- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: If USC & Oklahoma go undefeated, are we this year's Auburn?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 9:34 am to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 8/2/08 at 9:34 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
It wasn't that we beat a quality OOC opponent, its that we beat the ever-loving crap out of a quality OOC opponent.
Well, that's always nice too.
2
Posted on 8/2/08 at 9:52 am to loweralabamatrojan
If we go undefeated, beating Georgia, Fla, Auburn, and whomever in the SEC championship, we Will be in the "SHIP"
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:06 am to H-Town Tiger
Talking about the general principle of comparing teams from different conferences:
I think we can all agree that it is very straightforward to identify the best team in each conference. All the teams play each other, or play most of the other teams, so the team that is recognized as the champion is the best team in that conference.
Now, what leads us to conclude that one conference's champion is better than anothers? Can we take evidence solely from the other teams that were defeated within the conference? Clearly not, because the teams that Champ A plays and the teams that Champ B plays are completely exclusive. They do not play any of the same teams in their conference schedules. "But we beat Georgia, and they're really good." "So what, we beat Michigan, and they're good, too." Such arguments will result only in logical stalemates.
Therefore, the only means of comparing which conference, and therefore conference champion, are better is by comparing non-conference schedules. We know that the Sun Belt is a sub-par conference because they get pounded by teams from all the major conferences (with one notable exception). We know that the SEC is a power conference because they usually beat the teams they play in non-conference games.
However, if the SEC produces a champion that owns no victories over non-conference BCS opponents, it would follow that the SEC was not very strong this year.
Let me close with saying that the whole point of this thread is almost assuredly pointless. In 2004, there were three major undefeated teams. The previous such occurence was 1992, and one of those teams was Texas A&M from the SWC.
I think we can all agree that it is very straightforward to identify the best team in each conference. All the teams play each other, or play most of the other teams, so the team that is recognized as the champion is the best team in that conference.
Now, what leads us to conclude that one conference's champion is better than anothers? Can we take evidence solely from the other teams that were defeated within the conference? Clearly not, because the teams that Champ A plays and the teams that Champ B plays are completely exclusive. They do not play any of the same teams in their conference schedules. "But we beat Georgia, and they're really good." "So what, we beat Michigan, and they're good, too." Such arguments will result only in logical stalemates.
Therefore, the only means of comparing which conference, and therefore conference champion, are better is by comparing non-conference schedules. We know that the Sun Belt is a sub-par conference because they get pounded by teams from all the major conferences (with one notable exception). We know that the SEC is a power conference because they usually beat the teams they play in non-conference games.
However, if the SEC produces a champion that owns no victories over non-conference BCS opponents, it would follow that the SEC was not very strong this year.
Let me close with saying that the whole point of this thread is almost assuredly pointless. In 2004, there were three major undefeated teams. The previous such occurence was 1992, and one of those teams was Texas A&M from the SWC.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:12 am to Tiger Phil
quote:
Therefore, the only means of comparing which conference, and therefore conference champion,are better
That statement is 100% false as an assumption (i.e., therefore) and makes your position suspect. Example- You put the Indy Colts in the SunBelt conference. No matter how you slice it, as a conference, the SEC would be the better conference. However, no one but the most delusional LSU fan woudl argue that the Colts were not the better, by far, than the SEC conference champion. The point is that being the #1 team in the #1 conference does not mean, by default, that the team is the best in the country or better than the #1 team from another conference. It does not even inherently mean that the #1 team from the #1 conference would be the #2, 3 4 and so on team.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 10:20 am
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:48 am to loweralabamatrojan
seriously, if we beat VT 10-7 in a sloppy game it would not have helped us that much.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:48 am to LSUTANGERINE
Prior to 1992, in 1979, Alabama, USC and Ohio State finished unbeaten, but USC had a tie. So that 3 unbeatens looks like it happens about once every 12 years.
