Sunday, December 02, 2007

Why Tommy Tuberville should become the coach at Arkansas

He's perfect for those insane morons in the Ozarks.  From the AJC:

Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville said that he had LSU No. 1 on his ballot followed by Oklahoma, Ohio State, Hawaii, and Georgia.

"Winning our conference championship means a lot to me," said Tuberville, whose team lost on a last second play at LSU (30-24) but was hammered by Georgia (45-20) on Nov. 10. "Believe me, I know how good Georgia is. But LSU found a way in win the championship, so they deserve this shot."

Wow.  Insane on so many levels.  

1)  LSU 30  Auburn 24 (last second, in Baton Rouge).  UGA 45 Auburn 20 (not close at all, in Athens).  One would think that these results would lead Mr. Tuberville to think one team would be appreciably better than another.

2)  LSU's SEC losses = 2.  UGA's SEC losses = 2.   Why did LSU win the SEC, while UGA didn't have a chance?  BECAUSE THE OTHER WEST TEAMS, LIKE TUBERVILLE'S COACHED AUBURN TEAM, WEREN'T AS GOOD.  "Found a way in win the championship" should translate to "was lucky enough to be competing against incompetents like myself."

3) You have to be fucking kidding me.  Hawaii?

4)  Richt/Stafford/Moreno To-Fuck-Harder-Than-Anyone's-Been-Fucked-Before List:

(A)  Les Miles
(B)  Tommy Tuberville
(C)  Phil Fulmer.

The 2008 Pain Train starts with a brutal pounding of the Flying Chocolate Unicorns of Guam  Hawaii.  You boys know how to shovel coal?  

hat tip to PNA in comments.


peacedog said...

I'm not normally one to get really caught up in the "ZOMG< we're overlooking teh opponent!" talk.

But I am just a little bit uneasy right now. Hawaii has their absurdly voodoo offense. We haven't been great against the pass, and despite our sack totals in the 2H of the season I'm worried about the DL making enough plays.

We should carve them up on O with frightening ease. Still, I hate the way this sets up for us. Sort of a double bowl let down (no MNC game, no Rose), and a quirky opponent with nothing to lose.

Kyle W. said...

The idea that most of this team will have a chance to get its revenge on Less, Ears and Fat Phil, along with other unnamed persons, does help ease the mind. But I wonder if the fact that Knowshon and Stafford are both so young--and will get another crack at it--factored into any voters' calculations? We've heard all season about how Dorsey came back for his senior year, and how Flynn, Hester, Highsmith, Steltz et al. are all part of this "great" group of seniors...I wonder if their being at the end of the road had any effect? I personally think that'd be a dumb rationale, since it's so difficult to get in this position, and even a young team might not get back to that threshold, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if some voters took it into consideration. They seem to consider every other inane reasoning under the sun...

Amy said...

I'll come right out and say that I'm an LSU fan, but I also want to say that I have been reading this blog for a couple of years, I appreciate your commentary, and this is not a flame in any way.

I really don't see why Georgia fans are so upset. Y'all are in basically the same position LSU was in last season. Early season losses, playing great ball at the end of the year, backing into a BCS bowl without winning your division. That should be a GOOD thing. Instead you're angry that you're not playing for a national title over a team that won YOUR conference, defeating both of the teams that defeated you in the process.

It doesn't make any sense.

Kyle W. said...

For my part, I'll say that I'm not that upset about Georgia not making the title game. If I had a vote, I'd probably pick OU and USC...I've watched LSU several times this year and not come away impressed. I also agree with the *theory* that a team ought to have to win its conference to play for the MNC. But the powers-that-be have had a chance to make that a rule, and have declined to do so.

If other Georgia fans are like me, this is simply the first time that they've looked this closely at the BCS sausage-making process because it's the first time it has truly applied to us (we clearly had no chance at the title game at the end of 2002 and 2005). And we, like Auburn in 2004, Oregon in 2001, maybe Michigan last year, and others, have seen that the process is even worse than we thought.

Amy said...

I agree, the system sucks. I can see that despite LSU being well served by the BCS in 2003 and this season. I don't know why it was never made official that a team must be a conference champion to play for the national title.

Perhaps it's because it's such a widely held belief that the powers that be decided that a conference champion would always receive more popular support than a non-conference champion unless it was an extreme unpredictable case, so they decided to let it shake out for itself. But who can understand the logic of the BCS powers that be?

And I'm not arguing that LSU has an airtight claim to the #2 spot. Believe me, most LSU fans cringe when Miles makes his case for us being "undefeated in regulation."

I do think our claim is as good as OU's or USC's, and better than the other contenders' claims. I don't think LSU is undeserving of a spot in the title game, so I'm just going to be grateful for the chance to win it all.

