- 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: Wish everyone would totally ignore the AP Poll
Posted on 9/18/11 at 6:22 pm to Prodigal Tiger
Posted on 9/18/11 at 6:22 pm to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
Ya'll need to just let this go. We won a Championship in 2003 and that's never going to change. Unfortunately, USC won a championship that same year that is also universally (except in BR) recognized, and that's also never going to change.
LSU won THE championship in 2003. USC won A championship in 2003.
0
Posted on 9/18/11 at 6:33 pm to drexyl
fully realize the last one is the only one that matters but I pay attention to every poll every week including preseason. I love it when we're highly ranked and am pissed when I feel like we're getting jobbed. it adds to my enjoyment of the season when we're highly ranked.
THIS
THIS
Posted on 9/18/11 at 6:53 pm to therocketscientist
Not really watching polls to the point that I would raise hell if we weren't where I thought we should be....but to answer your question, this is the same poll that EVERYBODY wants to hold over our heads for the split 2003 TITLE with USC...remember... 
... lot of our oppenants are saying oh, that poll doesn't mean shite...well, then the 2003 split title isn't the same either..cant' have it both ways...EITHER IT COUNTS OR IT DOESN'T..
... lot of our oppenants are saying oh, that poll doesn't mean shite...well, then the 2003 split title isn't the same either..cant' have it both ways...EITHER IT COUNTS OR IT DOESN'T.. Posted on 9/18/11 at 7:02 pm to tiger chaser
All the Tigers need to do is keep on winning ballgames. Our SOS will take care of itself. Winning on the road against ranked teams will favor the Tigers too. Alabama and LSU will take care of itself , so it doesn't matter if we are number 2 or 3 right now.
Add a victory in the SEC championship game and there is no way that an undefeated LSU team is not in New Orleans for the Ship. Just one week at a time. Right now, I don't care if the Sisters of the convent have a poll out and we are unranked. We win...everything will work itself out nicely.
Add a victory in the SEC championship game and there is no way that an undefeated LSU team is not in New Orleans for the Ship. Just one week at a time. Right now, I don't care if the Sisters of the convent have a poll out and we are unranked. We win...everything will work itself out nicely.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 7:04 pm to tiger chaser
The BCS champ gets a big trophy with a pretty glass football on top of it.
The AP champ gets a 8X10" paper certificate.
I'll take the hardware please.
The AP champ gets a 8X10" paper certificate.
I'll take the hardware please.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 7:32 pm to COTiger
AP Obsolete! There was a time when the BCS didn't exist and Div 1 football was a cluster something. Then all came together to have an official champion and the BCS was born. Ever since then the Champion has been decided by the winner of the BCS championship game, as all parties agreed.
AP pissed that they were no longer allowed to decide who is champion goes back on their word and is booted from the BCS system. And now they are totally obsolete!
AP pissed that they were no longer allowed to decide who is champion goes back on their word and is booted from the BCS system. And now they are totally obsolete!
Posted on 9/18/11 at 9:49 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
This is stupid. Did LSU have the better resume? Yes. But that doesn't mean that people can't think USC was better team. It is a subjective assessment, not an objective one. The AP was correct to keep USC #1. The BCS caused this problem by refusing to implement rules after Nebraska in 01 that would have eliminated OK from the CG.
Dude. USC better team, based on WHAT????? You claim LSU had better resume but also claim AP was correct to keep USC #1. What am I missing here? What criteria can trump the facts I listed below? Please give me your reasoning to why you defend the AP voters in this disgraceful form of cheating.
1)Overall record: 13-1 > 12-1 Winner: LSU
2) SOS: BCS formula, AP & Coaches Poll, Computers all favored LSU's schedule. Winner:LSU
3) MOV: Overall and common opponents. Winner:LSU
4) Simple math: ((13-1) vs (larger MOV) vs (stronger SOS)) > ((12-1) vs (smaller MOV) vs (weaker SOS)) Winner:LSU
5) Common opponents: Auburn and Arizona LSU beat Auburn and Arizona by larger margins of victory and in a much more impressive manner, allowing the backups to play, up 31-0 in the 3rd quarter vs Auburn, whereas USC had to keep its first team in the entire game. Winner:LSU
6)Only loss: (LSU:ranked team) (USC:unranked) Winner:LSU
7) Polls/Computers: (LSU: 6/7 computers 1/2 human) (USC: 1/7 computers 1/2 human) Winner:LSU
8) Bowls & bowl opponents: LSU beat #3. USC beat #7. LSU's opponents in bowls 5-1 USC's opponents in bowls 5-1 LSU's bowl opponents avg rank (21) vs their bowl opponent's avg rank (22) USC's bowl opponents avg rank (42) vs their bowl opponent's avg rank (41) Date range of LSU's bowl opponent's games: Dec 31 - Jan 2 Date range of USC's bowl opponent's games: Dec 24 - Dec 31. Winner:LSU
9) Most impressive win USC's most impressive win was 14 pt. win against #7 Michigan (home game). LSU beat a higher ranked #6 Georgia by more points 21 on the road at Georgia. LSU also beat #3 Oklahoma and #6 Georgia again. That's 3 games vs tougher opponents before USC plays it's toughest. Winner:LSU
10) Again, I can't say this enough. The AP voters ignored, disregarded, thought very little of their very own AP poll as a gauge to crown their champ.
