- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: "You should have to win your conference to play for a NC"
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:44 pm to molsusports
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:44 pm to molsusports
quote:
I think UGA fans who think voters were swayed by the "didn't win the conference" argument are also correct
A couple things:
1. Voters were forced to re-evaluate things after the last game, because it had NC implications. LSU was forced to the end of the line after beating Arky...but the last poll requires evaluation. LSU probably should have never been behind UGA in the first place.
2. The extra game made a difference, Chapionship or not. LSU beat another ranked opponent...one that crushed Georgia
3. Those of us against the "Conference Champ" rule are against just that... "A RULE". I have no problem with voters taking it into consideration. But if a team finishes top 2 of the BCS in spite of voters distaste, they probably deserve it.
0
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:45 pm to lsumatt
quote:
1. WRONG. LSU had a better record
2. LSU had a much tougher schedule
3. LSU had more quality wins
4. LSU had a higher MOV
5. LSU never lost to a team without a winning record (South Carolina). LSU didn't get blown out by 21 by Tenn...in fact they lost both games in OT.
Nobody has ever given me a good, objective reason why UGA should have gone over LSU in 2007
Sorry...but they had the EXACT same record when the regular season finished...and UGA was ranked ahead of them. All of the other factors, while true, are irrelevant to this discussion. Had the season ENDED there, UGA plays for the title.
However, it didnt end there, LSU won the SEC in a game that UGA watched from television. The fact that LSU was the conf champion was the trump card. Which is fine...but in most usual situations, if numbers 1 and 2 go down, numbers 3 and 4 rise. UGA stayed at 4 while not playing a game. It is how the cookie crumbled. LSU won what they had to...and showed they deserved the title. But again, they werent "clearly" dominant...or they wouldnt have been behind UGA when the regular season finished and all things at that point were relatively equal.
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:49 pm to Hooligan33
quote:
ad the season ENDED there, UGA plays for the title.
No, West Virginia would have played for a NC, if the season ended that week
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:52 pm to Hooligan33
quote:
. But again, they werent "clearly" dominant
The extra game matters, CG or not. It was further proof of why LSU was better. I gave 5 reasons why LSU was better than Georgia OBJECTIVELY (I left off #6 which was we were higher in the comps).
You gave one subjective reason (voters). Do you have a single OBJECTIVE argument for UGA being better? Even in the "regular season"?
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:52 pm to Hooligan33
quote:
UGA was ranked ahead of them
But again, they werent "clearly" dominant...or they wouldnt have been behind UGA when the regular season finished and all things at that point were relatively equal.
The ONLY reason UGA was ranked ahead of LSU was because LSU lost later in the season, and it happened to be the last game of the season. It had no correlation to UGA being better than LSU.
Voters tend to be subjective like that.
This post was edited on 11/30/10 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:57 pm to lsumatt
Actually would have been Mizzou, but your point is correct. Pitt/West VA were going to play either way. The conf title games knocked Mizzou out and put LSU in.
Posted on 11/30/10 at 2:59 pm to lsumatt
quote:
No, West Virginia would have played for a NC, if the season ended that week
West Virginia's season hadn't ended then.
OSU (12-0, 8-0) and Iowa (11-1, 8-0) split the Big10 title in 2002 - should OSU not have been allowed to play in the title game since they shared their conference title?
Posted on 11/30/10 at 3:01 pm to Hooligan33
quote:
Had the season ENDED there, UGA plays for the title.
actually, no, had the season ended there, Missouri and West Virginai would have played.
WVU did not play ina CCG fwiw.
Nevermind I see that has been covered
This post was edited on 11/30/10 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 11/30/10 at 3:03 pm to Hooligan33
quote:
The conf title games knocked Mizzou out and put LSU in.
Conference championship games are double edged swords. If you win, they improve your resume. If you lose, then it can erase your chances. Very rarely can a team overcome losing a conference championship game: Nebraska (2001), Oklahoma (2003) and possibly Auburn(2010).
Posted on 11/30/10 at 3:07 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
Nebraska (2001),
didn't even play in the CCG, but your point is a valid one.
The CCG has cost Nebraska 96, K-State 98, Texas 01, and Tenn 01 a NCG. Its benefited LSU in 03 and 07 and Florida in 06.
Posted on 11/30/10 at 3:13 pm to lsumatt
quote:
Do you have a single OBJECTIVE argument for UGA being better? Even in the "regular season"?
