Started By
Message
re: USC not LSU real nation champion for 03-04 season?
Posted on 7/18/08 at 5:58 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Posted on 7/18/08 at 5:58 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Obviously you are a complete idiot
Nice 3rd grade name calling! Please go caress the Golf Digest Trophy!
I'll be sure and let you know if the AP or Coaches repond about the 2004 NC.
This post was edited on 7/18/08 at 6:00 pm
1
Posted on 7/18/08 at 6:23 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Nice 3rd grade name calling!
Just pointing out the obvious. Maybe you could start a poll here or just read back through this thread since you are the only or one of the few "idiots" dumb enough to think AU would be blown out by USC in '04. Either most everyone here is wrong or you are a dumbass. One or the other and I am going with the latter. Dumbass.
Posted on 7/18/08 at 7:36 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
many here argue the cof camp. game makes for a better conf. champion. i say no, because everyone does not play each other
No, you're missing the point. The CG format makes for a TOUGHER CONFERENCE SCHEDULE, not a better (i.e. more valid) conference champion. It's more likely that the SEC champion will not be the best SEC team than it is that the Pac Ten champion will not be the best Pac Ten team. But it's almost certain that the SEC champion will have played a tougher conference schedule (including the CG) than the Pac Ten champion, even if you assume the conferences are dead even top to bottom.
The reason is that you trade away one randomly selected conference opponent in exchange for a guaranteed top tier conference opponent in a CG format. As I pointed out earlier, LSU's 2003 conference schedule would have been easier if we had played Vanderbilt, Kentucky and Tennessee instead of playing Georgia a second time in Atlanta. That has nothing to do with how valid the format is for selecting a true champion of the conference. Clearly, the Pac Ten's round-robin format is the most valid and likely to produce a true champion of the conference. Just as clearly, the CG format is most likely to result in the toughest road to a conference championship, even if it is a less valid one.
Posted on 7/18/08 at 8:31 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I'll be sure and alert the coaches pollsters, AP pollsters, and BCS. Perhaps AU will be retroactively awarded something other than the Golf Digest NC.
Yeah, I don't understand what that reply had to do with anything I said. You are saying USC could have easily put up 67 points and blown Auburn out, and I am calling you deluded because you obviously don't know much about that Auburn team. That team wouldn't have gotten blown out by anybody. The defense was just plain incredible and the offense was just as easily as good.
Posted on 7/18/08 at 9:36 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
But it's almost certain that the SEC champion will have played a tougher conference schedule (including the CG) than the Pac Ten champion, even if you assume the conferences are dead even top to bottom.
I see your point. But disagree with the dead even statement. Assuming that were true for the moment and assuming each had the same # of teams, let's sat 10, the top PAC-10 team would play every PAC-10 team, including the #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The only guarantee in the SEC is that the top team would play the #2 team (CCG), maybe 2 and 3 (CCG)if 2 is from the same division. Of course, they could play 2 and miss 3 and 4 if 3 and 4 are from the other division. Of course, they might have to play #2 twice, but they happens only about 1/2 the time.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 4:48 am to Ross
quote:
It would have been one great game, but if you think Auburn had no chance, you are just being a homer.
Ross, I've always said that Auburn would have beaten $C in 2004. Thanks for pointing out all the close games they had and if they had instant reviews that year, UCLA would have beaten them.
$C played their best game of the year against Oklahoma and Oklahoma their worst by falling apart very much like we did against Georgia that fall, where everything just went wrong. $C has been given credit for a lot of what was Oklahoma's own self-inflicted wounds.
Now, had we played $C in the 2004 Sugar Bowl, LSU would have beaten them and if y'all had played them in the Orange Bowl in 2005, Auburn would have won. That was a damn good Auburn football team just like LSU was in 2003.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 5:02 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I am pretty sure AU had just about enough of USC by that time (i.e., getting manhandled in two consecutive seasons with one being a shut out at Jordan-Hare)
Is $C won't beat Stanford or Oregon this year because they lost to them last year? Oh, that's good to know that I can use your logic as well.
Posted on 7/19/08 at 6:44 am to los angeles tiger
quote:
los angeles tiger
Posted on 7/19/08 at 6:54 am to Ross
I don't even know if USC beats AU in 04!!! If they did it would have been 10 pts or less!!!!
Posted on 7/19/08 at 11:55 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
disagree with the dead even statement. Assuming that were true for the moment and assuming each had the same # of teams, let's sat 10, the top PAC-10 team would play every PAC-10 team, including the #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The only guarantee in the SEC is that the top team would play the #2 team (CCG), maybe 2 and 3 (CCG)if 2 is from the same division. Of course, they could play 2 and miss 3 and 4 if 3 and 4 are from the other division. Of course, they might have to play #2 twice, but they happens only about 1/2 the time.
No.
Let's say both conferences have 10 teams, and they're exactly the same #1 through #10.
Round Robin conference team plays the other 9 opponents, which we'll rank #1-#9.
CG conference team plays 8 of the other 9, the other 4 in its own division, and 4 of the 5 from the other division, which will be ranked #1-#5, with 1 team from the other division randomly left out. THEN it plays the best team from the other division in the CG.
Only once every five years will the #1 in the other division be the one randomly left off the regular season schedule, and you will still play them in the CG that year, so the schedule will be exactly the same as a round robin. In each of the other 4 years, another team, somewhere from #2 to #5 in the other division, will be left out of the regular season schedule, and you will trade the game with them for a SECOND game with #1. The conference schedule is now tougher.
