- 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: Coaches Poll history - blantant homerism, conference nepotism and odd voting
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:22 am to Baloo
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:22 am to Baloo
quote:
re: Coaches Poll history - blantant homerism, conference nepotism and odd voting (Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:15 a.m. to Zamoro10) quote: But you've created this make believe rivalry because you feel you got snubbed for love by media way back when. That's your beef with the media...there is no rivalry...rivalries must be two-way streets. USC fans frankly don't give a shite about your hurt feelings. Yet you do. We have a large cadre of USC posters who are constantly on this board, stoking the flames, and then taking the Alfred E Neuman defense. You do care what LSU fans think, which is why you and your fellow Trojan fans are constantly here talking about USC on an LSU forum -- to ril up LSU fans. Now, my objection isn't to USC, or even USC fans. USC is clearly one of the greatest programs in CFB and they usually have a real good team. I don't root for them, but more on my standard fan rules of never rooting for any team from NY or LA. My only objection is to the specific USC fans who constantly troll this board. We have at least one USC thread every day and threads that aren't ostensibly about USC quickly become about USC. USC fans brought up 2003, and then accused LSU fans of being obsessed with it. Pot. Kettle. Black. USC fans are obsessed with LSU fans. Or, at least the ones on this board are. Not obsessed with LSU, just our fanbase. Which is really, really weird. Hold That Tiger!
Full of crap. Anytime there is a USC thread, it typically draws the ire of some LSU fans who are quick to turn turn it into an LSU- USC pissing match. I guarantee the sc threads would die a slow death if those did not Show up screaming LSU or SEC. Peej, rocket, and a handful of others are the most guilty ones. Rocket has already admitted he turns any thread he wants into a LFK bashing thread.
Re: flaming. A handful also take mere mention of USC as a flame.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 10:35 am
2
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:25 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
And you would trust this group/committee to not be influenced by ESPN and what they want? I don't
You are drifting a little to far into black helo land here. Despite what you and others may think ESPN does not have an agenda for certain teams. The game last year was one of the lower rated BCS CG. Their bias problem is a litte more complex. They touted Bama last year because they were really good not because they are Bama fans. Same with the talk of USC in the past. You also have bias (as do we all), and will notice it more when they talk about things that affect your team. Saban is a great coach so he will get more benefit of the doubt, just like when Greg Maddux gets a strike on a close call.
Bama and LSU and OU, and UT are name brand programs so they will be the benefit of the doubt over Ok State. Its not an ESPN problem or just an ESPN problem anyway. Most fans favor the traditional powers. Just look at how many people freak out when some one trots out special 1 game unis.
We like tradition. Bama is tradition. They have the best coach and more NFL prospects, so naturally they pass the "eyeball" test. Its not because ESPN unduly biased voters for them. I would prefer and I know Baloo does as well to see the 4 team playoff have only the top 4 conference winners because it is more, though not completely, objective.
If they go with just a top 4, you will not see ESPN "pushing" for certain teams. There is only so much that could be done anyway. The benefit of a committee is they could put Oregon over Stanford for example, but I'd still rather top 4 conference winners. 2011 was an outlier. Most years, the top 4 conference winners are in the top 5-6 as it is.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 10:33 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:35 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
You are drifting a little to far into black helo land here
I know, and I'm comfortable with it. LOL
quote:
Despite what you and others may think ESPN does not have an agenda for certain teams.
We will always disagree here, and that's cool.
quote:
They touted Bama last year because they were really good not because they are Bama fans.
Why would they allow Saban to beg for a Mulligan while hosting Sportscenter at the SECCG? How many other teams would be allowed to do that outside of Texas and USC?
quote:
Saban is a great coach so he will get more benefit of the doubt,
Yes, to the point of getting a do-over when he loses his most important games. Only a genius can pull that off. (end of sarcasm, not directed at you)
quote:
I would prefer and I know Baloo does as well to see the 4 team playoff have only the top 4 conference winners because it is more, though not completely, objective.
As a fan of CFB, this is EXACTLY what I want as well. Conference Championships should mean something.
quote:
If they go with just a top 4, you will not see ESPN "pushing" for certain teams.
We will disagree here again.
quote:
Most years, the top 4 conference winners are in the top 5-6 as it is.
Depends on WHO, exactly, wins the conference too now as well.
For example, let's say last year that Oklahoma or Texas won the Big 12 in the exact same manner "Okie Lite" did, including losing to ISU.
Do you honestly believe Oklahoma or Texas would have not played in NOLA? Just curious.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:40 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I would prefer and I know Baloo does as well to see the 4 team playoff have only the top 4 conference winners because it is more, though not completely, objective.
This cuts to the heart of the matter and this is where the argument breaks down because people are arguing from different assumptions. Those of us who want conference champs only tend to view college football as a giant confederacy of conferences. The winners of these quasi-independent leagues then meet for the title. "The four best teams" playoff advocates start from a different assumption -- that college football is essentially one giant league and the conferences are more like divisions than independent entities.
