Started By
Message
re: The "you already lost to LSU" argument
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:31 pm to junkfunky
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:31 pm to junkfunky
quote:
Is there some rule that doesn't allow an offense to score on any given play?
Nope but usually when people talk stats they don't include every down as a scoring opportunity. It's usually the culmination of a drive.
0
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:34 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
The only relevant stat from that game was the score.
Not when you consider who gets to play LSU if and when they make it to NO.
quote:
Or perhaps we should judge Bama's D based off the rush yards allowed this past Saturday? I bet you wouldn't agree with that.
I know GSU is playing for a national title but the last time I looked it wasn't for Div-1
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:35 pm to Govt Tide
If you win your conference you deserve a shot. So if OkieState wins out, they should be #2 over Bama. Bama won't even win their half of the conference. Until there is a playoff, you should have to win your conference.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:36 pm to Statestreet
quote:
If LSU wins the next 2 games then we should play Oklahoma State (if they win the Ok/Ok St game) in the BCS.
Is the BCS game about the 2 best teams or about preserving an unbeaten record, the first since 1958?
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:40 pm to Govt Tide
I'm all for a rematch if we are 13-0 with the stipulation that Bama must play Stanford, Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech and Houston first. If they beat those four teams for the right to play LSU for the NC, then Bama it shall be. Otherwise, shut the frick up Gumps.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:42 pm to arty
Are you really still having stat battle arguments about the game on Nov 5th. Who gives a frick. LSU won a close game. This thread is to discuss BCS implications and a potential rematch, not Alabama and LSU's red zone productivity from the game on Nov 5th.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:43 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
I'm actually waiting for someone to start advocating why the Big East champion isn't more deserving of the #2 spot in the BCS instead of Alabama. They did win their conference after all.
Don't forget Arkie State! They are winning their conference, too.
quote:
The other thing that seems a little bit disingenous is this self righteous attitude among many were winning your conference is an absolute requirement to even be in the discussion for a BCS title
It's not an absolute requirement, obviously. History has taught us that twice. It is, however, a factor that many human poll voters consider significant. The computers don't care about it at all, though, and that's where OSU is ahead of you. So, what exactly is bothering you about that argument? It's not hurting you in the only place it could hurt you.
quote:
I remember LSU and quite a few people in the media arguing FOR an LSU rematch as long as it was a reasonably close loss
Both sides had a few favoring a rematch beforehand. Bama gained a whole lot more of them around 11:00 p.m. CT on November 5th, though.
A lot of people, including Alabama fans, thought that a rematch would be more appropriate if LSU lost on Nov. 5th than if Bama did because Bama was playing at home. A road loss by LSU would have (and should have) been considered more forgivable than a home loss by Alabama.
quote:
It was almost as if the media and some LSU fans were shocked when you did win the game and expected Alabama to plummet from a firm #2 in the rankings nearly out of the top 10
I don't know where you get that from. LSU fans certainly were not shocked that we won the game, and nobody thought Alabama would drop out of the top 5, let alone the top 10. As for media, the theme in the Birmingham News the next day was that Alabama shouldn't get a rematch, but LSU should have if we had lost in a close game because of the home and away thing mentioned above.
The bottom line is that Alabama has both arguments working against it right now...the opposition to a rematch and the "win your conference" factor. Yet the voters, the only part of the equation that could possibly be influenced by those arguments, are the ones that have you ahead of OSU. They might reconsider, though, and there has been precedent for that in the final pre-bowl polls in the past.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:49 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
I'm all for a rematch if we are 13-0 with the stipulation that Bama must play Stanford, Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech and Houston first. If they beat those four teams for the right to play LSU for the NC, then Bama it shall be. Otherwise, shut the frick up Gumps.
The gumps don't get to make the choice. If you start you letter writing campaign now you might can influence enough voters.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:50 pm to arty
quote:
The key word is penalty. You don't get a penalty and still have a 2nd or 3rd and 10 unless you use your corndog logic.
You had 2nd and 10 before you got the penalty.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:51 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
Are you really still having stat battle arguments about the game on Nov 5th. Who gives a frick. LSU won a close game. This thread is to discuss BCS implications and a potential rematch, not Alabama and LSU's red zone productivity from the game on Nov 5th.
Your reading comprehension sucks. Nobody has played LSU as close as Bama. The stats don't lie. LSU was lucky they got out with a win. You know it and the whole fricking corndog nation knows it. That's why you're hoping the voters vote OSU into the title game. Be a man and admit it.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:55 pm to arty
You realize that was a fellow Gump telling you to stop, right Mr reading comprehension...
Posted on 11/22/11 at 3:59 pm to LNCHBOX
No way in HELL that ESPN would be pushing for a rematch if we had lost to Bama.
Why are they allowed to do so with the opposite outcome?
Why are they allowed to do so with the opposite outcome?
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:01 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
You had 2nd and 10 before you got the penalty.
You're correct but not a 3rd and ten like was mentioned previously. It was a 2nd and 15 after the penalty. After the sack it was 4th and 20.
A 2nd and 15, a short field, 8 in the box, and a better night of passing than running led to the decision to throw it. I wouldn't have done it but I assume Saban was playing with what had been working best. It didn't work out.
Same thing with the FG goal kicking. I would never have been trying to get my kickers to do something they haven't been able to do in their careers consistently. I would have punted every damn time except maybe the first FG try. There was no way LSU was going to drive the length of the field consistently. They only did it one time.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:02 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
You realize that was a fellow Gump telling you to stop, right Mr reading comprehension...
No I didn't. Didn't notice a script A.
This post was edited on 11/22/11 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:04 pm to arty
quote:
You're correct but not a 3rd and ten like was mentioned previously
Obviously, my comment went well over your head.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:07 pm to Rex Manning
quote:
How is it fair that we have to beat you twice to win the NC but you only have to beat us once?
It's not. And you don't.
You only have to beat us once. In January.
Beating us in November had nothing to do with the National Championship. It was just the Game of the Century.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:08 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Obviously, my comment went well over your head.
Obviously you really didn't know what happened in that series or you wouldn't be trying to cover it like a turd.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:14 pm to arty
quote:
LSU was lucky they got out with a win.
Good stuff arty. Good stuff.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:15 pm to arty
quote:
Obviously you really didn't know what happened in that series or you wouldn't be trying to cover it like a turd.
I know what happen. My point was pretty simple, but I'll explain it again so maybe you can understand this time.
Your "argument" was that the sack on third down was a result of the penalty because it made it an obvious passing down. My point was that third down would have been an obvious passing down regardless of the penalty.
Alabama had a 2nd and 10 and had been completely shut down in the run game for the last 7:00 minutes of the game. That's an obvious passing down.
Then, they get a penalty to make it 2nd and 15.
Pass incomplete.
Now, remove the penalty from the equation and it would still have been 3rd and 10 - an obvious passing down.
So "2nd and 3rd and 10 are obvious passing downs."
And, like I pointed out earlier, Mathieu and Brooks running by your tackles and Montgomery shoving 2/5ths of your offensive line three yards into the backfield had more to do with the sack than anything Alabama did.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 4:15 pm to Govt Tide
The problem is that Bama fans would feel entitled and LSU fans would be screaming for a rematch had the roles been reversed. I'm glad they worked out how they did and a rematch won't happen. Book it.
Page 32 of 35
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News