MikeTheTiger71

Recent Comments
I agree with him that North/South makes more sense geographically. It just doesn’t solve the rivalry issue and it would create an even wider gap in the balance of power.
Hate that we can’t edit. To continue, it messes with competitive balance and forces Georgia to choose between Auburn and Florida.
BamaTime, I assume by North/South you would swap Arkansas and Florida? That still creates rivalry problems and messes
It’s not the cost of expansion. If Missouri wants a seat at the table, then they can fit in where the conference can make room. The teams that have been in the conference since 1933 should not have to give up long-standing rivalries just to accommodate Missouri. I’m not really sure what the issue is anyway. The closest teams are 3 in the East and Arkansas. By being in the East and having a crossover with Arkansas, Missouri gets those teams every year.
One of the stated goals was to try to create more balance in conference strength. How do you achieve that by adding teams to the SEC that have won 3 of the 4 titles not won by the SEC over the last 15 years? This proposal only widens the gap while totally eviscerating the ACC. The proposed Big East is even weaker than the Big East that couldn’t hold on to major status the first time. Finally, how does the addition of Arkansas solve the problems the Big 12 had that caused it to dissolve in the first place? None of this makes sense, even in an admittedly fantasy scenario?
Sure, the average went down because the players they added weren’t quite as good as the ones they had before. The point is that they were only behind in the total because they had spots in the class they hadn’t filled yet. Knowing they would use the slots, it was easy to project they would ultimately land at #1. It was just a temporary snapshot.
You’re right. There was a reason. His kids were in high school and he wanted to slow down for a little while back in his hometown.
I can’t believe I’m actually agreeing somewhat with RollTide on this one. I don’t agree that quantity of recruits is completely irrelevant, but when we know in all likelihood that most of the top programs are going to end up signing around 25 in the end, then looking at average points does give us the best gauge of who is ultimately going to end up with the highest rated class. It was just a matter of time until Georgia got up to 25 or so commits/signees and took over the top spot. Before that the rankings were just an incomplete snapshot in time.
Mine is still waiting 5 days later and I have no idea what word was the trigger.
Aranda wasn’t a great recruiter either, but LSU still had recruiting success overall.
I don’t know that he’s serious about bringing Munoz back. It almost seems like a coded message to Aranda to let him know he’s irritated by the way he’s gone about picking guys off the LSU staff. Like you said, if he really wanted Munoz, I imagine he would have given him the job before he left.
That’s a fairly odd statement considering Georgia has 3 conference titles in the last 37 seasons. Once every 7 or 8 years seems pretty good from that perspective. Of course, LSU at 5 in 19 seasons is doing a little better than that pace.
Reportedly $2 million a year for Pelini. Doesn’t look like Orgeron’s contract is standing in the way of paying what it takes to get the assistants he wants.
So far there’s no reason to think they won’t do just that. Not sure who Orgeron’s guy will be for DC, but I have confidence they will pay what it takes to get their man.
Hopefully Orgeron identifies the guys he wants on his staff and they pay them what it takes. As long as that stays true, I am good with this. They need top coordinators since that’s not Orgeron’s background.
Strange. There must be a trigger word in my post but I can’t imagine what it could be. Basically I just said what others have since said. This is bad if LSU skimps on assistant pay, if it doesn’t impact staff pay, then it’s fair compensation even if they could have played on loyalty to get him for less.
Test. I’m having no trouble posting to any other thread on this site, but for some reason it won’t let me post here.
LSU has never had a run like Bama has under Saban. No one has. Can we at least agree there is a level between Saban’s Bama and mediocre? Only Bama and Ohio St have significantly more than 3 seasons with fewer than 2 losses in the last 20. Clemson, USC and Texas have 4. Clemson wasn’t a great program for the first 10-12 years of that time and the other two haven’t been that strong for the last decade. LSU isn’t Bama, but they are one of the top 3-5 programs of this century.
I get that you might like a coach whose won major conference titles, but why would such a coach choose a program with no track record of winning titles?
Words have meaning. Everyone responding to your words in this thread understood you to be implying that LSU was just an average SEC West team before this season. Every response you made took the same condescending evaluation. It’s only now that it’s clear that LSU has not been average and, in fact, has been the second best SEC West program even in a down period that you are back pedaling and crying semantics. Do I want LSU to stay in down cycle? Of course not. I’m just not defining LSU’s program intentionally excluding their best seasons. In 9 seasons, LSU had one NC and 2 title game appearances. Only Bama and Clemson have more. That is who LSU is, not a middle of the pack program.
So you lived through a 4-9 season, a 6-6 season, and a 7-5 season, but still seem to believe that Bama is forever cemented in place as Kings of College Football.
They still have the playbook and Ensminger shared the play calling duties. It remains to be seen what the impact of Brady leaving will be, but it’s not like he wiped everyone’s brains clean on the way out,
Myles Brennan was also a higher ranked recruit than Burrow, so even if your nonsense about Bama winning with lesser QBs were true, Brennan is still a more than capable successor to Burrow using your criteria.
Sorry, no. If you look up the definition of middle, it means being at an equal distance from the ends of something. LSU has not been at an equal distance from first and last and definitely not equidistant from first and last within the “pack”. They have been the leader of the pack chasing Bama.
Petersen went from 2 losses, to 3, to 4, to 5 and then out of the profession. He’s a very good coach, to be sure, but how is that any better than going from 4 losses to 3 to 0? Kirby is 36-7 over the last 3 seasons to 34-7 for O, including 0-2 against LSU with no NCs. Not sure I see a lot of difference in what the two have accomplished. Riley has made consecutive playoff appearances, only to get dismissed by the SEC every time. I could see the argument there. At the end of the day, I don’t necessarily disagree with your wait-and-see attitude toward Orgeron. I just don’t see too many current coaches beyond Saban and Swinney that have a long and/or consistent track record themselves.
So 3rd out of 14 is the “middle”? LSU has won the West 6 of the last 19 years but we’re going to define the program by a dry spell in the middle of that period? That’s fine. We can limit it to the 7 years between conference titles. During the time LSU was 6-1 against A&M and 5-2 against the other 4 West teams besides Bama. No team finished ahead of LSU more than twice in that period and only 5 times total. LSU finished ahead of those teams 25 times total. Doesn’t sound like the “middle” to me.
Clarification: No losing records against SEC West teams other than Bama. Middle of the pack would imply playing basically even with everyone else. The facts say otherwise.