- 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: LSU #6 in USA Today PreSeason Top 25
Posted on 8/3/08 at 3:11 pm to GaDawgMan08
Posted on 8/3/08 at 3:11 pm to GaDawgMan08
It's gonna be a DAWG gone good year!!!
IIIIIIII DOUBT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
Posted on 8/3/08 at 3:35 pm to GaDawgMan08
quote:
Not to repeat myself from the SEC Rant board, but I had a thread on there explaining my theory on ESPN, and the college football media in general. Ohio State, and the Big 10 overall, is staying afloat on name recognition and historical feats alone. That conference has been down for quite some time as a whole, the BCS (with all its flaws) is really the only reason this reality has been exposed in the past 8-10 years, but none more so than the past two seasons. It's really shed some light on the media's bias towards the Big 10.
Ohio State is a great program in the Big 10. It's a good program on the national scale, but I think they're waaaaaaaay overrated and there are too many Big 10 homers in the media. Look no further than the crew that makes up the college football cast on ESPN for your proof.
Your post is so filled with hyperbole and your own bias that it's difficult to know where to start. I certainly don't think OSU was one of the top two (or five) programs last year but my comment is over the course of this decade and historically.
Traditional powers do get more benefit of the doubt from the media (no argument there), but the media didn't give OSU 3 BCS wins this decade including a win over an excellent Miami team. OSU is better than just a good program.
Also, if the Big 10 is as bad as you say over the past decade, then why hasn't the SEC dominated the Big 10 in their bowl match-ups this decade? Don't misunderstand - I believe the SEC is the better conference. I just don't buy that the Big 10 is as bad as you seem to think it is.
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 8/3/08 at 4:52 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:It was possible, it just wasn't up to the Rose Bowl alone. They had to ask for Georgia and the Sugar Bowl had to agree. I wasn't there, so I don't know how it went down. And for the record, only a handful of people actually do KNOW how it went down, and I'm very confident none of them are on this board.
It was not possible for UGA to play USC in the Rose Bowl.
Basically, if you weren't in the room, you don't KNOW.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 4:58 pm to Orko
quote:Six voters from Florida? Is that every 1-A school there but Miami? Seems a bit excessive.
The USA TODAY Board of Coaches is made up of 61 head coaches at Division I-A institutions . . . This season's board: . . . Bobby Bowden, Florida State . . . Mario Cristobal, Florida International . . . Jim Leavitt, South Florida . . . Urban Meyer, Florida . . . George O'Leary, Central Florida . . . Howard Schnellenberger, Florida Atlantic
Posted on 8/3/08 at 5:05 pm to King Joey
quote:
It was possible, it just wasn't up to the Rose Bowl alone. They had to ask for Georgia and the Sugar Bowl had to agree. I wasn't there, so I don't know how it went down. And for the record, only a handful of people actually do KNOW how it went down, and I'm very confident none of them are on this board.
Basically, if you weren't in the room, you don't KNOW.
OK, true. Do you really think the Sugar would have let UGA go in favor of Kansas, or WVU, or Illinois? Come on.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 5:27 pm to tigers
quote:
Your post is so filled with hyperbole and your own bias that it's difficult to know where to start. I certainly don't think OSU was one of the top two (or five) programs last year but my comment is over the course of this decade and historically.
Traditional powers do get more benefit of the doubt from the media (no argument there), but the media didn't give OSU 3 BCS wins this decade including a win over an excellent Miami team. OSU is better than just a good program.
Also, if the Big 10 is as bad as you say over the past decade, then why hasn't the SEC dominated the Big 10 in their bowl match-ups this decade? Don't misunderstand - I believe the SEC is the better conference. I just don't buy that the Big 10 is as bad as you seem to think it is.
Wow, talk about not knowing where to start. To begin with, the 2002 win over Miami only won me 20 bucks. The Big East was incredibly flat that year, and Miami had not been tested up until that point. Ohio State had been more battle tested than the Hurricanes and pulled out the win with some very questionable officiating down the stretch. Unfotunately, the media wasn't giving 2 loss, let alone ONE loss, SEC teams much love yet at this point. UGA would have beat either of those teams that year, but that's another story for another day.
'03 Ohio State played a K-State team (at least they played a conference champion that year) that was the best the Big 12 had to offer, yet another example of the college football God's smiling down on LSU. And I'm not even going to entertain the notion that you consider beating ND as a "quality" BCS win.
Look, a lot of college football is based on bias and luck, and the old guard teams have had both for years, but the harsh reality check of the '06 season (have you already forgotten how every pundit and talking head on sports tv/radio bitched for two straight months about the "travesty" of the nation's REAL two best teams not being able to play again due to the fact they just both happen to play in the same BEST conference?) where every Big 10 homer that cried that Michigan and Ohio St. couldn't play each other agian for the title had to eat some serious crow.
