You have to register to read the NY Times (for free), so here' the link and the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/sports/ncaafootball/19LSU.html L.S.U. Keeping Anxiety and Hype on Sideline By RAY GLIER Published: November 19, 2003 BATON ROUGE, La., Nov. 18 — The scenarios for the national championship game chase Louisiana State players across the campus, across the sports pages and across the airwaves: a loss by Ohio State, a lackluster victory by Southern California, impressive victories by L.S.U., and it could be L.S.U. vs. Oklahoma. Sitting in his office after a recent practice, Coach Nick Saban let out a sigh. Others are trying to fast-forward past L.S.U.'s Southeastern Conference game on Saturday at Mississippi. Saban, on the other hand, is trying to distill the season into a one-game-only scenario against the Rebels. He does not want this to be a march 65 miles south from here to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4 for the national championship game. "What happened to enjoying the process, playing the game for the sake of the game?" said Saban, whose team is 9-1 and No. 4 in the Bowl Championship Series ranking, behind Oklahoma, Ohio State and Southern California. "If we don't win the national championship now, some people are going to consider the season a failure. Anxiety is not good for competition." He said Miami, Virginia Tech and Florida State were upset victims two weeks ago partly because the pressure to stay in the race devoured them. He remained defiant in the face of the national championship hype after his team's 27-3 victory over Alabama last Saturday night. "Nothing's at stake," he said, when asked about the importance of the game against Mississippi (8-2). Saban kept trying to make his point at his weekly news conference on Monday. "When you make things high stakes, it creates expectations and anxiety that is not good for performance," he said. "So why would I change? Why would I go tell the team today: `This is the biggest game you're ever going to play in your life. And if we don't win, we're going to push you all off a cliff'? "Why would we do that? How would that make us play better? You think I don't know what's at stake? I mean, everybody does. But why make it bigger than it is?" On the surface at least, the Tigers, who are 5-1 in the S.E.C., are buying into Saban's philosophy. "Friends, family, everybody, they want to talk about us playing Oklahoma, or what if U.S.C. loses," defensive end Marcus Spears said. "I go, `Uh, uh, that's nice,' then I get back to work. The reason we're that high is we've taken one game at a time." L.S.U. has defeated the conference preseason favorite in the East, Georgia, and the preseason favorite in the West, Auburn. The Tigers' only loss was at home to Florida, 19-7, on Oct. 11. Saban's persuasiveness had a huge impact on the program even before he started pleading with his team to look at one game at a time. Five players on the defense, which is No. 1 nationally in scoring defense (8.9), started their careers on offense or in different positions. Spears was the No. 1 tight-end prospect in the nation as a high school senior. Now he is a leading all-conference candidate at defensive end. The junior cornerback Corey Webster was a wide receiver as a freshman after an outstanding career as a high school quarterback. Webster and strong safety Jack Hunt, another former wide receiver, lead the team with three interceptions. Travis Daniels was a free safety last season, but he has made the switch back to cornerback to accommodate LaRon Landry, a freshman who is one of the best young defenders in the conference. The senior Eric Alexander had been a reserve strong safety and special-teams player. He agreed to switch to linebacker even though he is considered light for the position at 223 pounds. Nickel back Randall Gay started his college career as a running back. "I was not into what he was saying when he talked to me about moving," Spears said of Saban. "I was kind of whining about it, but he asked me to take a good look at it, and it's worked out. Guys here trust his ability to evaluate talent and put people in the right positions." The defense is fourth in Division I-A in fewest yards allowed per game (259.7) and first against the run (60.8). It is mostly because of defense that the Tigers are at their highest ranking since the 1960 Sugar Bowl — No. 3 in both the Associated Press and USA Today/ESPN polls. They are No. 11 in the New York Times computer ranking. The offense is contributing with an accurate passing game. Quarterback Matt Mauck leads the S.E.C. in passing efficiency (154.14), and the line has allowed just 10 sacks in 10 games. "We're playing well," guard Stephen Peterman said, "but there are a lot of things to worry about before we even think about a national championship."
why would they write an article about the number 11 team in the country having anxiety over the national championship. obviously they admit that we should be higher than # 11
Ok, guys, let's lighten up on the paronia here. The "MEDIA" is not a person. Its not even an insitution in the sense that the federal or state government, or LSU is an instituion. Furtheremore, the "MEDIA" is not out to get LSU. Nor do the "MEDIA" like one school over another. What we perceive as bias against LSU can more easily be explained by the familairity that sportswriters have with one region of the country over other regions, familiarity with long-standing winning programs over ones just arriving on the ecene, etc. Computer ratings formulae were designed long before this season began and are not changed in the middle of the season. This does not mean that all computer ratings make sense, or that the programmer/developer is a football guru. Some of them make no sesne at all, but that's not because the developer is a gainst LSU, but because he weighted the variables in a manner that doesn't truly reflect the real world (garbage in/garbage out).. In the case of the NYT, my guess is (and I don't know this for a fact), that the developer is not an employee of the paper, but is under contract to develop and oversee the computer ratings. Even if he were on staff, just because one staff memeber believed something to be correct, i.e., LSU is the 11th best team in the country, does not mean that all other staff members believe that also, nor that an editor would not allow one staff columnist to contradict another columnist/staff member. In short, the BCS is messed up. SOS and quality wins should not be given extra weight, because they are both already counted in both the human pols and computer ratings, and margin of win should most definitely be a factor. If LSU is not ranked where it should be, its not because somebody has it "out" for us, but because the system is imperfect.
Great post BP. I don't think I could have said it any better. The only place that any sort of "conspiracy theory" could actually be happening is the AP and Coaches poll. They are the only ones that could possibly be biased.
There is not paronia, but it is ironic that the same paper which devised a ranking to have us at 11, also discuses our national championship chances....There is no inherent bias', but it is a good point to bring up to show how screwed up their system it...
But, the point, Dallas, is that the system was devised by a person, not the paper. The "Paper" does not do anything. People who write and edit the paper are responsible for its contents. And the NYT, just like any large instituion is not some monolith that only has one agenda. Everybody that works at the paper has their own agenda... some have the power to overtly bring their agenda into play, others don't. When the NYT, or any other of the computer ratings, was developed, no one said, "Let's see how we can screw LSU in the 2003 football season, especailly with Marshall, etc. backing out." The developer did the best job he could, and I doubt could have brought his biases into it, even if he wanted to. The fact that the NYT computer rating has LSU at 11, does not mean that every sportswriter and columnist who works for the paper has to believe, or in fact, does believe, that 11 is the proper ranking for the Tigers. Obviously, at least some of them do not. This simply further proves my point that neither the "MEDIA" nor any individual paper, magazine, or broadcast outlet has it "out" for the Tigers. (This is not to say that some individuals, either because of theri own ignorance or prejudices, are not wrong about the Tigers, just that its not an institutional thing.
Big contradiction... BP, You say that SOS and quality wins should not count in the BCS since they are already accounted for in the polls. Well, quess what, so is margin of victory. That is exactly why we need to blow out Miss and Alabama and have a good win in the SECCG, while USC collects unimpressive wins. This might get LSU to jump USC in one of the human polls. Why? Because SOS, quality wins, AND MARGIN OF VICTORY, is all acounted for in the human polls.
The key thing in this article to me has nothing to do with the NYT; who cares about New York or its Times? The key is Saban's quote and that the players understand that this is a one game season, the game is Ole Miss, and they need to bring the very best they have to Oxford. Oklahoma doesn't exist in their minds--that's for us hacks to worry about.
