- 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: Non-SEC fans, whats your opinion on SEC fans, and the SEC bias in general?
Posted on 5/8/12 at 10:55 am to RLDSC FAN
Posted on 5/8/12 at 10:55 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
I was about to post the same thing but you beat me to it. I hear that retarded argument all the time and its laughable.
right, its like saying the Corleone's should root for Barzini because they are both in the mafia.
0
Posted on 5/8/12 at 10:55 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
However, if an SEC team is in it (or in the other bowl games) I prefer they win it because it helps the conference, and thereby LSU (financially, at least).
Thank god, I have been waiting for someone to get it right. Y'all realize SEC schools going to and winning BCS games and championships helps out EVERY SEC team financially right? Also as long as the SEC continues it's dominance, recruits will think to play with the best, they have to go to the SEC.
Rooting for Oregon over Auburn is essentially rooting for the PAC-12 to get a leg up on the SEC financially, and recruiting. If you don't think recruits care about which conference to play in, you're dumb
Posted on 5/8/12 at 10:56 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
undeservingly put you in the MNC.
most LSU fans will agree that bama didn't deserve to be in the mnc game. based on losing the first game and not winning their conference of course. and the system seems to be on the cusp of changing for that very reason. it was no more "right" than the much ballhooed rematch between ohio state and michigan a few years earlier (which thankfully didn't occur). now the bama fans are gonna come out of the woodwork saying they were the better team but that is not relevant because they shouldn't have even got the opportunity to prove it. lastly, that vote you speak of really did surprise me; i thought okie state was in.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:06 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
basically, the national media virtually ignored the southern teams in the last half of the twentieth century; all we heard was ohio state this, michigan this, usc that, etc, etc
From 1980-2000: Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Tennesse all won NC's. Throw in Florida State 2 and Miami 4 and I don't see how you can say southern football was "virtually ignored".
From 1960-1979: Alabama won 5 or 6 MNC's (I don't feel like looking it up
), I doubt any one team won more in that time frame. Now, they were the only great team in the SEC for most of that time. From 1950-1959: LSU and Auburn won MNC's during that time, not sure if any other southern teams did.
So do explain this "ignoring" that was done.
Sounds more like you have the same affliction many SEC fans do that when ever the national media says some team other than an SEC team is good.
Just like LSU and Bama deserved to be talked about last year, so dod tOSU, UM and USC in years past.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:08 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
most LSU fans will agree that bama didn't deserve to be in the mnc game. based on losing the first game and not winning their conference of course. and the system seems to be on the cusp of changing for that very reason. it was no more "right" than the much ballhooed rematch between ohio state and michigan a few years earlier (which thankfully didn't occur). now the bama fans are gonna come out of the woodwork saying they were the better team but that is not relevant because they shouldn't have even got the opportunity to prove it. lastly, that vote you speak of really did surprise me; i thought okie state was in.
Along with last years travesty, LSU didn't belong in 2003, Florida didn't belong in 2006 or 2008. Voters bent over backwards to put an SEC team in the MNC
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:12 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Along with last years travesty, LSU didn't belong in 2003, Florida didn't belong in 2006 or 2008. Voters bent over backwards to put an SEC team in the MNC
Then who did belong in those years?
I don't agree with your assertion.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:15 am to Tiger1242
quote:
I have been waiting for someone to get it right. Y'all realize SEC schools going to and winning BCS games and championships helps out EVERY SEC team financially right
No I can't realize something that isn't true. The Pac 12 got just as much money from the BCS in 2010 (and 2011 even) as the SEC did since both conferences had 2 teams in the BCS.
The big money is from TV deals and that is based on potential viewers, there is no bonus awarded on merit for being the conference with the most recent BCS Champ.
quote:
Rooting for Oregon over Auburn is essentially rooting for the PAC-12 to get a leg up on the SEC financially, and recruiting
horse shite. Oregon's recruiting base is primarily California. no matter how many BCS titles the SEC wins, LSU will not be a major player recruiting California, so Oregon is no threat to us.
As for the financial part, you clearly do not understand how that stuff works.
quote:
If you don't think recruits care about which conference to play in, you're dumb
Let me know when all the California and Midwest kids start signing with SEC teams. Naturally some will here or there, but then again sometimes kids from Florida, Texas, Georgia and even La, sign else where.
If this conference winning titles is such a big deal, how do you explain Florida State recruiting so well while competeing directly with SEC teams? The SEC would still be the best conference if Oregon had won the BCS CG in 2010. The SEC would have still had 5 teams in the top 20 even if AU was #2 and not #1.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:16 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
The hype which leads to voters bending over backwards to undeservingly put you in the MNC.
This.