My Dawgs in '02 and Auburn in '04 didn't have the luck that that your Tigers did in '03, that being not a preseason top 5, let alone 10, team and still have enough OVERRATED preseason favorites ahead of you lose to still make it to the National Title game.
I can see how an LSU fan would be oblivious to this sort of annoyance, and I respect your attempt to be righteous, but if you don't see how the media, and more importantly the voters, have been propping up the old guard for years then I really don't know what else to say to ya.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 5:43 pm to Volvagia
quote:No, it was Florida going to the National Championship Game instead of Michigan.
The apparent near certainty of LSU appearing in the Rose, with media claiming contacts came from somewhere. WAFB, no matter how premature, did not pull the Rose bowl talk out of their arse. What changed was UF going to the national championship in the stead of USC.
The only "LSU to the Rose Bowl" talk from '06 was about Ohio State and Michigan going to the National Championship Game, taking up both the allowed two BCS slots from the Big 10 meaning the Rose Bowl would be unable to invite a Big 10 team. And with Florida in the Rose Bowl, and no Big 10 team to match up against SC, LSU was the best available choice.
When the BCS rankings came out, and Michigan was available to the Rose Bowl, there never even a suggestion of the Rose inviting anyone else to play SC.
Bottom line, there has never been a credible suggestion of the Rose Bowl inviting anyone but a Big 10 team to face a Pac 10 team when those options were available in the BCS era. The only times a non-Big 10 or Pac 10 team has played in the Rose Bowl is when there was no such team available to the Rose Bowl:
Texas after 2005 season -- the Rose Bowl was the National Championship Game and Texas was #2; no way to avoid inviting them.
Texas after 2004 season -- Texas was #4 in the BCS rankings, and Utah was #6. By virtue of the automatic at-large qualification rules, both were guaranteed at-large bids. Thus, with SC in the National Championship Game, there was no at-large bid available for Cal (or any other Pac 10 team) to replace them in the Rose Bowl. Thus, the Rose was not able to invite a Pac 10 team and was forced to choose among eligible teams from other conferences (Texas being the most attractive).
Oklahoma after 2002 season -- Ohio State was in the National Championship Game, and the Orange Bowl (which chose ahead of the Rose because it lost Miami to the National Championship Game and Miami was the #1 team) chose Iowa, filling the two game max quota for the Big 10. Thus, the Rose was not able to invite a Big 10 team, and had to choose from the best avaible teams from other conferences that were eligible for BCS selection. Oklahoma was the choice.
Miami and Nebraska after 2001 season -- The Rose Bowl was the National Championship Game and Miami and Nebraska were #1 and #2. The Rose Bowl had no choice to invite either a Pac 10 team or a Big 10 team.
Of the 20 teams selected to play in the Rose Bowl during the BCS era, those are the only five that were not from the Pac 10 or Big 10. And in all five of those cases, the Rose was specifically prohibited from choosing a Big 10 or Pac 10 team to fulfill it's traditional Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. Thus, every single time in the history of the BCS that the Rose Bowl has had the opportunity to fill its traditional Big 10/Pac 10 matchup, it has made whatever choice necessary to do that. Not once have they made choice that resulted in any other matchup.
I think with that history it is significantly naive to assume that they necessarily wanted to have either LSU or Georgia in either of their last two Rose Bowls. Maybe they did, but it would have been the first two times in their BCS history that they would have chosen such.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 5:51 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:If the Rose was really going to pick Georgia rather than their traditional Pac 10/Big 10 matchup because they were interested in the best matchup, do you really think they believed Illinois was a better pick than Missouri, Kansas or West Virginia?
OK, true. Do you really think the Sugar would have let UGA go in favor of Kansas, or WVU, or Illinois? Come on.
Again, the Rose has *NEVER* "chosen" a team from another conference over fulfilling their traditional Pac 10/Big 10 matchup. Never. To assume they really wanted to this time, when they clearly passed over at least two significantly better and available choices to pick Illinois to fulfill that Pac 10/Big 10 tradition; well, that's just kind of naive and gullible, imo.
Bottom line, I see no reason to suspect that the Rose would even have asked. But if they had/did, I doubt the Sugar would have said, "OK."
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:11 pm to King Joey
quote:
Oklahoma after 2002 season -- Ohio State was in the National Championship Game, and the Orange Bowl (which chose ahead of the Rose because it lost Miami to the National Championship Game and Miami was the #1 team) chose Iowa, filling the two game max quota for the Big 10. Thus, the Rose was not able to invite a Big 10 team, and had to choose from the best avaible teams from other conferences that were eligible for BCS selection. Oklahoma was the choice.
