Started By
Message
re: If your school played LSU in 2003 AND Alabama in 2009
Posted on 3/5/11 at 8:59 pm to tigger1
Posted on 3/5/11 at 8:59 pm to tigger1
quote:
Alahunter
Lets not good facts get in way of a good argument, but here is a clear one you're leaving out:
Fact the Qb position as a whole and nearly team by team is much weaker in 2009 vs 2003.
Go check out the QB's
Bama 2009
Total defense Bama #2 244.14 yds per game
Scoring defense Bama #2 11.71 points per game
Pass efficiency defense Bama #2 87.67 rating
Rushing defense #2 78.14 yds per game
Turnover margin +19 on the season
Total offense #42 403 ypg
Scoring offense #22 32.07 ppg
Pass efficiency #34 138.50 rating
Rushing offense #12 215.07 ypg
Strength of schedule(based on Sagarin) #2
Lsu 2003
Total defense #1 252 yds per game(higher rank, more yds given up)
Scoring defense #1 11 ppg (higher rank, .71 per game less)
Pass efficiency defense #2 89.81 rating(higher)
Rushing defense #3 67 yds per game (lower rank, less yds)
Turnover margin #39 +5 on the season
Total offense #31 418.36 ypg(higher on both)
Scoring offense #19 33.93 ppg(just over 1ppg more)
Pass efficiency #11 149.03 rating(just over 10 points more)
Rushing offense #27 185.71 ypg(about 30 yds a game less
Strength of schedule(based on Sagarin)#28(26 under Bama's)
Having compared all of that. I stand by what I said earlier. Bama fans will take Bama. Lsu fans will take Lsu and other fans will take the team they hate the least.
2
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:07 pm to Maximus
Bama's, because I'm a Bama homer and it was more recent 
If we're going to judge these teams based on their players' NFL success then we'll have to wait awhile until they've all made it out of college (LSU's players have had 8 years to make noise in the League, Bama still has guys on campus from that team). If we're judging based on their numbers that year it's too close to call, although I will say that while the numbers are pretty even, Bama had the more difficult schedule (10 bowl teams, 6 or 7 ranked teams, 3 or 4 top 10 teams and back to back #1 vs #2 games).
If we're going to judge these teams based on their players' NFL success then we'll have to wait awhile until they've all made it out of college (LSU's players have had 8 years to make noise in the League, Bama still has guys on campus from that team). If we're judging based on their numbers that year it's too close to call, although I will say that while the numbers are pretty even, Bama had the more difficult schedule (10 bowl teams, 6 or 7 ranked teams, 3 or 4 top 10 teams and back to back #1 vs #2 games).
This post was edited on 3/5/11 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:25 pm to Alahunter
If you check the Qb's out you will see why Bama's defense in 2009 was so good.
Without good Qb's it is hard to have a good offense.
Without good Qb's it is hard to have a good offense.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:28 pm to tigger1
quote:
If you check the Qb's out you will see why Bama's defense in 2009 was so good.
Without good Qb's it is hard to have a good offense.
2003 LSU also played a significantly weaker schedule than 2009 Alabama did. In fact, 2003 LSU had the easiest schedule out of all the national championship winning teams in the BCS era.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:36 pm to Bench McElroy
2003 LSU also played a significantly weaker schedule than 2009 Alabama did. In fact, 2003 LSU had the easiest schedule out of all the national championship winning teams in the BCS era.
LOL
Better go check out some of those Championship teams schedules.
LOL
Better go check out some of those Championship teams schedules.
This post was edited on 3/5/11 at 9:38 pm
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:39 pm to diddydirtyAubie
Didnt we play Oklahoma for the championship ? 
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:40 pm to Alahunter
alahunter, good stuff 
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:42 pm to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
You guys needed Oklahoma to lose the Big 12 Championship to get in the Big Game.
How in the frick is that backdoor?
using your logic I guess Auburn backdoored their way this past season?
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:49 pm to Michael J
There was some crazy tie-breaker like Hawaii losing to Boise State which allowed LSU to sneak into the national championship game. If Hawaii had won that game, LSU would have played in the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl that year.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:54 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
There was some crazy tie-breaker like Hawaii losing to Boise State which allowed LSU to sneak into the national championship game. If Hawaii had won that game, LSU would have played in the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl that year.