I have to say, I believe Georgia fans would see it the same way in our position, and vice versa. I respect the hell out of Georgia this season, but like I said, LSU was in that same spot last season. The Dawgs should go blast an inferior team in the Sugar Bowl and gear up for a title run next year.

Michael said...

Every SEC coach had LSU ahead of Georgia, save for Richt. Tuberville has consensus on his side.

LD said...

Consensus does not mean correct.

How many of those same SEC coaches had LSU ahead of Georgia on Nov. 25th (when they knew who would be playing for the title)?

Look, I don't necessarily begrudge LSU for making the title game (there are a host of reasons supporting their case). But I also think there's a good argument in Georgia's case - specifically, since we're talking opinions here, do you think Georgia would have beaten LSU had they played in the SEC title game? Nobody made that argument. Considering that both LSU and Georgia lost 2 SEC games, necessarily games and teams outside the control of LSU and Georgia allowed LSU a chance to play for the conference title, but prevented Georgia. So if you were to look at the two teams, who would win? If you think LSU, fine. I don't. But nobody in big media made that case.

LD said...

Needless to say, had Georgia won the SEC and LSU hadn't played and gotten to the title game, I would be furious. Most certainly so.

Kyle W. said...

I can understand SEC coaches (or those of any league) wanting to protect the stature of winning the conference. It's one of the very few things in this picture that they can control on the field. But by the same logic they should have voted Tennessee above Georgia, too--after all, the Vols won the division and the head-to-head game. But none of them did--not even Fulmer. So clearly they don't mind being flexible and using some subjectivity.

Also, why is it considered a good thing that coaches get to judge other teams, when their livelihoods often depend not just on how they perform against those teams but how they're perceived by their fans to stack up against those teams?

Kanu said...

Without taking the time to research/confirm/verify/hire a PI, I would bet one of my paychecks that the reason the BCS was never altered to state that a team must win it's conference to play in the MNCG after the Oklahoma losing it's CG by 30+ fiasco a few years back is:

Notre Dame.

If that rule were put in, it would further and completely create a ridiculous double standard for ND because they are unable to be champions of anything, other than a shitty schedule with 2-3 hard games a year and a bunch of shite teams. {not that them only having to go 9-2 against said schedule to be GUARANTEED a BCS bowl, NO MATTER ANY OTHER OUTCOMES/SCENARIOS isn't a complete double standard to begin with, but you see my point}.

If I had to guess, I would say that back after that OU situation the powers that be got together and ND with it's clout and power in the whole thing made sure that the rule was not put in. Just a guess, but one that I am pretty confident in.

Along the same lines, the next time ND finishes as one of the top 5 BCS teams, I damn near guarantee you that the media hype machine will crank up big time and they will be selected for the MNCG over other top teams which won conferences/conference championship games, which of course will be the complete opposite of the rationale used this year to keep UGA out. Stated another way, if ND was sitting 4th in the BCS last week, and didn't play, there is no fucking way anyone jumps them for that 2nd spot. No way. The talk instead would have magicaly been about how LSU didn't win impressively against UT and needed 1) a pick six to take the lead and tehn 2) AInge to march all the way back down the field to the LSU 10 at the end and then decide to throw another terrible INT to prevent his team from scoring and winning the game, etc, etc, etc.

Let me add to the chorus of being a UGA alum who isn't all that pissed that we missed out, just wanted to point out this hypocrisy that is sure to happen at some future date as influenced by the media, since it is one of the things that LD is so into, and exceptionally talented at breaking down for us.

It's been stated elsewhere today, but LD I'm sure you are also extremely amused by KH's LSU rationale this weekend after he lobbied so fucking hard for UM over SECC Florida last year, saying over and over and over again that the two best teams should play and that Florida's SECG win was irrelevant because tOSU & UM were the 2 best teams at the time...

Amy said...

I think the lack of a conference championship requirement is due more to a scenario like this. Say, next season:

Tennessee stumbles early, taking 2 out of conference losses against mediocre teams. They bounce back and go 7-1 in conference, 5-0 in the East.

Georgia sits at 11-1, 7-1 in conference, with their only loss to Tennessee (let's say it's a close loss).

Tennessee loses in the conference championship game to a 3-loss SECW champ that has no national title shot.

In that case, if there aren't 2 undefeated teams out there, Georgia would have a great case to play for the national title despite not winning the SEC East.

I think the possibility of such a scenario is what prevented the powers that be from making a hard-and-fast requirement that a team win its conference to play for the title. They figure that with the polls being such a strong component and popular opinion giving so much weight to a conference title, it's not necessary to make a rule that could possibly produce a stinker of a title game and leave out a more deserving team.