Auburn is the first top-ten matchup for LSU this year. I was looking at the schedule and realized that it could potentially be the first of FIVE, with three happening on the road. If it comes to pass and LSU plays a top ten Auburn on the road, a top five Florida on the road, a top five Georgia at home, a possible top five Alabama(????) at home, and another top-ten matchup of SEC teams in Atlanta, could it be argued that LSU had a more difficult overall schedule than USC or OU despite their lackluster non-conference slate? ...Just wondering if you guys think we'll get that kind of recognition by the end of the year after hearing nothing about our schedule beyond how SOFT the non-conference lineup is.
It'll be true, but for some reason national types like to harp on the non-conference schedule as the deal breaker, instead of looking at the slate of teams forgetting conference affiliations. 5 top 10 teams and 4 creampuffs > 1-2 top 10 teams and no creampuffs.
We won't really know what king of Schedule LSU has until the final polls come out. Last year we were deserving because we had 5 or 6 teams in the top 20 of the final polls on our schedule. Let's see where all these teams end up.
I like this concept, something that was overlooked last year with our opponents. V.Tech was 9# when we beat them S.Carolina was ranked ( I think) Florida Auburn
Unfortunately, the voters see it differently as evidenced by 2004. Auburn beat 5 top 10 programs and had an undefeated season ...... nothing is a sure bet when you're dealing with double-standards. :nope:
As previously stated, the focus will be on the OOC schedule. In '04, Auburn defeated more top 10 teams (4) than USC and OU combined. It did us no good. Edit note: 5 top-10 teams.
I think after week three you can start to consider teams somewhat accurately ranked purely on a week to week basis. When South Carolina, Kentucky, South Florida, Cal, Oregon, etc. were highly ranked last year, they were deserving at the time. They were undeniably playing at a high level and had earned their spots. I think beating an early-season top-ten team and knocking them off their groove should carry as much weight as beating a team that ENDS UP in the top ten. One example is Oregon last year...who can deny that they were a FIERCE team before Dixon went down? Where did they end up? Number 20, I think? If a team had beaten them when they were in hot mid-season form, should the fact that they ended the season number 20 take away from that victory? No, beating a team when they're hot should carry more weight than beating them BEFORE they catch fire...a'la South Carolina over Georgia last year. Georgia was NOT a number 2-3 team when SC beat them, but they obviously ended up there.
Yeah sure, but the BCS formulas are already full of infinite loops. Try adding "hot at the time" or "injuries" to the equation. So really you can only debate whether current poll position or final poll position is the better way to judge a teams ranking. And since most teams are supposed to get better as the season progresses, I would say final polls are the better indicator.
I just realized I misunderstood what you were saying. I was offering a counterpoint to a common argument that prognosticators use at the end of the season like what happened last year. Kentucky was something like number 12 when they beat us and ended the season unranked. Their argument was that LSU got beaten by unranked Kentucky, when at the time they were a top-12 team, and deservedly so.
Well I understand that one would actually have to pay attention to know and understand all of this and for 119 teams, that's impossible. The fact that it's impossible to track doesnt' detract from my points, though. They are still valid, IMO. It's a long season, and not EVERY team gets better. Even with the ones that DO get better like Georgia did last year (after they discovered Moreno), you can't give the same credit to their early-season losses as you can to a late-season loss. That works both ways.