I still call bullshite on all of this so called backing in. Backing in would a team getting in by forfeits by other teams. using that guys logic Auburn backed in because teams in front of them earlier in the year lost. Any team that didn't start the year 1 or 2 would by his definition be backing into the championship because they had to have help by someone else losing. Thats complete crap.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:58 pm to bamainaz
quote:
If we're going to judge these teams based on their players' NFL success then we'll have to wait awhile until they've all made it out of college (LSU's players have had 8 years to make noise in the League, Bama still has guys on campus from that team).
I assume someone in this thread is doing this? ppl do this all the time to so called rate teams. You always hear how great the 2001 Miami team was because they put so many players in the NFL. Thats the dumbest thing in the world.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 9:59 pm to Bench McElroy
In 2003 Oklahoma losing had nothing to do with LSU getting into the Championship game.
Strenght of Schedule made up near 2/3 of the total points needed to get to the game.
LSU Strenght of Schedule was ahead of all teams except Oklahoma.
As I posted the math even in early Nov 2003 showed LSU would be in the game over USC if both won out.
The polls made up 1/3 of the points and with USC at 1 and LSU at 2 it meant, LSU was going to the BCS Championship game.
There was no back door to the game in 2003.
Strenght of Schedule made up near 2/3 of the total points needed to get to the game.
LSU Strenght of Schedule was ahead of all teams except Oklahoma.
As I posted the math even in early Nov 2003 showed LSU would be in the game over USC if both won out.
The polls made up 1/3 of the points and with USC at 1 and LSU at 2 it meant, LSU was going to the BCS Championship game.
There was no back door to the game in 2003.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 10:02 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
2003 LSU also played a significantly weaker schedule than 2009 Alabama did. In fact, 2003 LSU had the easiest schedule out of all the national championship winning teams in the BCS era.
Put down the bong BM
This post was edited on 3/5/11 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 3/5/11 at 10:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
The first sentence is accurate. The second, I have no idea. I'd need to see evidence to believe that.
Had Au played for it in 04, they would've probably been hands down had the worst strength of schedule amongst the SEC teams. Theirs was #60.
Had Au played for it in 04, they would've probably been hands down had the worst strength of schedule amongst the SEC teams. Theirs was #60.
This post was edited on 3/5/11 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 3/5/11 at 10:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Using pro-football-reference.com's SRS formula
SOS
1. 2004 USC 8.788
2. 2006 Florida 7.886
3. 2009 Alabama 7.747
4. 2010 Auburn 7.031
5. 2008 Florida 6.701
6. 2007 LSU 6.659
7. 1999 Florida State 6.208
8. 2000 Oklahoma 5.812
9. 2001 Miami 5.741
10. 2005 Texas 5.686
11. 1998 Tennessee 4.955
12. 2002 Ohio State 4.739
13. 2003 LSU 4.033
Congrove computer ranking SOS (Since 1999)
1. 2006 Florida 4
1. 2008 Florida 4
1. 2010 Auburn 4
4. 2009 Alabama 8
5. 2005 Texas 11
6. 2001 Miami 13
7. 2000 Oklahoma 15
8. 2007 LSU 16
9. 1999 Florida State 19
10. 2002 Ohio State 23
11. 2004 USC 25
12. 2003 LSU 38
That's two independent sources which have 2003 LSU with the weakest schedule among the BCS championship teams. Sagarin has 2003 LSU as the second weakest slightly ahead of 2002 Ohio State.
SOS
1. 2004 USC 8.788
2. 2006 Florida 7.886
3. 2009 Alabama 7.747
4. 2010 Auburn 7.031
5. 2008 Florida 6.701
6. 2007 LSU 6.659
7. 1999 Florida State 6.208
8. 2000 Oklahoma 5.812
9. 2001 Miami 5.741
10. 2005 Texas 5.686
11. 1998 Tennessee 4.955
12. 2002 Ohio State 4.739
13. 2003 LSU 4.033
Congrove computer ranking SOS (Since 1999)
1. 2006 Florida 4
1. 2008 Florida 4
1. 2010 Auburn 4
4. 2009 Alabama 8
5. 2005 Texas 11
6. 2001 Miami 13
7. 2000 Oklahoma 15
8. 2007 LSU 16
9. 1999 Florida State 19
10. 2002 Ohio State 23
11. 2004 USC 25
12. 2003 LSU 38
That's two independent sources which have 2003 LSU with the weakest schedule among the BCS championship teams. Sagarin has 2003 LSU as the second weakest slightly ahead of 2002 Ohio State.
