2016-2017 NCAA Football Season Thread [ARCHIVED] Football • Page 141

Cool, they lost and it was still one of the most impressive performances of the season. You don't do rankings based on a number of losses alone or else we would be talking about the #2 ranked Broncos of Kalamazoo.

They beat us so they're good but we don't deserve to be ranked? Lol that makes no sense. And yeah, they would still be ranked. Wisconsin has only lost to top four teams this year. And just barely at that. Wisconsin is a good loss. Auburn was barely and due to coaching. That's fixed. Do we lose that game now? 100 percent no.

 

I feel like it was to compensate for the Alabama game. It may have been looked at as a fluke which is why they were cautious at first. But also, Arkansas has given them a lot of trouble recently too. That's a big rivalry game. They hadn't played that well against them since 2011 when they went to the championship.

 

So in the end, it doesn't really matter if you win, just as long as you play a good game

 

A win is not a win. That is the laziest analysis there is. LSU under Coach O played Alabama tighter than anyone has in years. No defense has done that against an Alabama offense since LSU did it five years ago. If you can look at that game and seriously think "that is not a performance worthy of being ranked" then I'm genuienly baffled.

 

but there's more to a season than just one game (which again...you lost). You also have two other losses on your resume as well.

 

Which again, was under a different coach and a different QB. And yeah, we lost. What's your point? How many two loss teams are in the top ten?

 

A couple but most of those teams have actual wins to go with their resume while your team (with 3 losses not 2) doesn't.

The bias of some of you college football fans is so bizarre! This is like last week with Xjb and washington haha

 

Wisconsin AND Auburn's best win is against LSU though haha. Why is Wisconsin ranked that high? Hint: It's because of their losses to Michigan and Ohio State.

LSU beat two ranked rivals recently but they won so now the team they played isn't ranked so they haven't beat anybody. Since Orgeron has become head coach, they've held every opponent but one to 10 points or fewer. Here's a list of teams you can also say that about: Michigan. End of list. No other team has allowed fewer points since Orgeron has become a head coach. LSU has lost to three teams; #1, #7, and #14. How many other teams with multiple losses have only lost to currently ranked teams? Wisconsin and Colorado. End of list. So, two top ten teams. But still, LSU shouldn't be ranked? Come on haha.

Man, don't even try to play like you're not the biased one here when you're sitting there saying LSU shouldn't be in the top 20 but Oklahoma State, who barely beat Iowa State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech is fine being 11th lol.

 

Right there IS such a thing as good losses but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to have good wins too. Yes beating you guys still counts as a "good win", but if you guys lose again, that win against you will not look as good.

And the committee should throw you a bone because you guys chose to change coaches? that's how sports work. you dont get a pass for a decision made by your team/school.


and i haven't mentioned oklahoma state in this, why would i be bias for them?

 

Debate? When did this turn into a debate? I must have missed you actually addressing my posts.

And here comes another cheeky little distraction instead of actually responding to anything I raise. You're gonna mention I'm an LSU fan which is in itself a fallacy since my bias is only relevant if you can prove that it's hindering my thought process in any way shape or form. Simply pointing out its existence is meaningless.

 

i've pointed out the flaws to LSU's resume and all you've done is make excuses....like a fan would do.

you guys dont have a win against a single ranked opponent, you guys have only road win all year, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 

You've ignored the vast majority of my points. Pointing out that they've only lost to top 15 teams and that their best wins are blowing out ranked rivals who later fell from the polls due to that loss is not proving me wrong. I haven't made one single excuse. You've done nothing to actually contribute to this discussion other than be blatantly biased and then claim I'm the biased one.

I know you're just talking bullshit when you say LSU wouldn't be ranked but haven't said one word about how Alabama doesn't deserve to be number one.

 

I haven't ignored them. I've addressed them all. Your point about them switching coaches shouldn't matter. It matters to the program because you guys see that the team might be going in the right direction, but in terms of national ranking, you guys dont get a pass for that...that was your decision. And you want to say since the coaching change you guys have played better, perhaps, but then again the teams you've beaten aren't GREAT.

