LSU Streak: Rational or Irrational?

[ShotgunDawg]

SportsCenter ‏@SportsCenter 3h
The Ben Affleck Curse lives on! Red Sox lose to Astros, 5-3. Boston is 0-15 on actor?s birthday since "Good Will Hunting" came out in 1997.

I saw this tweet today and it got me thinking about rational and irrational streaks. Obviously, since the Red Sox have won 3 World Series since 1997, this is an irrational streak that is incredibly funny, but offers no insight about whether the Red Sox are good or bad team. It is just simply a random, irrational streak.

Upon seeing this, I began thinking about other odd streaks in sports and about whether or not the streak was rational or irrational. Here are few examples:

1. The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908. On the surface, this would obviously make you believe the Cubs have been an awful organization, but it begs an interesting question: If every year, beginning in 1909, you took all the players that played in the Major Leagues that particular year, put their names in a hat, and randomly picked 25 guys, would the Cubs have won a World Series in the last 100 + years? So... while the Cubs may have been a poorly run organization for the past 100 years, there is also some pretty bad luck that has gone into this.

2. Since the 2007 MLB Draft, the Tampa Bay Rays Amateur scouting department has landed two Major League players in the draft. In over 220 rounds of selections, all they have to show is a fringe ML outfielder and a reliever that they traded away. Obviously this trend could leave you to believe the Tampa Rays are not very good at drafting Major League Baseball players, but, at the same time, how much plain bad luck has gone into this? Is it rational or irrational? If the Rays threw all the drafted players, since 2007, into a hat, closed their eyes, and picked 220+ times, would they land more than a fringe outfielder or relief pitcher?

I say all this to ask: LSU has beaten MSU 14 straight times and 21 of the last 22. How much of this streak is rational and how much of it is irrational?

This is a conversation that the State fan base needs to have with itself.

On September 20, 2014, MSU will travel to Baton Rouge and engage in, possibly, one of the more important games we've played in the past 15 years. What is it about this streak that makes it so hard to break?

Obviously, it is clear that over the past 22 years LSU has been the superior football program, but there have been numerous years where we have had a team more than capable of beating them, only to come up short time and time again. Sometimes it's a close game and other times it has been a blowout, but it has always been LSU winning.

During this time, we have beaten Alabama 6 times, including 3 in a row at one point, when Alabama's program could be considered no less than equal to LSU's during that same time period.

We have had games where we have gotten the lead early, came back late, gotten screwed by refs, and all things in between, but LSU has always come out the victor.

Therefore my question is: Is this streak rational or irrational, and not matter what your answer is, why is this year different? Why will we win this year? What is different? Statistically, does it have to happen, even when it never does?

The MSU fan base needs to properly prepare their mind and heart for that football game.

[Todd4State]

I think there are some rational reasons for the streak, but the streak itself is irrational.

To me, a big reason for the streak is Jackie just didn't seem to care very much about beating them for whatever reason. He used to have a saying which I HATED about how you could only get a team up for about three games a year. I suspect those three were Ole Miss, Alabama, and Auburn typically. We did OK against those teams while Jackie was here.

I think that philosophy was the root of why we had trouble against not only LSU- but Arkansas who had our number as well, but it's not as noticeable because they've gotten pretty bad lately and we've beaten them some, why we would absolutely get embarrassed and blown out at times under Jackie (Georgia 1997 for reference, and LSU 1998), and why we would have some absolutely un-excusable and embarrassing losses to people like Louisiana-Monroe and Troy.

Now, after Jackie left, LSU had become a national powerhouse while we had Croom. Self-explanatory. Then under Dan we came awfully close to beating them his first year and the other times I can't really say that we've played "well" but I also can't say that we were absolutely horrible. We have to cut out things like Milton fumbling and allowing scores right before the half and things like that.

[ShotgunDawg]

I think there are some rational reasons for the streak, but the streak itself is irrational.

To me, a big reason for the streak is Jackie just didn't seem to care very much about beating them for whatever reason. He used to have a saying which I HATED about how you could only get a team up for about three games a year. I suspect those three were Ole Miss, Alabama, and Auburn typically. We did OK against those teams while Jackie was here.

I think that philosophy was the root of why we had trouble against not only LSU- but Arkansas who had our number as well, but it's not as noticeable because they've gotten pretty bad lately and we've beaten them some, why we would absolutely get embarrassed and blown out at times under Jackie (Georgia 1997 for reference, and LSU 1998), and why we would have some absolutely un-excusable and embarrassing losses to people like Louisiana-Monroe and Troy.