Bias slapped the face of objective reasoning. e.g., computer polls. You can pull your subjective reasoning (e.g,. just look at the two teams in LSU & Bama. They just look better) all day...and although it does have some merit, in the end we didn't get to verify whether the best of the SEC was better than the best of the BIG XII and whether the Bama/LSU defense would truly be able to stiffle the Okie St offense.
ESPN was announcing Bama/LSU long before the SEC championship which was f'ed up.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:16 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
LSU didn't belong in 2003
You mean Oklahoma, they were number 3 in both polls and got beat down.
quote:
Florida didn't belong in 2006 or 2008
lolwut
Michigan deserved a rematch in 06? Makes sense seeing how Florida utterly destroyed the same OSU team that beat Michigan. Who should've been in over Florida in 2008? Maybe Texas over OU, but who over Florida?Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:20 am to bigpapamac
quote:
You mean Oklahoma, they were number 3 in both polls and got beat down.
lolwut Michigan deserved a rematch in 06? Makes sense seeing how Florida utterly destroyed the same OSU team that beat Michigan. Who should've been in over Florida in 2008? Maybe Texas over OU, but who over Florida?
You can't use hindsight as your argument.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:20 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Along with last years travesty, LSU didn't belong in 2003
The human polls and computers all had LSU #2 in 2003. Since the BCS CG is the top 2 teams, how do argue LSU did not belong?
Quit being a troll
quote:
Florida didn't belong in 2006
Based on what? Pro Michigan bias. Florida played empirically a tougher schedule and given 20/20 hindsight, its even tougher to argue.
quote:
or 2008
being bias against something is no better than being biased for it.
This post was edited on 5/8/12 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:21 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
LSU didn't belong in 2003
you're thinking of Oklahoma that didn't belong. It should've been LSU v USC
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:22 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
You can't use hindsight as your argument.
in 2003 its not hingsight. Before the bowls, LSU was #2 in everything: Computers and human/traditional polls. There is no rational argument LSU should not have been in the 2003 BCS CG. You can argue for or against USC or OU, but not LSU. That's not bias, that's what EVERYONE agreed on.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:24 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
There is no rational argument LSU should not have been in the 2003 BCS CG. You can argue for or against USC or OU, but not LSU.
exactly. it would be like looking back on this past year and saying, "Oklahoma St should've made it in instead of LSU"
This post was edited on 5/8/12 at 11:24 am
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:26 am to bigpapamac
Probably what irks me the most is the unfortunate segregation of football and the rest of the university body. ALL schools in the USA have their sidewalk fans...no doubt. But there is a common attitude of "I only care about football. who cares about the university endowement?" or "I want that recruit here now. I don't care of he can read or write". I have experienced more of it with SEC fans than elsewhere in the country.
Yes, football is huge $$ generator and it's a 'you better get on board or you're going to be left out' and yes football success can breed academic success. It's unfortunate that many schools have misplaced priorities. I prefer seeing the 'Stanfords' of the world succeed than the Alabama's. It's sad furthermore that student's prioritize football season for their college choices over their careers and personal develoment/maturity. But again, that is systemic across all universities...just see it more in the south.
Yes, football is huge $$ generator and it's a 'you better get on board or you're going to be left out' and yes football success can breed academic success. It's unfortunate that many schools have misplaced priorities. I prefer seeing the 'Stanfords' of the world succeed than the Alabama's. It's sad furthermore that student's prioritize football season for their college choices over their careers and personal develoment/maturity. But again, that is systemic across all universities...just see it more in the south.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:26 am to Tigerbait337
Think about it. The other conferences are hating on the SEC as a whole. Given that hatred, isn't collective pride in the conference merely a logical conclusion?
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:26 am to H-Town Tiger
It depends on which criteria you decide to use(have to win your conference, best "resume", most recent loss, best strength of schedule). My point is the voter change the criteria every year to put an SEC teamin the MNC
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:29 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
My point is the voter change the criteria every year to put an SEC teamin the MNC
the only year an SEC team got in but didn't deserve to was this year IMHO. you could MAYBE make a case for LSU in '08 since we had 2 losses, but I could easily prove the case wrong
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:33 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
It depends on which criteria you decide to use(have to win your conference, best "resume", most recent loss, best strength of schedule). My point is the voter change the criteria every year to put an SEC teamin the MNC
This is completely false and wreeks of jealousy.
But feel free to name the criteria that was "changed" in 2003 that would have kept LSU out (or 2008 UF for that matter).
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:35 am to HT713
The argument against LSU in 2003 is that you had the "worst loss" which is the same argument that was then used for Alabama over Oklahoma St and LSU over USC(and Oklahoma and West Virginia) in 2007.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News