- 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: people, stop with the "backing into the ncg" garbage
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:30 pm to Maximus
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:30 pm to Maximus
quote:
weren't you the one doing this? If you replace this with that you equal 2003 and stupid meanie Saban was I believe your equation. And, yes, 2 losses is worse than 1.
The comparing of losses in one to another meant - you cannot compare 3 losses in one season to 2 losses in another and say that one team was better than the other or that one was worse.
We lost 1 game in 2003 - every other team did so and we finished first.
We lost 2 games in 2007 - every other team did so and we finished first.
The logical fallacy would be to compare the 2 in 2007 with the 1 in 2003 or none in any other season because each season is different and we came through in each season.
The point I was referencing though was that Miles had to have a factor- luck to get through and I showed that it required the same factor - luck in another season as well by another coach.
0
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:31 pm to bfniii
quote:Your arguments are asinine and not even logical. I don't even know what you are trying to say here. I give up arguing with you.
your job is simple. quote something i said that is completely false or unreasonable. that's it. it has nothing to do with absolutes or opinions. and try to do something more mature than max's emoticons. they don't really address the issues and people can see that he has no substantive response.
quote:As usual with you, it's the end that justifies the means, it doesn't matter how you looked to get there. LSU's resume WAS better than others, but ONLY AFTER THOSE TEAMS IN FRONT OF THEM LOST. We were lucky that happened. If those teams hadn't lost, we wouldn't have made it into the big game. What don't you get about that? The luck was not a matter of LSU's win's and losses, the luck was that other teams had to shite the bed in order for us to get to the top of the standings.
as i said, if you're going to say that then THE ENTIRE SEASON IS NOTHING BUT LUCK. it's not. again, people are focusing on the ark game and forgetting lsu's resume over the course of the entire season. name the team(s) who had BETTER resumes than lsu.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:31 pm to Maximus
quote:
should 2005 really sign that document considering they got blown out in the SEC title game and barely beat a 4-7 Arkansas team at home?
quote:
They don't finish the regular season well
Let's just forget the fact that they had played 11 weeks in a row too.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:34 pm to Maximus
since people are saying that lsu had "more luck" than other teams in '07 in order to make the ncg, how are you going to quantify that lsu had "more luck"? that's the essence of saying lsu "backed into" the ncg. there's absolutely no way to substantiate that claim. lsu's resume at the end of the season warranted making the ncg. period.
there is no "backing in". there is no "more luck". it's reductio ad absurdum. luck is one factor among many that determines the course of the college football season. it's nothing more than an attempt to disparage miles.
there is no "backing in". there is no "more luck". it's reductio ad absurdum. luck is one factor among many that determines the course of the college football season. it's nothing more than an attempt to disparage miles.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:35 pm to Choctaw
quote:
Let's just forget the fact that they had played 11 weeks in a row too.
so did they finish strong or not? I don't know why excuses are needed for a team that finished so strong in your eyes.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:39 pm to Maximus
Tiger_in_ATL said they don't finish strong in the regular season.
I would say that in 2005 and 2006 they did finish the regular season pretty well.
And its not an excuse...its a fact. They were the only team in college football history to play 11 straight games. What that team did in 2005 was nothing short of a miracle considering the situation.
I would say that in 2005 and 2006 they did finish the regular season pretty well.
And its not an excuse...its a fact. They were the only team in college football history to play 11 straight games. What that team did in 2005 was nothing short of a miracle considering the situation.
This post was edited on 12/21/09 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:44 pm to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:in what way? say something specific or accept that you're no better than max.
Your arguments are asinine and not even logical
quote:dang. i'm not sure you should be criticizing someone if you aren't following up to this point
I don't even know what you are trying to say here
quote:typical rantard. you give up trying to understand but criticize me.
I give up arguing with you
quote:holy cow. THAT'S COLLEGE FOOTBALL. that's how the season plays out. what you're saying is called a truism. you're not even contributing to the discussion at this point. you're tacitly admitting that the entire season exemplifies "luck parity". lsu didn't have any more luck than anyone else.
