AT HOME
This is correct
this has happened before.
texas beat ou 45-35, then lost late in the season in lubbock
ou got the bid to the national title.
Remember it vividly! Texas lost on a last second pass to Crabtree for the Tx Tech win. OU were higher ranked and was able to play in the Big 12 championship over Texas, which was bullshit. But, nonetheless OU beat the shit outta Missouri and played in the NC game. They lost to Florida that year. TX beat Ohio St in the Fiesta bowl.
What a mess if it happens. PLAYOFF PLEASE!!!!! 
Then, all hell would break loose!
Before I get to your last statement, which is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've ever said on Covers, please tell me where my logic is flawed? You claim flawed reasoning, but never point out the flaw. Accordingly, the ancient rule of debate holds true: gratis asseritur, gratis negatur: that is, what is gratuitously asserted, can be gratuitously denied.
Going into November 26th, the odds are overwhelming that LSU will be ranked #1 in the BCS, Alabama will be ranked #3 in the BCS, and Arkansas will be ranked #6 if Oregon beats USC, and #5 if USC beats Oregon. What I have just said not even disputable. That is about as close to a fact as we are going to get.
Now if we postulate that Arkansas beats LSU in Baton Rouge as Train has instructed us to do, how are you going to rank Alabama, Arkansas and LSU? Are you going to keep LSU ahead of Arkansas even though Arkansas just beat them? I assume your answer to that would be no since according to your reasoning that would be a basis for trashing the entire system.
Thus, if we blend your edict with Train's postulate, I'm guessing the BCS poll would probably shake out something like this: Oklahoma State would move to #1 as the only unbeaten team. Alabama would move to #2 with their win over Auburn. Oregon would probably move to #3 (assuming they beat USC the week prior), Arkansas will probably be #4, and LSU would probably drop to #5, and Oklahoma would probably drop to #6.
I could even see a scenario where Oregon could move up to #2 if they beat USC the week prior, but that is really beyond the scope of the discussion here. The point is Arkansas is not going to leap-frog Alabama with a win at LSU, but probably would leap-frog LSU which would make the SEC pecking order Alabama, Arkansas and LSU (as I stated in my previous post). Regardless, LSU will definitely be behind Alabama. There is no getting around that.
With repect to your last statement, if you pay even a little bit of attention to college football (and I know you do), teams being ranked behind teams they have beaten occurs with regularity in college football, usually multiple times a year.
Right now Michigan State is ranked ahead of Nebraska despite Nebraska having dominated Sparty 24-3 a couple of weeks ago, and despite both teams having identical records. Why? Because after beating Michigan State, Nebraska lost. That's exactly what will happen to LSU if they lose to Arkansas. There is absolutely nothing novel about that at all. That is customary grist for college rankings mill.
Moreover, unlike Michigan State who was completely dominated by Nebraska, Alabama was the better team when they played LSU. No objective observer could agrue to the contrary with propriety. Alabama won the game in the trenches on both sides of the ball, they had the better offense, and clearly had the better defense.
They could have played for 8 quarters and LSU's offense would have never scored a TD. Alabama completely shut down their passing game to the point where LSU was afraid to even put the ball in the air, and LSU was unable to run the ball effectively between the tackles. The only success LSU had offensively was attacking the perimeter of Alabama's defense, and with Jordan Jefferson scrambles.
Contrarily Alabama consistently drove the field on LSU, and but for repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for a variety of reasons, should have scored at least 3 TDs. One would have been sufficient to put the game out of reach.
Although LSU deserves all the credit in the world for playing a relatively mistake-free game in a very hostile environment, I think it was abuntantly clear that this game was much more about Alabama losing the game due to self-destructing rather than LSU winning the game becasue they were the better team. Every pundit I've heard on tv, and everyone I spoken to pretty much saw the game the exactly same way.
Your insunuation that ranking Alabama higher than LSU would somehow make a mockery of the entire system is beyond ridiculous, and is not grounded in logic or productive discourse, but rather appears to reflect your animosity for all things Alabama. You are far too good to stoop to that level Boom.
Of course Alabama would jump LSU. There is no other possibility. Where do you think the pollsters are going to rank LSU if they lose to Arkansas? #2? If that is so, what becomes of Arkansas? What you are proposing is not even remotely a realistic scenario. To think LSU would be ranked #2 after losing to Arkansas in Baton Rouge is to be totally disconnected from reality. There is a zero percent chance of that happening.
