Started By
Message
re: USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:15 pm to LSUMJ
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:15 pm to LSUMJ
My point was not that I don't think they should have been there. They deserved it more the USC in my opinion (kind of). My statement was more or less that they should not be mad at the team that won; they should be mad at the team that lost a conference championship and then the national championship. Would make more sense to not say that USC was the better team, but rather argue that USC should have been in the title game rather than OU. But then, most writers would have to go against their word that oU was the best footballl team ever.
0
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:17 pm to Chimlim
quote:
What teams were more deserving then LSU in 07? Please, let us know.
Alabama and USC
JUST ASK EM
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:19 pm to LSUMJ
quote:
there was debate about them being the best football team of all time
I can remember them being labeled the best offense of the past 25 years!
quote:
After USC handily beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl
I love this angle. The only reason UM was in that game was b/c of the Big 10 affliation w/ the Rose bowl. It's not like they were undefeated or some kind of juggernaut that year
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:38 pm to cvdo06
What pisses me off most about the whole deal is that noboy ever brings up Auburn to give them even a little respect for the 04 season.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:39 pm to Mr. Shankly
quote:
I love this angle. The only reason UM was in that game was b/c of the Big 10 affliation w/ the Rose bowl. It's not like they were undefeated or some kind of juggernaut that year
Exactly. And now that the Big 10 is getting a bad rep for being overrated, it makes his theory or rationalization even more troublesome.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:56 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:I used a 13-game season to determine that OU was #1. So did quite a few meticulously-developed mathematical formulas.
Except that they lost their conference championship game in humiliating fashion. And to a team that was not even that good.
You used a single game to suggest that OU was not #1.
Interesting debate.
If 12 teams want to get together and have an 8-game season and call it a "conference," fine. But the BCS counts all games equally; labelling something a conference championship game still gives you a single win or a single loss, and no more.
Look at all the games played and tell me how OU didn't belong in the Sugar Bowl. Feel free to show me some numbers. Some criteria you might want to explore might be winning %, opponents' winning %, opponents' opponents' winning %, quality wins, and scoring margin, and OU has a decisive advantage over LSU and USC in all those categories.
The debate was LSU or USC, and it was a good debate. LSU likely had the better season, and many people crunched many numbers to suggest so, and I agree with those numbers (and I provided my own back in the day).
LSU/OU may not have looked right, but all things considered, it was the right championship game.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:59 pm to Chimlim
quote:
What teams were more deserving then LSU in 07? Please, let us know.
UGA 12-2
USC 12-2
LSU 12-2
USC can claim they were the best team and would have beaten LSU if they had played in a bowl. I think UGA has stated their case too.
I said other teams can and have argued that they were the best team last year. You too can do the same if you feel insecure or just the general need to tell us why LSU was the best team last year, I really don't care.
All I said and am saying is until there is a playoff, more often than not you will have teams bitching that they were the best on any given year and it will be a futile arguement as each team will have a claim and the teams never get to play each other.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 2:59 pm to LST
quote:When you schedule ULM, Citadel, and Louisiana Tech, you put yourself at certain risks.
What pisses me off most about the whole deal is that noboy ever brings up Auburn to give them even a little respect for the 04 season.
Also, when you're in a conference that is prone to having two of its programs on probation for cheating (Alabama and Kentucky), and those programs suck balls that year and happen to be on your schedule, you're also at a risk of being left out.
Auburn is the poster child for any campaign against cupcake scheduling, regardless of the fact that Bowling Green bailed on them.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:00 pm to xiv
quote:
Auburn is the poster child for any campaign against cupcake scheduling, regardless of the fact that Bowling Green bailed on them.
Exactly like LSU this year huh?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:01 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:Unless you schedule tough teams, go undefeated, and still get left out, no bitching. None. Ever. Especially when you lose two games.
USC can claim they were the best team and would have beaten LSU if they had played in a bowl. I think UGA has stated their case too.