Now, after Jackie left, LSU had become a national powerhouse while we had Croom. Self-explanatory. Then under Dan we came awfully close to beating them his first year and the other times I can't really say that we've played "well" but I also can't say that we were absolutely horrible. We have to cut out things like Milton fumbling and allowing scores right before the half and things like that.

Well said Todd, but why does the dumb stuff like the Milton fumble, them scoring before half, Tyler Russell throwing a pick 6 in the endzone, etc happen all the time against them and not against others?

Is our mentality as a football team and fan base so inferior that we cannot beat them?

I would love to hear from an ex player on this

[Dawg61]

This is a rational streak with specks of irrational sprinkled in. We should of beaten them when it was 1st and goal on the 2. LSU has beaten us 14 times in a row because when we got really really bad they got really really good at the same time. The talent gap was gigantic. The worst was when they had Russell at QB and huge NFL wr's all over the field. With NFL players at RB and OL. There was nothing we could do to stop them. All they had to do was chuck the ball 40 yards and whichever receiver they chose would be easily wide open. It's taken them falling back some and Mullen 6 years to build the cupboard back up and now finally we are on a level playing field with them. The streak of losing to them is on its last legs. I expect to beat them this year. LSU was huge and way more athletic than us for a decade straight. Not anymore. Now we are the bigger team. I don't even have to check their roster to know that. We are a very big very athletic football team. They are probably still faster than us but they aren't bigger. MSU 31 LSU 23

[RougeDawg]

This is a rational streak with specks of irrational sprinkled in. We should of beaten them when it was 1st and goal on the 2. LSU has beaten us 14 times in a row because when we got really really bad they got really really good at the same time. The talent gap was gigantic. The worst was when they had Russell at QB and huge NFL wr's all over the field. With NFL players at RB and OL. There was nothing we could do to stop them. All they had to do was chuck the ball 40 yards and whichever receiver they chose would be easily wide open. It's taken them falling back some and Mullen 6 years to build the cupboard back up and now finally we are on a level playing field with them. The streak of losing to them is on its last legs. I expect to beat them this year. LSU was huge and way more athletic than us for a decade straight. Not anymore. Now we are the bigger team. I don't even have to check their roster to know that. We are a very big very athletic football team. They are probably still faster than us but they aren't bigger. MSU 31 LSU 23

I like the way you think. And I'll be in The Rouge to see it happen. The one difference this year vs the others, is a leader who has been through the gauntlet of emotions and situations over the last year, but still has the positive and confident outlook. Dak's persona and leadership will propel this team into greatness. There have been many collective teams of similar and/or greater talent that have not fared well due to lack of leadership and inspiration. The difference in winning and losing, on a football field or battle field, most times is influenced by who is leading and inspiring those who fight with/for them. We have that great leader this year who can inspire on and off the field.

[QuadrupleOption]

I think recently it's been perfectly rational, but some of those games in the Jackie Sherrill era defy belief.

There's no way we should have lost to them in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, or 2000. After that we were terrible and Saban had them rolling so it makes sense.

[Goat Holder]

I think recently it's been perfectly rational, but some of those games in the Jackie Sherrill era defy belief.

There's no way we should have lost to them in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, or 2000. After that we were terrible and Saban had them rolling so it makes sense.

My thoughts exactly. Plus, we really didn't beat them in 99. Dead injuns just felt sorry for us.

[War Machine Dawg]

My thoughts exactly. Plus, we really didn't beat them in 99. Dead injuns just felt sorry for us.

It pisses me off when our fans say this. We beat them. Wanna disprove me? Show me video evidence Gibson didn't get in on the play. Every replay angle available was inconclusive. The refs called it a TD. This inferiority complex when it comes to LSU is bullshit. It was close, and as much as I bitch about the refs at times, they're generally right a lot more than they're wrong, particularly on scoring plays.

[Goat Holder]

It pisses me off when our fans say this. We beat them. Wanna disprove me? Show me video evidence Gibson didn't get in on the play. Every replay angle available was inconclusive. The refs called it a TD. This inferiority complex when it comes to LSU is bullshit. It was close, and as much as I bitch about the refs at times, they're generally right a lot more than they're wrong, particularly on scoring plays.

We should have beaten them by 30 in 98, 99 and 00. That's more the point. Shouldn't have been close but for whatever reason it was.

Our record vs Arkansas is rational. Our record vs LSU is anything but, especially considering that teams like Ole Miss have managed to have success against them.

But no, I don't think we got in the endzone. But I also think Ballard got in vs AU in '11. I call it like I see it. Obviously the outcome isn't changing, what do you care.

