Skip to main content

How many SEC titles must LSU win before being crowned champion?

I'd be a tad angry and frustrated if I were LSU head coach Les Miles. As I've described in detail in past blogs with a semi-sound mathematical formula, the SEC is the toughest conference this year. They are very top heavy, but all-in-all, are the best of the best, with the Big XII ranking 2nd. So, how many SEC championships must Les Miles and his Tigers win in order to be crowned national champions?

Let's think about this... In a #1 vs. #2 match-up on November 5th, LSU went to Tuscaloosa and defeated Alabama 9-6 in overtime to basically win the SEC West. They would had to have lost to 2-10 Ole Miss and Arkansas in order for Alabama to overtake them by winning their remaining SEC games and that wasn't going to happen. That was one SEC championship game, as far as I'm concerned. LSU then defeated 10-2 Georgia this past weekend in the actual SEC title game to secure themselves of a BCS-bowl berth and a trip to the national title game. That was SEC title number two. What's their reward? Playing Alabama in the national championship game. When will it end?

Again, let's ponder this for a moment. LSU defeated Alabama for the right to play in the SEC title game. They then defeated Georgia for the right to play in a BCS bowl - the national title game. Their opponent? Alabama. A team LSU already defeated, which prevented the Crimson Tide from even being able to play in the SEC title game, yet they somehow snuck in to play for the national title. So, what? What if Alabama wins the re-match? Are we to then have a rubber match? Best two out of three? A split national championship, since the two teams split the season series? In my opinion, if Alabama squeaks by LSU in the title game, they should split the title. Heck, even if Alabama wins the title game, I still give LSU the edge over Alabama in terms of their season's resume. Let me explain.

We'll start with Alabama, who has had a pretty easy go of things this year outside of their 9-6 overtime loss to unbeaten and top-ranked LSU. They've won every other game by at least 16 points, that game coming against Penn State, as they beat the Nittany Lions 27-11. Their schedule strength has been anything but stellar, though. Out-of-conference, they defeated: Kent State (5-7), Penn State (9-3), North Texas (5-7) and I-AA Georgia Southern (N/A). In-conference, they beat: Arkansas (10-2), Florida (6-6), Vanderbilt (6-6), Mississippi (2-10), Tennessee (5-7), Mississippi State (6-6) and Auburn (7-5). Excluding Georgia Southern, Alabama's other ten wins came against teams with a combined record of 61-59 (.508). Out of those eleven opponents, six could potentially make bowl games (54.5%), three of these six are 6-6, so only three of Alabama's wins have come against teams that will be guaranteed of winning records when the bowl games are complete (27.3%). When the season is complete, only two of their wins would have come against potential Top 25 teams (18.2%) and if Penn State loses in their bowl game, the only guaranteed Top 25 victory will have come against 10-2 Arkansas (9.1%).

Now let's look at LSU. To go along with their 3-point win against Alabama, they had two 13-point victories over Oregon and Mississippi State (on the road). Their next closest game came against then #3 Arkansas, whom LSU defeated by 24 points, 41-17. In other words, like Alabama, LSU has dominated pretty regularly this year. Where LSU holds an advantage over the Tide is with regard to their schedule strength. LSU's four non-conference games included Oregon (11-2), West Virginia (9-3) and Western Kentucky (7-5), to go along with I-AA Northwestern State (N/A). Two of LSU's four non-conference foes will be playing in BCS games (Oregon in the Rose Bowl and West Virginia in the Orange Bowl) and if not for 6-7 UCLA getting invited to a bowl game, the Hilltoppers of Western Kentucky would be bowling as well. So, excluding I-AA Northwestern State, LSU's non-conference opponents have gone a combined 27-10 (.730), in comparison to Alabama's non-conference foes going a combined 19-17 (.528), none of them going to a BCS bowl and just one (Penn State) going to any. In-conference, LSU defeated the following: Mississippi State (6-6), Kentucky (5-7), Florida (6-6), Tennessee (5-7), Auburn (7-5), Alabama (11-1), Ole Miss (2-10), Arkansas (10-2) and Georgia (10-3). Combine those numbers together and LSU's SEC opponents went a combined 62-47 (.569) compared to Alabama's conference wins coming against teams with a record of 42-42 (.500) and their eleven wins coming against teams with a record of 61-59 (.508). LSU's wins came against teams with a combined record of 89-57 (.610). To say that LSU has faced a tougher slate of teams this year than Alabama would be like saying Shaquille O'Neal is taller than Tom Cruise. Even if Alabama were to beat 13-0 LSU (13-1 with the loss), the Tide's 12 wins would have come against teams with a combined record of 74-60 (.552), still well short of LSU's opponents.

So, there we have it, the national championship game which means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Even if Alabama wins, I'll consider LSU the true champion. They've already won two conference title games in essence. They've defeated three BCS bowl teams, including Alabama. As far as I see it, the "national championship" game is just another bowl. LSU is the top team in the country, have proven it throughout the course of the season and even if they should happen to lose to the Crimson Tide on January 9th, they'll be, in my eyes, the best team over the course of the season.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"