- 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 11:25 am to Baloo
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:25 am to Baloo
quote:
. 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.
I could not agree with this more. I think this is 100% on point. ISU was not a great team, but at home on a Friday night prime time, they can get fired up. As a buddy of mine says, those guys are all on schoalrship too. Those prime time made for TV weeknight games have cost at least 3 teams in the last 5 years a trip to the BCS CG. OSU, USC in 08 and L'Ville in 2006.
The laziness also affects the view of Alabama's schedule. How many times do we hear they play in the brutal SEC. The SEC has won the last 6 (5 during the season) NC. How does who won the NC in 2006 affect the quality of a team let alone a conference in 2011? Look at Bama's schedule again. They played 2 good teams in the SEC and lost to one of them. 6 of their 8 conference games were against teams that went 7-5 or WORSE and 7-5 was just 1 team, 5 were 6-6 or worse. Real brutal. but, hey they play in the SEC, there were 5 SEC teams in the top 20, never mind Bama didn't even play 2 of the other 4.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 11:27 am
1
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:27 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
How many times do we hear they play in the brutal SEC.
The SEC has won the last 6 (5 during the season) NC.
These are too often assumed as synonyms and it's faulty logic. Your schedule isn't brutal just because a team from your conference has won the title the last 6 years.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:28 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
That was me, not Baloo
I know! That's why I stated "not as tin foil as SOME here accuse me of".
You = Some
quote:
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.
Did you watch the OSU vs OU game last year?
Better yet, did you see when CBS was promoting Bama over OSU DURING the SECCG?
Also, I've seen youtube links of the Selection Committee show on ESPN, and how the conveniently forgot to show the resumes of Bama and OSU until AFTER the selections were made. You know, accidentally forgetting to admit to the world that Bama's 2011 resume was the weakest of any participant in the NCG since the BCS was formed.
Just some minor errors, I'm sure. Even Brad Edwars, the ESPN BSC guy (and Bama graduate) admitted on Twitter after the fact that Bama got in with the weakest resume in BCSCG History.
It takes something major for this to happen. How did it happen?
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:30 am to Baloo
quote:
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.
LOL. Nice.
I didn't read this post before I replied to Htown.
I brought this up as an example.
As a fan of CFB, this was really a travesty. You have a Tier 2 team, "Okie Lite", literally accomplishing something historical for their program, while the "unbiased" announcers were pumping up a team that was sitting at home. It was really amazing to hear, and was a strong reflection of everything that is wrong with CFB.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:31 am to Rocket
quote:
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.
Most of the time talking about USC is just talking about college football.
You only equate it to flaming because you think USC/LSU are some huge rivals and 2003 is still too important to you.
Otherwise...why define it as flaming? Otherwise why would you see it as trying to rile you?
I've heard...this is an LSU site...talking about USC is flaming. Well the MSB is for talking about all of college football...but you seem to want to exclude certain teams you hold a grudge against.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:37 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Most of the time talking about USC is just talking about college football. You only equate it to flaming because you think USC/LSU are some huge rivals and 2003 is still too important to you. Otherwise...why define it as flaming? Otherwise why would you see it as trying to rile you? I've heard...this is an LSU site...talking about USC is flaming. Well the MSB is for talking about all of college football...but you seem to want to exclude certain teams you hold a grudge against.
That's a bingo!
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:43 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Most of the time talking about USC is just talking about college football.
But FlameON has a long history of flaming/trolling this site. He was doing it back when he was LSUTANGERINE. ANd he rightfully deserves any shite he ets.
quote:
You only equate it to flaming because you think USC/LSU are some huge rivals and 2003 is still too important to you.
Wrong again. DO you just enjoy being wrong? We equate flaming with the nature of FlameOn's posts. ALl this stuff about 2003 has nothing to do with it.
quote:
Otherwise...why define it as flaming? Otherwise why would you see it as trying to rile you?
It's flaming based on the nature of the post, the wording and the phrasing.
quote:
I've heard...this is an LSU site...talking about USC is flaming. Well the MSB is for talking about all of college football...but you seem to want to exclude certain teams you hold a grudge against.
