🏈 A few records of note:

[mando]

brand is what got bama jn over lsu...... bama got it..... lsudont have it....

Completely agree with this!!!! Roll Tide...

 

[TerryP]

Silly boy.... brand is what got bama jn over lsu...... bama got it..... lsudont have it....

Not even close to being an accurate assessment of what happened in 2011. Way off, in fact.

After the loss Bama dropped one spot in the BCS rankings to number three. IF that would have been an LSU loss, at worst they'd have been looking at #4 in the BCS standings IF the vote reflected Stanford having a better resume. They didn't and at worst LSU would have been looking at the #3 position.

The human vote would have put LSU over Okie State for the same reason they put Bama in over LSU. They were looking at the Big 12 and saw flaws in their schedule strength. That doesn't change if it's LSU on the other end. Not only did Okie State drop below Bama after their loss they dropped below Arkansas in the BCS poll.

Now we have LSU playing the #3 team in the BCS rankings, Arkansas, where they got a win. So we're left, once again, comparing a team in Okie State that lost to a .500 team versus an LSU team which would have just beaten the #3 team in the nation (a W over the #3 ranked team for the second time that season.)

And you're going suggest that I'm a "silly boy" when stating you'd have LSU with two games against teams in the top three (at the end of the season) with a win and loss wouldn't be looked upon as having a better resume? That just flew past the slow silly lane as it's barreling down the fast, absurd lane.

What I find silly is now we're looking back and you're suggesting it was the Bama brand, the SEC brand, that pushed Alabama over the top when that matchup (two SEC teams ) was considered to be the downfall of the BCS? Literally, you're stating the voters wouldn't have voted the way they voted because of the wins on LSU's resume. You're completely dismissing the schedule LSU played that season--it was one few could even say "we're in the same league." Okie State have four wins over teams with at least nine wins on their season. LSU played eight ranked teams that season, winning them all, with three of those wins over teams that were ranked #3 or higher.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Not even close to being an accurate assessment of what happened in 2011. Way off, in fact.

After the loss Bama dropped one spot in the BCS rankings to number three. IF that would have been an LSU loss, at worst they'd have been looking at #4 in the BCS standings IF the vote reflected Stanford having a better resume. They didn't and at worst LSU would have been looking at the #3 position.

The human vote would have put LSU over Okie State for the same reason they put Bama in over LSU. They were looking at the Big 12 and saw flaws in their schedule strength. That doesn't change if it's LSU on the other end. Not only did Okie State drop below Bama after their loss they dropped below Arkansas in the BCS poll.

Now we have LSU playing the #3 team in the BCS rankings, Arkansas, where they got a win. So we're left, once again, comparing a team in Okie State that lost to a .500 team versus an LSU team which would have just beaten the #3 team in the nation (a W over the #3 ranked team for the second time that season.)

And you're going suggest that I'm a "silly boy" when stating you'd have LSU with two games against teams in the top three (at the end of the season) with a win and loss wouldn't be looked upon as having a better resume? That just flew past the slow silly lane as it's barreling down the fast, absurd lane.

What I find silly is now we're looking back and you're suggesting it was the Bama brand, the SEC brand, that pushed Alabama over the top when that matchup (two SEC teams ) was considered to be the downfall of the BCS? Literally, you're stating the voters wouldn't have voted the way they voted because of the wins on LSU's resume. You're completely dismissing the schedule LSU played that season--it was one few could even say "we're in the same league." Okie State have four wins over teams with at least nine wins on their season. LSU played eight ranked teams that season, winning them all, with three of those wins over teams that were ranked #3 or higher.

Gone from "silly" to " delusional ".
But really its ok.
U are trying to use pure metrics when BCS was human from a large base that would not have wanted a 9-6 rematch and computers... which nobody seemed to like. While I agree LSU should have been choice .... it just wouldn't have been ....
Agreed....it was death of bcs...
but again....it is just an exercise of playing with history.... it was a great Bama team that would have shutdown OSU

 

[planomateo]

Oklahoma State lost to a 25 point underdog in Ames. Iowa State was 5-4 at the time.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Oklahoma State lost to a 25 point underdog in Ames. Iowa State was 5-4 at the time.

View attachment 12175

So. Wasnt CF playoff committee that would account for such. It was a national panel.
And "IF" bama had won.... how much would it have been by... its just chasing rabbits

 

[TerryP]

U are trying to use pure metrics when BCS was human from a large base that would not have wanted a 9-6 rematch and computers... which nobody seemed to like.

And yet that's exactly what they gave us in the title game. Why? Because the people, the humans of which you speak, didn't go by what you're calling metrics and went by the product they saw on the field. It was those same humans that made the rematch of LSU and Alabama. Those voters, who looked at Okie State and said, "you're not worthy."

