- 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: Which year was the biggest BCS mess?
Posted on 11/14/11 at 5:50 am to CajunFootball
Posted on 11/14/11 at 5:50 am to CajunFootball
quote:Auburn got hosed because they got beat by USC in 2002, and then shutout by USC at home in 2003. Fair or not, that was the perception. Auburn 2004 is a great argument for a playoff.
2004 when an undefeated Auburn got hosed for a cheating USC.
0
Posted on 11/14/11 at 6:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2004
no doubt
I disagree. Auburn had the weaker schedule and in 2004 the SEC was the weaker conference. The system worked. Conference affiliation means nothing to the computer, it's all about schedule strength. The answer is 2007.
This post was edited on 11/14/11 at 6:58 am
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:41 am to trackfan
How can anyone say that OU was deserving of being in the NCG when they lost their conference title game by 30 points? One of the top two teams in the country shouldn't lose to someone else in their conference by that much
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:45 am to trackfan
quote:
The answer is 2007.
i still don't get what was so messy about 2007
you had OSU in, ok
then it was LSU, UGA, VT, or USC
LSU beat VT, so VT was out
LSU won the SEC, so UGA was out
LSU and USC had 2 losses. LSU had a better set of wins, and didn't have a loss to a shitty team
2007 was more crazy than a mess, esepcially with 2 teams losing QBs and basically losing the title
if dixon stays healthy, UO wins
if pat white stays healthy against Pitt, WV wins
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU beat VT, so VT was out
This is my biggest problem with the entire system.
Before I state my argument, LSU was better than VT in 2007, a lot better. let me make that clear but that isn't my problem.
My problem is this; going into conference championship games, VT was 6 in the BCS and LSU was 7. VT then went on to beat the 11th ranked BC team in their conference title game, and LSU beat a 14th ranked Tenn. team in the SECCG. VT won by 2 TDs and LSU won by 1 TD
If you say #6 beats #11 by 14 points
Then you say #7 beats #14 by 7 points
Who should be ranked higher?
And once again I know LSU was better in 07
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:54 am to Buckeye06
quote:
If you say #6 beats #11 by 14 points
Then you say #7 beats #14 by 7 points
Who should be ranked higher?
you are looking at rankings like they are some magical positioning that can't be changed. a non-fluid system
that's what bama fans are doing right now
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:57 am to tigerfan84
07 was the biggest clusterfrick i'd ever seen
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you are looking at rankings like they are some magical positioning that can't be changed. a non-fluid system
that's what bama fans are doing right now
Bama can only go down this year; they don't have the opportunities to play teams to move back up.
I'm talking about the last week of the year, when the voters have already decided where they think teams belong.
A fluid system would say that VT was better than LSU based on where they had them and their latest results, and the gap should have widened.
Fluid systems take the latest games into acct, and based on that VT should have been ahead of LSU
Posted on 11/14/11 at 7:59 am to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
UM>FSU, UW>UM, UW<Oregon
Miami's loss could be like OkSt and lost to a great team.
Oklahoma's loss is like Washington's in that it was to the lesser team, but 2000 Oregon > 2011 Texas Tech by a mile
There is no comparable loss like FSU's.
I'm one of the ones who thinks wins count more than losses. And if everybody thinks Miami was the best team, then Washington had the best win. Miami would have had the 2nd best win over Florida State. I'm not sure who all FSU beat, but it must have been enough for the computers to bump them over Miami. It kinda sucked for Miami, granted, but anytime you lose a game you puy your fate in other's hands. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Oh well.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:00 am to Buckeye06
quote:
Bama can only go down this year; they don't have the opportunities to play teams to move back up.
unless LSU loses
quote:
A fluid system would say that VT was better than LSU based on where they had them and their latest results, and the gap should have widened.
that's pretty static...
quote:
Fluid systems take the latest games into acct, and based on that VT should have been ahead of LSU
fluid systems take the whole season into account. replace LSU with another team who beat the frick out of VT. that still leaves LSU with a better resume
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:02 am to trackfan
quote:
2004
no doubt
I disagree. Auburn had the weaker schedule and in 2004 the SEC was the weaker conference. The system worked.
