(Not sure this is worthy of its own thread or not, but who cares...)<br /><br />In the thread on the LSU-Bama MNC game, a few posters claimed if LSU were to play Oregon today that the outcome would be different ("5 turnovers for Oregon...."<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />">.<br /><br />1. LSU also had a turnover (maybe 2?)<br />2. LSU for the most part forced those turnovers<br />3. LSU was without it's starting QB and top WR, as well as 3-4 other players whom were suspended. They were nowhere near full strength, particularly on offense.<br /><br />So if you're so excited to replay the game in your head without Oregon turning it over (as if turnovers are never caused by the defense), then you need to replay it in your head with Jordan Jefferson, Russell Sheppard, and others back on the squad.

I never understood "we would have won without the turnovers" arguments even though that would give us a "toe to toe" win over Texas.<br /><br />We've seen enough of Oregon against Auburn and LSU to know they are going to be dominated in the trenches.

Who cares. I, along with a huge chunk of America, already saw LSU-Bama. I do not need to see it played again.

I don't see DAT breaking off those two Rose Bowl runs against the speed of the LSU Tigers.<br /><br />To use the Rose Bowl as an example (the Ducks latest game), the 91-yard TD Dive Play by DAT from spread-option gets stuffed at the LOS.<br /><br />The fly-sweep (DAT in the TZR position? Clever) gets about 7-10 yards instead of the TD we saw against the slower Badgers.<br /><br />If they had a rematch, I see Oregon getting a little bit closer....but LSU simply out-physicals and out-talents the Disco Ducks...new shiny helmets and all.

Although its a moot point and I personally have no idea if Oregon could beat them if replayed, I think that first game is a bad comparison to compare it to a rematch.<br /><br />I think they had 3 turnovers in the red zone? I dont know of any teams that can recover from something like that

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667126 said:</div><hr>Who cares. I, along with a huge chunk of America, already saw LSU-Bama. I do not need to see it played again.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />And we also already saw LSU-Oregon

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Our Domicile;667133 said:</div><hr>I don't see DAT breaking off those two Rose Bowl runs against the speed of the LSU Tigers.<br /><br />To use the Rose Bowl as an example (the Ducks latest game), the 91-yard TD Dive Play by DAT from spread-option gets stuffed at the LOS.<br /><br />The fly-sweep (DAT in the TZR position? Clever) gets about 7-10 yards instead of the TD we saw against the slower Badgers.<br /><br />If they had a rematch, I see Oregon getting a little bit closer....but LSU simply out-physicals and out-talents the Disco Ducks...new shiny helmets and all.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly - Wisconsin's D-Line did absolutely nothing against Oregon's O-Line. An athletic/big line like LSU's absolutely doesn't give up some of those big runs - which is what we saw in the first LSU-Oregon game - not a lot of room for Oregon to execute its bread-and-butter run game.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CALigulabob;667142 said:</div><hr>Although its a moot point and I personally have no idea if Oregon could beat them if replayed, I think that first game is a bad comparison to compare it to a rematch.<br /><br />I think they had 3 turnovers in the red zone? I dont know of any teams that can recover from something like that<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yeah, it's also a bad comparison because LSU's starting QB and #1 WR were suspended.<br /><br />I'm not some big LSU fan here - but I don't like the revisionist history that happens this time of year. Remember 2 yrs ago, when many were proclaiming that Oregon was probably the best team at the end of the season? Well, they went out and played a pretty good tOSU team who handled their offense pretty well.

LSU is legit man. Could Oregon win the 2nd time around? Sure. But if odds were even, I would bet on LSU.

I'd rather watch an Oregon LSU rematch than a Bama LSU rematch. At least then they would be doing two things:<br /><br />1) Not punishing schools for having tough OOC competition.<br />2) Not have a championship game be between two teams in the same conference.<br /><br />The entire point of bowl games was to create interesting match ups that you wouldn't normally see otherwise. i.e., the number 1 team of one conference vs the number 1 team of another conference. The number 1 team of a conference vs (technically) the number 3 team of the same conference is not an interesting matchup that I wouldn't see otherwise...<br /><br />~MrGPAC

<blockquote><div class="name-said">MrGPAC;667173 said:</div><hr>I'd rather watch an Oregon LSU rematch than a Bama LSU rematch. At least then they would be doing two things:<br /><br />1) Not punishing schools for having tough OOC competition.<br />2) Not have a championship game be between two teams in the same conference.<br /><br />The entire point of bowl games was to create interesting match ups that you wouldn't normally see otherwise. i.e., the number 1 team of one conference vs the number 1 team of another conference. The number 1 team of a conference vs (technically) the number 3 team of the same conference is not an interesting matchup that I wouldn't see otherwise...<br /><br />~MrGPAC<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I don't necessarily disagree with you about an LSU-Bama rematch - I'm not excited either. The only team I would have liked to see have a shot would have been Ok. State (though it took them a while to get going against Stanford). I think LSU would have shut down that offense pretty well though, but at least it wouldn't have been a rematch of LSU-Bama or LSU-Oregon.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SouthBayPhenom;667155 said:</div><hr>Yeah, it's also a bad comparison because LSU's starting QB and #1 WR were suspended.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Lee was the starter of that game and most of the year <br /><br />West Virginia's offense lit up LSU's D so I dont think its too far fetched to think that Oklahoma States Offense could do the same