I said other teams can and have argued that they were the best team last year. You too can do the same if you feel insecure or just the general need to tell us why LSU was the best team last year, I really don't care.
Virtually no team in history can honestly claim that they did everything in their power to win a national title but got left out unfairly.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:02 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:Absolutely. It's a risk. Putting Western Carolina on the 2003 schedule was an unwise move in my opinion, especially when Rice was available that week. It almost cost them a shot at a national title; LSU barely beat out USC for the #2 spot.
quote:
Auburn is the poster child for any campaign against cupcake scheduling, regardless of the fact that Bowling Green bailed on them.
Exactly like LSU this year huh?
(2004 should be the biggest reason that the Chickens hate the Gumps. They cheated, got caught, and sucked for a couple years after. Had they been decent in 2004, Auburn likely would have slipped in past Oklahoma. Bama's cheating arguably cost Auburn a title shot. frick Alabama.)
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:06 pm to xiv
quote:
Virtually no team in history can honestly claim that they did everything in their power to win a national title but got left out unfairly.
Cept AU '04. Damn Bowling Green bailing on us.
Course you can always say if AU had beaten Bama or UT worse they might have gotten the votes. Pretty worthless arguement as AU beat Bama worse than the final score appeared. AU scored 3 straight tds to open the second half before turning conservative to secure the win (which is exactly what you do in your biggest game of the year with a comfortable 2nd half lead on the road). The last second td was the only thing that made the game respectable. Similiar in the SECCG. Rematch from earlier in the year, AU dominates until getting conservative in the 4th when UT puts a couple of late td's on the board even though AU led by a substantial margin most of the game.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:07 pm to xiv
quote:
Bama's cheating arguably cost Auburn a title shot. frick Alabama.
Never thought of it that way, but thanks.
Bama again.Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:12 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Although other teams may try to say they should have played in the 2007 National Championship game, nobody is even trying to lay claim to the national title other than LSU. And we got the crystal ball.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:12 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:If Auburn would have scheduled the likes of Boise State instead of ULM or Tech, you would have spent NYD in Miami, my friend.
Cept AU '04. Damn Bowling Green bailing on us.
Programs like Auburn and LSU are guilty of being afraid to schedule teams who have a 12% chance of beating them, and once every ten or so years, it costs them dearly. Is it worth it? I don't pay attention to budgets, so I'm not to say. But when considering trophy cases and record books, I say that scheduling a shitty team specifically because of how shitty they are is never worth it.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:20 pm to xiv
quote:
If Auburn would have scheduled the likes of Boise State instead of ULM or Tech, you would have spent NYD in Miami, my friend.
I was in Miami. But I might have been able to see my tigers too, right?
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:22 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Well, yes.
And anyway, Auburn got way more screwed in 1983 than in 2004.
And anyway, Auburn got way more screwed in 1983 than in 2004.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:23 pm to xiv
USC had one loss that season to Cal. It just so happens I was at that game in Berkely, CA. Cal had a very good defense that year and they pressured QB ML the entire game. Guess what? He threw 3 interceptions. Now Cal's defense did not hold a red stick to LSU's #1 defense that year. No way USC could survive our defense in the Sugar Bowl. They are so fortunate they did not make it in. If they had they would have no NC claim at all.
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:40 pm to xiv
quote:
Programs like Auburn and LSU are guilty of being afraid to schedule teams who have a 12% chance of beating them
you're looking at it the wrong way. teams don't want to come to TS to play us, espcially at night. like in 2003 VaTech was supposed to play in TS. they cancelled and pushed it back to 07. we all saw how that played out
Posted on 7/16/08 at 3:46 pm to xiv
quote:
And anyway, Auburn got way more screwed in 1983 than in 2004.
Yep and I am sure you have seen me pointing that out here on the boards. In 2004 AU might have been the best team in the country. In 1983 AU was the best team in the country and it is almost an in-argueable fact that they deserved the NC. I think it is the biggest joke in the history of college football since the champ was named after the bowls that '83 AU was not named the national champion.
This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 3:48 pm
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News