I even gave you Ole Miss as a good win (even though they're 5-5).

Plus, these teams are not NOT ranked because of JUST your loss though, they're not ranked anymore because as the season has gone on those teams weren't considered to be top notched teams. Should Washington be rewarded for beating Oregon? They were ranked at one time too. Or what about West Virginia for beating TCU? No, of course not. As the season has gone on, we've learned that Oregon and TCU aren't great.

There's no category for "beating at one point ranked rivals".


haha how am i bias? bias for what?!

 

Just now, you fully acknowledged that a team can be one thing at the beginning of the year and completely different as the year goes on but still you're hanging on to "but they lost to Wisconsin!" as if they didn't have a different coach and a different quarterback, it wasn't the first game of the season, and it wasn't against a team that has only lost to top four teams this season.

Honest question, who is better? Wisconsin, Western Michigan, or West Virginia? Because the hole you have dug yourself requires you to answer one of the latter two options. But clearly, Wisconsin is better. You know that. Which means you fully understand that performance has more to do with how good a team is than the box score does. Which means you're simply choosing to ignore that in this situation.

 

yo you can't use the LSU win to talk up Wisconsin and then argue LSU shouldn't be ranked (also without giving LSU credit for a "good" Wisconsin loss), that just doesn't work

 

What? Why would i pick the other two? Wisconsin has wins over two currently ranked teams with their two losses being to quality opponents.

 

Okay, so just to be clear, we draw the line at three quality losses?

 

There is a difference between 2 and 3 losses in college football sure, but it has more so to do with quality wins, which as i've stated, LSU doesn't have.

 

So LSU isn't a good win? I don't understand.

 

I'm just saying, if you're calling that a good win, it doesn't help the argument much to be talking down LSU to the extent that you are.

 

All I said was "ranked wins". I'm not trying to be objective of what is a good or bad win here, just saying wins against ranked teams, which for the scenario he gave me, Wisconsin has more of.

 

Washington has blown out bad teams only to struggle against the two good teams they've played, losing to one by 10+ points.
Oklahoma lost to Houston and gave one of the worst defensive performances ever against Texas Tech.
Wisconsin has two quality wins; one versus a team you say isn't good despite being good enough to be a quality win, the other against an outrageously overrated Nebraska team.
Colorado has beaten one team with a winning record this season.
Oklahoma State lost to Central Michigan, and then barely beat Pittsburgh, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech.
Utah has beaten BYU and USC, everyone else has a losing record.
West Virginia barely beat BYU, Kansas State, and Texas. There isn't even a quality win there.

LSU has played two teams with losing records all year. They just blew out Ole Miss and Arkansas and held Alabama to 10 points. That has not happened since 2011. Before that it hadn't happened since Saban's first year in Tuscaloosa.

And I'm not saying those teams necessarily shouldn't be where they are. I'm just saying the points you bring up are so clearly misplaced because they can be applied to other situations and make a point that you and everyone else would disagree with.

This argument literally makes no sense. LSU has lost to three top fifteen teams. We aren't saying USC shouldn't be in the top 20 or wouldn't be ranked if they were another team despite their three losses, are we? Strange too, they got demolished by Alabama, blown out by a bad Stanford team, and lost to Utah. LSU's games against Wisconsin and Auburn were under a different regime and came down to the wire while playing Alabama historically well.

And here's a part of your argument I hadn't even fully touched - You said LSU shouldn't be top 20 which means the teams below them should be above them. You seriously think that FSU, Tennessee, Boise State, Washington State, Florida, Stanford, Texas A&M, etc... actually have earned the right to be above LSU?

 

I'm going to make it simple, for my peace of mind, please acknowledge a flaw in LSU's resume. If you do that, I'll surrender.

 

Of course there is a flaw. There is a flaw in every resume that isn't Alabama or Ohio State. Do you think you're making some sort of revelation here?

 

what's the flaw of LSU's resume?