re: When Exactly Did LSU Fans Develop a Persecution Complex?

quote:

---

Unlike LSU fans, Auburn doesnt use excuses like, "the refs, SEC, ESPN, Les Miles, other LSU fans" all hate us and that is why we lose games.

---

quote:

---

danfraz

---

I can't help it you have battered woman syndrome.....it'll get better in time LSU fan. As an Alabama fan we take great pride in knowing that we completely crushed every LSU fans dream in one game.....feels good...feels real good.

dis sum serious chit

2/10

quote:

---

Congratulations.. 11/10

---

Agree, there's some silly arse posting in this one.

I mean he brought out all of the usual suspects, and a few I've never seen before. Have to grade accordingly..

quote:

---

When Exactly Did LSU Fans Develop a Persecution Complex?


Was it Auburn vs LSU 04 or 06? During the Curly Hallman period? Maybe the resurrection of Saban and Bama? What made you guys become so whiny and paranoid?

---

You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

However, seriously, there is a long and very questionable history that has to make one wonder.

1960s and 1970s--Scheduling
At that time, Ole Miss was our biggest and bloodiest rivalry. Well into the '60s, there were campus riots the whole week leading up to the game. It was huge. In 1964, LSU coach Charles McClendon, in his 3rd year, and his old boss, Bear Bryant, agreed to start an annual series (back then, SEC teams made their own conference schedules just like we do OOC games now). The game was set for the week after LSU played Ole Miss every year. For years through the '60s and '70s, Mac asked that it be moved to a different weekend because of our huge game the week before with Ole Miss. Bear never agreed, and even after the SEC took over conference scheduling in the '70s, it never happened until the 1990s, when the Ole Miss rivalry had faded and LSU was not a factor in the SEC title race. Alabama didn't want it moved until it didn't matter any more, so it didn't move until it didn't matter any more.

Early 1980s--TV, Night Games

With the proliferation of TV deals after teams and conferences wrested control of them away from the NCAA, the SEC was courted by several networks, including the national ones, the syndicated regional ones and the cable one(s). Up until at least 1982, teams had always retained the right to refuse to move the starting time of their home games for TV. LSU's longstanding tradition of night games was very important to our fans, and we wanted to continue playing at least most of our home games at night. But with increasing TV coverage, more games were being moved to the daytime. LSU repeatedly asked the SEC to negotiate for its teams' right to refuse to move a game up for TV, but was outvoted 9-1 every time. Even an exemption for just one team, which would not have hurt the networks at all and may well have been agreed to if asked for, was too much for LSU to ask of the SEC. Outvoted every time.

1984--SEC Championship

Florida finishes first in the SEC standings, LSU is second. The SEC decided that, because of NCAA violations uncovered at Florida during the season, Florida was retroactively declared ineligible for the title and stripped of it. For the first, and to date still the only, time in the history of the conference, the second highest finishing team was not awarded the title when the highest finishing team was ineligible. Instead, the 1984 SEC title was vacated. When 1st place finisher Florida was again ineligible in 1990, 2nd place Tennessee was awarded the title.

1986-1988--Sugar Bowl Tiebreaker

The SEC tie-in with the Sugar Bowl permitted the Sugar Bowl to select any team it wanted if more than one team tied for the SEC championship. Sensing an anti-LSU bias on the part of the Sugar Bowl committee (which preferred out-of-state teams in order to boost tourism revenue for New Orleans), LSU requested that the SEC negotiate with the Sugar Bowl to establish a tiebreaker rule that would be transparent and consistently applied. We didn't even care what the rule was, we just wanted any rule that we could depend on being consistent. Even after the Sugar Bowl brazenly admitted and displayed its anti-LSU sentiment over three straight years from 1986 through 1988, the SEC refused even to try to get the Sugar Bowl to settle on one rule and consistently apply it.

In 1986, LSU had clinched a share of the title with a 5-1 SEC record. Alabama was 4-1 with a game to play versus Auburn. LSU was 9-2, Alabama would be 10-2 with a win over Auburn. Alabama was ranked one spot higher than LSU in the polls, both in the top 10. LSU had beaten Alabama head to head. Prior to the Iron Bowl, the Sugar Bowl indicated it would invite Alabama if it beat Auburn. A half-game better record and one ranking spot apparently prevailed over a head to head win, in the Sugar's tiebreaker rationale. Fortunately, Auburn beat Alabama so LSU won the title outright.

In 1987, LSU had finished SEC play at 5-1. Auburn was 4-0-1 and Alabama was 4-1 going into the Iron Bowl. Alabama had beaten LSU head to head, but had 3 losses (LSU had 1) and was ranked near the bottom of the top 20 (LSU was top 10). The Sugar Bowl committee representative at the Iron Bowl, in a pregame interview stated emphatically that "an Alabama win will NOT send LSU to the Sugar Bowl". Unlike the previous year, apparently a head to head win was now more important than a 2-game better record and 10+ ranking spots. Auburn beat Alabama again and won the title outright, so the tie didn't materialize.

In 1988, LSU had finished SEC play at 6-1, assured of at least a share of the title. Auburn was 5-1 going into the Iron Bowl. LSU had beaten Auburn head to head, but Auburn had a better record and ranking (similar to LSU's better record and ranking over Alabama in 1987). Auburn beat Alabama again, and the Sugar Bowl selected Auburn, flip-flopping AGAIN on whether head to head wins or records and rankings were more important.

Even after this, the SEC refused even to ask for an established tiebreaker from the Sugar Bowl, and the problem never went away until 1992 when there could no longer be a tie for the SEC title.

<<<<<<<<CONTINUED IN NEXT POST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The thread delivers for sure