LSU does not play USC. Therefore, USC talent report not needed in this thread.
Scott, every thread here is not about USC.
Scott, every thread here is not about USC.
Got LSU at 20-1.......
- Thread starter Thunder Lips
- Start date
AU2001 said:
Thunder Lips was asking about LSU winning the BCS National Championship. So there is a high probability wareagle would talk about LSU. Thanks for informing me.
AU2001 said:
WRONG! The topic of this thread was LSU winning the BCS National Championship. That not only involves LSU, but every team in the country. You have to find a calculation to justify if there is value in LSU at 20-1 odds. USC is a major factor because USC is the odds on favorites to win it all according to every sportsbook. Wareagle said LSU was the most talented team in the country. If that is true, taking LSU 20-1 seems like a great bet. What if LSU isn't the most talented team in the country (which is my argument). Do you put little less $$$ on LSU winning it all? Do you still take LSU? That is the purpose of a message board. As you can see, me arguing whether or not LSU is the most talented team is very relevant in this thread. We are talking about LSU winning the National Championship. We are talking about LSU being the best team in the country. What is the probability of LSU going undefeated in the season and winning the BCS NC game and does the 20-1 odds create value and how much $$$ are you willing to risk on that probability.
Let me repeat myself. :banghead:
If I thought LSU was the most talented team in the country, I might bet X amount of dollars. There is a lot more value in LSU at 20-1 if they are the most talented team in the country vs being the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. most talented team. But if someone convinced me LSU might be the 2nd most talented team, do I bet less than I would if I felt they were the most talented?. Why? Because for you to win the bet, LSU must win the championship.
Again, if you think my posts provide no value to you, THE SOLUTION IS TO IGNORE ME! I am not offended if you dislike me. I am not asking you to like me. But you can be respectful. I do think you are immature to make personal attacks towards me.
Last edited:
scott forget it....90% of the posts here are cock-sucking posts anyway.
I've got Citadel to win the BCS title at 8 million to 1
"good luck"
"thanks for your pick"
"way to go"
"imagine the payout"
"hope you win"
"you're hot, you had tiger woods over arnold palmer last week, i'm jumping on your picks"
"great odds"
most responses are a joke to read and offer little insight or reasoning as to why a bet is worthwhile....i'd rather read your long analysis so i can gather more info on a wager, if i agree or disagree is irrelevant....the info is the key.
lsu at 20-1...great....why????? how is this a good bet??? how is this a bad bet????? that's what i want to know...i dont want to read a bunch of "good luck" replys.
but that's just me.
I've got Citadel to win the BCS title at 8 million to 1
"good luck"
"thanks for your pick"
"way to go"
"imagine the payout"
"hope you win"
"you're hot, you had tiger woods over arnold palmer last week, i'm jumping on your picks"
"great odds"
most responses are a joke to read and offer little insight or reasoning as to why a bet is worthwhile....i'd rather read your long analysis so i can gather more info on a wager, if i agree or disagree is irrelevant....the info is the key.
lsu at 20-1...great....why????? how is this a good bet??? how is this a bad bet????? that's what i want to know...i dont want to read a bunch of "good luck" replys.
but that's just me.
gjn23 said:
Funny coming from you. I loved your "in-depth" analysis on how the Falcons were going to kill the Eagles. You remember?
You offer so much.
LSU at 20-1 is a bad bet because they play in the toughest division of the toughest conference in the nation in the SEC west. The two strongest teams in the nation have come from this conference the past two years:
2003 LSU
2004 Auburn
If they do make it to the championship game, they will kill destroy and murder USC if they play them because LSU obviously has the most talent of any team in the nation. They just play too strong of a schedule while USC plays a twinkie-soft, pee-wee league pac-10, puss-dog schedule that almost guarantees they will go undefeated. So your only betting at one spot in the BCS championship game. And teams like Ohio St and Texas,(like Sun Tzu said), have a much easier schedule and will be starting out ahead of LSU in the polls and BCS rankings. How's that for analysis?