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>2. LSU for the most part forced those turnovers<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Doesn't matter much. What you have to ask yourself is this: what did each team do that was sustainable? What did they do that, if they played an infinite number of times, they would be able to do consistently? Here's what I see from that game: Oregon: 4.4 yards per pass. LSU 4.5 yards per pass. Oregon 3.4 yards per carry. LSU 3.6 yards per carry. So, very identical offensive performances. Oregon 9/14 FG's on the year, LSU 16/18. Advantage, LSU. Punting: Oregon 45 avg, LSU 43 avg. Small Oregon advantage, but if I were really being accurate, I'd want net, as well as their own returners ability. I'm gonna stop here, because the analysis starts to get more difficult on the other variables since the opponent affects them more, but you get the point. So far they look pretty similar to me, though LSU did have homefield (about 3 point advantage) in their matchup. Would be a good game, I think. Not clear who would win. <br /><br />Anyways, I view the college football season as a playoff, and I think it's absurd that Ok St didn't play for the title. Bama and Oregon got their shots, and they lost. They should be out.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CALigulabob;667227 said:</div><hr>Lee was the starter of that game and most of the year <br /><br />West Virginia's offense lit up LSU's D so I dont think its too far fetched to think that Oklahoma States Offense could do the same<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, I agree it's possible that Ok State would move the ball and score.<br /><br />Lee was the starter as the benching of Jefferson was a punishment for mis-deeds and it wouldn't have been "fair" to just pull Lee immediately - Jefferson needed to work his way back onto the team. But that offense operates better with Jefferson and that's not hard to see.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BTUR;667246 said:</div><hr>Doesn't matter much. What you have to ask yourself is this: what did each team do that was sustainable? What did they do that, if they played an infinite number of times, they would be able to do consistently? Here's what I see from that game: Oregon: 4.4 yards per pass. LSU 4.5 yards per pass. Oregon 3.4 yards per carry. LSU 3.6 yards per carry. So, very identical offensive performances. Oregon 9/14 FG's on the year, LSU 16/18. Advantage, LSU. Punting: Oregon 45 avg, LSU 43 avg. Small Oregon advantage, but if I were really being accurate, I'd want net, as well as their own returners ability. I'm gonna stop here, because the analysis starts to get more difficult on the other variables since the opponent affects them more, but you get the point. So far they look pretty similar to me, though LSU did have homefield (about 3 point advantage) in their matchup. Would be a good game, I think. Not clear who would win. <br /><br />Anyways, I view the college football season as a playoff, and I think it's absurd that Ok St didn't play for the title. Bama and Oregon got their shots, and they lost. They should be out.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think LSU has consistently had a good defense all year - and good defenses place pressure on skill offensive players which leads to mistakes, strips, interceptions, etc. Would LSU get 5 every game? Probably not, but they did. <br /><br />Also, again, the big point for those wanting to ignore the 5 Oregon turnovers is that key offensive players (Jefferson, Sheppard) weren't even on the field for LSU - so if you "adjust" for 5 turnovers (4 "net", really) then you should also adjust for LSU benching 6 guys.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SouthBayPhenom;667261 said:</div><hr>I think LSU has consistently had a good defense all year - and good defenses place pressure on skill offensive players which leads to mistakes, strips, interceptions, etc. Would LSU get 5 every game? Probably not, but they did. <br /><br />Also, again, the big point for those wanting to ignore the 5 Oregon turnovers is that key offensive players (Jefferson, Sheppard) weren't even on the field for LSU - so if you "adjust" for 5 turnovers (4 "net", really) then you should also adjust for LSU benching 6 guys.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, anyone that played who didn't play the first time needs to be accounted for. As for LSU's D, no doubt a good D like theirs will force more turnovers than a lesser D, but in 13 games, they forced 30 turnovers total (from INT's + fumbles). They were #1 in turnover margin, and T-16 in TO's forced. My understanding of TO Margin, by the way, is that it's somewhat fluky. No doubt LSU is very good at it, but I'm not sure their rate is close to sustainable.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BTUR;667269 said:</div><hr>Yes, anyone that played who didn't play the first time needs to be accounted for. As for LSU's D, no doubt a good D like theirs will force more turnovers than a lesser D, but in 13 games, they forced 30 turnovers total (from INT's + fumbles). They were #1 in turnover margin, and T-16 in TO's forced. My understanding of TO Margin, by the way, is that it's somewhat fluky. No doubt LSU is very good at it, but I'm not sure their rate is close to sustainable.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed - you wouldn't expect a net turnover margin of 4 (or 3?? can't remember if LSU had 1 or 2) every game. But that's kind of my point for Oregon fans who want to conveniently forget those 5 turnovers - they also conveniently forget that key offensive weapons (including the most important, QB) were missing for LSU. <br /><br />I recall the lead-up to that game, and Oregon (and Pac12) fans were somewhat bemoaning the Jefferson/Sheppard suspensions, because "when we beat LSU, we don't want them making excuses about not being full strength". Well, LSU wasn't full strength (primarily on offense) but still won by 2 scores.