LSU is Ranked?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:36 am

My God and GOD, they'd have a hard time scoring on our local Middle School team.

Qbert · Post by **Qbert** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:39 am

and just think....your middle school team would have to give Alabama points!

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:40 am

Most likely.

M2 · Post by M2 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:42 am

Hey... they beat one of the worst teams in the PAC 10 on special teams mistakes...

They should rank in the top 10...

Sin,

East Coast bias

the truth

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:42 am

What you saw was the epic defense of the SEC showing up and shutting down the vaunted, unequaled, high-octane LSU offense.

Give Georgia the MNC now. They won the SEC. There is nothing else to play for.

sin,
SECHomer Genie

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:26 am

Actually, that'd be Jsc, the guy who advocates simply awarding the national title to the winner of the SEC Money Grab Game.

LSU didn't have a single convincing win this season.

They should've lost to ASU.

They should've lost to Auburn.

They even should've lost to fuggen Arkansas.

They squeaked by a punchless 'Bama team that would struggle to score fourteen offensive points against UCLA.

They lost, at home, to a completely useless Tennessee team.

They get bloorfed by a nearly equally punchless Georgia team.

But hey, they did manage to roll North Texas and Appalachian State...late in the season, right when real teams are playing, well, real teams.

That share of the title they got a couple years, I hope it's still keeping LSU Fan warm at night...

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:35 am

I guess those other four championships tOSU won were just sportswriters awards then :?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:59 am

88 wrote:
Van wrote:
[blah, blah, blah] ...share of the title... [/blah, blah, blah]

LSU got punked tonight, but they didn't share the BCS title a couple of years ago. They won it outright. If USC had beaten Cal that season, USC would have earned an opportunity to try to defeat LSU and claim the title. But USC didn't win, and they didn't get a share of the title. They got a sportswriters award. No crystal trophy. Sorry. Try again.

Sorry, the crystal trophy isn't very convincing to the entire world who follows CF; a world which unanimously states that USC is going for a Three Peat.

They're not referring to three Pete Carrolls.

What LSU won outright in 2003 was the BCS game against OU. They didn't beat USC and USC was ranked #1 in both polls so due to a since rectified flaw in the BCS system USC had to give up a share of the title.

Good thing for LSU, that flaw, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten even their one share. Any other year, USC wouldn't have had to've shared that title with anybody.

Bitter types who think they're getting anything accomplished by continually trying to rewrite history, hey, why even bother? Nobody buys it. Nobody is under any illusions that USC and LSU aren't both recognized as being co national champs. Every single writer in the country says so, as does every tv announcer and radio host and there it is on every NCAA list of CF national champions...

What's the point? Do you truly think all this pissing in the wind is ever going to get someone to say, "Hmmm, yeah, USC doesn't possess a crystal trophy for 2003! So, I'm going to stop thinking of them as being co national champs that year, starting right now!"

Yeah, that's gonna happen...

The most amusing thing is imagining all the SC Haters spitting in anger every freaking day when they log onto collegefootballnews.com or when they read their paper or watch tv or listen to the radio and it never ends and it's never altered: Talk of USC's co national championship in 2003 and their pending Three Peat.

"Crystal trophy! Crystal trophy!", shout the haters. In response, the rest of the world just yawns, ignores 'em and continues on unabated with talk of USC's possible Three Peat.

It would seem that the "crystal trophy" exclusivity angle hasn't exactly won over the collective hearts and minds. Nobody buys it. It's being treated as nothing but the pure hall monitor nitpicking nonsense that it truly is...

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:10 am

I'm sure it warms the LSU cockles to know that those same coaches who awarded them their share of the title were the same coaches who'd already voted USC #1 and they're the same coaches who would've voted USC #1 again following LSU's win over OU.

That's gotta feel really good, knowing even your bogus crystal trophy would reside in Heritage Hall if only the coaches who awarded it to you would've been free from any contractual mandates.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:52 am

Yep, I'm good with a "2.5 Peat", just as long as LSU gives up their share as well.

I really don't care, actually. This is all just fun shit, arguing sematics. I know that season ended in a debacle. I know both LSU and USC got screwed out of a chance at what should've been rightfully theirs. I know I'm happy with our share of the title and I know LSU is rightfully happy with their BCS title.

