Started By
Message
re: Which team was less deserving of a spot in the NC game: '07 LSU or '11 Bama
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:28 pm to Lionnation1993
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:28 pm to Lionnation1993
quote:
07 LSU was 10-0 in regulation
You might not want to go down that path, lest you enrage your fellow LSU fans. You see, 2011 Bama can make that same argument, only better -- they were 11-0 in regulation. Not a tangent you want to promote, I think.
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 2:29 pm
1
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:29 pm to BHMKyle
Do-overs are not ideal. Two loss teams playing a one loss team for a championship is not ideal.
Football is not ideal. The BCS system was created to put the two best teams against each other in a game for the title. In both of those seasons, that's what happened. There was not another team out there who had a stronger claim than 07 LSU, nor was there one with a stronger claim than 2011 Bama. That's reality.
Football is not ideal. The BCS system was created to put the two best teams against each other in a game for the title. In both of those seasons, that's what happened. There was not another team out there who had a stronger claim than 07 LSU, nor was there one with a stronger claim than 2011 Bama. That's reality.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:30 pm to randomways
LSU didn't play Arkansas or Kentucky in the National Championship did they?
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:31 pm to cajunbama
quote:
07 LSU. Worst BCS Champion EVAR!!!
Maybe, but being the "worst champion EVAR" beats the HELL out being the "team that SHOULD have won it". Ask the 2015 Ohio State fans, or the 2014 Bama fans, etc.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:32 pm to RegisteredPharmacist
quote:maybe if every other team not named Ohio St would have taken care of their business, they would have played instead of LSU. But the guys upstairs did take into account that LSU was undefeated in regulation that year. I understand it's kind of petty, but LSU was the best team in the country that year despite their losses. More so because it was just a down year for college football dominance.
A team that loses to Kentucky and then gets beat by Houston Nutt at home do not deserve to be national champs.
As far as 2011 Alabama, they were without a doubt a top 2 team that year, but it still makes me laugh how a national champion didn't win their conference, let alone not even play in the conference game. Makes me laugh as much as USC saying they were national champions in 2003 when they didn't even play in the national title game.
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:33 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
Do-overs are not ideal. Two loss teams playing a one loss team for a championship is not ideal.
Football is not ideal. The BCS system was created to put the two best teams against each other in a game for the title. In both of those seasons, that's what happened. There was not another team out there who had a stronger claim than 07 LSU, nor was there one with a stronger claim than 2011 Bama. That's reality.
By now, it should be obvious you're not going to convince people. Either your idea for a championship game is "Two best teams" or "Two best teams that haven't already played each other prior to the tournament." I can't think of a single sport that demands the latter, but people seem really attached to that definition in CFB for some reason.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:34 pm to BHMKyle
Not only that...the biggest problem I have is college football is all more emotional then any other game. LSU was totally undermined and subverted with the huge emotional gain they garnered in a rematch.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:36 pm to Ryan3232
quote:
maybe if every other team not named Ohio St would have taken care of their business, they would have played instead of LSU
Absolutely. Case closed, LSU deserved to be there when compared to the other teams in consideration for that second spot.
quote:
But the guys upstairs did take into account that LSU was undefeated in regulation that year.
I don't think they did that at all. They looked at the resumes and determined that LSU was the best of the two loss teams to get that second BCS spot.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:36 pm to Lionnation1993
quote:
LSU didn't play Arkansas or Kentucky in the National Championship did they?
Er...no. Couldn't you just Google the answer to that? In any event, the your entire post consisted of proclaiming they were 10-0 in regulation. I pointed out that 2011 Bama was 11-0 in regulation, so if you use that as a foundation for arguing LSU deserved to be in the title game, you have to do the same with 2011 Bama.
Edit: For what it's worth, my position is that 1) LSU got incredibly lucky in the rivalry week massacre of CFB; and 2) after getting lucky, though, they were clearly the second most deserving team. I don't pick either of the choices offered by the OP
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:37 pm to randomways
quote:As an LSU fan, I don't disagree with this statement. It's more the principle of why LSU had to play one more game than Alabama for almost no reason.
By now, it should be obvious you're not going to convince people. Either your idea for a championship game is "Two best teams" or "Two best teams that haven't already played each other prior to the tournament." I can't think of a single sport that demands the latter, but people seem really attached to that definition in CFB for some reason.
I'm curious as to what would have happened if LSU would have lost the SEC championship game.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:38 pm to Lsuchs
The question was which team was less deserving of a spot in NC game between two teams: 07 LSU and 11 Bama
11-1 > 11-2
1 is less than 2.
Bama = 1 loss
LSU = 2 losses
Favor: Bama, not close.
11-1 > 11-2
1 is less than 2.
