What exactly constitutes a high level of football if not winning games and trophies? Complain all you like, but people are liable to disagree with you here. . . a lot of people. So don't get your panties in a wad.
Dear sir, I don't believe it is I with my undergarments in a bunch. A high level of football is not an uncommon showing of dominance; it's performing up to one's potential on a regular basis and a noticably well coached, sharp team.
LSU lost 1 game they should have won, Ol Piss. So winning all of the games you should win but 1, doesnt equal "regular basis?" What about Pete Carrol? Same standard for him? He sucks too then. What about Saban embarrassing the SEC in their bowl game about Utah. Did his team perform up to its potential then? In its biggest game of the year? Why do you have double standards?
I understand you can't get past the W/L column. When I say I look at more than just W/L, why ask me questions based on W/L? For the record, I wouldn't want Carrol at LSU and am not enamored with him. I think Saban's loss to Utah was pretty bad, but I have more respect for the nonBCS schools than the normal guy. I criticized Saban when he coached here and more recently, when he went ΓΌberconservative in the 4th quarter of the SECC. Going undefeated in the SEC, however, and then laying the smack down upon Florida as Bama did, is a pretty impressive accomplishment for our former Napoleon.