Here's some more analysis:
Arizona will be terrible again this year. Take them at under 5 wins if you can find it.
au2001
"you are a loser"....remember that comment from me? of course i remember the falcons wager.....i also remember the wager on the pats over the steelers which was much larger, but was scoffed at by many (possibly you)
as for the best team in the land comment...please, it's been usc the past two years (possibly even three years) hands down....two years ago, lsu was good (much better than auburn of last year) but sc was better....last year auburn was good, but sc was much better.
as far as arizona...5 wins sounds about right (maybe 6 or 7) but they are on their way up with stoops. then again, we all suck on the west coast.
if lsu has by far and away the best talent in the nation, then why wont they win the sec west.....who's gonna beat them?
cie grant:
has nothing to do with west coast bias...the funny thing is. most out here arent bias...we watch EVERY game....i think the sec is an excellent football conference..maybe a tad bit better than the pac-10, big-10 (maybe not)...but fans of the sec claim that it is a MUCH SUPERIOR CONFERENCE....that's where the debate begins and will never end with the east coast southern blinders on.
Whatever......SC is much more vulnerable this year, but still think they win the title....after that TX-OSU winner has the inside track to the bcs game.
"you are a loser"....remember that comment from me? of course i remember the falcons wager.....i also remember the wager on the pats over the steelers which was much larger, but was scoffed at by many (possibly you)
as for the best team in the land comment...please, it's been usc the past two years (possibly even three years) hands down....two years ago, lsu was good (much better than auburn of last year) but sc was better....last year auburn was good, but sc was much better.
as far as arizona...5 wins sounds about right (maybe 6 or 7) but they are on their way up with stoops. then again, we all suck on the west coast.
if lsu has by far and away the best talent in the nation, then why wont they win the sec west.....who's gonna beat them?
cie grant:
has nothing to do with west coast bias...the funny thing is. most out here arent bias...we watch EVERY game....i think the sec is an excellent football conference..maybe a tad bit better than the pac-10, big-10 (maybe not)...but fans of the sec claim that it is a MUCH SUPERIOR CONFERENCE....that's where the debate begins and will never end with the east coast southern blinders on.
Whatever......SC is much more vulnerable this year, but still think they win the title....after that TX-OSU winner has the inside track to the bcs game.
gjn23 said:
Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, or Alabama.
Maybe the Falcons? :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
gjn23, what do Arizona fans do during bowl season? (You know, when teams like Auburn are getting ready to beat someone from another conference)
Do you guys just sit around and talk about how kick-ass the Holiday Bowl was back in 1998?
See, I don't think you're that big of a jerk-off. I just think maybe you have "little man" syndrome that comes from years of pulling for a sub-mediocre program (even by pac-10 standards). I'll admit, I have no idea what it's like to cheer for a program that considers 6 wins a "good year".
But hey, if you ever want to talk about what it's like to pull for a team that goes 13-0, just give me a call, and I will be happy to relay the experience. Anything to help out a fellow madjacker. :mj14:
Do you guys just sit around and talk about how kick-ass the Holiday Bowl was back in 1998?
See, I don't think you're that big of a jerk-off. I just think maybe you have "little man" syndrome that comes from years of pulling for a sub-mediocre program (even by pac-10 standards). I'll admit, I have no idea what it's like to cheer for a program that considers 6 wins a "good year".
But hey, if you ever want to talk about what it's like to pull for a team that goes 13-0, just give me a call, and I will be happy to relay the experience. Anything to help out a fellow madjacker. :mj14:
cant wait for your normal 7-4 season....with 7 big in-season wins over kentucky, vandy, miss st, arkansas, citadal, grambling, la monroe....then we can hear you thump your chest about being a bowl team from the mighty sec and how great your conference is.
arizona has been horrible the past few years, no doubt.....we root for our team, expect big things from stoops in the next few years and wait for basketball season!
arizona has been horrible the past few years, no doubt.....we root for our team, expect big things from stoops in the next few years and wait for basketball season!
Why is AU2001 putting down Arizona and touting Auburn and their 13-0 record? Doesn't make much sense to me. Lets compare Arizona vs AU.
According to Sagarin ratings, Arizona played the #6 toughest strength of schedule. Auburn finished the year ranked #60 in SOS but that includes V-Tech (their bowl opponent). I believe Auburns SOS without V-Tech was close to #80. Why would someone put down Arizona? Why would someone tout Auburn?
Arizona played @USC (national champions), Utah (BCS BOWL WINNER), and CAL (top 10 ranking and I believe they played CAL when CAL was healthy. Cal was a depleted team at end of year.) Does this sound like a team to put down? Especially when they were going through huge transition period.
Arizona's OOC opponents
Northern Arizona
Utah
Wisconsin
Auburns OOC opponents
LA Monroe
The Citadel
LA Tech
AU is bragging about going 13-0????? Putting down Arizona? Where is the argument?
