- you, specifically. Get your own board. I don't need a new USC thread every day, or turning non-USC threads into USC threads. I don't care. This is not the Trojan Forum.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 8:41 am to Baloo
quote:
ONE. Learn what irony means.
Can't help it if it is too cerebral for you
quote:
FOUR. I do admit to hating USC trolls who constantly post on this board. That has nothing to do with 2003 and everything to do with finding trolls obnoxious -- you, specifically. Get your own board. I don't need a new USC thread every day, or turning non-USC threads into USC threads. I don't care. This is not the Trojan Forum.
Obviously you care enough to write a lengthy response.
Admin said USC threads go on MSB.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 8:43 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 8:43 am to Zamoro10
If everybody is doing it and if it's working against you, why not? I don't see why a #21 team is makings huge push for themselves but if you're a top 5 team and you know other coaches up there will be voting there teams high and will be working against you, I'm fine with it
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News