LSU's resume WAS better than others, but ONLY AFTER THOSE TEAMS IN FRONT OF THEM LOST.
if you admit that lsu's resume was worthy, then you're admitting that w/l aren't the only determination and that s.o.s. is a factor too.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:52 pm to Choctaw
quote:I was referring to the last couple of years so yes, 2007, 2008 AND 2009 they did NOT finish the regular season well.
Tiger_in_ATL said they don't finish strong in the regular season.
If you want to try to win the argument on a technicality that they did in 2005 (over 4 years ago) then you can win that piece of the argument I don't care. But I guess it didn't help that they still LOST the last game of the season, the SECCG. 2006 was a strong year, they finished strong.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:53 pm to Choctaw
yeah squeezing 2 losses out with 1 or 0 loss talent all the while they had family members sleeping on their sofas for 2 weeks was a miracle
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:55 pm to bfniii
quote:
since people are saying that lsu had "more luck" than other teams in '07 in order to make the ncg, how are you going to quantify that lsu had "more luck"? that's the essence of saying lsu "backed into" the ncg. there's absolutely no way to substantiate that claim. lsu's resume at the end of the season warranted making the ncg. period.
being the only team to win a national title with 2 losses in the entire 40 years of deciding national champs after bowls is not being more lucky than usual?
quote:
there is no "backing in"
when you lose the last game of the regular season and have 2 losses on the year there is
Posted on 12/21/09 at 12:58 pm to bfniii
quote:Here's something specific - your arguments are stupid and not making sense. Is that specific enough?
in what way? say something specific or accept that you're no better than max.
quote:I was following quite well, until you stopped making any sense.
i'm not sure you should be criticizing someone if you aren't following up to this point
quote:
you give up trying to understand but criticize me.
quote:Good grief, you are about as dense as a piece of cardboard. LSU had LUCK yes, but any other team would have had luck too. My argument is not relative to any other team, it's about THIS team. It was LUCKY plain and simple that we get in at the last minute, not on our own merits as much as the fact that others failed in front of us. If that had happened to any other program, the same logic would have applied, a little luck helped. It doesn't make LSU a bad team or Les Miles a bad person.
holy cow. THAT'S COLLEGE FOOTBALL. that's how the season plays out. what you're saying is called a truism. you're not even contributing to the discussion at this point. you're tacitly admitting that the entire season exemplifies "luck parity". lsu didn't have any more luck than anyone else.
quote:LSU's resume WAS worthy, but only as it was compared to other's resume's AFTER they lost. The S.O.S. helped because of the SECCG and the Va Tech game, yes, but if the other teams had not have lost, it would NOT have helped.
if you admit that lsu's resume was worthy, then you're admitting that w/l aren't the only determination and that s.o.s. is a factor too.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:01 pm to Maximus
quote:
when you lose the last game of the regular season and have 2 losses on the year there is
Almost any team that does not start either 1 or 2 in the first poll "backed in", if by backing in you mean relying on higher ranked teams to lose.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:02 pm to bfniii
Again...
quote:
LSU was the most deserving team AND backed into the BCSCG. Both are not only possible, they're true.
If LSU beats unranked Arkansas in the last regular season game, the backing in part is removed. Instead, LSU needed everyone else to finish with 2 losses which LSU had no control over.
It did happen and when looking at the season as a whole, LSU deserved to be in the BCSCG.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:05 pm to drizztiger
quote:
LSU was the most deserving team AND backed into the BCSCG. Both are not only possible, they're true
+1
There was no other team more deserving than LSU. Arguments could be made for UGA, USC, and OK, but better arguments are made for LSU.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:07 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
LSU, despite 2 losses, was the best team in the country that year.
It is a shame that LSU dropped 2 games in 2007, although I think 2007 was a very strong year in college football. But it sucks that even with the best team in the country, Miles loses 2 games. 2006 too.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:09 pm to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:
LSU had LUCK yes, but any other team would have had luck too. My argument is not relative to any other team, it's about THIS team. It was LUCKY plain and simple that we get in at the last minute, not on our own merits as much as the fact that others failed in front of us. If that had happened to any other program, the same logic would have applied, a little luck helped. It doesn't make LSU a bad team or Les Miles a bad person.