So, once every 5 years, a round robin schedule will be EQUAL to a CG format schedule. The other 4 years, the CG format schedule will be tougher.
Therefore, a CG format conference schedule (including the CG) is almost always tougher than a round robin conference schedule.
ETA: The only reason a rematch only happens about half the time in the SEC is that you have a 3 in 6, not 1 in 5, chance of not drawing the other division champion in the regular season. Even then, however, you are guaranteed to draw them in the CG, and virtually certain to have a tougher conference schedule (in terms of winning percentage) than if you had played a round robin, as the LSU example of 2003 demonstrated.
This post was edited on 7/19/08 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 7/20/08 at 11:13 am to dukke v
quote:
I don't even know if USC beats AU in 04!!! If they did it would have been 10 pts or less!!!!
Yeah... that would have been an incredible game. And even if we lost to them, it would be better than not even being given a shot...
Posted on 7/20/08 at 11:31 am to Ross
quote:
Yeah... that would have been an incredible game. And even if we lost to them, it would be better than not even being given a shot...
At least AU would have showed up to play!!!!
Posted on 7/20/08 at 12:00 pm to dukke v
quote:
At least AU would have showed up to play!!!!
You must base that on their impressive performance against Va Tech
We have no idea how AU would have done against USC. As bad as OU was its easy to say AU would have done better, but we don't know. Yeah USC had some close scrapes, they should have lost to Cal, AU prolly should have lost to LSU and OU should have lost to A&M.
Posted on 7/21/08 at 12:41 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Never in the history of the AP whan a #1 won its bowl convincingly and over a ranked team have they relinquished the #1 spot. Same was true until 2003 for the coaches poll (per the agreement with the BCS). Nuff said!
Which shows the flaw in the AP polling system. Just like the AP used to vote on the national championship before the bowls, but finally had to change because it lacked credibility by naming a champion which then got beat in a bowl game, and it had become obvious that another team was actually better.
The polls also tend to lose credibility when they rank one team ahead of another solely on time of loss (especially mid season or early season) and cannot thereafter correct the rankings when the other team demonstrates that it is as more deserving, arguably as when one team beats more ranked teams but is ranked behind another primarily and only because one team lost 2 weeks later in mid season than another. LSU beat no. 3, no. 7, no. 7, no. 13 and lost to no. 24, while USC beat no. 6 and 9 and lost to an unranked team. In the USA Today poll, LSU beat no. 3, no. 6, no. 6, no. 14 and lost to no. 25. USC beat no. 7 and 9 and lost to an unranked team. Or when a team like BYU is awarded an national championship that virtually everyone considers to be a farce to the extent the championship is supposed to recognize the "best" team because voters locked themselves into an untenable position and which had no credibility.
I am not suggesting that the AP vote in 2003 was nearly as illegitimate as the 1984 BYU vote, but the AP's history isn't spotless and clearly has been flawed on a number of occasions. But if we are going to go by record and accomplishment for the season, then LSU had the better record and resume for 2003. And there really isn't any argument on that.
USC is certainly free to claim the AP title in 2003, but I still would rather have the crystal. Even if they don't admit it, so would most USC fans, since that was the goal of the season up until USC got squeezed out (and probably shouldn't have been and wouldn't have been had poll voters followed tradition and dropped OU further than 2 places after losing a game by blowout). So it interesting and ironic that USC got squeezed out of the BCS CG by the polls' failure to follow its traditonal dropping of a team that loses late by a blowout further down than the pollsters did in 2003.
Posted on 7/21/08 at 6:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
We have no idea how AU would have done against USC. As bad as OU was its easy to say AU would have done better, but we don't know.
That is what they do not seem to get.
Posted on 7/21/08 at 6:37 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
That is what they do not seem to get.
I'd say its safe to say we wouldn't have gotten beat by 40+ points
But then again, anything is possible. I mean, Auburn could have won by 40+ points.
Edit: What I don't understand is how you don't see my point of view. You don't have any reason to discredit that season the way you are doing. It was a great season by a great team that should have been able to at least play for the national title.
This post was edited on 7/21/08 at 6:45 am
Posted on 7/21/08 at 7:48 pm to Ross
quote:
I'd say its safe to say we wouldn't have gotten beat by 40+ points
well duh, but then again no one in their right mind predicted OU would lose by that either.
quote:
But then again, anything is possible. I mean, Auburn could have won by 40+ points.
Its possible I could run into Scarlet Johansson this weekend and have sex with her for 3 days strait.
USC has not lost a game by more that a TD since 2001
So I'd tend to doubt it. Auburn could very well have beaten SC, but no way by the margin USC hung on OU.
This post was edited on 7/21/08 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 7/21/08 at 7:50 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Its possible I could run into Scarlet Johansson this weekend and have sex with her for 3 days strait.
USC has not lost a game by more that a TD since 2001
So I'd tend to doubt it.
I was making a point... he is saying anything is possible and talking about how USC could have beaten Auburn by 40 points, and I responded by saying Auburn could have beaten USC by 40 points.
Anything can happen, even if its really not that probable.
Posted on 7/21/08 at 8:05 pm to Ross
quote:
I was making a point... he is saying anything is possible and talking about how USC could have beaten Auburn by 40 points, and I responded by saying Auburn could have beaten USC by 40 points.
ANYONE that said that the USC-AU game would have a 40 point difference either way is just plain DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 7/21/08 at 8:05 pm to dukke v
quote:
ANYONE that said that the USC-AU game would have a 40 point difference either way is just plain DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying the logic behind "its possible" is not good logic. I'm not saying Auburn would have beaten USC by 40+.
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News