Not in teams but I was thinking and curious your opinions. Whats harder being a fan of OU type team - Pretty much win your conference every year, always beat the teams you should beat, win 10-11, go to 4 National Title games. BUT you lose almost every bowl game you play in and never bring home the big prize LSU type team - Have your up and down seasons suffer almost yearly one or two kick in the pants type losses (See Arkansas, etc). But when they do make a bowl game they dominate them and when they make the Big ones they win them. If you think about LSU has been pretty fortunate. In recent history our only "dissapointment" in a big time game was the UGA beat down, otherwise we have almost always left the theater smiling. But OU fans at the end of every season recently have faced just a meltdown, but enjoyed a whole fall of winning ? So my question 1. Dominate all season every season only to lose at the end 2. Have some up and down ones, but always win to end the season. Sometimes in the big ones.
The BCS isn't perfect but this is another reason why it's better than the old system. Remember when Nebraska would win a weak Big 8 and get beat up in the Orange Bowl? When they did happen to win the game, they were automatically the National Champs. How many BCS titles have Nebraska, Colorado, BYU, Clemson, or Washington won since the inception of the BCS? Oklahoma may have a few more titles had they not had to earn it. Regarding your question...I would rather go to the title game twice and win it both times than attend four games and win only once. Who ever remembers the runner-up? ... or the AP winner? :hihi:
Agree with Purple Tiger (and not trying to hi-jack this into a "merits of the BCS" thread). Whether you like of dislike the system as it is, at least there is now a system that tries to match the two best teams, and when we've merited a slot, we've won the whole thing. Under the old nothing-but-the-Bowls-and-their-tie-ins system, in '03 we probably would have played Florida State in the Sugar Bowl. And we'd have beaten them, but the polls would have gone to USC. Last year, we probably would have played West Virginia. I think we'd have won, but again, its a tossup as to whether the pollsters give us or the winner of a USC-Ohio St. Rose Bowl the NC. Overall, I think we're happier the way it is. To answer the original question: ending on a high note is always better. Given the way our respective seasons ended, I'd bet we're more optimistic about '09 than Sooner Nation.
I'll take what LSU has had this decade because those OU fans are awfully pathetic the day after their bowl game every year. And while they may be riding high during the season (every, single year), the offseason is long and dismal enough as it is. Imagine that after a devastating loss...
Option 2. The game is about winning championships. I like LSU's decade just fine. We have hardware to show for it.