You're misremembering the love affair the media had with LSU that season. And part of it was rightfully due. Their's was a schedule lauded as the toughest in the nation with some going as far as saying it was the toughest schedule ever. That was not lost on voters who accounted for 66% of the decision. LSU played seven, as compared to four, games against top 25 teams and that was going to be lost on voters IF they lost to the #2 team in the nation?

Remember. We're taking voters here and that's 66% number. We are not talking about AP members voting. This was the Harris Poll and Coaches Poll--a uniquely qualified field due to the number of ex football members who were on that panel.

Roy Kramer allowing Okie in over LSU. Think about that. In '11, no.

It's my opinion you're sitting on the AP's narrative's side on this looking back through the prism of storylines today by a group that had no bearing or say in the matter. I know how the coaches and Harris poll members felt. To that there never was a doubt.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

And yet that's exactly what they gave us in the title game. Why? Because the people, the humans of which you speak, didn't go by what you're calling metrics and went by the product they saw on the field. It was those same humans that made the rematch of LSU and Alabama. Those voters, who looked at Okie State and said, "you're not worthy."

You're misremembering the love affair the media had with LSU that season. And part of it was rightfully due. Their's was a schedule lauded as the toughest in the nation with some going as far as saying it was the toughest schedule ever. That was not lost on voters who accounted for 66% of the decision. LSU played seven, as compared to four, games against top 25 teams and that was going to be lost on voters IF they lost to the #2 team in the nation?

Remember. We're taking voters here and that's 66% number. We are not talking about AP members voting. This was the Harris Poll and Coaches Poll--a uniquely qualified field due to the number of ex football members who were on that panel.

Roy Kramer allowing Okie in over LSU. Think about that. In '11, no.

It's my opinion you're sitting on the AP's narrative's side on this looking back through the prism of storylines today by a group that had no bearing or say in the matter. I know how the coaches and Harris poll members felt. To that there never was a doubt.

My friend Terry. Have you left the planet for awhile. You dont remember the outcry of the rematch. Well it's been 7-8 years. I would understand!!!!
Voters interviewed used the word "BAMA".
Not "LSU". Metrics as you seem to love... sometimes....favored rematch..because Bama was media darling at time.....
no way they rematch them with bama win... and have a boring Defensive game....
... but its chasing rabbits... we will never know

 

[TerryP]

. You dont remember the outcry of the rematch.

From those in the media, largely AP voters, who did not have a say in who the Coaches or Harris poll members would vote upon. That's where you're missing the entire point. That's exactly why I said, "you're sitting on the AP's narrative's side."

Yes, I heard the outcry from people who did not matter and didn't have any power over the decision, or say in the decision.

You're telling me that a football coach, a college administrator, a former athletic director, and those of their ilk weren't going to look at both teams and say "one's better based on resume" when that not only happened (it did, that's why Bama got in,) but we're talking about a team that had a better resume (LSU) versus the team (Bama, again) it actually happened with.

In the computers LSU would still have the better resume (arguably, one of equal value to an undefeated Alabama with a loss to Bama) due to their competition, strength of record, scoring efficiency, and the other parameters laid out by those computers. The numbers for LSU reflected that all season.

It's so ironic thinking about people blasting the computer element when that was their basis for this "outcry" in 2011. The very thing they were against was the only thing supporting their argument. In the end, a group of football guys got it right. Imagine that.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

From those in the media, largely AP voters, who did not have a say in who the Coaches or Harris poll members would vote upon. That's where you're missing the entire point. That's exactly why I said, "you're sitting on the AP's narrative's side."

Yes, I heard the outcry from people who did not matter and didn't have any power over the decision, or say in the decision.

You're telling me that a football coach, a college administrator, a former athletic director, and those of their ilk weren't going to look at both teams and say "one's better based on resume" when that not only happened (it did, that's why Bama got in,) but we're talking about a team that had a better resume (LSU) versus the team (Bama, again) it actually happened with.

In the computers LSU would still have the better resume (arguably, one of equal value to an undefeated Alabama with a loss to Bama) due to their competition, strength of record, scoring efficiency, and the other parameters laid out by those computers. The numbers for LSU reflected that all season.

It's so ironic thinking about people blasting the computer element when that was their basis for this "outcry" in 2011. The very thing they were against was the only thing supporting their argument. In the end, a group of football guys got it right. Imagine that.

The outcry wasnt from my neighbors....far down the road...the outcry was from the media ...except southern media.... yep...i agree the AP side....
I agree computers would have lsu....
But anybody that watched..."the game of the century " say a 3 TD better Bama team lose.....and wouldn’t have rematched it....period

And ...really..it is what it is....

