Started By
Message
re: The "you already lost to LSU" argument
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:13 am to bona fide
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:13 am to bona fide
quote:
The BCS series has rules against same division schools playing or same conference teams playing of the title?
You're changing your argument. You asked why it was different for UT to have to play us again for the SEC. The answer is different divisions. Stop being obtuse.
2
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:13 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
LSU played according to the system, won and benefited
quote:
Guess which part Bama is missing.
Well Bama has yet to play the second game, which is the game that LSU won in the example you are using.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:14 am to meauxjeaux2
quote:
answer my question
I did. It's never happened. You know why?
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:14 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
The problem with your logic is you are claiming Alabama is without a doubt the number 2 team in the country because they have the best "loss"
If Ok St. and LSU wins out, Ok St. will also have a legitimate argument for number 2 because they have a tougher schedule. And since voters have seen what Bama has done against this LSU team it isnt unfathomable to think some would want to give Ok St. a shot instead.
And I'm not saying Bama doesnt deserve a rematch, but its certainly up for discussion.
I agree. The point of my thread however is to point out that LSU fans don't make the logical argument for Okie State that you just made. They use the fact that Alabama lost to the other BCS title game opponent in the regular season as an automatic disqualifier for Alabama. In many LSU fans eyes, it would be better for Okie State to have lost to Prairie View in the regular season instead of LSU because that would result in a rematch and that's an automatic disqualifier because rematches apparently are no longer allowed.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:14 am to bigpapamac
quote:They already lost to LSU.
What does that, have to do with...
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:15 am to bona fide
quote:
Well Bama has yet to play the second game, which is the game that LSU won in the example you are using.
O M G
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:16 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You're changing your argument. You asked why it was different for UT to have to play us again for the SEC. The answer is different divisions. Stop being obtuse.
You won't win this argument because most of the Bama fans in this thread are being emotional (and honestly jerks about their point of view, THEY MAD). We have a saying in the law if you don't have the facts pound the law, if you don't have the law, pound the facts. If you don't have either pound the table. Bama doesn't have the facts, the voters don't like rematches and may screw them, so they may not have the law (though, admittedly the system does allow for them to play for the title and they probably should). I think we are at the pound the table stage of argument here.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:16 am to bona fide
quote:
Well Bama has yet to play the second game, which is the game that LSU won in the example you are using.
I didn't start this stupid example you're using, you did.
And again, this was not for a Championship. You do not deserve another shot at LSU, just the same as you would say the same if the roles were reversed.
Regardless, we will more than likely play you again, and then beat you again.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:16 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You're changing your argument. You asked why it was different for UT to have to play us again for the SEC. The answer is different divisions. Stop being obtuse.
Not changing my argument at all. This is my argument. LSU won the SEC title due to the SEC system and rules that were in place in '01. Bama will be heading to NO for the title game because of the BCS/SEC system and rules that are currently in place. Therefore I see no difference in the two, both taking advantage of the system and rules in place.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:17 am to crimson crazy
quote:
I did. It's never happened. You know why?
Because it's a completely un-ideal scenario given what they are trying to set up.
If it happens, it happens and so be it.
But, to sit here and pretend it's a perfectly logical and ideal scenario is being deliberately obtuse on the highest order.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:17 am to crimson crazy
quote:no you didn't
I did
quote:enlighten me
You know why?
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:18 am to bona fide
quote:
LSU won the SEC title due to the SEC system and rules that were in place in '01
It is not the same as the BCS Championship. There are rules in place allow a rematch in a conference title game.
A rematch in the BCS is unprecedented, and quite frankly should not happen between divisional rivals. It probably will this year though.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:18 am to bona fide
quote:holy fricking shite man!!!
LSU won the SEC title due to the SEC system and rules that were in place in '01
There's no system,only records to determine who gets into the SEC championship.
Just quit
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:19 am to AlxTgr
quote:
They already lost to LSU.
Yes. What does that have to do with the BCS putting the #1 and #2 teams on the field against each other?
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:20 am to Govt Tide
Not only would we have to beat you twice, but we have to play an extra game to get to the MNC, just for the chance to beat a team we already played?
Look at it from our perspective. You sit at home resting and watching film, we have to play UGA. We're being punished for beating you in your house.
Look at it from our perspective. You sit at home resting and watching film, we have to play UGA. We're being punished for beating you in your house.
This post was edited on 11/22/11 at 9:21 am
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:20 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You do not deserve another shot at LSU, just the same as you would say the same if the roles were reversed.
I was 50/50 about rematches before the Nov.5 game and I am still 50/50. I see both sides of the argument. The BCS is set up to pit 1vs2, nothing else. That is what will happen, no arguments.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:21 am to Govt Tide
quote:
The "you already lost to LSU" argument
First of all, we still have to win a couple more times before we can think about playing Bama again. I believe our boys will be ready. They're a Damn Strong Football Team- and they Play For Victory.
As far as this "rematch" talk goes....
Look- I WANT the rematch. I believe our guys will beat your guys in the Dome. Comfortably, compared to Nov. 5th.
But let's not pretend that the "you already lost to Bama" arguement wouldn't exist if the shoe were on the other foot right now.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:21 am to bona fide
quote:
The BCS is set up to pit 1vs2, nothing else. That is what will happen, no arguments.
Bookmarked for when bama doesn't get into the big game
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:22 am to bona fide
quote:
That is what will happen, no arguments.
Yea, OK. Just like the BCS Champ is always undisputed.
Posted on 11/22/11 at 9:22 am to bona fide
quote:
Not changing my argument at all. This is my argument. LSU won the SEC title due to the SEC system and rules that were in place in '01. Bama will be heading to NO for the title game because of the BCS/SEC system and rules that are currently in place. Therefore I see no difference in the two, both taking advantage of the system and rules in place.
About ten posters have already explained why the SECCG and the BCSCG are totally different animals, but yet you keep grasping at this straw man. The hole is getting too deep for you to dig out of at this point.
Page 8 of 35
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News