I totally agree. Everybody says Auburn got screwed with the benefit of hindsight. Knowing how bad OU got destroyed by USC and how good the SEC has been since then has clouded judgement. But I remember that season and USC and OU both looked far superior to Auburn that year. They may not have been--we'll never know--but Auburn got screwed more by fate--that 3 undefeated big bosy all happened in the same year--than the "BCS."
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:03 am to SlowFlowPro
Why didn't the voters take the entire season up to CCGs into acct the week before? they did, and these voters ruled that VT had a better overall year up to that point than LSU.
I don't agree with that, since LSU won by 40 points earlier in the year, but it's the most bias system in sports bar none.
I don't agree with that, since LSU won by 40 points earlier in the year, but it's the most bias system in sports bar none.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:06 am to Buckeye06
quote:
Why didn't the voters take the entire season up to CCGs into acct the week before?
because LSU lost last. it shouldn't matter, and voters are getting better about it...but that's why
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
2004, hands down. The whole point of not having a playoff is supposed to be that the regular season means something, and in 2004 the regular season was completely meaningless.
In years like 2001, 2003, 2007, etc. the system worked, at least in the sense that everyone who got "screwed" lost a game and therefore left the outcome to fate.
In years like 2001, 2003, 2007, etc. the system worked, at least in the sense that everyone who got "screwed" lost a game and therefore left the outcome to fate.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:26 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
2004, hands down.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 8:37 am to Hot Carl
quote:
I totally agree. Everybody says Auburn got screwed with the benefit of hindsight. Knowing how bad OU got destroyed by USC and how good the SEC has been since then has clouded judgement. But I remember that season and USC and OU both looked far superior to Auburn that year. They may not have been--we'll never know--but Auburn got screwed more by fate--that 3 undefeated big bosy all happened in the same year--than the "BCS."
No way. AU played 5 ranked, more than either OU or USC, and beat the hell out of all of them with the exception of LSU. And LSU, UGA, UT, UT again, and Va Tech were all top 10 or 15 when they played AU and all won a minimum of 9 games.
AU was the best team in the country in 2004 and probably would have beaten USC. The NFL strongly agreed as well.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 9:14 am to Hot Carl
quote:
But I remember that season and USC and OU both looked far superior to Auburn that year.
They also both had tougher schedules than Auburn.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 9:44 am to trackfan
quote:
They also both had tougher schedules than Auburn.
AU 2004:
1. #5 LSU: 9-2 regular season, only losses to AU and 10-1 UGA in Athens
2. #9 UT: 10-3, 2/3 losses were to AU
3. #8 UGA: 10-2, 9-1 going into AU game
4. #15 UT: SECCG, again only 1 team could beat UT the entire year not named AU
5. #9 VA Tech: 10-3 Probably should have beaten SC.
USC 2004
1. #7 Cal. Only good win over ranked opponent all year.
2. #15 Arizona State.
Lost to 3-8 Arizona as well. May have finished season unranked. 3. OU -
Piss poor overrated team that barely sqeaked by multiple unranked teams including Kansas State, A&M, and OSU You sure USC played a tougher schedule?
Posted on 11/14/11 at 9:50 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
USC didn't beat that same VaTech team?
And I like how the OU massacre gets the lolz gif but all of AU's wins are legit.
And I like how the OU massacre gets the lolz gif but all of AU's wins are legit.
Posted on 11/14/11 at 9:56 am to The Easter Bunny
Yeah, but I just looked up the schedules and Va Tech was unranked when USC beat them.
And yeah, OU gets laughed at. They were a joke that nearly lost to some bad teams while AU rolled all year.
Also, 2004 LSU, UGA, UT all might mop the field with any and every team on either OU or USC's schedule. Texas and Cal might have given one of those a game, but that is still 3 to 1 in favor of the teams AU played.
Face it, 2004 AU was probably the best team in the country and easily the most deserving to play for the title, but the voters fricked it up.
And yeah, OU gets laughed at. They were a joke that nearly lost to some bad teams while AU rolled all year.
Also, 2004 LSU, UGA, UT all might mop the field with any and every team on either OU or USC's schedule. Texas and Cal might have given one of those a game, but that is still 3 to 1 in favor of the teams AU played.
Face it, 2004 AU was probably the best team in the country and easily the most deserving to play for the title, but the voters fricked it up.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News