2007 LSU Football Schedule Toughest Ever & SEC Dominance 2007

After having looked at the Gators schedule, they may have the easiest road to yet another title.

Western Kentucky @ Home
Troy @ Home
Florida Atlantic @ Home

The next toughest games are Tenn and Auburn which are both @ Home.

I believe they WILL lose when they come to Death Valley and I like South Carolina's chances for an upset when Florida visits them.

 

That's exactly why we're saying this is the year for another :crystal:

:thumb:

 

I noticed that today's Times Pic has a preseason poll out...and LSU at #2. I could give a damn what USC does or doesn't do as long as LSU gets to that #2 spot and stays there...unless the Trojans lose, of course.

 

Whoa, gonna have to disagree with you here. We have 2 fairly good TEs right now, Zinger & Dickson. Zinger is coming back from illness and Dickson struggled some last year as a true freshman. We got some very good ones in last year's recruiting class (I think Corbin could contribute a lot), but as of now, there's no way to say we have a bunch of good TE's.

 

"Not sure what poll you were looking at but according to Rivals, LSU plays 4 teams preseason ranked in the top 25 and all HOME games."

"USC plays 3 teams preseason ranked in the top 25 (utla is NOT one of them) and all are AWAY games. Not saying either is better, just clarifying for a realistic point of view."

uscvball...I knew it wouldn't take much to solicit a response from you. :hihi: It's too easy...but fun!

I don't have time to look at Rivals' rankings but I can't imagine that USC could play three ranked teams unless Rivals has overrated someone like Notre Dame. Other than USC, Cal, and maybe UCLA (only because they're still getting publicity for beating you last year) I can't imagine any other team worthy of a Top 25 ranking in the Pac 10. No offense but the Pac 10 is not better than the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, or ACC...so I can't imagine how they could have more than 2-3 ranked teams.

I know you would like to have a stronger Pac 10 but in all honesty, it will probably never happen. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and much of California don't develop the same level of talent as TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, so those teams will always need to recruit out of state. Los Angeles is an easy draw for kids (especially those who are easily impressed with Hollywood, bling-bling, beaches, etc.) but other Pac 10 schools have a hard time attracting kids to Eugune, Tucson, Pullman, etc...

USC should easily continue to dominate the Pac 10 but will have to play tough games (like this year at Nebraska) out of conference to get respect from those fans who support teams in better conferences. In the end, everyone wants their team to have a chance at the title. Short of a playoff format, there will always be arguments about teams having an easier path due to scheduling, media favoritism, number of games played, etc.

Is it fair to say that USC can waltz into the title game without earning their way?...NO...they still have to work their tails off and win their games.

Is it fair to say that USC has an easier path than LSU, Florida, Auburn, or South Carolina?...YES...like it or not, they usually play a much easier schedule.

USC reminds me of Nebraska when they played in the Big 8. The Cornhuskers would win their conference, go to the Orange Bowl, and occasionally win...which would be enough to be crowned national champs. How many titles have they won since they joined the Big 12?...ZERO

I'm sure we could overanalyze their demise but I'm sure we would find that their increased strength of schedule had much to do with that. As I've said before, USC could win the SEC if they were a member but they wouldn't win it every year like they can in the Pac 10. That's the big difference.

Looking forward to your reply telling me why I'm wrong. :hihi:

 

For starters, nowhere did I suggest that the Pac10 was better than the SEC. I specifically referenced LSU and USC in terms of next year's schedule.

Since you don't have the time, here is the link for Rivals and also Sportsline. While they disagree on specific order, they do concur that USC will be playing 3 teams on the road preseason ranked in the Top 25.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=627579
http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/9932300

California typically produces the most college football talent in total while MS and LA lead in terms of numbers per capita. Consider the following if it helps.



"What we found in the top 100 draft picks was that it was a good year for the state of California, particularly the Los Angeles area. Nearly as many of the top 100 came from the Los Angeles metro area (nine) as from the states of Florida (11) and Texas (10)."

Also....

"6--Number of college programs with four players in the top 100 draft picks: Florida State, LSU, Michigan, Penn State, Texas and USC."


sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/ne...;type=lgns

Just looking at theNational Team Rankings (Scout) for recruiting the last 3 years- In 2005 USC #6, Cal #9, AZ #15, utla #24. In 2006 USC #1, AZ #19, ucla #20, Cal #23. In 2007 USC #1, Oregon #9, Cal #12. In those 3 years, USC had 14 5* in state recruits and 10 OOS, most coming from AZ and WA so I think the talent pool is there.

As far as beaches, bling-bling, and Hollywood...that makes for a nice story but it doesn't translate to an LOI. ucla has the same thing and yet it hasn't done much to improve their recruiting success. Kids want to get to the NFL and play for a NC. Coaches who have played or coached in the NFL or who have won or come close to winning a NC have a distinct advantage. Consider Charlies Weiss, Nick Saban, Pete Carroll, Les Miles, and Urban Meyer in this category. Look what happened at South Carolina with Spurrier. From 2004 to 2006, South Carolina made once entrance in the Top 25 Recruiting classes and that was at #20 in 2005. Spurrier showed up and South Carolina made a splash at #7.

Nebraska this year isn't exactly USC's first time on the road against a ranked opponent. Since 2003 you can add Auburn and Arkansas and next year we take on OSU. As I've also said before we tried to work a deal with Georgia to replace Idaho and couldn't get agreement on Home and Away. The point is, our AD is doing just about everything he can to maximize our SOS.

 

Just as I mentioned..."I don't have time to look at Rivals' rankings but I can't imagine that USC could play three ranked teams unless Rivals has overrated someone like Notre Dame." Once again, Notre Dame is ranked based on their name.

I'm very pleased to see that your AD has realized that the Pac 10 is not strong enough to be a top-tier conference and has decided to schedule teams from better conferences. If the West Coast is loaded with talent as you suggest, it would appear that the teams are underachieving or having a difficult time recruiting, evaluating talent, coaching, etc.

California has approximately 8x the population of Louisiana therefore should have enough talent to be successful. I'm not sure why most of the remaining West Coast teams are usually weak but they have obviously not followed USC's lead.

Just wait until the season begins and I'm sure you'll hear the media (led by ESPN) touting USC's schedule due to their playing of "TWO" ranked OOC opponents on the road. They'll fail to mention that there is only one remaining ranked team in the Pac 10 and they'll criticize teams like LSU for only playing "ONE" ranked OOC team.

Will they mention that we will play Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas?...probably not because it doesn't work into their agenda. They wouldn't want to mention that we are scheduled to play four Top 14 teams (according to the polls you listed) because they want to influence who gets a shot at the title.

As I've said before, you can't alienate the left half of the country because they don't have as many quality teams as the right side. If the media only concentrates on one side or on just a few teams like USC and Cal, they'll lose tons of viewers...which equates to tons of $$$. If you don't think the media plays up West Coast football, then you're not as smart as you appear to be or your rose-colored glasses are way too thick.

Regarding the Hollywood, bling-bling comment...if you believe that Joe McKnight signed with USC because of academics, you should take a ride over to Anaheim because you're definitely living in Fantasyland.