Per Jerry Palm-Texas, USC Lose and LSU Win=Penn St-USC Rose Bowl

AP is no longer a component of BCS.

In 2003 AP was component of BCS

NOTHING IS THE SAME AS 2003

 

Totally agree.

 

I couldn't agree more. There are plenty of MAC or CUSA teams, for example, that are both Div 1-A and far more respectable OOC opponents than a Div 1-AA team...and won't require a home and home, either.

 

Actually, LSU fans *can* and most certainly do complain b/c you, me, or any other non-LSU AD-related fan had anything to do with scheduling Appy St. this season.

Oh, and we wouldn't have tried to call timeouts we didn't have or not run out of bounds to save a FG attempt at the end of the first half, either, but that's murkier territory and I won't go there.

 

LSU will be left out if they don't leap Penn St. or Texas or USC. The truth is LSU lost in September to Tennesseee. They've not lost since. Given the formula at hand, as of today Penn St would be in the BCS title game if USC/TX lose. Scheduling tougher teams? I'm in favor....I'm all in favor of not losing too....The computers giveth (2003) and the computers taketh away (2005). It just seems that once again (ad nauseum) it's a opportunity (and you take every opportunity) to bash....... and complain....... and pi$$........ and moan.........

 

For reference, here's the thread annoucing Appalachian State as the opponent, along with everyone's reaction.

http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=25687

Now we are sitting with an open date on next years schedule that's been sitting there for quite a while. Of course we haven't gotten anybody in there yet, and by the time we fill the hole, all that will be left is I-AA teams, and they'll be saying we couldn't get anybody else at this time.

My point is we've had all offseason to fill that hole next year. I'm just getting tired of the excuses from our Athletic Department.

 

Also on topic, we could have used this opportunity with the 12 game schedule to start scheduling two BCS teams with home-and-homes on these years, alternating home and away. For instance, play say Oklahoma in Baton Rouge next year, and Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Then the next year switch (I just pulled those teams out of the air, I don't really care who the BCS teams are, just make sure they are bowl quality). But instead we sign a what, 10 year deal with Tulane for home-and-home? I just don't understand the reasoning.

 

The Tulane deal may be a dead one it they don't have a football team.

 

I agree 100%. Who in the athletic dept is responsible and what has been their response/reasoning?

 

LSU will be left out because if USC and Texas do happen to lose this weekend
they still will be playing in the Rose for the BCS Championship.
My point is LSU should be playing the next highest BCS team and that is Penn State, that would end the debate on who is number 2 at the end of the year and could give the AP or Harris polls a chance to fog everything up by placing the winner as #1.
If both LSU and Penn State win their Bowl games we will still hear the argument
of who is #2, let them play it out so we can see.:yelwink2:

I just want a better name team to play if and when we beat Georgia in
the SECCG.......:grin: