- 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 11:36 am to TulaneUVA
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:36 am to TulaneUVA
quote:
Yes, football is huge $$ generator
Yet, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the endowments and research grants that Big Ten and other schools receive.
0
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:37 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
the "worst loss"
out 1 loss was to florida who was #6 17-9
Oklahoma got blown out by #12 K state 35- 7 (and it was the conference championship)
This post was edited on 5/8/12 at 11:38 am
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:38 am to HT713
quote:
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
Its not enough to just say an SEC didn't deserve it, you have to say who should have and why.
For example in 2007, the aside from OSU the other teams with less than 2 losses were Kansas who played 1 ranked team, Mizzo and lost and Hawaii. Make a case for the other 2 loss teams over LSU. VT after 48-7? UGA another SEC team? OU?
He's just a troll and no better than the worst of the SEC tards. I shouldn't have aknowledged him, but his 2003 comment was one that needed to be slammed.
This post was edited on 5/9/12 at 9:00 am
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:45 am to HT713
quote:
out 1 loss was to florida who was #6 17-9
Oklahoma got blown out by #12 K state 35- 7 (and it was the conference championship)
Florida was 8-5 and you lost at home. OU lost to 11-4 KSU in Kansas City.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:48 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
OU lost to 11-4 KSU in Kansas City by 4 Td's on the last week of the regular season
FIFY
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:52 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
out 1 loss was to florida who was #6 17-9
quote:
Florida was 8-5 and you lost at home
The one thing I'm going to agree with the Michigan fan on. IDGAF if Florida was ranked #6 when LSU played them. They lost 5 fricking games. They were not ever the #6 team in the country. It was a loss to an unranked opponent IMO. Wins and losses against ranked opponents should be judged after the season is completed and the full body of work can be looked at.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:52 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
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.
first of all, I've argued "worst lost" is a stupid argument, but: How did LSU have the "worst" loss in 2003? We didn't lose to the worst team (USC did Cal was 7-6, UF was 8-5 #24) and we didn't have the biggest margin of defeat (OU did 35-7 is worse than 19-7 ). LSU did lose at home vs the road for USC and a neutral site for OU. now lets compare that to 2011 OSU lost to a 6-6 team vs Alabama who lost to the #1 team. Big difference. In 2003 there is no clear cut "worst loss" among the top 3 and at worst it LSU is in the middle again.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:53 am to HT713
quote:
on the last week of the regular season
So the most recent loss criteria was used? Same criteria which was ignored in 2007 and got LSU in.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:55 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
yup, pretty ignorant all right. really got me wondering who the hell you hang out with.
you're not like, in prison or anything or you?
um ok
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:56 am to VABuckeye
quote:
It was a loss to an unranked opponent IMO. Wins and losses against ranked opponents should be judged after the season is completed and the full body of work can be looked at.
I agree and in 2003 USC lost to a 7-6 unranked Cal team.
Florida was 8-5 but finished ranked #24.
OU lost by 28. I don't care if it was a neutral site closer to the other team's home, that's much worse than losing at home to a lower ranked team by 12. By contrast LSU played UGA in Atlanta that same day and won 34-14.
I'm waiting for that rational argument against LSU in 2003.
IMO it should have been LSU v USC.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:58 am to VABuckeye
quote:
Finally, I will never, ever root for Michigan to win against any team ever. frick those fricks.
if VT or Pitt was playing Iraq id be pulling for Iraq
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:58 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
rst of all, I've argued "worst lost" is a stupid argument, but: How did LSU have the "worst" loss in 2003? We didn't lose to the worst team (USC did Cal was 7-6, UF was 8-5 #24) and we didn't have the biggest margin of defeat (OU did 35-7 is worse than 19-7 ). LSU did lose at home vs the road for USC and a neutral site for OU. now lets compare that to 2011 OSU lost to a 6-6 team vs Alabama who lost to the #1 team. Big difference. In 2003 there is no clear cut "worst loss" among the top 3 and at worst it LSU is in the middle again.
All the arguments are stupid but they switch to what ever one gets an SEC team in that is my point.
Yes losing to 8-5 Florida at home is worse than losing to 7-6 Cal on the road or 11-4 KSU at a neutral site(really a road game)
This post was edited on 5/8/12 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 5/8/12 at 11:59 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
So the most recent loss criteria was used? Same criteria which was ignored in 2007 and got LSU in.
I know this might be hard for you to understand, but rankings can be based on MULTIPLE criteria, not just one and only one each year.
The only team you could argue they "bent over backwards" to put in the BCS CG was 2011 Alabama.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 12:00 pm to StraightCashHomey21
I love the "Eat shite Pitt" shirts.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 12:01 pm to H-Town Tiger
For the record I actually agree it should of been USC for LSU but my point is how the criteria switches every year to put an SEC team in
Posted on 5/8/12 at 12:02 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
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.
Wear an "LSU Football" shirt to the gym and nobody cares. Wear an "LSU Law" or "LSU Chemistry Dept." shirt to the gym and you'll find a 30 page thread about what a pretentious douche that person is.
Posted on 5/8/12 at 12:04 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
All the arguments are stupid but they switch to what ever one gets an SEC team in that is my point.
well you are wrong. You are just biased against the SEC and cherry picking points to suit your bias.
ETA: Why on earth in 2003 would they want LSU in the BCS CG over USC or OU? At that point in time, the SEC was not viewed like it is today. LSU was viewed as a 2nd rate power that hadn't won a NC in 45 years where as USC and OU are traditional powers, that finished 2002 in the top 10. OU was #1 all year and had won an NC in 2000, USC from a much bigger TV market had budding stars at QB and RB.
quote:
Yes losing to 8-5 Florida at home is clearly worse than losing to 8-6 Cal on the road or 11-4 KSU at a neutral site(really a road game)
No clearly its not. You can argue that it was, but its not as clear cut as saying losing to a 6-6 teams vs losing to the #1 team. Neutral site closer to the other team is no excuse for losing by 28. If they had lost by 12 or 14, ok, but not 4 TD's. sorry.
ETA2: While a lot of Bama and SEC fans used the worst loss argument in 2011, I'm not sure that was the deciding factor for actual voters. I don't recall that being mentioned as the only factor on those ESPN BCS shows even.
This post was edited on 5/8/12 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 5/8/12 at 12:39 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
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
self fufilling propehecy. The hate of the SEC is recent and largely due to the fans rooting for the SEC and not just their team
Posted on 5/8/12 at 1:26 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
but my point is how the criteria switches every year to put an SEC team in
then it HAS to be a conspiracy. the voters hate you and love the SEC. they somehow get the word out to change the criteria so an SEC team gets in. and that's the only reason the SEC gets in. but they DO win when they get in so maybe there is an explanation for that?
Posted on 5/8/12 at 1:27 pm to Tigerbait337
quote:
Nothing irks me more than when talking football, and a buffoon pops in and starts with the SEC! SEC! SEC! garbage. You can't give credit to any team, because they aren't gifted with the talent that the now 14 SEC schools possess. It's as if having that SEC patch on your jersey makes you superhuman or something, because USC/Texas/Oklahoma/tOSU/Michigan don't deserve to be talked about in the same sentence as an SEC school.
SEC is the best, will always be the best, and there is NOTHING you or anyone else in college football can do about it
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News