- 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
2
Posted on 11/28/08 at 1:19 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
Give me a rational argument that puts Tennessee as the #5 team in the SEC last year, or Arkansas who went 7-1 in the SEC the year prior.
LSU was better
UF was better
UGA was better
Auburn was a toss up
In 2006
LSU was better
Florida was better
Posted on 11/28/08 at 1:40 pm to wilder
Not much of an argument, but let me take a stab at it. So I take it that you are declaring LSU better in 2006 based on them beating Arkansas head to head. Ok I can live with that. Though the year prior you put Georgia as better even though Tennessee kicked their arse head to head. Seems contradictory to me.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:16 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:Tennessee was the SEC's third best last year behind LSU and Georgia. Rankings and computers both prove that.
Give me a rational argument that puts Tennessee as the #5 team in the SEC last year,
quote:Arkansas was the 5th-highest ranked SEC team at season's end in 2006 behind Florida, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia.
or Arkansas who went 7-1 in the SEC the year prior.
Your reference to Arkansas's 7-1 regular season SEC record accounts for 8/13 of Arkansas's season. Your use of selective statistics continues.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:19 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:Good, because LSU was 11-2, and Arkansas was 9-4. I'm glad you can grasp that LSU was better than Arkansas.
So I take it that you are declaring LSU better in 2006 based on them beating Arkansas head to head. Ok I can live with that.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:25 pm to Chimlim
quote:
I love when Pac 10 fans always point to this game. They leave out the fact that Arkansas played with a 3rd string QB, and they forget that the next week, Arkansas was a missed FG away from losing to Vanderbilt. It wasn't until mid-season that Arkansas started hitting their stride. The hog team USC beat was very, very different from the hog team that won the West.
I think we just point to the PAC-10 record v. the SEC over the past several years.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:27 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I think we just point to the PAC-10 record v. the SEC over the past several years.
The elite teams in both leagues have done well against each other, I'd say
LSU and UGA have done well
USC has done well
Tennessee sucks
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:31 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
Not much of an argument, but let me take a stab at it. So I take it that you are declaring LSU better in 2006 based on them beating Arkansas head to head. Ok I can live with that. Though the year prior you put Georgia as better even though Tennessee kicked their arse head to head. Seems contradictory to me.
Was KSU a better team than OU in 03? No. Your inability to grasp a concept it amazing. It's a body of work you moron!
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:52 pm to wilder
In 2004, SMU (1-10) beat TCU (11-1). Which team was better, MJRuffalo?
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:55 pm to xiv
quote:
Your reference to Arkansas's 7-1 regular season SEC record accounts for 8/13 of Arkansas's season. Your use of selective statistics continues.
Wrong again as usual. I counted the Regular season records, which is what the SEC itself counts. I am not punishing Arkansas for playing USC and Missouri, who were better than other SEC teams play. For anyone to say that Auburn was better than Arkansas that year is plain and simply and idiot. Had Arkansas played Wash. St instead of USC, and AUburn's bowl opponent (a then 9-4 Nebraska team) instead of 10-2 Missouri than they would have had a better record.
This post was edited on 11/28/08 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:58 pm to LSUTANGERINE
negative
Posted on 11/28/08 at 3:59 pm to xiv
quote:
In 2004, SMU (1-10) beat TCU (11-1). Which team was better, MJRuffalo?
TCU but that is irrelevant to this argument.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:01 pm to xiv
Here is a question for you
Team A and Team B play in the same division in the same conference
Team A goes 7-1 in conference and team B goes 6-2. Team A beat Team B on Team B's own home field by 17 points.
Who is better Team A or Team B? I will await your answer.
Team A and Team B play in the same division in the same conference
Team A goes 7-1 in conference and team B goes 6-2. Team A beat Team B on Team B's own home field by 17 points.
Who is better Team A or Team B? I will await your answer.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:07 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:Good job, Shakespeare.
For anyone to say that Auburn was better than Arkansas that year is plain and simply and idiot.
Team | Winning % | Opponents' Winning % | Opponents' Opponents' Winning %
Arkansas 0.692 0.570 0.545
Auburn 0.846 0.528 0.544
Louisiana State 0.846 0.551 0.552
So you're telling me that Arkansas's schedule was so much tougher than LSU's and Auburn's that it made up for two wins/losses?
See? Once you use comprehensive statistics, things make a lot more sense.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:09 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:No way to tell. You've given me 8 games to consider. The teams likely played 12 or 13.
Here is a question for you
Team A and Team B play in the same division in the same conference
Team A goes 7-1 in conference and team B goes 6-2. Team A beat Team B on Team B's own home field by 17 points.
Who is better Team A or Team B? I will await your answer.
I'll await the completion of your question.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:09 pm to xiv
Yes it absolutely does. Replace USC and Missouri with Washington St and Nebraska and then you have Arkansas with 2 less losses and AUburn with 2 more losses. Pretty simple for those of us who understand the game.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:11 pm to xiv
Team A also happend to play and lose to 2 of the best teams in the nation. Team B played far weaker opponents instead. The vast difference in the strength of these teams played are deemed irrelevant to the conversation of who is better.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:13 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:Selective statistics once again. You're picking two games out of 12/13/14 for each team to make a point about a team's entire schedule.
Yes it absolutely does. Replace USC and Missouri with Washington St and Nebraska and then you have Arkansas with 2 less losses and AUburn with 2 more losses. Pretty simple for those of us who understand the game.
Auburn played Florida and Georgia.
Arkansas played Vanderbilt and South Carolina.
LSU played Florida and Tennessee.
If you switch those games up and give Florida and Georgia to Arkansas, you think Arkansas still wins the West? Nope.
You can't pick two games here and two games there to make a point about an entire season.
LSU and Auburn had better records vs. similar schedules. LSU and Auburn were better, when you consider all games played.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:15 pm to xiv
I would say using only conference shedules are similar enough. 7-1 trumps 6-2 especiall when you consider that Arkansas kicked the shite out of Auburn in Jordan Hare.
Posted on 11/28/08 at 4:15 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:Still incomplete. I don't know what the records of the opponents were, and I don't know what the records of their opponents were.
Team A also happend to play and lose to 2 of the best teams in the nation. Team B played far weaker opponents instead. The vast difference in the strength of these teams played are deemed irrelevant to the conversation of who is better.
You're trying to spin your argument so that I tell you what you want to hear. You're still using selective statistics.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News