It's ridiculous to place the Colts in the Sun Belt. Ridiculous because a team is only going to be able to be a little bit better than the competition it plays. if the Colts were demoted to the Sun Belt, they'd be pretty awesome the first year, but eventually, all the really great players would stop going there and start going to better teams.
But I agree with the point that you make. The best conference does not necessarily produce the best team (in the nation) as a champion. Such could certainly be perceived as the case this year with LSU on account of our horribly weak non-conference schedule.
It's ridiculous to place the Colts in the Sun Belt. Ridiculous because a team is only going to be able to be a little bit better than the competition it plays. if the Colts were demoted to the Sun Belt, they'd be pretty awesome the first year, but eventually, all the really great players would stop going there and start going to better teams.
But I agree with the point that you make. The best conference does not necessarily produce the best team (in the nation) as a champion. Such could certainly be perceived as the case this year with LSU on account of our horribly weak non-conference schedule.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 10:56 am to Tiger Phil
Do we really need to say unbeaten, untied? if you had that situation today, the teams without a tie would be in the BCS CG.
there were 3 unbeaten teams in 87 (OU, Tha U and Syracuse) In 1992 A&M clearly had the weaker schedule, ironically it because of their conference, not their OOC.
there were 3 unbeaten teams in 87 (OU, Tha U and Syracuse) In 1992 A&M clearly had the weaker schedule, ironically it because of their conference, not their OOC.
Posted on 9/14/08 at 8:36 am to poboydressedplease
I guess we should revisit this topic seeing that we'll be hearing nothing but "USC could beat the Cowboys" for the next 4 months.
USC and Oklahoma go undefeated .... Tigers go undefeated... Defending champs on the outside looking in?
USC and Oklahoma go undefeated .... Tigers go undefeated... Defending champs on the outside looking in?
Posted on 9/14/08 at 8:52 am to JPLSU1981
One can't just say these three teams are undefeated. One needs to discuss how each team looked going undefeated. OU or LSU winning unconvincingly against a subpar foe will hurt their standing.
Going undefeated is important, but if there are three undefeated, how you won and who you beat will be the difference.
As it goes now, if the BCSCG game was to be held, it would be USC vs UGA or OU. LSU is way on the outside looking in. But this is only the third week of the season. A lot is going to happen between now and then.
USC for whatever reason, almost always has a dumb loss. OU and whichever SEC team wins the CG have extremely tough paths to going undefeated.
If I had to guess who was going to be in the NCG, I would say it would be an undefeated USC against another 1 loss team, the champion from either the SEC or Big 12.
Going undefeated is important, but if there are three undefeated, how you won and who you beat will be the difference.
As it goes now, if the BCSCG game was to be held, it would be USC vs UGA or OU. LSU is way on the outside looking in. But this is only the third week of the season. A lot is going to happen between now and then.
USC for whatever reason, almost always has a dumb loss. OU and whichever SEC team wins the CG have extremely tough paths to going undefeated.
If I had to guess who was going to be in the NCG, I would say it would be an undefeated USC against another 1 loss team, the champion from either the SEC or Big 12.
Posted on 9/14/08 at 9:01 am to JPLSU1981
it's obvious we aint going undefeated
Posted on 9/14/08 at 9:04 am to JPLSU1981
I dont think so. Like you said, it aint gonna happen, but with road victories over Auburn, Florida, SC, home victories over Georgia and Alabama, no way we get overlooked.
Posted on 9/14/08 at 9:12 am to JPLSU1981
OU had their chances as did OSU. If any SEC team goes undefeated they're in, period.
Posted on 9/14/08 at 9:21 am to LSUfoosball
quote:
it's obvious we aint going undefeated
1. This is the best all-around LSU team that we've ever had.
2. Have you watched Georgia?
3. Have you watched Auburn?
4. Tebow will never win a title as Florida's starting QB.
5. I'll give you Alabama/Ole Miss ... tough games if we don't come in ready to play.
This post was edited on 9/14/08 at 9:23 am
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News