Arizona went 3-8 last year with their top 10 ranked SOS. In my opinion, if Arizona played Auburns schedule, there is not doubt in my mind Arizona would have more than 3 wins. There are 7 teams on Auburns schedule Arizona "could" beat. Not saying Arizona goes 7-0 against these teams but there is decent probability Arizona could win 6 games but a VERY high probability Arizona wins more than 3 games. La. Monroe, Citadel, La Tech, Miss. St., Kentucky, Alabama, & Ole Miss.:scared
Don't forget Arizona competed with USC for a whole half @USC (more than what OU can say), lost by 2pts to Wiscy (missed FG), and competed hard against Utah. Pretty nice resume for a team who finished 9th in the Pac 10 and was going through major transition period. Just another example of how deep and talented the Pac 10 is top to bottom. I am sure Arizona would have loved to play Auburn's schedule and have a chance at winning 6 games and making a bowl game. Then they can tout how great they are that they were a bowl team and play in such a superior conf. (SEC). Big wins over Citadel, La. Monroe, La. Tech, Miss. St., Kentucky, ALL BIG WINS!!!!
But none of you people look into this. You just go by the polls and # of wins each team has. You just focus on the elite teams in your conf. You conveniently forget about all those home games against $hit competition. Oh yeah, it is a money issue and everyone should give the conf. free pass! Lets only talk about the 2-3 tough games during the season. Lets not talk about the 3 conf. opponents you miss every year. But I am sure those 3 teams are the bottom dwellers, right? That is bogus. You are delusional to praise AU and the SEC and put down Arizona who played such a tough schedule and IMO had a great year given their circumstances. You got some nerve to put down Arizona.
It is just too easy to tear apart the SEC. Just another one of the many examples proving the fallacy of the SEC being vastly superior to the Pac 10. If thinking the SEC is vastly superior makes you happy, continue living in your fantasy world.
Here is a copy of both teams 2004 schedules so you don't think I am making any of this up.
Auburn's schedule
Louisiana Monroe
at Mississippi St.
LSU
The Citadel
at Tennessee
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas
Kentucky
at Mississippi
Georgia
at Alabama
Arizona's schedule
Northern Arizona
Utah
Wisconsin
Washington State
at UCLA
at Oregon
California
Oregon State
Washington
at USC
Arizona State
CASE CLOSED!
According to Sagarin ratings, Arizona played the #6 toughest strength of schedule. Auburn finished the year ranked #60 in SOS but that includes V-Tech (their bowl opponent). I believe Auburns SOS without V-Tech was close to #80. Why would someone put down Arizona? Why would someone tout Auburn?
Arizona played @USC (national champions), Utah (BCS BOWL WINNER), and CAL (top 10 ranking and I believe they played CAL when CAL was healthy. Cal was a depleted team at end of year.) Does this sound like a team to put down? Especially when they were going through huge transition period.
Arizona's OOC opponents
Northern Arizona
Utah
Wisconsin
Auburns OOC opponents
LA Monroe
The Citadel
LA Tech
AU is bragging about going 13-0????? Putting down Arizona? Where is the argument?
Arizona went 3-8 last year with their top 10 ranked SOS. In my opinion, if Arizona played Auburns schedule, there is not doubt in my mind Arizona would have more than 3 wins. There are 7 teams on Auburns schedule Arizona "could" beat. Not saying Arizona goes 7-0 against these teams but there is decent probability Arizona could win 6 games but a VERY high probability Arizona wins more than 3 games. La. Monroe, Citadel, La Tech, Miss. St., Kentucky, Alabama, & Ole Miss.:scared
Don't forget Arizona competed with USC for a whole half @USC (more than what OU can say), lost by 2pts to Wiscy (missed FG), and competed hard against Utah. Pretty nice resume for a team who finished 9th in the Pac 10 and was going through major transition period. Just another example of how deep and talented the Pac 10 is top to bottom. I am sure Arizona would have loved to play Auburn's schedule and have a chance at winning 6 games and making a bowl game. Then they can tout how great they are that they were a bowl team and play in such a superior conf. (SEC). Big wins over Citadel, La. Monroe, La. Tech, Miss. St., Kentucky, ALL BIG WINS!!!!
