BuzzerBeater Forums

It's awful? They have scored a ton on every team they played outside of Alabama....and Alabama could have the best defense of the BCS era, imo. So I would say that it is pretty darn good.

You can mention 12 in the two deep, but only two starters stick out and that's will smith and chris gamble. Gamble is a solid pro and Smith is a great DE. FSU's offense was DANG good...and they had a heisman trophy winning QB because of it.

As for tough to compare, sure I agree with that. It also helps having a month to prepare. That's why most NC games aren't shootouts. However, how can you call 2008 LSU the best LSU team in the last 15 years? They lost 2 games! '03 lost 1. This season they haven't lost at all.

Hold up....Flynn was better than all the other QB's at LSU in the last however many years???? A guy that could only win the starting job for 1 season and didn't play all that much before then???? Come on man! Flynn was average, period. Russel was better than Flynn and Russel wasn't a great college player either. He was all SEC his junior year, but again, the SEC is not a QB conference most years.

Here is his Senior season stat line: 202/359 56.3$% 2407 yards 21td 11int

I am pretty sure I could find other LSU QB's with ease (including average Jamarcus) to beat that stat line. Jordan Jefferson this season won't beat that stat line, but he has been far more impressive than Flynn. Just look what he did against Arkansas and Georgia the last couple games of the year. His running ability gives that offense a far better dimension.

That squad actually lost to Kentucky (18th) and unranked Arkansas and gave up more points than this year's LSU team that had a tougher schedule and many stories and stats have been written of how this season's run by LSU is the most impressive in not just the BCS era, but in the entire modern era of college football. They have beat 3 teams ranked in the top 3 in the BCS and 8 ranked teams overall. The big east champ and the pac 12 champ...and did it more impressively than the 2008 squad WITHOUT the 2 losses. If they beat Bama again then they will have beaten the number 2 team twice and the number 3 team twice. Nobody in history has had this schedule...NOBODY.

Just for the record, i love a good debate...especially if the other person is not an idiot, which is hard to find. That's why I don't mind going back and forth right now.

Also, I HATE the SEC....LOATHE it. I am a Big 10 and Big 12 fan and I live in SEC country. I too, hate the media bias and agree with the computers that the Big 12 was the strongest conference top to bottom. I can't ignore the non-conference and conference schedule that LSU ran through this season though. Just think if you add South Carolina and Georgia in the regular season of the SEC...crazy.

PS, the 2003 LSU defense was better than the 2008 defense. OSU scored 24 in 2008 with a lesser offense than OU, who only could muster 14 in '03.

You can downplay all you want, but nobody has went through that strong of a schedule...ever. Oregon is a very very good football team. I don't know what game you watched, but I think it's okay to get down early to a top 10 team and then go on to absolutely blow them out. It was a very impressive win and their defense only gave up 10 points to a very good offense in Arkansas...led by maybe the best play caller in the college game. Is West Virginia as good as OU/Baylor? Maybe not...but they are better than Penn State for sure....now you could say Nebraska is the 4th big ten team and then I would say it's a toss up. Regardless, every single year you can rationalize teams being overrated and not worthy of their ranking. South Carolina is a prime example this season among many others I'm sure...but as you go down the line most of them can be broken down until you think they are, but if everyone is overrated is anyone really that overrated?

As for Matt Flynn....he has already exceeded expectations in the pros by stepping on the field! lol Round 7, pick 208. Close to Mr. Irrelevant, but has been a pretty good backup to Mr. Rodgers.

So is this best teams of alltime or just the BCS era, cause '95 nebraska has my vote. Though '01 Miami was stacked. To say '02 was the same team is a bit misleading, they notably lost: Shockey, Reed, McKinnie, Rumph, and Portis.

It's just as misleading as listing all of the stars for the '01 team, even if they didn't start or play significant minutes. McGahee Replaced Portis and was better. Winslow replaced Shockey and was just as good. Sean Taylor replaced Ed Reed (might have slid to the opposite safety, but he did not start the previous year), Vernon Carey and Antrell Rolle did not start that season either and did in '02. Those are all guys that didn't start that came in and were great players and in some cases better than their predecessor. Probably not McKinnie, but in college Sean Taylor was every bit as good as Reed imo. Combine all of this with the fact that the defense brought back almost their entire front 7 (only replaced an undrafted strong side LB) plus many of the backups including Wilfork and I'm thinking they were as good or BETTER. Jennings took over for Rumph and was also a higher draft pick than Rumph, just as Taylor was over Reed. Dorsey was a year older which is huge for a QB as well and he had another year with Andre Johnson...and we all know that the longer WR and QB's work together, the better the combo gets.

So yes, they lost 2 hall of famers and 2 pro bowlers plus Rumph. However, you aren't going to convince me that '01 was that much better than '02. AND I never said they were the same team, I said basically the same team (I think...i may not have even said that, i'm just too lazy to look lol).

I must say, I think Alabama is better than LSU, but I still am pretty upset with the rematch. OkSt lost 1 game, in overtime, and pretty well handled the rest of their schedule (albeit not a gauntlet of a schedule by any means), and doesnt get a shot. We get to watch 2 teams play again, essentially making the fact that LSU beat Alabama on the road earlier in the year entirely meaningless. Should be a rule that no 2 teams from the same conference can play in a title game, because they would have already played earlier in the season.

I agree with the sentiment behind this. I hate rematches for title games, and even though Florida won their first title on a rematch, at least that wasn't a 1-2 game and only came about because the PAC-10 wouldn't play with the Bowl Coalition. So I would prefer, for sure, that someone other than Alabama got a shot.

The problem is, when the polls came out the day after Alabama lost, there were a total of fourteen teams with one or zero losses: LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Stanford, Boise State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Arkansas, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Houston, Penn State, Southern Miss and Cincinnati. (I am fairly certain that is all, but any others will fall into my extended point in a minute anyhow). So those are the teams that are worth considering for a title (since we know no two-loss team deserves it). Now, in the time since then, do you know how many teams haven't lost? Two: LSU and Alabama. Every other team that could have been considered for the title game after Alabama's loss went out and lost themselves -- so while the popular argument is that the rematch made the Alabama loss "meaningless" choosing someone who lost even later would be equally or more meaningless.

Of course, the BCS is a stupid institution. But if the job is to match #1 and #2 , they got it right -- because everyone who feels like they should have had a shot at #2 lost out by losing *after* the 'bama loss. I'd still rather see LSU get to play Oklahoma State, or better yet just give LSU the title and have Oklahoma State-'bama play for second.