I am willing to wager anyone on this board money that if LSU loses to Arkansas, they will not remain ranked ahead of Alabama.
Of course Alabama would jump LSU. There is no other possibility. Where do you think the pollsters are going to rank LSU if they lose to Arkansas? #2? If that is so, what becomes of Arkansas? What you are proposing is not even remotely a realistic scenario. To think LSU would be ranked #2 after losing to Arkansas in Baton Rouge is to be totally disconnected from reality. There is a zero percent chance of that happening.
I am willing to wager anyone on this board money that if LSU loses to Arkansas, they will not remain ranked ahead of Alabama.
Before I get to your last statement, which is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've ever said on Covers, please tell me where my logic is flawed? You claim flawed reasoning, but never point out the flaw. Accordingly, the ancient rule of debate holds true: gratis asseritur, gratis negatur: that is, what is gratuitously asserted, can be gratuitously denied.
Going into November 26th, the odds are overwhelming that LSU will be ranked #1 in the BCS, Alabama will be ranked #3 in the BCS, and Arkansas will be ranked #6 if Oregon beats USC, and #5 if USC beats Oregon. What I have just said not even disputable. That is about as close to a fact as we are going to get.
Now if we postulate that Arkansas beats LSU in Baton Rouge as Train has instructed us to do, how are you going to rank Alabama, Arkansas and LSU? Are you going to keep LSU ahead of Arkansas even though Arkansas just beat them? I assume your answer to that would be no since according to your reasoning that would be a basis for trashing the entire system.
Thus, if we blend your edict with Train's postulate, I'm guessing the BCS poll would probably shake out something like this: Oklahoma State would move to #1 as the only unbeaten team. Alabama would move to #2 with their win over Auburn. Oregon would probably move to #3 (assuming they beat USC the week prior), Arkansas will probably be #4, and LSU would probably drop to #5, and Oklahoma would probably drop to #6.
I could even see a scenario where Oregon could move up to #2 if they beat USC the week prior, but that is really beyond the scope of the discussion here. The point is Arkansas is not going to leap-frog Alabama with a win at LSU, but probably would leap-frog LSU which would make the SEC pecking order Alabama, Arkansas and LSU (as I stated in my previous post). Regardless, LSU will definitely be behind Alabama. There is no getting around that.
With repect to your last statement, if you pay even a little bit of attention to college football (and I know you do), teams being ranked behind teams they have beaten occurs with regularity in college football, usually multiple times a year.
Right now Michigan State is ranked ahead of Nebraska despite Nebraska having dominated Sparty 24-3 a couple of weeks ago, and despite both teams having identical records. Why? Because after beating Michigan State, Nebraska lost. That's exactly what will happen to LSU if they lose to Arkansas. There is absolutely nothing novel about that at all. That is customary grist for college rankings mill.
Moreover, unlike Michigan State who was completely dominated by Nebraska, Alabama was the better team when they played LSU. No objective observer could agrue to the contrary with propriety. Alabama won the game in the trenches on both sides of the ball, they had the better offense, and clearly had the better defense.
They could have played for 8 quarters and LSU's offense would have never scored a TD. Alabama completely shut down their passing game to the point where LSU was afraid to even put the ball in the air, and LSU was unable to run the ball effectively between the tackles. The only success LSU had offensively was attacking the perimeter of Alabama's defense, and with Jordan Jefferson scrambles.
Contrarily Alabama consistently drove the field on LSU, and but for repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for a variety of reasons, should have scored at least 3 TDs. One would have been sufficient to put the game out of reach.
Although LSU deserves all the credit in the world for playing a relatively mistake-free game in a very hostile environment, I think it was abuntantly clear that this game was much more about Alabama losing the game due to self-destructing rather than LSU winning the game becasue they were the better team. Every pundit I've heard on tv, and everyone I spoken to pretty much saw the game the exactly same way.
Your insunuation that ranking Alabama higher than LSU would somehow make a mockery of the entire system is beyond ridiculous, and is not grounded in logic or productive discourse, but rather appears to reflect your animosity for all things Alabama. You are far too good to stoop to that level Boom.
Established in 1995,
Thank God it's just temporary...
Hot Forum Topics