But none of you people look into this. You just go by the polls and # of wins each team has. You just focus on the elite teams in your conf. You conveniently forget about all those home games against $hit competition. Oh yeah, it is a money issue and everyone should give the conf. free pass! Lets only talk about the 2-3 tough games during the season. Lets not talk about the 3 conf. opponents you miss every year. But I am sure those 3 teams are the bottom dwellers, right? That is bogus. You are delusional to praise AU and the SEC and put down Arizona who played such a tough schedule and IMO had a great year given their circumstances. You got some nerve to put down Arizona.
It is just too easy to tear apart the SEC. Just another one of the many examples proving the fallacy of the SEC being vastly superior to the Pac 10. If thinking the SEC is vastly superior makes you happy, continue living in your fantasy world.
Here is a copy of both teams 2004 schedules so you don't think I am making any of this up.
Auburn's schedule
Louisiana Monroe
at Mississippi St.
LSU
The Citadel
at Tennessee
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas
Kentucky
at Mississippi
Georgia
at Alabama
Arizona's schedule
Northern Arizona
Utah
Wisconsin
Washington State
at UCLA
at Oregon
California
Oregon State
Washington
at USC
Arizona State
CASE CLOSED!
Last edited:
gjn23 said:
Great argument. Facts usually are not enough for the delusional. He was bragging about the success of Auburn and putting down Arizona, correct?
I love the odds that you got on LSU but I think it's going to take Mile's at least a year to get up to speed with the SEC and just how the league functions. As far as Scott4usc, I must in all fairness say that when Scott just sticks to posting information about gambling and analysis then his info is usually close to be on the money, but his obsession with USC and trying to gain respect for the PAC 10 can get tiring and would be more constructive if posted at a fan's board. Scott is correct in posting his record on big games as he has been stellar.
LSU needs to watch out for that road game against the TIDE.
Arguably the best QB in the SEC {when he can stay healthy} and the best running game in the conference.
Where Bama is hurt is depth, still recovering from probation.
With AU and LSU going thru transition years, watch out for the TIDE to sneak in for the SEC West!!!
Athlon has them #16 in preseason poll
Not that I am a homer or anything
Arguably the best QB in the SEC {when he can stay healthy} and the best running game in the conference.
Where Bama is hurt is depth, still recovering from probation.
With AU and LSU going thru transition years, watch out for the TIDE to sneak in for the SEC West!!!
Athlon has them #16 in preseason poll
Not that I am a homer or anything
Mastercapper is right re: Scott - Love the honest, in-depth capping - he's very solid and has usually steered me right. Hate the constant USC cheerleading and hijacking every thread into a discussion of USC - and that's coming for a big time USC homer - me.
As far as LSU, I just don't see an unproven QB and new head coach winning it all. I gotta believe they are bound to screw up some game where lack of experience at QB or head coach (Versus the conference) will cost them. Maybe worth a small wager since it is 20-1 for one of the most talented teams in the country, but I can't see it - this year.
Conference strength, you can argue any way you want and make your case. In general, it is easier arguing the Pac 10 over the past 5 years or the SEC over the past 10, or that given the strength of the teams that have joined the ACC, they are the conference of the future or right now. But that is just manipulating stats to make your case. All in all, there just is not much difference these days between the SEC, Big12, Big10, Pac-10, ACC in terms of performance. Anybody who sees a LARGE gap, is just delusional.
As far as AU2001, he's just seething with bitterness because the best team in Auburn history still could not play with the big boys for all the marbles. I'm sorry your team's 15 minutes of fame were overshadowed by USC and OU. I feel bad for Auburn and Utah but get over it and get back to work sacking those groceries at the Piggly Wiggly.
As far as LSU, I just don't see an unproven QB and new head coach winning it all. I gotta believe they are bound to screw up some game where lack of experience at QB or head coach (Versus the conference) will cost them. Maybe worth a small wager since it is 20-1 for one of the most talented teams in the country, but I can't see it - this year.
Conference strength, you can argue any way you want and make your case. In general, it is easier arguing the Pac 10 over the past 5 years or the SEC over the past 10, or that given the strength of the teams that have joined the ACC, they are the conference of the future or right now. But that is just manipulating stats to make your case. All in all, there just is not much difference these days between the SEC, Big12, Big10, Pac-10, ACC in terms of performance. Anybody who sees a LARGE gap, is just delusional.
As far as AU2001, he's just seething with bitterness because the best team in Auburn history still could not play with the big boys for all the marbles. I'm sorry your team's 15 minutes of fame were overshadowed by USC and OU. I feel bad for Auburn and Utah but get over it and get back to work sacking those groceries at the Piggly Wiggly.