It's an assumption thing and really can't be argued. I just don't feel there is enough connections between the conferences to accurately rate relative strength with any degree of confidence (unless the gap is massive, like with the MAC and the Big Ten). I don't trust the eyeball test.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:41 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
For example, let's say last year that Oklahoma or Texas won the Big 12 in the exact same manner "Okie Lite" did, including losing to ISU.
Do you honestly believe Oklahoma or Texas would have not played in NOLA? Just curious.
that was my major point from earlier. If Oklahoma had Okie St's resume, they would've been in New Orleans. The biggest factor in whether you make the title game, after your W-L record, is Q rating.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:46 am to FightOn4ever
quote:
Peej, rocket, and a handful of others are the most guilty ones
Guilty of what??? Ownin your arse every thread.
I have said my take on 2003 USC. They deserved to go to the title game. I still think LSU beats them though.Just to be fair USC was NOT that great of a team in 2003. If the AP thought of them highly enough to rank them # 1 thats fine with me.LSU won the title that counts.Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:48 am to CajunFootball
quote:Can't speak for every SC poster that comes here, but I'll be in NOLA this weekend. I cross the Pearl River every now and again, as it's only a 2 hour trip to Louisiana. Going to LSU@Auburn with friends from both schools. I don't troll them so much as work and hang out with them. So this board is pretty relevant to my everyday IRL interactions. So, guess in that sense I do care.
Some must because we have USC fans who post on a board called TigerDroppings. Most people who post here have some kind of connections with either Louisiana or LSU. While this board may not be directly related to LSU, since that is the Rant, the site is still an LSU site. USC fans posting on an LSU site....seems to me some care.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:50 am to Baloo
quote:
that was my major point from earlier. If Oklahoma had Okie St's resume, they would've been in New Orleans. The biggest factor in whether you make the title game, after your W-L record, is Q rating.
See, so I'm not as "tin foil" as some here accuse me of.
Same goes for "Longhorn Network" too. UT has the same resume, book them for NOLA on 1/9/12.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 10:58 am to EZE Tiger Fan
I don't think its an ESPN thing, though. I think its just a laziness of all fans thing. Take how everyone bashes the Iowa St loss. Now, ISU is one of the traditional worst programs in all college football. But last year, they were pretty good. Not great, but they were a solid 500 team in a real tough, real balanced conference. There were no layup wins in the Big 12 last year. But people treated ISU as if they were, well, as bad as they usually are. That's not conscious bias, it's just kind of laziness -- "oh, ISU usually sucks so I'll just assume they suck like they usually do".
Also, LSU has a pretty high Q-rating and we'd get the benefit of the doubt as well. Look at how high our rankings were in 2009 and 2010. We are "supposed" to be good so our losses are more likely to be seen as flukes, and not indicative of our true quality. I do think LSU would've gotten a rematch over OSU had Bama won in November. And it would have been equally stupid.
ETA -- well, not "equally". LSU actually beat Oregon and Clemson, two conference champs. We would've had a far better resume than Bama did. Still, it would've been stupid.
Also, LSU has a pretty high Q-rating and we'd get the benefit of the doubt as well. Look at how high our rankings were in 2009 and 2010. We are "supposed" to be good so our losses are more likely to be seen as flukes, and not indicative of our true quality. I do think LSU would've gotten a rematch over OSU had Bama won in November. And it would have been equally stupid.
ETA -- well, not "equally". LSU actually beat Oregon and Clemson, two conference champs. We would've had a far better resume than Bama did. Still, it would've been stupid.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 11:00 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:00 am to FightOn4ever
quote:
Don't click then. There are hundreds of topics which do not interest me. I do not read.
Learn to post correct information. Just this morning you posted incorrect information in the USC thread about the scholarship sanctions.
As PJ would say, "LEARN YOUR shite!!!!".
You might be taken a little more seriously around here if you'd post accurate information.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:02 am to Baloo
quote:
Also, LSU has a pretty high Q-rating
It has grown exponentially since 2003 which makes 2003 so irrelevant today...and this USC fixation for a team across the country with no rivalry ties to the South beyond ridiculous.
2003 LSU tasted glory for the first time in a long time and wanted to bask in it.
You've had plenty of opportunities to do so since then. Time to move on and celebrate your Q-rating NOW.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 11:03 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:03 am to FightOn4ever
quote:
Have seen it. For one Peej has said it several times over. It should be in their posting history.
There's no evidence that the ones arguing in this thread are the exact same ones that complained about the AP voters and the system in 2003. Until there is evidence, there is no irony or hypocrisy. You got intellectual lazy(no surprise)and decided to lump some LSU fans together. And you made a lame, unsuccessful attempt to troll, as usual.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:05 am to FightOn4ever
quote:
. Anytime there is a USC thread, it typically draws the ire of some LSU fans who are quick to turn turn it into an LSU- USC pissing match. I guarantee the sc threads would die a slow death if those did not Show up screaming LSU or SEC. Peej, rocket, and a handful of others are the most guilty ones. Rocket has already admitted he turns any thread he wants into a LFK bashing thread.
