| |
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
|
|
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 28, 2006
|
|
oops.....wrong thread!
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 22, 2007
|
|
Well, I guess you could say that, but it just seems funny that a team like LSU can go 5-3 in the SEC in 2001, LOSE to 7-1 TENNESSEE IN THE REGULAR SEASON, and also lose 44-15 to Florida and 35-24 to Ole Miss, then beat Tennessee in the title game, and be called SEC champs.
Al usual, we played within the rules of the system in place that year and won. (we are getting known for that, wouldnt you agree?) Note - We are not "called the 2001 SEC Champs............we ARE the 2001 SEC Champs.
We had the BEST record in the West which gave us the right to match-up with the winner of the West in the CCG.... who just so happened to be Tennessee. Anybody that knows anything about football will tell you that CHAMPIONSHIP game is more valuable that a regular season game. You can come back after a game early in the year but you have no choice in a winner take all.
The same reason WVU blew it at Pitt in 2007...it was their final and deciding game and LSU still had a chance to make up ground.
Also, we kept hearing on here how the 2005, 5-3 ACC, FSU team was such a "questionable" conference champ, so why is the 2001 LSU team any different?Who said the 05 FSU was questionable? Did they win the ACC CCG that year?
That seems a lot worse than using head to head when 2 teams tie. Not really....when it's all said and done the best team ALWAYS wins.
That is why everyone's GOAL in the SEC is to WIN your DIVISION! The best 2 teams, based on the entire body of work, has the chance to become the Champ.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 22, 2007
|
|
On a separate note, I would love to see what 8 coaches voted OU #1 after K-State beat them 35-7. What a jokeIt must have been 8 teams from the PAC10.......havent you heard? They, and others, NEVER root for teams in their conference!!
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 21, 2006
|
|
pc,
Not sure I understand this LSU 2001 and FSU 2005 issue is. I haven't noticed anyone bringing up that team in one way or another. They certainly are legitimate in my mind. They won the Conference Championship game so they are the Champs.
Ditto for K. State in 03 and A&M when the beat K. State.
USC didn't go to the Rose Bowl in 02 and they lost to WSU, but in my mind they were clearly the better team when the season concluded. Who was the best Big East team in 04 when 4 tied for the title. The Big Ten has had multiple co and tri champs.
Upsets happen and sometimes the Conference Champion is not necessarily the best team. But that has been part of football forever and I think what makes it great....except in those cases when my team is on the wrong side of the upset.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
So, an overwhelming majority of writers and coaches felt USC was the best team in the country, and you come out and say, "USC wasn't good enough to even make the game"? And, this means you think an OU team that lost to K-State 35-7 was? Give me a break.
Cmon PC, after all the back and forth you bring this up. What does being #1 in 2 polls have to do with "not being good enough to make the game" or vice versa. Making the BCS NC game takes more than the collective votes of subjective at best opinions from a bunch of sportswriters or coaches.
As far as OU was concerned, the formula put them in the game. Dont put words in my mouth, as I have never weighed in as to whether I thought OU was good enough. The formula when added up said OU was in. Is it any wonder why they changed the formula?
How valid is a poll when you yourself point out that 8 coaches voted OU #1 even after they got destroyed in the BIG 12 CG? Are we suppose to put credibility in 2 polls when added to the other components bounces USC from #1 to #3?
My entire statement had everything to do with what I WROTE and nothing more. USC was not good enough to even make the game. That is an undeniable truth of life. I did not say as jdr wrote that "USC was not even good enough for a shot." Take the statement at face value and quit reading into it. Cajun wrote an excellent post and explained it well.
Unlike USC with the head start of being ranked #1 in both polls, LSU was able to jump to #2 and make the BCS NC game. 03 was like every other year. The formula was computed and 2 teams emerged as always. Like other years, a worthy team was left out and 5 years later people are still arguing about it. What else is news? We need to get a life already.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 4, 2007
|
|
JDR: "I'm not sure what the purpose of all that was about Oklahoma."
The "purpose of all that" was to demonstrate three things:
1. Unlike what some here say, OU was a very very good team in 2003. Some people at one point thought the Sooners were a candidate for the Best Team Ever.
2. The young teen minds of mush on the OU team were told time and again that they had produced such a dominant body of work throughout the 2003 regular season, that no matter what they did in their CCG, they should still go to the NCG.
3. A K-St. team that was #5 ranked earlier, a very good team that slumped during the middle of the season, caught those Sooners in a perfect storm kind of game. Afterwards, the Sooners still thought they were going to the NCG.
The BCS formula was agnostic as to when you lose. The irony of the situation is that not only did the computers keep OU as its #1, even after the CCG throttling, but just as important to OU ma | |
