- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Notre Dame and Bama are so lucky
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:18 pm to LSUlefty
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:18 pm to LSUlefty
Well, given that Bama started out number 1, and only lost one game to a top 10 team by 5 points, and Notre Dame is the only team without a loss.. it's hard to really pick another #1 or #2 at this point.
1
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:20 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
still don't understand the "backing in " statement. They have done what they needed to do. The Ducks and K-state lost at a bad time
They needed help and got it late, that's the defintion of backing in.
quote:
Ok how about this??? If LSU had only one loss should they be ahead of ND????
No, they should probably be #2 and would have backed into that spot.
quote:
If Alabama wins out and beats Georgia in Atlanta I don't think ANYONE can talk about them backing into the BCS Championship Game
Then you don't understand the term backing in and are over sensitive because you don't want to admit you team got lucky 2 years in a row.
quote:
You were 10-2 in the regular season and ranked #7 in the BCS going into Championship Weekend back in '07. That is the very definition of "backing in
no its not, the # of loses and ranking are irrelevant, need other teams to lose for you to get back in is the defination of backing in.
plus LSU was #1 the week before, dropping us to #7 was a joke. We were behind Va Tech who we beat 48-7. didn't matter if Mizzo or WVU won, but after they lost, they realized LSU had the best resume.
None of that changes the fact Bama backed in last year, may do it again this year on top of 3-4 lucky titles from the 60's and 70's
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:22 pm to brewhan davey
quote:
Well, given that Bama started out number 1
that's part of the problem right there. The polls are largely shaped before games are even played. sure USC started high and fell, but teams that start lower are at a distinct disadvantage. That's why ND was behind Oregon and KSU last week
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:22 pm to Jack Bauer7
quote:
this year a plethra of teams ahead of them lost again
Two is a plethora?
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:24 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That is the very definition of "backing in".
The definition of backing into a championship game is when your team gets into the game based on the results of another game they did not play in that could be considered a "fluke" or the use of the BCS to place ahead of another competitor.
2007 LSU, 2011 Bama and close to any team that wasn't undefeated prior to the BCSCG qualify for "backing in". 2007 LSU needed the Pitt upset of WVU (OU had beaten Mizzou earlier in the year, so it wasn't a complete fluke), and 2011 Bama had the ISU OT win over Okie Lite.
As of now Bama has officially backed into the game since it needed both K-State and Oregon to lose. If ND manages to lose to USC, I would consider Bama off the hook for "backing in".
Of course since the BCS is designed to pick the two best college teams for the game, and both 2007 LSU and 2011 Bama did fit this, can we really say they backed in?
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:27 pm to 1fairbank
quote:
close to any team that wasn't undefeated prior to the BCSCG qualify for "backing in"
This.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:30 pm to LSUlefty
quote:
Bama is backing in to the championship game
frick yall we got this
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:30 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
that's part of the problem right there. The polls are largely shaped before games are even played. sure USC started high and fell, but teams that start lower are at a distinct disadvantage. That's why ND was behind Oregon and KSU last week
Yeah, but there really isn't any way to fix this.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:33 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
may do it again this year on top of 3-4 lucky titles from the 60's and 70's
quote:
They needed help and got it late, that's the defintion of backing in.
OK. Will you agree that Bama and LSU were the two best teams last year????
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:52 pm to dukke v
quote:
OK. Will you agree that Bama and LSU were the two best teams last year????
I've met a lot of people here in Oklahoma who would disagree with you, but most of their reasoning is that they would have liked to see if an offensive powerhouse could have beaten a top SEC defense.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:56 pm to dukke v
backing in is impossible unless like it was Oregon vs Notre Dame and 2 weeks before game Oregon was put on probation and they asked Bama to replace them.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 12:58 pm to 1fairbank
By the definition of "backing in" I'm getting from LSU fans, that basically means that every team who has had 1 or more losses and went on to win the national championship "backed in" to said championship.
That means 2003 LSU backed in and that means 2008 Florida backed in. Am I understanding this correctly?
That means 2003 LSU backed in and that means 2008 Florida backed in. Am I understanding this correctly?
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:18 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That means 2003 LSU backed in and that means 2008 Florida backed in. Am I understanding this correctly?
Backing in is more from benefitting from a loss as opposed to earning off of a win.
2003 LSU was helped more by beating #5 UGA in the SECCG to jump USC than by OU losing to KSU. See LINK, where OU is still at #1 at the end of the year.
While 2008 Florida did benefit from other's losses they still managed to unseat #1 Bama to get in.
This post was edited on 11/19/12 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:25 pm to RollTide1987
I would say backing in would be teams losing late to teams they shouldn't have lost to in order for you to get in.
LSU in 2007 for sure backed in, I don't agree with 2003 bc whether or not OU had beaten Kstate they were going. If they had dropped to 3 and USC ended up going USC would've backed in.
Bama backed in last year bc no way OSU should have lost to shitty Iowa st.
Also if UGA beats Bama and they go, I would say that's them earning it by beating a great team and not backing in. Conversely if UGA beats Bama but gets shafted for Oregon, Oregon would be backing in like a mofo
I don't really think if Bama goes this year they would be backing in necessarily. Oregon lost to Stanford which is no push over, everyone thought it'd be tight. And it seems like Ksate more so got exposed as not being as good as we thought rather than utterly choking like OSU did last year
LSU in 2007 for sure backed in, I don't agree with 2003 bc whether or not OU had beaten Kstate they were going. If they had dropped to 3 and USC ended up going USC would've backed in.
Bama backed in last year bc no way OSU should have lost to shitty Iowa st.
Also if UGA beats Bama and they go, I would say that's them earning it by beating a great team and not backing in. Conversely if UGA beats Bama but gets shafted for Oregon, Oregon would be backing in like a mofo
I don't really think if Bama goes this year they would be backing in necessarily. Oregon lost to Stanford which is no push over, everyone thought it'd be tight. And it seems like Ksate more so got exposed as not being as good as we thought rather than utterly choking like OSU did last year
This post was edited on 11/19/12 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:34 pm to Tiger1242
Yeah. I think if one team lost by 28 points, then they cannot be counted in the "backing in" requirements.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:37 pm to bamafan425
Agreed
But still frick Bama
But still frick Bama
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:38 pm to Tiger1242
Wouldn't have it any other way. 
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:48 pm to brewhan davey
quote:
Yeah, but there really isn't any way to fix this.
No preseason polls from the Coaches would be a start and they could hold off the coaches poll for at least 5-6 weeks so we can actually see how teams perform.
Let the AP and that wackjob Phil Steele do the pre-season/early season polls.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:48 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
Also if UGA beats Bama and they go, I would say that's them earning it by beating a great team and not backing in.
But wouldn't Georgia be benefiting from the same shite that Alabama is benefiting from right now? Before this weekend the SEC was going to be shut out completely from the title game. Now, barring two monumental upsets, the SEC Championship Game is once again a play-in for the national title.
How is it that Alabama losing to the #8 team in the country by 5 points is not the same as Georgia losing to the #12 team in the country by 28 points? Hell...had South Carolina kept their starters in they would have shut Georgia out. If anything....Georgia winning the SEC Championship and going to play for a national title would be even more of a "backing in" scenario than Alabama.
Posted on 11/19/12 at 1:58 pm to RollTide1987
glad this shite is gone in 2014!
Whatever way you slice it, nd or oregon or whoever will be bitched slapped by au or uga
Whatever way you slice it, nd or oregon or whoever will be bitched slapped by au or uga
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News