The only thing I'm guilty of his humiliating and embarassing flamers and trolls who come here to flame and troll like you.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:07 am to Baloo
Here's what I find funny about the best teams argument. Did Ok State losing really change anyone's mind? If OSU was 12-0 Big 12 Champs and not 11-1, would the people saying Bama was 1 of the best teams think OSU was better? I doubt it. Its just a easy justification. And again, if the standard is the "eyeball" test and we can easily see who the best teams are, why use the bowls to determine the NC?
If the idea for a 4 team, conference winners only playoff came up a year ago. Very few would complain. In 2010 the top 4 conference winners would have been AU, OU, TCU and #5 Wisky over #4 Stanford. No contraversey.
I'd love the "4 best teams regardless" crowd tell who the 4 best teams in 2008 were. We had 7 BCS teams with 1 loss and 2 non AQ's that were undefeated. The team that was #5 in the final BCS was USC. They clearly passed the "eyeball" test over #4 Bama imo. So who goes, who gets left out? We can just pick teams based solely on opinions, or we could have had OU, UF, USC and Utah who were 1,2,5,6. And I dare anyone arguing Bama proved they belong in 2011 say Utah didn't in 2008.
If the idea for a 4 team, conference winners only playoff came up a year ago. Very few would complain. In 2010 the top 4 conference winners would have been AU, OU, TCU and #5 Wisky over #4 Stanford. No contraversey.
I'd love the "4 best teams regardless" crowd tell who the 4 best teams in 2008 were. We had 7 BCS teams with 1 loss and 2 non AQ's that were undefeated. The team that was #5 in the final BCS was USC. They clearly passed the "eyeball" test over #4 Bama imo. So who goes, who gets left out? We can just pick teams based solely on opinions, or we could have had OU, UF, USC and Utah who were 1,2,5,6. And I dare anyone arguing Bama proved they belong in 2011 say Utah didn't in 2008.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:09 am to Zamoro10
quote:
It has grown exponentially since 2003 which makes 2003 so irrelevant today...and this USC fixation for a team across the country with no rivalry ties to the South beyond ridiculous.
2003 LSU tasted glory for the first time in a long time and wanted to bask in it.
You've had plenty of opportunities to do so since then. Time to move on and celebrate your Q-rating NOW.
This is what I'm talking about. The LSU fans are trying to move on and talk about the BCS, yet you keep circling it back to 2003. I never brought up 2003, and tried to dismiss the 2003 comp as quickly as possible while giving credit to USC. I even brought up a better comp -- 2006.
I don't care about 2003. You do. It's why you keep bringing it up.
And while I like our high Q-rating, I'm also a college football fan and I want what's best for the sport. And titles decided by Q-ratings are bad things. I want the coaches' poll devalued, conference titles valued more highly, and the Q-rating to be irrelevant except on whether Game Day shows up to campus.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:10 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
See, so I'm not as "tin foil" as some here accuse me of.
That was me, not Baloo.
If your point is they favor big name teams ok, but I don't think ESPN is pushing an agenda, which it sounds like you are saying when you say they would tell the committe what they want.
ESNP has a loud microphone, they will tout the best teams and biggest name brad teams, they aren't demanding certain teams get in, they talk a lot about Boise as well.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:13 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
That was me, not Baloo
We do agree a lot on this issue.
But I think EZE has a good point. Did you watch the OU-OSU game on ESPN? OSU destroyed OU, yet the announcers spent the whole game talking about how the Cowboys didn't deserve to be #2. Their big statement game, and if you watched it with the sound on, you were getting Bama hype. This isn't limited to ESPN... I think it's everyone, but that was pretty egregious.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:17 am to Baloo
quote:
I don't care about 2003. You do. It's why you keep bringing it up.
Wrong. See my previous post. I was responding to Rocket's assertion and posts to Fighton about USC and 2003...and his claim no one is obsessed with USC or talks about.
And then pointing out the consistent USC slamming on the Rant or SEC Rant...and this disdain for USC as if the Trojans were LSU's biggest rival.
It's a joke. USC and LSU aren't rivals...so, what is the genesis? You know it's 2003. It's why Rocket has to slam any USC thread...when people on here just want to talk about college football.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:18 am to Baloo
quote:
I want the coaches' poll devalued, conference titles valued more highly, and the Q-rating to be irrelevant except on whether Game Day shows up to campus.
Agree 100%.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:24 am to Zamoro10
quote:
See my previous post. I was responding to Rocket's assertion and posts to Fighton about USC and 2003...and his claim no one is obsessed with USC or talks about.
We are only obsessed with giving shite to any obnoxious USC fans who comes here to troll/flame. As long as FLameON or anyone else trolls/flames, he will be given shite.
quote:
You know it's 2003. It's why Rocket has to slam any USC thread.
You couldn't be further from the truth, but that may not matter to you.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News