- 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: Usually, I don't buy the "must win your conference" argument
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:46 am to prplhze2000
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:46 am to prplhze2000
Ole Miss should get a shot after all they did play several very close games. To me this is Georgia only shot and they will say or do anything b/c you have got to believe they are not going to beat out Fla next year or the year after. So Richt is saying anything.
0
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:46 am to Tiger JJ
I was comparing OU to USC
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:47 am to lsumatt
team - winning % - opponents % - opponents opponents % - quality wins
LSU - .846 - .527 - .537 - Virginia Tech
UGA - .818 - .528 - .554
I don't count FCS wins, but I count FCS losses.
LSU clearly has the better body of work.
LSU - .846 - .527 - .537 - Virginia Tech
UGA - .818 - .528 - .554
I don't count FCS wins, but I count FCS losses.
LSU clearly has the better body of work.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:47 am to Tiger JJ
quote:
See, I think that's irrational. Just look at the NFL. They let wildcard teams in the playoffs.
This is true but, They use a playoff system and college football does not. so if you do not win your conference you should not be in the big game.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:49 am to dgnx6
quote:
This is true but, They use a playoff system and college football does not. so if you do not win your conference you should not be in the big game.
I can understand that argument, but I don't think it follows necessarily. One of the other posters said it best: at the end of the day, the conference title games are basically arbitrary points in time.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:50 am to rsande2
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/9/08 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:51 am to Tiger JJ
Mark Richt basically said it is not important to win the conf championship.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:52 am to nyvram
quote:Oklahoma and LSU both had better records vs. tougher schedules. The BCS only proved that the AP was a little off.
Agreed. There was NO controversy that LSU was #2..the issue was USC was AP #1 and OK was BCS #1.
LSU got the shaft here because USC's beef was actually with OK, not us. Everyone in the country wanted to see USC & LSU play that year including us.
Unless you're undefeated, your beef should be with your losses, not with somebody not voting for you.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:53 am to tigerwork
He's stupid. It's very important.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:54 am to Tiger JJ
Georgia has one less win. 10-2, not 11-2 like LSU..
Georgia has worse losses.
Georgia does not have as impressive of a win(Va Tech).
Georgia did not win the SEC.
Georgia did not win the SEC east.
They lost to the team that represented the East (Tenn).
LSU beat Tenn.
You SHOULD have to win your conference. The only exception should be if you are playing another team in your conference.
Example: An undefeated Michigan playing a one loss Wisconsin and all other teams have two losses. (and they never played head to head and have no conference champonship game.).
Georgia should not even be seriously discussed. Va. Tech and Oklahoma have MUCH better arguments.
Georgia has worse losses.
Georgia does not have as impressive of a win(Va Tech).
Georgia did not win the SEC.
Georgia did not win the SEC east.
They lost to the team that represented the East (Tenn).
LSU beat Tenn.
You SHOULD have to win your conference. The only exception should be if you are playing another team in your conference.
Example: An undefeated Michigan playing a one loss Wisconsin and all other teams have two losses. (and they never played head to head and have no conference champonship game.).
Georgia should not even be seriously discussed. Va. Tech and Oklahoma have MUCH better arguments.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:56 am to Lsupimp
quote:What about Notre Dame, Navy, and Army?
You SHOULD have to win your conference.
It's a 12-game season, not an 8-game season. Conferences mean nothing.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:57 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Georgia should not even be seriously discussed.
And that's why I'm not seriously discussing them.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:57 am to xiv
yeah like army and navy will ever go undefeated again as well as playing tough schools to get in that there bcs title game. 
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:58 am to xiv
quote:
What about Notre Dame, Navy, and Army?
Is this 1946? Ya gotta be kidding me. Conferences mean EVERYTHING.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 10:58 am to Tiger JJ
If you have a playoff, I agree. But with this very subjective method of picking the top 2 teams, winning your conference seems to me to be a very logical screening criteria.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 11:00 am to GS
quote:
But with this very subjective method of picking the top 2 teams, winning your conference seems to me to be a very logical screening criteria.
Oh, it is. I'm just saying there are certain, plausible scenarios where you have to look beyond that. This year isn't one of them. But 2003 was.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 11:00 am to Lsupimp
quote:Conferences actually mean about 2/3 of everything.
Is this 1946? Ya gotta be kidding me. Conferences mean EVERYTHING.
Labelling a game a "conference game" to cash in does not make a game any more important than any other game.
Pick the two best teams regardless of conference affiliation.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 11:01 am to Tiger JJ
quote:
And I'm saying that UGA SHOULD NOT go this year. But in 2003, K State simply was not in contention. Rightly, that should not and ultimately did not preclude OK from establishing its position vs teams from other conferences.
But that was USC's position - they were a one-loss, BCS conference champ. LSU was a one-loss BCS conference champ, Oklahoma was a one-loss, BCS conference runner-up. I agree with the argument that IF those are the facts, USC should play LSU.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 11:01 am to xiv
quote:
Pick the two best teams
Ok.
LSU vs Florida.
That was easy.
Posted on 12/2/07 at 11:01 am to xiv
Oh by the way xiv. I am calling you out. A month ago I said there was a real possibility that a 2-loss team made the NC game. You said it was a MATHEMATICAL impossibility.
Guess you dropped the ball on that one
Guess you dropped the ball on that one
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News