I don't know that USC would've beaten LSU in the Sugar Bowl. I strongly suspect they would've but thanks to the BCS we'll never know for sure so the only good that came out of that whole clusterfuck (besides each team's fans enjoying their title) is that the BCS at least fixed the system enough that such an error couldn't happen again.

MClub · Post by **MClub** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:56 pm

Van wrote:...I know both LSU and USC got screwed out of a chance at what should've been rightfully theirs.

there were three teams with a legitimate claim to the top two bcs slots, so claiming usc and lsu were screwed out of what was rightfully theirs is a bit revisionist.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:55 pm

Fact is USC has dodged the SEC Champ the last two years in LSU and Auburn. (please do not reference an Auburn win in 2003 as it DOES NOT MATTER) For some unexplained reason this shitty BCS keeps on picking Big 12 teams to send to the sacrifical altar(this year UT is the only other undefeated team).

Say what you will, but the fact remains......and most people in here will agree that the SEC has been the premier conference recently AND USC didn't have to play the SEC champ.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:53 pm

SEC, premier conf...

Not buying.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:31 pm

m2 wrote:Hey... they beat one of the worst teams in the PAC 10 on special teams mistakes...

They should rank in the top 10...

Sin,

East Coast bias

the truth

Since when was LSU on the east coast?

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:45 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:SEC, premier conf...

Not buying.

I did not say this year, but in those past two years they have.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:14 pm

If the PAC 1 could just count 7 for the other side every possession and play offense the entire game, they probably would...least physical conference in America.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:19 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:SEC, premier conf...

Not buying.

Probably one of the most down years in the SEC in recent history...4 new coaches, Tennessee blows...and they still have more teams ranked in the BCS 25 than any other conference. Top to bottom, what conference is better?

EDIT: Err...strike that. ACC takes the lead in new polls. The SEC does still have the most top 10 ranked teams, however. :D

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:44 pm

MClub wrote:
Van wrote:...I know both LSU and USC got screwed out of a chance at what should've been rightfully theirs.
there were three teams with a legitimate claim to the top two bcs slots, so claiming usc and lsu were screwed out of what was rightfully theirs is a bit revisionist.

After each team's bowl game there were only two teams left getting screwed out of their chance at an undisputed title.

Plus One should've been in effect and LSU and USC should've been allowed to settle it on the field.

Beyond that, no, I still don't think OU had a legitimate claim to that BCS match up with LSU. You simply can't get completely destroyed in your last game before the seedings are announced and still move into the title game anyway, not when doing so bumps either a USC team with one early season triple O.T. road loss or an LSU team with only one early season SEC loss.

It wasn't just revisionism either. Even before that BCS game most people were saying OU didn't deserve the shot over USC and LSU.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:46 pm

T REX wrote:Fact is USC has dodged the SEC Champ the last two years in LSU and Auburn.

"Dodged"???

Yeah, USC dodged the SEC.

How's about we say the SEC dodged USC? Christ...

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:00 pm

Van wrote:
T REX wrote:Fact is USC has dodged the SEC Champ the last two years in LSU and Auburn.

"Dodged"???

Yeah, USC dodged the SEC.

How's about we say the SEC dodged USC? Christ...

I didn't say ducked as it would imply on purpose. For whatever reason the BCS has not allowed the SEC to play for outright national titles. For this we are forced to watch Big 12 team after Big 12 team get bounced. The Big 12 is the most overrated conference probably since the inception of the forward pass. Texas thankfully played tOSU so they have some arguement being there.

Yes, Auburn would have made it a much better game game than OU(overrated university).

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:16 pm

The Big XII is the most overrated conference.

Agreed.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:21 pm

baloney. The Big 12 has not been hailed as the strongest conference by many folks this season.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:24 pm

And still it's overrated, just as it's been for the last few seasons.

MClub · Post by **MClub** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:21 am

Van wrote:
MClub wrote:
Van wrote:...I know both LSU and USC got screwed out of a chance at what should've been rightfully theirs.
there were three teams with a legitimate claim to the top two bcs slots, so claiming usc and lsu were screwed out of what was rightfully theirs is a bit revisionist.
After each team's bowl game there were only two teams left getting screwed out of their chance at an undisputed title.

Plus One should've been in effect and LSU and USC should've been allowed to settle it on the field.