Bama = 1 loss
LSU = 2 losses
Favor: Bama, not close.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:38 pm to randomways
quote:
By now, it should be obvious you're not going to convince people
Why not? It's only been five years, there's still hope.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:39 pm to CCTider
quote:
I guess today is officially shite on Bama Day
Why should today be different from every other day of the year?
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:40 pm to Ryan3232
quote:
I'm curious as to what would have happened if LSU would have lost the SEC championship game.
In all honesty, they would have gotten screwed. It's never been a secret, even prior to the BCS, that late season losses hurt more in the polls than early ones. The only comfort y'all might have gotten -- and this is purely hypothetical -- is that is theoretically possible that you would have taken Bama with you because their only loss was now to a team not playing for the title.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:41 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:I do believe the BCS ratings at that time, if not now as well, take into account the score of games when calculating the numbers for BCS points. As in it's better to lose a close game than to lose by 40 if you want a slightly better BCS rating when it's all said and done. Thus, why I said what I said.
I don't think they did that at all. They looked at the resumes and determined that LSU was the best of the two loss teams to get that second BCS spot.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And if I am, I apologize for my ignorance.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:44 pm to randomways
quote:exactly my point
and this is purely hypothetical -- is that is theoretically possible that you would have taken Bama with you because their only loss was now to a team not playing for the title.
It would have been interesting to see how that would have played out. Because by looking at the finishing record of the two teams, Bama and LSU would each have one loss and Bama's loss would be to LSU. But yeah, the late season loss thing might be the factor in Bama's favor. But in my opinion, it shouldn't.
edit: im starting a spin-off thread on this.
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:51 pm to AUtigerNOLA
quote:I understand where you are coming from, but this is poor logic. I could turn around and say that both teams have 11 wins so it's equal. I could also say that Utah from their shite conference might have had zero losses, so does that make them better?
11-1 > 11-2
1 is less than 2.
Bama = 1 loss
LSU = 2 losses
Favor: Bama, not close.
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:56 pm to Ryan3232
quote:
I understand where you are coming from, but this is poor logic. I could turn around and say that both teams have 11 wins so it's equal. I could also say that Utah from their shite conference might have had zero losses, so does that make them better?
Well I can also say according to the OP, he lists two specific teams from the same conference. So bringing up Utah in there at all is moot.
Posted on 6/29/16 at 2:58 pm to AUtigerNOLA
quote:
The question was which team was less deserving of a spot in NC game between two teams: 07 LSU and 11 Bama 11-1 > 11-2 1 is less than 2. Bama = 1 loss LSU = 2 losses Favor: Bama, not close.
National championships are decided by year
You are fighting for top 2 that year to play for that national championship.
So you think auburn 2013 was less deserving than auburn 04?
"13-0 > 12-1" and all that...
Seems to me 12-1 2013 auburn clearly deserved to go ahead of 11-1 bama who they just beat. 04 auburn over undefeated Oklahoma wasn't as clear cut.
LSU was competing for the 2007 championship, not the decade national championship against teams already graduated or future teams still in high school. They absolutely deserved to be in that game.
There was some gray area in 11.
Bama 11 and okie state 11 were closer resume wise than LSU 07 and VT 07. And one was a conference champ in 11 while one wasn't.
How about this then if we aren't requiring logic: I think auburn 13 was less deserving than both since they were blown out by 2 TDs. 07 LSU and 11 Bama were never once losing a game at the end of 4 quarters
Side note: how would you feel having to beat bama again in 13 for the championship? If FSU was 11-2 and bama went over 12-1 big 10 champ mich state and beat you in the rematch how deserving do you think they would be of the title? Would bama have been better than mich state, probably. Were they better than auburn, probably. shite they were probably "better" than FSU. But do they deserve that chance again, or did auburn win fair and square and deserve to play mich state another conf champ. If you agree bama should have gone we should just make the playoff format bama +3 until they end the streak of #1 recruiting classes. No matter how their season plays out they will always be the "best" team on paper
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 6/29/16 at 3:03 pm to AUtigerNOLA
quote:what I'm saying is that you have to factor in what is happening around you. For example, if every single team in the NCAA in 2007 besides Ohio St and LSU had 3 losses or more (hypothetically speaking), there would be no reason at all to say LSU wasn't deserving of a spot.
Well I can also say according to the OP, he lists two specific teams from the same conference. So bringing up Utah in there at all is moot.
Now in 2011, Oklahoma St had a very realistic shot of going to the national championship. In 2007, there wasn't much else happening besides Ohio St. And LSU was obviously better than Va.Tech.
Im just saying not to compare the records of teams from 2 completely different years.
Edit: to clarify my point... '11 Bama is night and day better than '07 LSU. But that isn't the argument of the thread.
This post was edited on 6/29/16 at 3:06 pm
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News