- 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: If USCw and LSU or Bama get to title will the south prevail??
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:03 am to SammyTiger
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:03 am to SammyTiger
quote:
People forget we scored the 17th most points per game in the country last year, in the toughest defensive conference in the country.
Frankly outside of LSU and Bama - this is all hyperbole and lazy reputation bar talk.
You're really over-estimating how good the SEC has been the last two years on defense outside of two elite teams.
It's no surprise that Bama and LSU have stormed past everyone...and it's not because they have become Super 1995 Nebraska...it's because their opponents and the conference as a whole has fallen backwards while they maintained their high standard.
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:06 am
2
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:12 am to Zamoro10
The SEC is also a hell of a lot easier when you don't play half of the top teams. There were five 10-win teams in the SEC last year. Bama played 2 of them in the regular season and went 1-1. Heck, Bama only beat two teams who went 500 in SEC play.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:18 am to Baloo
quote:
There were five 10-win teams in the SEC last year.
That shouldn't be possible in any truly tough conference.
Unless schedules are sort of gerrymandered so as to protect the overall brand.
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:19 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:24 am to AustinKnight
they won't run the table in the pac 12 IMO
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:25 am to Zamoro10
quote:
It's no surprise that Bama and LSU have stormed past everyone
So why did LSU stomp the crap out of Oregon last year then?
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:27 am to AustinKnight
Alabama or LSU would stomp uscheat. By 2 Td's
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:30 am to Wolfpacleader
quote:
stomp the crap out of?
I guess I saw a different game. (Paging DucksFlyinPac)
Regardless...Oregon would have beaten every team in the SEC last year except for LSU/Bama. Probably same with USC. USC doesn't beat LSU/Bama but everyone else was extremely beatable and frankly meh.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:30 am to Zamoro10
quote:
That shouldn't be possible in any truly tough conference.
Sure it should, with the advent of 13 and 14 game schedules. The Big 12, which was a remarkably balanced yet tough conference, had four 10-win teams. Not to reopen a festering wound, but that means Okie St beat three 10-win teams in the regular season plus one in their bowl game. They had twice as many "quality" wins as Bama.
If you play a 12-game schedule plus a bowl game, and go 5-3 in conference play and 5-0 OOC, you will win 10 games. But you have to win OOC.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:32 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Regardless...Oregon would have beaten every team in the SEC last year except for LSU/Bama.
agreed.This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:33 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:34 am to Baloo
Teams shouldn't have 6 auto-wins like they do (4 for rent and 2 against the dregs of the conference)...with these truly offensive OOC schedules. But that's just me...and yes, I know all anyone else cares about is "getting to the title game." That's why they get to 10. 10 wins used to mean something. Georgia can get to 10 wins and you'd still wonder if they beat anyone this year?
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:38 am to Zamoro10
I largely agree and it is the worst thing about the BCS. The press for a more "meaningful" regular season means that teams are more likely to schedule games without meaning. Losses hurt too much. And while I think our schedule is awful this year, I don't really see the difference in scheduling Towson or a team from the Sun Belt. Both have no chance of winning.
USC, to their credit, is one of the few schools that schedules tough OOC games every year.
USC, to their credit, is one of the few schools that schedules tough OOC games every year.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:38 am to hendersonshands
quote:
USC over both. Better quarterback and skill positions plus they have the best head coach of the three teams: LFK,b
Their defense sucked last year. Gave up 43 to Arizona State, 41 to Arizona, 56 to Stanford, and 35 to Oregon (we gave up 27 but Oregon scored a window-dressing TD).
Point is, that USC defense broke against most of the good offensive teams they played. That D had better improve a LOT if they want to make it to the NCG and win.
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:44 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:43 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Their defense sucked last year. Gave up:
Eh...your post is misleading.
- 43 to Arizona State (4th game of the year starting freshman/sophmores)
- 41 to Arizona (5th game of the year, see above)
- 56 to Stanford (3 OTs and Luck and one of the best offenses in the country)
- 35 to Oregon (which would mean holding Oregon far lower than their season average.)
Gave up 17 and less to Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame, Cal and UCLA - who didn't score a single point to end the year.
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:44 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:50 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Gave up 17 and less to Washington, Colorado, Notre Dame, Cal and UCLA - who didn't score a single point to end the year.
The UCLA game was impressive. The USC team seemed to be on fire. But that was the only game they played all season where they played like that.
As for the other teams, do you really consider them to be good offensive teams from last year?Washington and Notre Dame were decent, but UCLA and Colorado were straight up terrible. I wouldn't use them as examples for anything.
They were also not impressive against Minnesota, Utah, and Syracuse....all terrible teams.
You could make the argument that they got better over the course of the season, and I think that is true. But an elite D doesn't give up the kind of points they gave up, even to Oregon and Stanford.
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:51 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:51 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Their defense sucked last year. Gave up 43 to Arizona State, 41 to Arizona, 56 to Stanford, and 35 to Oregon (we gave up 27 but Oregon scored a window-dressing TD).
The defense sucked at the beginning of the year, then got much better. ASU was the first road game of the year, Arizona was the very next game, Stanford was a triple over time game, and giving up 35 to Oregon at Oregon isn't a horrible, that's just 8 more points than LSU's D which people (around here) are saying was one of the best D's ever.
So yeah, SC's D was bad to start out the year, but once the younger guys started to learn the system and gain confidence, the D played much better.
That being said, I doubt SC makes the mnc game. I'm hoping for a 10-win season and any BCS win, anything more will be an unexpected treat.
Edit: Dammit, Zamoro, beat me to it
This post was edited on 8/16/12 at 11:53 am
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:54 am to Zamoro10
quote:
35 to Oregon (which would mean holding Oregon far lower than their season average.)
Who cares about the season average? Oregon's offense hasn't worked against elite defenses.
27 against LSU (with window dressing against the second team)
19 against Auburn
8 against Boise State
17 against Ohio State
Measured against that standard, 35 is a lot....also, the tone of that game was different, as Oregon almost came roaring back to win.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:54 am to TxTiger82
quote:
You could make the argument that they got better over the course of the season, and I think that is true. But an elite D doesn't give up the kind of points they gave up, even to Oregon and Stanford.
I don't think anyone on the planet is calling USC's D elite.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:55 am to TxTiger82
quote:
But an elite D doesn't give up the kind of points they gave up, even to Oregon and Stanford.
I never said they were elite...responding to a post that said "they sucked."
They far from sucked...and if giving up 35 to Oregon sucks and not elite than LSU wasn't as great as well...score or no score, Oregon moved the ball up and down the field out-gaining LSU and that's a fact. So...bad example.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:56 am to ToesOnTheNose213
quote:
he defense sucked at the beginning of the year, then got much better. ASU was the first road game of the year, Arizona was the very next game, Stanford was a triple over time game,
Those all sound like excuses.
quote:
that's just 8 more points than LSU's D which people (around here) are saying was one of the best D's ever.
Oregon scored with 13 seconds left in the game against the second team defense. Before that, LSU led the game 40 to 20. Nice try.
quote:
So yeah, SC's D was bad to start out the year, but once the younger guys started to learn the system and gain confidence, the D played much better.
Yes, that is true. However, the team was still giving up loads of points down the stretch to good teams like Stanford and Oregon.
Posted on 8/16/12 at 11:58 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Oregon moved the ball up and down the field out-gaining LSU and that's a fact. So...bad example.
And yet, you failed to score, which is the point of football. So there you go.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News