Beyond that, no, I still don't think OU had a legitimate claim to that BCS match up with LSU. You simply can't get completely destroyed in your last game before the seedings are announced and still move into the title game anyway, not when doing so bumps either a USC team with one early season triple O.T. road loss or an LSU team with only one early season SEC loss.

It wasn't just revisionism either. Even before that BCS game most people were saying OU didn't deserve the shot over USC and LSU.

ou lost 21-14, hardly a stamp on an "undeserving" shot at the nat'l title. and while usc dominated michigan, it took a fluke interception to really put the game away. it wasn't clear before the games who should've been left out, and the only reason it was afterwards was b/c one of them had to lose. if usc and lsu would've been the #'s 1 and 2, then oklahoma would be boasting about their 8 nat'l championships. all three had excused to play in the sugar and all three had a reason to be left out.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:36 am

OU had the most compelling reason to be left out. They lost BIG in their final game. Neither SC's nor LSU's losses were nearly that bad nor was their timing so horrible.

Technically, OU didn't even win their own conference. USC and LSU did. On top of that USC was ranked #1 in both polls, including the coach's poll which was voted on by by the same coaches who would later be rubber stamping the BCS title vote.

Bare minimum, USC as the consensus #1 had to be one of the two that made it into the title game. The BCS screwed that one up so badly they immediately changed the system that very off season in order to prevent such a farce from every occuring again.

It should've come down to OU vs LSU for the other slot and the details of OU's loss should've made LSU the obvious choice.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:20 pm

It's pretty evident LSU and SC shared the title in 03. However, at the time, most people seemed to agree LSU concluded their season with more impressive results than SC, hence, LSU was/still is regarded as the better team that year.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:48 pm

Nah. USC was ranked higher by both the writers and the coaches and when the season was over people were wondering what the spread would've been in a USC-LSU match up and USC was the definite favorite according to Vegas...

If either team was the consensus overdog there it was USC.

MClub · Post by **MClub** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:44 am

Van wrote:OU had the most compelling reason to be left out. They lost BIG in their final game. Neither SC's nor LSU's losses were nearly that bad nor was their timing so horrible.

Technically, OU didn't even win their own conference. USC and LSU did. On top of that USC was ranked #1 in both polls, including the coach's poll which was voted on by by the same coaches who would later be rubber stamping the BCS title vote.

Bare minimum, USC as the consensus #1 had to be one of the two that made it into the title game. The BCS screwed that one up so badly they immediately changed the system that very off season in order to prevent such a farce from every occuring again.

It should've come down to OU vs LSU for the other slot and the details of OU's loss should've made LSU the obvious choice.

it's clear you support an ad hoc solutions. plus one? keep playing till you've beat every other d1 team and, if you eventually lose, be content that some 9-2 team took advantage of an arbitrary second chance?

usc was not the consensus #1 that year, else they'd have played in no and not pasadena. the bcs was set up to balance the subjectivity of opinion polls agains the "objectiveness" of computer polls. it was fair so long as ppl and numbers saw eye to eye, but it became a "farce" once ppl like you decided computer polls were being unreasonable for seeing things differently.

and seriously, vegas is the most played out logical fallacy. ooh, vegas said my team would win..

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:33 am

USC was the consensus #1. They were #1 in both polls.

"Consensus #1" was the exact phrase constantly applied to them.

Those 'puter polls can be goofier than hell. We've all seen polls where somehow some 'puter managed to rank Assfuck State above USC. They'll rank a team over another even though the lower ranked team beat the hell out of the higher ranked team just last week and they had the same amount of losses...

Sorry, but when both the coaches and the writers have a certain team ranked far and away as their #1 that's a consensus #1. USC's total of #1 votes was MUCH higher than OU's or LSU's.

MClub · Post by **MClub** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:30 am

Van wrote:USC was the consensus #1. They were #1 in both polls.

they were #1 in both the writers' and coaches' poll, but unfortunately for yr argument consensus would have to include the other half of the bcs formula: computer polls.

Consensus #1" was the exact phrase constantly applied to them.

i applaud yr independent thought process.

Those 'puter polls can be goofier than hell. We've all seen polls where somehow the ap or coaches' poll managed to rank Assfuck State above USC. They'll rank a team over another even though the lower ranked team beat the hell out of the higher ranked team just last week and they had the same amount of losses...

interesting point you make there..

