Winning every season, each time improving on the previous one, until reaching a time where we are always a serious contender is my ideal version of successful. There are years where you have to rebuild, but pulling off winning seasons of 7-5 as the worst you do when rebuilding is still a mark of a damn strong team for me:geaux:
Not looking like a team that just wandered on the field from a cave somewhere with no clue would be nice. A sense of control of the game and leadership FROM coaches first and foremost. This year's record was better than last year but our leaders looked lost. We did not improve on last year. The sideline was a joke of poorly managed football.
Here is how I would describe it, along with a lot of what was previously posted and I am taking this from Colin Cowherd who once said: In college football you have "askers" and "convincers" LSU is an asker, meaning they ask you to play football for them. Texas Tech is a convincer, they have to convince you that you need to play football for them. This was a few years ago and he did use LSU as one of his "asker" teams. I'd like to see us stay there. I think we have fallen a bit, not much but a bit but I would be happy if we could remain an "asker" if that is the case then everything else is taking care of itself.
well, that is an interesting point. which do you think gets the most potential out of a player? if you ask a player to play for you, do you always get 100 per cent from that player? if you convince a player to go to a smaller school do you have a better chance at getting 100 per cent?
I'm talking about recruiting Jay, IOW, if I'm some hotshot out of BFE and LSU comes and "ask" me if I want to play for them, or TT, Mem, Utah, ect. comes around and has to convince me why I should go there.
That was my vote, too. I think, win or lose, playing in Atlanta is the ultimate definition of a successful season. That means you get to play for at least one championship, and if you win, possibly another. Not that a 9-3 regular season is bad. It's...fine.
To me it's not wins v. loses, it's returning to Tiger football. For example, in 2007 LSU lost 2 games, which is good but any other year we would have been ranked probably 5-10. With that said, that whole year they played Tiger football, even if they would have lost another game, they were still playing Tiger football. I would like to see them in the top 20 but I just want the first to return to playing football the way we like to see it being played. I don't consider 4 or 5 loses to be a bad year, I do think the way the game was played with the outstanding players we do have was a disappointment. I am not disappointed in the record, I am disappointed in the performance.