quote:
The BCS caused this problem
No the BCS did not. The BCS chose two 12-1 teams that had better SOS and better MOV over the 11-1 team that had a weaker SOS and smaller MOV to play for the NC game. The AP voters were the problem, not the BCS.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:41 pm to Victry4LSU
You can cite all that shite, but it's basicly irrelevant. The AP voters saw that USC team as a great young team that had coalesced. That fact that they didn't lose a game until the 2005 BCS CG suggests that this had merit and that they weren't crazy or unreasonable.
If A and B don't play each other and you think A is better than B, I don't know why a resume should change that opinion. While I'm sure you will compose pages of prose to refute it, the basic truth is that Prior to the SEC CG LSU and USC had reasonably equivalent resumes.
I don't know why an extra game not involving both parties should be decisive in changing their opinion. If they thought USC was better than LSU prior to the SEC CG, why should they change their vote? Futhermore, if they thought USC was better than LSU prior to the BCS game, again why should they change their vote because LSU beat OK, a team the AP didn't feel was deserving as they ranked them 3rd?
IMO, the BCS should have changed the rules after 2001 so that a nonconference winner cannot appear in the BCS playoff unless their conference champion is in it. They didn't do it, so OK justly made it. The AP has never dropped a #1 after they won their bowl game and frankly there is no justification for it. Given the way it played out, the split championship was just.
If A and B don't play each other and you think A is better than B, I don't know why a resume should change that opinion. While I'm sure you will compose pages of prose to refute it, the basic truth is that Prior to the SEC CG LSU and USC had reasonably equivalent resumes.
I don't know why an extra game not involving both parties should be decisive in changing their opinion. If they thought USC was better than LSU prior to the SEC CG, why should they change their vote? Futhermore, if they thought USC was better than LSU prior to the BCS game, again why should they change their vote because LSU beat OK, a team the AP didn't feel was deserving as they ranked them 3rd?
IMO, the BCS should have changed the rules after 2001 so that a nonconference winner cannot appear in the BCS playoff unless their conference champion is in it. They didn't do it, so OK justly made it. The AP has never dropped a #1 after they won their bowl game and frankly there is no justification for it. Given the way it played out, the split championship was just.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 12:04 am to therocketscientist
polls are more important for a stripper on a saturday night that it is for a team this early in the season..... 
Posted on 9/19/11 at 2:04 am to Purple N Gold Blood
Indiana Tiger do you believe in changing the rules during the middle of a contest? The AP broke its word but not putting LSU #1 after LSU won the only div 1 football game that was played that year that had National Championship as part of its title. Regardless if you think USC was the best football team that year they should have lived up to their word and not changed the rules after the fact.
Breaking your word is Classless! Changing the rules is cheating.
Let me explain it this way. Is Miss. St. a better team than Auburn this year. Many think so. But Auburn go luck and won the game. IT DOESN'T matter who is best, it only matters who wins! LSU won the National Championship game that year and it doesn't matter if they were the worst team in the counrty. If they won all their games by luck they are the champions because they won... not because they are better.
Breaking your word is Classless! Changing the rules is cheating.
Let me explain it this way. Is Miss. St. a better team than Auburn this year. Many think so. But Auburn go luck and won the game. IT DOESN'T matter who is best, it only matters who wins! LSU won the National Championship game that year and it doesn't matter if they were the worst team in the counrty. If they won all their games by luck they are the champions because they won... not because they are better.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 2:16 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:LOL, then what's relevant? The mascot's?
You can cite all that shite, but it's basicly irrelevant.
quote:Dude, you do not know what the AP voters saw. They obvious didn't see the contradiction between their champion and their poll or they would have voted accordingly, but they didn't.
The AP voters saw that USC team as a great young team that had coalesced. That fact that they didn't lose a game until the 2005 BCS CG suggests that this had merit and that they weren't crazy or unreasonable.
quote:When team A and B don't play each other "preseason", that is fine with your opinion, but when team B's acheivements or "resume" is superior towards team A's, then don't you think it's time to recognize this rather than just stay stagnate?
If A and B don't play each other and you think A is better than B, I don't know why a resume should change that opinion.
quote:so LSU's game vs #5 UGA and USC's game vs unranked UCLA doesn't count now?
While I'm sure you will compose pages of prose to refute it, the basic truth is that Prior to the SEC CG LSU and USC had reasonably equivalent resumes.
quote:How bout the whole body of work. How bout being consistent with the poll you created?
I don't know why an extra game not involving both parties should be decisive in changing their opinion.
quote:LSU just beat the #5 team by 3 TD's in their backyard. Why do they change their votes on a weekly bases? Why should this week be any different from prior weeks?
If they thought USC was better than LSU prior to the SEC CG, why should they change their vote?
quote:Better question would be to ask the AP voters how they figured (11-1)+(smaller MOV)+(weaker SOS) was better than TWO (12-1)+(larger MOV)+(stronger SOS) teams before the BCSCG and why the AP poll was not used as a gauge to determine their champion.
Futhermore, if they thought USC was better than LSU prior to the BCS game, again why should they change their vote because LSU beat OK, a team the AP didn't feel was deserving as they ranked them 3rd?
quote:Why not have the 2 best teams instead? In the case of 2003, Oklahoma's only loss was to at least a Conf. Champion. USC lost was worst because it was to a team that wasn't near champion caliber, therefore making OU's lost more impressive than USC's. Then when you combine OU's 12-1 record was better than USC's 11-1 record and OU's SOS was so much better than USC's, not to mention better margin of victory over this same SOS, then it is clear to see how OU was more deserving than USC.
IMO, the BCS should have changed the rules after 2001 so that a nonconference winner cannot appear in the BCS playoff unless their conference champion is in it.
quote:Is this some written rule of their's? Seem's like it since people bring it up all the time in defending the AP's stupid poll. Stupid rule for a stupid poll I guess and USC had no business being #1 before or after the bowl.
The AP has never dropped a #1 after they won their bowl game and frankly there is no justification for it.
quote:First of all, there was no split champion. AP champion became irrelevant during the BCS era. LSU played in and WON the ONE and ONLY Div1 NC game. USC won the Rose bowl and was the Rose bowl and AP champion which is as relevant as the NYT or Dunkel champion. There was only ONE agreed upon NC that is relevant. If the AP is relevant in the BCS era, then so is the NYT and what ever other system crowns their own personal champion.
Given the way it played out, the split championship was just.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 2:34 am to Victry4LSU
dude, it was 8. years. ago.
everything in the argument you guys are having is just as irrelevant as the day after the AP announced its champion
everything in the argument you guys are having is just as irrelevant as the day after the AP announced its champion
Posted on 9/19/11 at 3:00 am to therocketscientist
quote:
therocketscientist
stfu
Posted on 9/19/11 at 6:19 am to omegaman66
quote:
Indiana Tiger do you believe in changing the rules during the middle of a contest?
I wrote:
quote:
IMO, the BCS should have changed the rules after 2001 so that a nonconference winner cannot appear in the BCS playoff unless their conference champion is in it. They didn't do it, so OK justly made it.
What big words in this don't you understand?
quote:
The AP broke its word but not putting LSU #1 after LSU won the only div 1 football game that was played that year that had National Championship as part of its title. Regardless if you think USC was the best football team that year they should have lived up to their word and not changed the rules after the fact
The AP never gave it's word. It never agreed to anything. The BCS decided to use the AP on it's own accord; the AP simply didn't object.
Your point would be like me saying we should agree that anyone who writes such ignorant shite that you did should DIAF. You say nothing because it's dumb. Then when you write stupid shite and you don't DIAF, I call you out for breaking your word.
Posted on 9/19/11 at 6:49 am to Victry4LSU
Just some points:
o It's ridiculous to use some results from a poll as though it's God's perfection to say that another result in the same poll is trash. There is also no absolute need for consistency throughout the poll when only a few decisions have consequences. For example who is #2 is extremely important, but whether a team is ranked 8th or 13th is irrelevant in terms of consequences as long as it doesn't effect their bowl participation.
o Prior to the SEC CG, USC had a better SOS than LSU. LSU had a horrible OOC schedule, worse than AU in 04. The strength of our SOS came entirely from conference opponents. The SEC then is not the SEC of today, neither in terms of overall strength or perception. USC had a decent OOC sched and that matters. Incest is never a good thing.
o As far as the AP poll being irrelevant, it's obvious that it is your obsession, so it is very relevant to you.
o It's ridiculous to use some results from a poll as though it's God's perfection to say that another result in the same poll is trash. There is also no absolute need for consistency throughout the poll when only a few decisions have consequences. For example who is #2 is extremely important, but whether a team is ranked 8th or 13th is irrelevant in terms of consequences as long as it doesn't effect their bowl participation.
o Prior to the SEC CG, USC had a better SOS than LSU. LSU had a horrible OOC schedule, worse than AU in 04. The strength of our SOS came entirely from conference opponents. The SEC then is not the SEC of today, neither in terms of overall strength or perception. USC had a decent OOC sched and that matters. Incest is never a good thing.
o As far as the AP poll being irrelevant, it's obvious that it is your obsession, so it is very relevant to you.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News