Sorry, but when both the coaches and the writers have a certain team ranked far and away as their #1 that's a consensus #1. USC's total of #1 votes was MUCH higher than OU's or LSU's.

yeah, well, perhaps they should've thought of that beforehand. the bcs came off in that situation like an african despot who handpicks a successor, only to persecute him once he goes off and does his own thing (see: malawi).

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:34 pm

I thought it was fairly obvious LSU had the more complete football team that year, and faced, and subsequently beat more difficult competition from start to finish. But I guess game results aren't as important as polls and "potential" vegas lines.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:14 pm

(see: malawi)

I have lots of fish from malawi.

Btw, I thought it was fairly obvious that LSU in no way had enough offense to beat USC so they absolutely didn't have a more complete football team. What they had was a good defense and the cache (for many) of playing in the SEC.

MClub · Post by **MClub** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:20 pm

Van wrote:Btw, I thought it was fairly obvious that LSU in no way had enough offense to beat USC...

oh, they played?

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:26 pm

Van wrote:
(see: malawi)
I have lots of fish from malawi.

Btw, I thought it was fairly obvious that LSU in no way had enough offense to beat USC so they absolutely didn't have a more complete football team. What they had was a good defense and the cache (for many) of playing in the SEC.

That's the problem with you SC fans. You beat up a bunch of PAC teams, and one OK team in a conference hardly known for defense and you think you can put 50 on anyone. OK was scoring multitudes on everyone that season too, as I recall, and LSU absolutely shut them down.

The bottom line is the system is flawed because it relies on polls. It doesn't matter if the polls are human or computer...as I think Frank Solich's public vote this season clearly demonstrates. USC got fucked just like Auburn got fucked the next year...just because two polls had you number one is really irrelevant. You won your pollster title that year, LSU won their's...and at the end of the day they are both worth about the same.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:28 pm

MClub wrote:
Van wrote:Btw, I thought it was fairly obvious that LSU in no way had enough offense to beat USC...
oh, they played?

Try to pay attention here...

Mgo described what he thought to be obvious and I followed suit by describing what I and many others thought to be obvious.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:29 pm

Well, everyone knows Vegas lines are great indicators.

Sincerely,

Miami (-11) vs. Ohio State, 2002.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:33 pm

So they had "enough" offense to beat OU, a significantly better defensive team than USC, but wouldn't have found a way to muster enough scoring on SC's defense? Doesn't add up. Come on, they averaged 35 points a game that season...when you have a great defense, I think a 35 point average is more than necessary.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:36 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:
Van wrote:
(see: malawi)
I have lots of fish from malawi.

Btw, I thought it was fairly obvious that LSU in no way had enough offense to beat USC so they absolutely didn't have a more complete football team. What they had was a good defense and the cache (for many) of playing in the SEC.

That's the problem with you SC fans. You beat up a bunch of PAC teams, and one OK team in a conference hardly known for defense and you think you can put 50 on anyone. OK was scoring multitudes on everyone that season too, as I recall, and LSU absolutely shut them down.

That's the problem with you SEC fans. You beat up a bunch of SEC teams and one OK team in a conference hardly know for offense or defense and you think you can shut down anyone. An undefeated OK was scoring multitudes on everyone the next season too, as I recall, and they were shutting people down to the tune of shutting out Vince Young's Texas squad, and USC's defense absolutely shut them down while USC's offense scored at will on OU like they were our own personal geishas.

The bottom line is the system is flawed because it relies on polls. It doesn't matter if the polls are human or computer...as I think Frank Solich's public vote this season clearly demonstrates. USC got fucked just like Auburn got fucked the next year...just because two polls had you number one is really irrelevant. You won your pollster title that year, LSU won their's...and at the end of the day they are both worth about the same.

Agreed.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:41 pm

Not known for offense or defense? What are you smoking? The SEC consistently has the top defenses in the nation, and if you want to talk offense...USC and LSU both defeated Auburn in '03 and LSU did it by a larger margin. Those top defenses have a lot more to do with perception of SEC offenses than you care to admit.

MClub · Post by **MClub** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:43 pm

Van wrote:Try to pay attention here...

Mgo described what he thought to be obvious and I followed suit by describing what I and many others thought to be obvious.

i found it obvious that mgo's comment was a response to yr assertion about usc as a consensus #1. it also helps that what he found to be obvious was something directly observable (more difficult competition) wheras what you find obvious is pure conjecture.