I am not arguing that UGA was "better." I am just saying that one guy got called out for the 2007 example and was just saying how UGA did have a bit of an argument, subjective, objective, etc. The arguments ONLY basis is that when the regular season concluded, we were both pretty much the same in the rankings, UGA holding a slight edge, which is the only thing that matters in this crazy system. When the title games were finished, voila...LSU ahead, end of argument, outside of bars and chat rooms of course.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 12:16 am to Hooligan33
quote:
Sorry...but they had the EXACT same record when the regular season finished
quote:
Had the season ENDED there, UGA plays for the title.
Since the season, in fact, did not end there, how is this remotely relevant?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 6:06 am to lsumatt
quote:Possibly, but that's just conjecture.
You are sort of missing the point. If you make a rule that says you have to win your conference, wouldn't conferences just change their rules to allow for their teams to have the best shot at a NC?
A "champion" at least as I have always understood it, is a worthy representative of someone or something sent to battle. If you can't beat a mediocre team from the SEC East, I don't want you representing the SEC in the BCSCG.
To me, it is not just your resume that makes you worthy. How you play in your CCG should matter also. It is additional pressure, but that is the stuff that champions can and should overcome.
I get your point matt, I just don't agree with it.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 7:00 am to loweralabamatrojan
quote:
If you can't beat a mediocre team from the SEC East
THey're 9-3, ranked in the top 20, it's pretty silly to say they're mediocre.
quote:
I don't want you representing the SEC in the BCSCG.
But you'd prefer teams that don't have nearly as many good wins as Auburn?
It's not just about your losses, the wins count as well.
quote:
How you play in your CCG should matter also
And some teams are exempt from this by not playing a CCG which puts them at an advantage(See the 3 big 10 teams). And Stanford as well. Even though the PAC 10's system is wayyyy better, like you said, they don't have that added pressure of a CCG so we'll never know how Stanford would fare in one.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 8:24 am to loweralabamatrojan
quote:
I get your point matt, I just don't agree with it.
quote:
If you can't beat a mediocre team from the SEC East, I don't want you representing the SEC in the BCSCG.
Oregon has already wrapped up the PAC 10, the worst they can do is tie with Stanford who they beat. So would it be OK with you if Oregon went to he BCS CG with a loss to a mediocre Pac 10 team like Oregon State? They would still have won the Pac 10.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 8:29 am to loweralabamatrojan
quote:
A "champion" at least as I have always understood it, is a worthy representative of someone or something sent to battle. If you can't beat a mediocre team from the SEC East, I don't want you representing the SEC in the BCSCG.
It's unlikely but possible IMO for a team to deserve a BCS NC appearance if they don't win their own conference. Mostly because to rank that high you haven't lost that many games and it's unlikely the 1 or 2 you lost would be the 1 or 2 that cost you the conference championship
Anyway, your opinion is a significant one... because many people share it and it colors the way they vote in the opinion polls
Posted on 12/1/10 at 8:42 am to molsusports
quote:
It's unlikely but possible IMO for a team to deserve a BCS NC appearance if they don't win their own conference. Mostly because to rank that high you haven't lost that many games and it's unlikely the 1 or 2 you lost would be the 1 or 2 that cost you the conference championship
In 2003 Oklahoma, LSU and USC all lost 1 conference game. USC won the Pac 10 because they had the best record, even though they lost to a mediocre Cal team. OU did not win the Big 12, even though they had the best record in the Big 12 at 8-1, Texas was 7-1, KState 7-2.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 8:49 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
So would it be OK with you if Oregon went to he BCS CG with a loss to a mediocre Pac 10 team like Oregon State? They would still have won the Pac 10.
no
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:10 am to chalmetteowl
How does one determine if you won your conference?
Does a 3 way "Co-champion" in the Big 10 count as "winning your conference"? If the voters decide who the winner of the conference is, then I don't think that is a true conference champion from the standpoint of comparing it to Auburn.
Auburn ends the season as the "champion" of the SEC, but plays in a SECCG to determine the "winner" of the SEC. Should they lose, how is that any different from the Big 10 situation?
Does a 3 way "Co-champion" in the Big 10 count as "winning your conference"? If the voters decide who the winner of the conference is, then I don't think that is a true conference champion from the standpoint of comparing it to Auburn.
Auburn ends the season as the "champion" of the SEC, but plays in a SECCG to determine the "winner" of the SEC. Should they lose, how is that any different from the Big 10 situation?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:14 am to chalmetteowl
But if they lost to them in Oct, then you'd be OK with it?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News