 

[TerryP]

But anybody that watched..."the game of the century " say a 3 TD better Bama team lose.....and wouldn’t have rematched it....period

You just moved the goal post...to the sideline when you're now adding a three touchdown Bama win in the regular season (which would have never happened, in my view.)

 

[50+yeartidefan]

You just moved the goal post...to the sideline when you're now adding a three touchdown Bama win in the regular season (which would have never happened, in my view.)

And what was score of game on neutral site? Near 3 TDs....so If could happen in LSUs back yard....it couldn'thappen in ttown?.....seriously.......i was there....we ran their ass all over field....both places....
Anyway....ready for tomorrow...heard Freddie Millins signing autographs on quad.....he was a dandy.....Roll Tide...
Gade-gadee. Thats all folkes

 

[bamachine]

I was at that game of the century. Other than the score I think bama outplayed LSU but missed field goals that prevented bama from winning in regulation. Looking back there were some great players on the field that night.

I think we did pretty good in the rematch....

Was at both. Bama dominated between the 20s but struggled inside the red zone. In NOLA, at least we were hitting most of the kicks(one blocked) and then finally broke free for a TD.

That didn't happen in 1977!!

Fuck ND and the media bias of the time(that we get a little of in current day, TBH). Bama lost to a top 15 team early. ND lost to an unranked team who finished with a losing record and got steamrolled by Bama. Bama crushed a top 10 team in the bowls but because ND crushed the number 1 team, they jumped them over us in the final poll. Arkansas crushed the number 2 team and they did not get the same "jump" over Bama.

 

[TerryP]

And what was score of game on neutral site? Near 3 TDs....so If could happen in LSUs back yard....it couldn'thappen in ttown?.....seriously.......i was there....we ran their ass all over field....both places....

Like the outcry cited earlier in this thread what happened in the second game in NOLA has nothing to do with our discussion here. We are were discussing whether LSU would be in if they lost their first game in Tuscaloosa.

A lot of what I'm calling misremembering this this thread as well. The notion Bama ran their ass all over the field? Please. Offensive output in game one was about 60% of what the team had been doing (total offense) and scoring offense? Bama was averaging 35 points per game that season. Nine, and then 21? Again, there's a third of the offense gone because LSU was that good.

(FWIW, the reason LSU lost that BCSNC game as badly as they did was due to one of the worst coaching jobs I've ever seen.)

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Like the outcry cited earlier in this thread what happened in the second game in NOLA has nothing to do with our discussion here. We are were discussing whether LSU would be in if they lost their first game in Tuscaloosa.

A lot of what I'm calling misremembering this this thread as well. The notion Bama ran their ass all over the field? Please. Offensive output in game one was about 60% of what the team had been doing (total offense) and scoring offense? Bama was averaging 35 points per game that season. Nine, and then 21? Again, there's a third of the offense gone because LSU was that good.

(FWIW, the reason LSU lost that BCSNC game as badly as they did was due to one of the worst coaching jobs I've ever seen.)

Your the one that said bama couldn't have won by 3 scores. Lol
And being at both games. I saw same both teams. Those 7-8-9 plays lsu pulled out of their ass in Ttown...... didn't happen in NO
Comes down to this.... Bama wins in Ttown....its OSU in NC game

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Was at both. Bama dominated between the 20s but struggled inside the red zone. In NOLA, at least we were hitting most of the kicks(one blocked) and then finally broke free for a TD.



Fuck ND and the media bias of the time(that we get a little of in current day, TBH). Bama lost to a top 15 team early. ND lost to an unranked team who finished with a losing record and got steamrolled by Bama. Bama crushed a top 10 team in the bowls but because ND crushed the number 1 team, they jumped them over us in the final poll. Arkansas crushed the number 2 team and they did not get the same "jump" over Bama.

77 was a tradegy as was 66.... thats why I don't feel bad about 41 or 73

 

[TerryP]

Comes down to this.... Bama wins in Ttown....its OSU in NC game

You keep saying this when the voters have said otherwise. The computer projections were ran with an LSU loss. They had LSU in their #1 position due to what has been cited earlier in this thread. The voters themselves said the reason OSU was left out was due to? Their resume. The glaring loss to a .500 team. They've said this, but if you want to choose to believe what they said isn't what they would have done ... when they did ... aighty then.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

You keep saying this when the voters have said otherwise. The computer projections were ran with an LSU loss. They had LSU in their #1 position due to what has been cited earlier in this thread. The voters themselves said the reason OSU was left out was due to? Their resume. The glaring loss to a .500 team. They've said this, but if you want to choose to believe what they said isn't what they would have done ... when they did ... aighty then.

Until next one Terry.... should have bought me that beer in charleston... could have talked this over live!!!!!!!!!
Roll Tide.... have great weekend