I am in complete accordance here - I might have misunderstood the initial argument to infer that it was only this particular team that needed luck.
What you are desiring is completely acceptable in a fan - i.e. complete dominance by one's team in all aspects of the game -year in year out. I merely wish to add that it should be tempered because in reality that is not possible and even Bama ( I say Bama because they are Back and I could have used ND as well) had a bad stretch.
But the backing into/luck as a factor/fate is being used ONLY for this team,by most rantards, and that is what I was objecting to.
quote:[/quote]
LSU's resume WAS worthy, but only as it was compared to other's resume's AFTER they lost. The S.O.S. helped because of the SECCG and the Va Tech game, yes, but if the other teams had not have lost, it would NOT have helped.
That is part of the college season and championship and every team has had to undergo this - Florida's SOS helped during their last 2 NCs - and their resume was better only after Meechigan and USC lost their final games.
It could have been prevented by not losing to Auburn or Ole Miss but shite happens and their luck prevailed and so did ours for our last 2 NCs.
Let us expect better out of our teams/and our paid coaches but let us not denigrate our successes lest we cut our noses to spite the face.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:20 pm to CalTiger
quote:No, that isn't what I'm saying at all and I don't expect that, but I expect them to look well coached, crisp, and on the same page. If they lose one, they lose one, but at least they didn't look completely unprepared while doing it. I don't even know what you are trying to say in your statement above and it doesn't even pertain to what you quoted me on.
What you are desiring is completely acceptable in a fan - i.e. complete dominance by one's team in all aspects of the game -year in year out
quote:It doesn't negate the fact that it was somewhat lucky, it's just a fact and whatever else you want to couch the argument with is irrelevant.
But the backing into/luck as a factor/fate is being used ONLY for this team,by most rantards, and that is what I was objecting to.
quote:
Let us expect better out of our teams/and our paid coaches but let us not denigrate our successes lest we cut our noses to spite the face.
I'm not but it's still a valid argument that it took a little luck to get us into the NCG. "Backed into" is not a term I would normally use, but technically it could be correct if you are implying that LSU was still deserving of the selection, but just that they took a circuitous route to get there.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 1:20 pm to bfniii
Homer alert!
Obviously, luck plays a huge factor in every aspect of college football. However, great teams handle their own business, and don't leave it up to luck. The 2007 Tigers lost to 2 teams that they had no business losing to, and that was a direct result of the coaching IMHO. I completely understand your point of view, but you cannot assume that everyone who uses the 'backing into the title game' argument is not a real fan. Mostly, because we did back into that title game. And, whether you like it or not, our 2007 MNC is the least respected title in the modern era. We won the crystal ball, we beat the dogshit out of Ohio St, and no one can ever take that from us. Hell, I was there on the 10th row and it is still one of the greatest moments of my life....but the reality is that we did back into that title game. Do you not remember Black Friday, and the week leading up to the SECCG?
Obviously, luck plays a huge factor in every aspect of college football. However, great teams handle their own business, and don't leave it up to luck. The 2007 Tigers lost to 2 teams that they had no business losing to, and that was a direct result of the coaching IMHO. I completely understand your point of view, but you cannot assume that everyone who uses the 'backing into the title game' argument is not a real fan. Mostly, because we did back into that title game. And, whether you like it or not, our 2007 MNC is the least respected title in the modern era. We won the crystal ball, we beat the dogshit out of Ohio St, and no one can ever take that from us. Hell, I was there on the 10th row and it is still one of the greatest moments of my life....but the reality is that we did back into that title game. Do you not remember Black Friday, and the week leading up to the SECCG?
Posted on 12/21/09 at 2:47 pm to Maximus
quote:there is absolutely no way to substantiate this statement. if so, contribute to the rant myth thread
squeezing 2 losses out with 1 or 0 loss talent
Posted on 12/21/09 at 2:49 pm to Maximus
quote:not in relation to lsu's standing among the tigers' peers
being the only team to win a national title with 2 losses in the entire 40 years of deciding national champs after bowls is not being more lucky than usual?
quote:no, there's not. i asked you to quantify luck. good luck.
when you lose the last game of the regular season and have 2 losses on the year there is
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News