Wrong again. I hold no grudge against any team. I keep an eye out for fans who come here to antagonize LSU fans. And rightfully so. And if you have a problem with it, that's just too bad.
What is with you being so far from the truth? You are so cold.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 11:50 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:46 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
Just some minor errors, I'm sure. Even Brad Edwars, the ESPN BSC guy (and Bama graduate) admitted on Twitter after the fact that Bama got in with the weakest resume in BCSCG History.
It takes something major for this to happen. How did it happen?
I enjoyed your thread on the Poli Board but I think you're going off the rails here.
I'll say it again. This is why we need (and will soon have) a 4 team playoff. All too often we've seen where 3 doesn't fit into 2. Let 'em play one more game for the right to play in the natty.
Sure, someone will bitch about being #5. But it would be extremely unlikely that the 2004 Auburn situation would happen again. If you run the table in a major conference, you deserve a shot at the natty. I can think of no other sport in America where you can win every game and be denied a chance to play for the title.
Anybody with a loss or two doesn't really have a completely legit complaint. But with 4 slots, they'll have a better chance to slip in there without completely diluting the regular season. But 2 slots is not enough. Way better than what we used to have but still not Goldilocks level.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:48 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
Did you watch the OSU vs OU game last year?
Better yet, did you see when CBS was promoting Bama over OSU DURING the SECCG?
I didn't notice, but by CBS do you mean Danielson or Verne? Maybe someone else? Do you think who ever was saying Bama should go over OSU said so because that's who he thought deserved to go or because that's what the suits ordered him to do?
I don't think there was a concentrated effort to promote Alabama over OSU because that's what the suits want or because there are Bama fans working tthere. I think it comes down to the laziness factor. Plus OSU lost later, that's always moved teams down. Its not a conspiracy, just lazy thinking.
quote:
I've seen youtube links of the Selection Committee show on ESPN, and how the conveniently forgot to show the resumes of Bama and OSU until AFTER the selections were made. You know, accidentally forgetting to admit to the world that Bama's 2011 resume was the weakest of any participant in the NCG since the BCS was formed
The selections are made before that show goes on the air. So it doesn't matter is they aired the resumes first or not at all, it didn't affect the outcome of the vote.
quote:
It takes something major for this to happen. How did it happen?
No it doesn't take "something major". What it takes is a name brand team, that destroyed everyone they played, with what everyone says is the best coach, coaching teams that have had #1 recruiting classes, in the dominant confernce pitted against a historically nothing team, that lost once to one of the historically worst teams.
Its not a conspiracy, just laziness. And the worst resume is relative to other BCS teams. Texas in 2009 did not exactly have a monster resume off the top of my head, and who besides Stanford did Oregon play in 2010?
ETA: While we may think OSU should go based on resume, it is understandable that someone would think Bama was a great team and should be #2. That's not an indefensable position.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 11:56 am
Posted on 8/17/12 at 11:48 am to FightOn4ever
quote:
Zamaro, thanks for coming to my aid, although what you posted was 100 percent wrong. You couldn't be further from the truth. I posted there was irony about fans arguing about Bama in this thread but I don't have any evidence to show that the ones arguing in this thread are the ones who argued about the AP voters in 2003. WHy? Because I'm a troll and I'm intellectually lazy. I'll have you know though, that when I molest small boys, I wear condoms. They are little condoms but condoms nonetheless. SincerelyFLameON/Tangy
FIFY
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:03 pm to Rocket
quote:
I'll have you know though, that when I molest small boys, I wear condoms. They are little condoms but condoms nonetheless.
No flaming going on in this thread.
None.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:11 pm to Rocket
quote:
Because I'm a troll and I'm intellectually lazy. I'll have you know though, that when I molest small boys, I wear condoms. They are little condoms but condoms nonetheless. SincerelyFLameON/Tangy
WOW.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:12 pm to Rocket
quote:
se I'm a troll and I'm intellectually lazy. I'll have you know though, that when I molest small boys, I wear condoms. They are little condoms but condoms nonetheless. SincerelyFLameON/Tangy
Ignoring your usual flames noted above, I told you exactly where the evidence is located. I am not going thru all of peejs and the others post on a phone. If you are so inclined feel free. Oherwise I'll post it in one of the next Several USC threads that you flame. You could also ask Peej how he feels about the words "co-champs, split NC". You can ask him how he feels about the media recognizing Sc as a 2003 nc. He seems pretty straightforward and he stated his thoughts about thisany times. If he says otherwise, he will be proven wrong as well.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:16 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
I'll have you know though, that when I molest small boys, I wear condoms. They are little condoms but condoms nonetheless.