Posted on 3/5/11 at 10:44 pm to Draconian Sanctions
If anyone says Bama they are either A) Bama fans or B) retards
That LSU defense was smothering
That LSU defense was smothering
Posted on 3/5/11 at 11:03 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Had Au played for it in 04, they would've probably been hands down had the worst strength of schedule amongst the SEC teams. Theirs was #60.
Ole Sagarin's rankings...
Can't dispute that guy. He's all troof.
Auburn - 1 win vs top 10 - 5 wins against top 30
BTW... Let's look at some of the teams ole Sagarin had ranked ahead of Auburn...
California - Rank 12th - 1 loss vs top 10 - 2-2 vs top 30.
So same number of games vs top 10. One less game vs top 30. And 48 spots ahead. Makes sense
Iowa - Ranked 22nd - 0 games vs top 10. 4-2 vs top 30. So I guess playing no teams in the top 10 and one extra team in the top 30 is harder? Sweet!
Clemson - Ranked 20th...
You know, I could go on and on just to show what a huge joke that is, but you should get the point.
I've seen other rankings that have Auburn in the top 10 in SOS.
A little over 2.5 years ago, ole Chris Low thought Auburn was the best SEC team ever in the BCS era ( LINK).
Posted on 3/6/11 at 12:06 am to joeyb147
quote:
Ole Sagarin's rankings...
quote:
Can't dispute that guy. He's all troof
"Troof" enough that the BCS uses his Elo-Chess as part of the BCS. I'll give his rankings more creedence than your butthurt. Conley has 2010 Auburn SOS at 13th and 09 Bama SOS at 8th. Still better no matter how you look at it. And you left off the fact I was talking about 04 Auburn's SOS, if they had been NC players, which they were not. 60th ranked SOS is why, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
This post was edited on 3/6/11 at 12:08 am
Posted on 3/6/11 at 12:31 am to Alahunter
quote:
And you left off the fact I was talking about 04 Auburn's SOS, if they had been NC players, which they were not. 60th ranked SOS is why, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
Ummm... yah, that's what I was talking about.
You see Cal, Clemson, Iowa with all MUCH higher SOS despite what I posted? That was the claim.
Keep up, son.
ETA: Yah, Cal's schedule looks BRUTAL... definitely the 12th hardest in the nation.
Air Force
New Mexico State
Southern Miss
Texas Tech
Not to mention all those powerhouses in the PAC10
OSU (7-5)
UCLA (6-6)
Arizona (3-8)
ASU (9-3)
Oregon (5-6)
Washington (1-10)
Stanford (4-7)
DAMN.... THEY PLAYED 3 TEAMS IN THE PAC 10 WITH A WINNING RECORD.... EASILY THE 12TH HARDEST SCHEDULE IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post was edited on 3/6/11 at 12:40 am
Posted on 3/6/11 at 12:33 am to Bench McElroy
Congrove computer ranking SOS is the one that had the PAC as the best conference for years form top to bottom.
There was over 100 computer systems in 2003 and less than 5 had the PAc 10 as number 1 Congrove was one of those 5.
I wrote Noel and Tex at CFDW and told them in 2003 that there is no way the PAC-10 is the best confernce in the nation and that their point system was off. They had USC with the number 1 SOS for years on end until the SEC started to win all the championships. But they still have not corrected the error of the early 2000's seasons.
There was over 100 computer systems in 2003 and less than 5 had the PAc 10 as number 1 Congrove was one of those 5.
I wrote Noel and Tex at CFDW and told them in 2003 that there is no way the PAC-10 is the best confernce in the nation and that their point system was off. They had USC with the number 1 SOS for years on end until the SEC started to win all the championships. But they still have not corrected the error of the early 2000's seasons.
This post was edited on 3/6/11 at 12:37 am
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News