| |
LSU's Awesome OOC Schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 9, 2007
|
The last time the Big10 was ranked as a stronger conference than the SEC was during WWII.
If by 2005 abd 2002, you meant WWI, than you're correct. Sagirin had the Big 10 the highest ranked conference above the SEC in both of those years.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 21, 2006
|
|
GenieCarb,
Sagarin is an idiot. But I agree with you about 05 and 02. Doesn't change the fact that he is an idiot. Even a blind squirrel .........................
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 30, 2006
|
|
I haven't seen Michigan St. (2007 - 7-6, 2006 - 4-8, 2005 - 5-6, 2004 - 5-7, 2003 - 8-5, 2002 - 4-8 or in conference, 2007 - 3-5, 2006 - 1-7, 2005 - 2-6, 2004 - 4-4, 2003 - 5-3, 2002 - 2-6) do enough to show them to be any better than Vandy or Ole Miss. I mean, look at this realistically. This is extremely sad to try to say that Mich. St. is an average team. I would have better luck trying to argue that LSU during the 80s or 90s was a top tier team. Purdue, NW, or Minnesota are no better, either.
I dont think there is any ground to say that Vandy and Ole Miss Are Better That Michigan State
Vandy has not even made a bowl game since 1982 Michigan State has played in 14 bowl games since Vandy last played in one
Ole Miss and Michigan State are probably about the same all time wise, but this year I would have to say that Michigan State has a better team than Ole Miss does
As Purdue goes they have played in a bowl game 9 of the past 10 years so you cant say that are terrible they are at least average
Minnesota and Northwestern are extremly inconsistent, they will come out of nowhere and have a good season then have a long streak of terrible seasons
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 3, 2006
|
|
Minnesota and NW have not been football schools in decades. They still play in a BCS conference based on their size and tradition, but thats about it. Those 2 schools, just like Vandyand Stanford, are built around acedemics and still find time to field sports teams. I wouldnt be the least bit suprised if students that graduate acedemic all american from those schools make more money in their lifetimes than football all americans from schools like LSU, FL, USC, Michigan and OSU.
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 30, 2006
|
|
Minnesota and NW have not been football schools in decades. They still play in a BCS conference based on their size and tradition, but thats about it. Those 2 schools, just like Vandyand Stanford, are built around acedemics and still find time to field sports teams. I wouldnt be the least bit suprised if students that graduate acedemic all american from those schools make more money in their lifetimes than football all americans from schools like LSU, FL, USC, Michigan and OSU.
Northwestern has never really been a football school, they did have a 10 win season in 1995 and go to the Rose Bowl but that is about all they have ever done in football.
Minnesota was a power in the early 1900s, they havent done much since then though having just 1 10 win season in the last 100 years (2003) they have made some bowl games in the past 20 years but they are extremly below average
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
I think this shows that, even subtracting one of the top ranked teams (not from the SEC) for their bowl game, that LSU does show a good schedule of playing top ranked teams year after year and at least 3-4 of their in conference opponents being ranked at the end of the year. This does not show how many SEC teams overall are ranked since I only showed the opponents of LSU during those years, but you can add at least 1 or 2 each year for that.
But what does this mean? Here's why the "rankings argument" comes across as weak to me.
Several months ago, an SEC fan was commenting about the hoard of SEC teams in the rankings. He mentioned (at the time) there being six teams, and then added, "but that's not even as good as the ridiculous 7 teams the SEC put in the final AP Top 25 in 1999." So I looked at those rankings to make sure he wasn't full of BS - and he wasn't. There are seven SEC teams in the AP Top 25 in 1999. But...I decided to look beyond the rankings, and here's what I found out:
- While the SEC did fine OOC overall record-wise, it was only 7-8 against other BCS conferences.
- The SEC champ was beaten at home by La. Tech.
- The SEC as a whole did not beat a BCS conf team OOC that had less than 5 losses themselves.
- The 7 ranked SEC teams went 0-5 against other BCS conf teams with fewer than 5 losses.
So one can state/argue that the SEC was very good and deep in 1999. It can be pointed out that for the typical SEC team, 50% of their conference schedule was against "ranked" teams. There were 18 wins in the SEC against "ranked" teams. The SEC had seven "ranked" teams in 1999, but how good was the conference really?
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 3, 2006
|
|
to add onto whqt DD said and only look at last year.
Most sports talking heads, who everyone on here calls an idiot when they dont support their views, calle the SEC the toughest conference. Maybe they were and maybe they werent. But looking just at bowl season.
LSU, great win and well deserved NC
UGA, we learned nothing about from. The HI skill players never had a chance because the UGA front 4 was that much better.
Auburn beat an similarly matched Clemson team by 3 points.
Bama beat an evenly matched Colorado team by 6 points.
Miss St. barely squeeked by a midmajor in UCF by 7
TN snuck by a good Wisconsin team by 4. Wisconsin could have won that game though if Bielema didnt outthink himself on theat 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter.
Ky barely got by an FSU team that was at half strength. This should have been an easy blowout.
Ark got blasted by Mizzou. Granted that Ark was a lower ranked team, but they did play everyone else close with the exception being TN when they lost by 21.
FL was manhandled by Michigan in every respect except the scoreboard and Harvin. This isnt really a fair comparision though because noone knew how good a healthy Michigan team was. The simple fact was that FL was heavily overrated and probably shoudlnt ahve been in a New Years day bowl. Their defense was wholely unable to stop a team with any kind of offense.
That 7-2 bowl record looks great on paper, but if you really look into it. It wasnt nearly as impressive as you might think. In all honesty, I think that the Big 12 has a very significant grasp on toughtest conference of 07, and judging by returning players, I expect that to stay the same enxt year.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 4, 2007
|
|
How did this thread go from LSU having a weak OOC schedule to a conference argument lol?
Ya'all need to chill out, LSU has a shitty OOC schedule whoopty doo. Other teams have had them before this is nothing new. If LSU gets passed over for a BCS bowl game because of their OOC schedule then maybe the AD and the other guys will pull their heads out of ther a---- and schedule some BCS teams.
I do find it funny how most of the smack talk on LSU is coming from OSU fans. The fact is, people are always going to complain and trash talk the teams that beat them... For example, all kinds of people were talking trash on LSU for keeping Perrilloux around, and now that he is kicked off the team, I'm hearing people talking trash and laughing about how LSU has "screwed" their chances of having a decent season...
Make up your mind about what you wanna trash talk about, please. Stick to one side, stip flip floppin sides lol
|
LSU's Awesome OOC Schedule
|
LSU's Awesome OOC Schedule
|
|
R | |
