- 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: Poll Disagreement /LSU-Florida Football Series/LSU-USuCk
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:15 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:15 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
If that hals temper the loss by 30, you got your wish...and then some.
Do you mean ''helps'' temper the loss? I do not mind at all, i think any college football fan would agree that noone wants to suffer a loss, however, i'm sure any college football fan would rather lose by 30 to a #11 Florida than to an unranked Oregon State. Any loss is embarrassing but OMFG, unranked Oregon State?
I know we lost to Arkansas last year when they were unranked but we took them all the way to triple overtime and we have only lost to one unranked team since 1999(Arkansas 2007 3OT), if my calculations are correct, and i know for a fact USUCK, has lost to SEVERAL unranked teams since 1999 and i can name 3 right off the top of my head, just since 2006(UCLA, Stanford, Oregon State) to only name a few.
By the way Arkansas had McFadden, and yes Oregon State has Jaquizz Rodgers, and granted he is a fantastic and electrifying back at times, but he is no DMac!
This post was edited on 10/15/08 at 8:20 pm
1
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:18 pm to LASPORTSBABE
lSU lost to 2 teams that finished unranked just last season. Also lost to an unranked Florida in 2003.
What is more valid a Preseason ranking guess, or rankings done after the season was over?
What is more valid a Preseason ranking guess, or rankings done after the season was over?
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:20 pm to LASPORTSBABE
I would never want to get stomped by anyone. Much rather lose a close game, than get completely owned.
USC under Pete Carroll has lost by more than 1 score, just once by 11 points in 2001.
USC under Pete Carroll has lost by more than 1 score, just once by 11 points in 2001.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:25 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
lSU lost to 2 teams that finished unranked just last season
We are talking about the rankings that each team were at the time of the game. So no we have only lost to two unranked teams since 1999 at the time the game was played if you want to count Florida in '03 and Arkansas in '07, Compared to prolly around 8-10 losses if not more, to unranked teams since 1999 for USC, why don't you give us the excat number since you know so much about USUCK and then we will double check your information for accuracy!
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:27 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
I would never want to get stomped by anyone. Much rather lose a close game, than get completely owned.
That's your opinion , i would rather lose by 30 to the #11 team in the nation then to lose to an unranked team at any time, because there is NOTHING in the world that is more embarrasing then losing to an UNRANKED no name team, even if you do lose by 30 to a top 11 team!
This post was edited on 10/15/08 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:28 pm to LASPORTSBABE
End of season rankings are what matter.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:39 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
LSU has played the #66 SOS, USC has played the #3.
Yeah, and the SOS ranking is a conspiracy theory in itself...with the Condoms (USuCk) being the ones slipping the money under the door for the gift of #3...
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:44 pm to hondapa26
Rantards are getting brighter and brighter all the time.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:46 pm to MJRuffalo
MJRoffalo. Thank you for clearing something up. Now as a USC fan and using your own theory, you must than agree that USC has only 1 NC in the last 10 years, right? Because, according to you, SOS MATTERS. 2003, LSU played 7, count em, 7 of 14 games against teams ranked in the final top 30. Your USC team played 2. Now, who won the NC in 2003? Enjoy the 1st place trophey from the idiots that run the AP poll. We got balls! Do you?
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:49 pm to ZoTiger6
2003 there were co-champs. The entire sporting world outside of Louisiana recognizes this.
seriously you are going to bring this up again?
seriously you are going to bring this up again?
This post was edited on 10/15/08 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:49 pm to MJRuffalo
You're truly the ringer in this thread, MJ.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:51 pm to Muppet
In the land of the blind.........
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:51 pm to MJRuffalo
Just using your theory. You can't have it both ways.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:52 pm to MJRuffalo
I do have a question, though.
If you agree that when a team has not won its conference, it cannot play for the national title,
How can you say that when a team does not play in the national championship, it deserves a share of the title?
This is assuming you agree with "the entire sports world outside of Louisiana"
If you agree that when a team has not won its conference, it cannot play for the national title,
How can you say that when a team does not play in the national championship, it deserves a share of the title?
This is assuming you agree with "the entire sports world outside of Louisiana"
Posted on 10/15/08 at 8:57 pm to Muppet
First off IMO a team that does not win it's conference should not be awarded a national title, but that is not the case in practice. A non-conference winner has played for the bcs nc, twice before, and the AP can award their nc to a non-conference winner. Personally I disagree with the practice
In 2003 LSU were the coaches poll champions, nothing more, nothing less.
USC were the AP champions, nothing more, nothing less.
Neither are recognized by the NCAA as being legitimate national champions, as no legitimate national champion in college football has existed.
In 2003 LSU were the coaches poll champions, nothing more, nothing less.
USC were the AP champions, nothing more, nothing less.
Neither are recognized by the NCAA as being legitimate national champions, as no legitimate national champion in college football has existed.
This post was edited on 10/15/08 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 10/15/08 at 9:02 pm to MJRuffalo
You can't award a national title based on a system that exists only in wishful thinking. Whatever anyone thinks should determine the national champion doesn't matter, because as long as we play an entire football season under the system, get placed in a bowl game by the system, and win the final game provided by that system, the champion is the winner of that game. I'm not a fan of a BCS, but it doesn't make sense to play 12-14 games a year, tell the last team standing they aren't the real national champions until we establish a playoff system, and repeat the next year.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 9:05 pm to Muppet
That's why there is no real nc in football. national titles are mythical. Nothing to getr worked up over.
v Either way because of that system, the coaches felt obligated to vote for LSU, even though they would otherwise have voted for USC. SO that system got LSU a co-national championship. Congrats. Kind of Stalin-like, but hey a trophy is a trophy.
v Either way because of that system, the coaches felt obligated to vote for LSU, even though they would otherwise have voted for USC. SO that system got LSU a co-national championship. Congrats. Kind of Stalin-like, but hey a trophy is a trophy.
This post was edited on 10/15/08 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 10/15/08 at 9:12 pm to MJRuffalo
I don't know what you're getting at. The voting is inconsequential. LSU won the national championship game. Whether you think that game exists in title only and is really a crock of shite or not, it doesn't matter. It's the game provided by the system, and they won it. I don't give a shite what the coaches or the AP voted after that game, because the game itself exists to get rid of the subjectivity in crowning the national champion. Sure, deciding who goes to the game is completely subjective, but declaring the winner of the game the champion of that year is not.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 9:15 pm to Muppet
Do you seriously want to rehash a 2003 debate? I mean I can do the whole thing with my eyes closed as everything that can be said has been said a thousand times over and still both teams are considered nc's for that season. That will never change. Get over it.
Posted on 10/15/08 at 9:21 pm to MJRuffalo
I'm not rehashing anything. I was too young in 2003 anyway to be debating this. I brought up a legitimate question, regardless of what the AP or Coaches polls say from that year. I was only interested in seeing what your opinion was.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News