Just realized this: Couldn't the Rose have "blocked" the Orange in that situation, and chosen Iowa (similar to the situation with UGA and the Sugar we almost had this year)? And, if so, then that technically means the Rose did choose to not invite a Big 10 team that year.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:39 pm to UNCTarHeels
I was excited to see that we are ranked #6 but my question is what has USC done to deserve to be ranked #2 and what has OSU done to be ranked #4?
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:44 pm to BasClas
quote:
OSU done to be ranked #4?
#3, and returning 18 starters from the national runner-up will get you that. What has UGA done to get #1? They didn't even win their division last year. (I'm not saying they don't deserve it, I'm fine with the Dawgs being #1, but if you ask what OSU has done to be #3, I'm going to ask what UGA has done to be #1.)
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:49 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
but if you ask what OSU has done to be #3, I'm going to ask what UGA has done to be #1.)
Thats a really good question as well! They didn't even win their conference last year!
Posted on 8/3/08 at 8:01 pm to BasClas
And what has Oklahoma done to be #4? And UF, #5? Basically, all these teams you can ask this question.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 8:02 pm to GaDawgMan08
quote:
Look, a lot of college football is based on bias and luck, and the old guard teams have had both for years, but the harsh reality check of the '06 season (have you already forgotten how every pundit and talking head on sports tv/radio bitched for two straight months about the "travesty" of the nation's REAL two best teams not being able to play again due to the fact they just both happen to play in the same BEST conference?) where every Big 10 homer that cried that Michigan and Ohio St. couldn't play each other agian for the title had to eat some serious crow.
You use this as an example to prove your point, yet Michigan did not get to play in the NC game. A lot of people thought Georgia or USC were better teams last year than LSU, but so what? There are always going to be such debates in college football.
I'm not arguing that there isn't bias towards traditional powers (as stated in my previous post - so I really don't understand where you last statement comes from other than your lack of reading comprehension). My argument is simply that OSU and the Big 10 are not nearly as bad you seem to think.
You still haven't addressed the fact that the Bowl results of Big 10/SEC match-ups don't support your claim regarding the Big 10.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 8:10 pm to GaDawgMan08
quote:
Wow, talk about not knowing where to start. To begin with, the 2002 win over Miami only won me 20 bucks. The Big East was incredibly flat that year, and Miami had not been tested up until that point. Ohio State had been more battle tested than the Hurricanes and pulled out the win with some very questionable officiating down the stretch. Unfotunately, the media wasn't giving 2 loss, let alone ONE loss, SEC teams much love yet at this point. UGA would have beat either of those teams that year
Bullfrickingshit.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 8:11 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:No, that "blocking" rule did not exist then. I kind of figure that had a lot to do with the rule being added.
Just realized this: Couldn't the Rose have "blocked" the Orange in that situation, and chosen Iowa (similar to the situation with UGA and the Sugar we almost had this year)?
Posted on 8/3/08 at 8:12 pm to King Joey
quote:
No, that "blocking" rule did not exist then. I kind of figure that had a lot to do with the rule being added.
Oh, OK.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:43 pm to King Joey
quote:
When the BCS rankings came out, and Michigan was available to the Rose Bowl, there never even a suggestion of the Rose inviting anyone else to play SC.
Not true. In 2004 Texas was ranked behind Cal with USC in the BCS title game but was invited probably because Pasadena wanted the tourism money. if they invite Cal, a lot of their fans already live in LA or would just drive down to the game from the Bay Area. Texas fans would acutally stay and spend money, which is what Pasadena and the Rose Bowl want.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:48 pm to King Joey
quote:
No, it was Florida going to the National Championship Game instead of Michigan.
Those annoying things like history and facts disagree with you.
LINK
Michigan's season is done, and USC has just UCLA ahead of them. And USC is ranked higher than Michigan.
Pretty safe to assume that it is USC dropping the egg is what let UF in. And it is also pretty safe to assume the fact that even with that loss, with UF jumping Michigan shows how adverse the voters were about the rematch.
There was a lot of hem and hawing from the media, but the polls never showed signs of considering Michigan in the rematch.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:54 pm to usc6158
quote:
usc6158
And maybe you can throw in some local info...I remember people talking about how the tourist businesses (hotels, resturants, etc) were salivating over the thought of LSU coming over with the news that LSU had presold their presumed allotment to the Rose Bowl within days of the form going out. They were expecting/hoping a lot of overflow to be in the sports bars during the game.
Any truth to those rumors?
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News