No flaming going on in this thread. None.
and he'll add that I am the flamethrower Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:22 pm to FightOn4ever
quote:
You could also ask Peej how he feels about the words "co-champs, split NC". You can ask him how he feels about the media recognizing Sc as a 2003 nc. He seems pretty straightforward and he stated his thoughts about thisany times. If he says otherwise, he will be proven wrong as well.
I gave you my stance on USC before in this thread. I guess you don't read real well.Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:25 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I didn't notice, but by CBS do you mean Danielson or Verne?
Those two as well, but the "stats" they put up were hilarious. No, I don't have a screen shot.
quote:
The selections are made before that show goes on the air. So it doesn't matter is they aired the resumes first or not at all, it didn't affect the outcome of the vote.
I'm aware, but it was still obvious they knew what they were forcing.
quote:
What it takes is a name brand team, that destroyed everyone they played, with what everyone says is the best coach, coaching teams that have had #1 recruiting classes, in the dominant confernce pitted against a historically nothing team, that lost once to one of the historically worst teams.
But one of these things didn't happen. I bolded it.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:33 pm to dukke v
I saw that. That does not address the question or his concern? How do you feel about the words split title, co- champs from 2003? How about the medias portrayal of sc as a nc in 2003? Sure you've stated sc deserved to be there. But you have also stated that Sc needs to play by the rules that were in place...they should not be designated as a nc, etc. am I right or what? Keep in mind youve stated this many times over. Go ahead and man up; he's a big boy.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:39 pm to FightOn4ever
quote:
How do you feel about the words split title, co- champs from 2003
Well to be honest In my mind there was No split. LSU won the title that counts. IF the tables were turned I would give USC the nod for winning the title that counts.
quote:
How about the medias portrayal of sc as a nc in 2003?
Thats them. If they felt USC deserved to be #1. Good for them.
quote:
But you have also stated that Sc needs to play by the rules that were in place...they should not be designated as a nc, etc. am I right or what?
I have NEVER said USC didn't deserve to play in the Title game that year. I HAVE said MANY times that if they did I still think LSU beats them.
Posted on 8/17/12 at 12:45 pm to dukke v
quote:
Well to be honest In my mind there was No split. LSU won the title that counts. IF the tables were turned I would give USC the nod for winning the title that counts.
Thank you
quote:
I have NEVER said USC didn't deserve to play in the Title game that year. I HAVE said MANY times that if they did I still think LSU beats them.
I am not talking about playing in the game. I was talking about sc being a co- nc, split title. In your eyes there is no split because the bcs rules were in place and thats fine. You've already answered above, albeit with less fervor and caps than your more candid posts.
Now, screw off Rocket!
// this issue.
This post was edited on 8/17/12 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 8/17/12 at 1:28 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Its not a conspiracy, just laziness. And the worst resume is relative to other BCS teams. Texas in 2009 did not exactly have a monster resume off the top of my head, and who besides Stanford did Oregon play in 2010?
I agree that its laziness, not a conspiracy. And I brought up 2009 Texas as well, another major team to wield the "it doesn't matter who we beat, but who you lost to" argument. I hated it then. It's just a way of avoiding your own resume.
I think what makes Bama 2011 distinct from these other cases is that they failed to win their conference. If a team fails to win their conference and make the title game, they should have an extraordinary resume. Something you could point to and say, sure they lost their conference, but they accomplished X (like, I don't know, beating two other conference champs, both on the road).
Bama winning the title as a non-conference champion was incredibly radical. It hadn't happened since before WWII. And the BCS offered up a chance for a non-champion to win the national title three times in its short 15 year existence. It was only a matter of time before one won. That was not a bug, but a feature. Obviously, because the feature has been explicitly preserved going forward. It is a way to devalue conference titles and it strikes at the core of college football.
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News