- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How would your school do vs. this schedule
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:41 pm to GamecockAlum
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:41 pm to GamecockAlum
probably the exact same way we did vs this schedule...
0
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
H-Town Tiger
I have a question for you.
If the BCS rules allowed a conference to have 3 teams in BCS Bowls, do you think LSU with its resume should have been selected for a BCS game over TCU?
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:44 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
If the BCS rules allowed a conference to have 3 teams in BCS Bowls, do you think LSU with its resume should have been selected for a BCS game over TCU?
TCU was an automatic qualifier.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:44 pm to niner81
quote:
What gives you the right to call Wisconsin sub-par? They were considered one of the hottest teams in the country at the season's end.
They weren't sub-par by any means, but most people only looked at the 83-20 and then 70-23 scores and were impressed but ignored the fact that those scores were against Indiana and Northwestern - not exactly stout defenses.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:45 pm to Tennessee Jed
quote:
I'd say probably 10-2 or 9-3, maybe 8-4 but no worse than that.
That's a fair assessment.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:51 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
Hey that would be great, would ya mind telling them that they need to keep their end of the bargin then.
I've asked you at least once with a link to prove that they backed out of a game/deal with you and you have yet to provide one.
Until you do, you are flat-out lying.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:51 pm to GamecockAlum
I agree Wisconsin's hype was bolstered by wins over poor opponents as I said before and after the rose bowl. That dosent take away from the fact that they are a very good team with a big poewerful running game.
Nor does it take away from the fact that TCU held The Big 10 confernce champ to a season low #TD's and total points in a game. A fate that 7 of TCU's opponents this year suffered.
Nor does it take away from the fact that TCU held The Big 10 confernce champ to a season low #TD's and total points in a game. A fate that 7 of TCU's opponents this year suffered.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:55 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
TCU 13-0, Miss State 9-4. 13-0 > 9-4
Arkansas, Alabama, LSU, and Auburn > Wisconsin.
Blee dat.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:56 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
Until you do, you are flat-out lying.
You have asked nothing. You have demanded.
Just because I refuse to do your research for you dosent translate to me lying.
Why dont you provide links proving all of the outlandish laughable shite you have posted in multiple threads for the last two days? I know, I know, you cant becaseu it is all in your head and your opinion.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 1:58 pm to Bleeding purple
You had me somewhat impressed here
And then added this little nugget in to remind me of why you got there in the first place
quote:
TCU held The Big 10 confernce champ to a season low #TD's and total points in a game
And then added this little nugget in to remind me of why you got there in the first place
quote:
TCU's opponents this year
Posted on 1/3/11 at 2:00 pm to Bleeding purple
Dude...
First of all, please spell check your posts.
Second of all, if you really want to be a little whiny, uppity pussy about it then here I will ask nicely.
Bleeding Purple, will you please provide me with a link to an article that clearly states that Texas and Texas Tech (or A&M) abandoned a contract with TCU?
First of all, please spell check your posts.
Second of all, if you really want to be a little whiny, uppity pussy about it then here I will ask nicely.
Bleeding Purple, will you please provide me with a link to an article that clearly states that Texas and Texas Tech (or A&M) abandoned a contract with TCU?
Posted on 1/3/11 at 2:06 pm to GamecockAlum
No, I wont.
Nor do I need to for my statements to be true.
As noted earlier by other posteres the only one being a little pussy is you. Maybe you need spellcheck as you apparently are an alum of some sort of Cockgame not gamecock, as a recipient I am sure.
Nor do I need to for my statements to be true.
As noted earlier by other posteres the only one being a little pussy is you. Maybe you need spellcheck as you apparently are an alum of some sort of Cockgame not gamecock, as a recipient I am sure.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 2:26 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
If the BCS rules allowed a conference to have 3 teams in BCS Bowls, do you think LSU with its resume should have been selected for a BCS game over TCU?
No, aside from the fact TCU automatically qualified, they were #3 in the final BCS rankings LSU was 11. You SECCentric view is overly obsessed with how many ranked teams someone plays. I'm concnerned with how they do, so I look at what their record is along with who they play, not one or the other, which is how you are wanting to frame it. LSU played a harder schedule, but didn't do as well. So when you factor in everything, like the computers do, TCU comes out ahead. I do not look at speculative things like whether I think LSU would beat TCU, how I think LSU would do vs TCU schedule or how TCU would do playing LSU's schedule. That's all meaningless.
Auburn went undefeated playing a tougher schedule than LSU. LSU had a chance for a BCS Bowl and lost.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 2:44 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
Nor do I need to for my statements to be true.
So you are a liar.
Explains a lot about you and your tallest midget of a football team
Posted on 1/3/11 at 2:45 pm to H-Town Tiger
It's not just ranked team,s it's quality teams really and I don't think TCU should have been ranked number 3 with that schedule anyways, but fair enough.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 5:48 pm to GamecockAlum
quote:
It's not just ranked team,s it's quality teams really and I don't think TCU should have been ranked number 3 with that schedule anyways,
2 other things. I think you are taking kind of an all or nothing view, that teams are great or terrible. But that's not the case. TCU played a below avg schedule. That's true. You are kidding yourself if you think teams like Utah, Air Force, Baylor, even Oregon State are much worse than say Tenn, UGA, Ky this year. Its not literally like playing FCS teams, those are all FBS teams and much better than FCS. Its Certainly not as good as the top of LSU or Auburn's schedule and they were punished for that by being #3 and out of the NC.
Another thing to consider, while TCU played a below avg schedule, they pretty much mauled everyone they played. That's a sign they were much better than the teams they were playing. Compare that to Hawaii in 2007, who played a schedule rated much lower than the 2010 TCU schedule and were barely beating the teams they were playing. They were a clear fraud and were exposed by UGA. This TCU team is legit and is capable of beating any one on any given Saturday. They deserved the Rose Bowl and should finish #2, but are not worthy this year of playing for the NC.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 5:53 pm to H-Town Tiger
Meh I still don't see them as being the 3rd best team in the nation. 10-15? Sure, but not #3.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 5:55 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:A reasonable opinion, what is it doing on a message board? I just think that TCU is clearly a very good football team that played a very mediocre schedule. Since they won the Rose Bowl, I don't see TCU partisans lobbying for a MNC, I have no problem with lauding them for their very real acheivement and congratulate them for having a very good team that has no legit claim on the MNC due to their schedule.
Another thing to consider, while TCU played a below avg schedule, they pretty much mauled everyone they played. That's a sign they were much better than the teams they were playing. Compare that to Hawaii in 2007, who played a schedule rated much lower than the 2010 TCU schedule and were barely beating the teams they were playing. They were a clear fraud and were exposed by UGA. This TCU team is legit and is capable of beating any one on any given Saturday. They deserved the Rose Bowl and should finish #2, but are not worthy this year of playing for the NC.
Posted on 1/3/11 at 5:56 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Another thing to consider, while TCU played a below avg schedule, they pretty much mauled everyone they played. That's a sign they were much better than the teams they were playing. Compare that to Hawaii in 2007, who played a schedule rated much lower than the 2010 TCU schedule and were barely beating the teams they were playing. They were a clear fraud and were exposed by UGA. This TCU team is legit and is capable of beating any one on any given Saturday. They deserved the Rose Bowl and should finish #2, but are not worthy this year of playing for the NC.
Exactly! The 2007 Hawaii team was #12 in the computers and #10 in the human polls despite being the only undefeated team in college football. TCU was #3 in the computers proving that they played a much tougher schedule than Hawaii. They were #3 in both polls proving that they were much more respected than Hawaii. TCU never looked as bad as LSU looked against McNeese State, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News