[Pollodawg]

They should have beaten us in '99, and we should have beaten them in 2,000.

[Pollodawg]

Weren't we up big verses LUS in 2,000 and let them back in the game? But, like WMD said, the gap is more between our own ears verses LSU now that the physical gap has closed some.

[The Federalist Engineer]

LSU Edge vs MSU

Rational (non random variables)
1) MSU is physical football team, even when bad. LSU has the same type of athlete. LSU does not freak out in manhood games.
2) MSU in 20 years has rarely had an OL to match LSUs DL. Even when MSU is good, we have had a weak link or two on the OL
3) MSUs passing game has never been so complicated to take advantage of LSU core weakness, low team IQ...note how Penn State, Iowa, and other Yankee teams have given LSU fits with less talent than us.
4) Raw talent, LSU has no. 1 picks every year, major talents like Claiborne, Peterson, and Mingo. LSU basically has few peers in raw talent. USC, Florida State, Alabama...

Irrational (random factors)
1) bad calls, Brandon Toefield fumbled before crossing the goal line, got a free TD in a game that eventually went into OT and we lost
2) under what cosmic circumstance does a SEC program have Henig as their QB?
4) the entire nation had evolved to spread attack and using athletes to defeat talent...except us with Croom and his OC
5) shitty LSU players seem to have career days against us. Craig steltz had five picks against us. Mettenberger plays like a Heismann against us, throws 3 picks against OM.

Why the future is better:
1) we have Dak
2) we have passing game playmakers
3) Mullen has 5 years experience in matching our athletes to LSU
4) we have 1999 talent on the DL

[The Federalist Engineer]

It pisses me off when our fans say this. We beat them. Wanna disprove me? Show me video evidence Gibson didn't get in on the play. Every replay angle available was inconclusive. The refs called it a TD. This inferiority complex when it comes to LSU is bullshit. It was close, and as much as I bitch about the refs at times, they're generally right a lot more than they're wrong, particularly on scoring plays.

I wonder if Auburn feels like they never really beat us? Cam scams, bad calls, and lucky as hell plays seem to save their ass. Nah, they take the wins.

[War Machine Dawg]

I wonder if Auburn feels like they never really beat us? Cam scams, bad calls, and lucky as hell plays seem to save their ass. Nah, they take the wins.

Exactly. This constant bullshit of "well, we didn't really win in '99" is the epitome of poor ol' MSU thinking. We won. Once aGAIN, I dare you to find me a replay angle that conclusively proves Gibson didn't score. Referees **** up, but the almost never **** up scoring calls. And by almost never, I mean maybe 1-2 I can remember in 30 years.

[Goat Holder]

Exactly. This constant bullshit of "well, we didn't really win in '99" is the epitome of poor ol' MSU thinking. We won. Once aGAIN, I dare you to find me a replay angle that conclusively proves Gibson didn't score. Referees **** up, but the almost never **** up scoring calls. And by almost never, I mean maybe 1-2 I can remember in 30 years.

You two are definitely simple minded mfers, no doubt about that. No one ever said we didn't claim or enjoy that win. But when discussing a BIGGER picture situation, it behooves you to look at facts and actual and objective results.

[Todd4State]

It pisses me off when our fans say this. We beat them. Wanna disprove me? Show me video evidence Gibson didn't get in on the play. Every replay angle available was inconclusive. The refs called it a TD. This inferiority complex when it comes to LSU is bullshit. It was close, and as much as I bitch about the refs at times, they're generally right a lot more than they're wrong, particularly on scoring plays.

Thank you. It absolutely blows my mind that we have fans that give in to LSU whining over that one play.

I was in the band that year, so we at that time were sitting pretty close to the goal line, so I had a fairly decent angle to watch the play. To me it looked like Gibson got the ball and tripped about the five yard line but he never actually touched the ground with his knee. But because he tripped, he ended up getting really low- as in the best pad level ever low and low enough where the officials on the goal line couldn't see him cross. He actually ended up going under the o-line instead of over like it happens 99% of the time.

I saw the officials run in to meet each other, and they started talking. And I'm pretty sure the conversation went something like this: "Did you see him cross? No? I didn't either. But he's laying here in the end zone. We probably should call it a touchdown."

[Todd4State]

You two are definitely simple minded mfers, no doubt about that. No one ever said we didn't claim or enjoy that win. But when discussing a BIGGER picture situation, it behooves you to look at facts and actual and objective results.

Actually, by the definition of objective, he got in.

[Goat Holder]

Actually, by the definition of objective, he got in.

Objectively disagree.

[ShotgunDawg]

Objectively disagree.

Objectively speaking: every time I read one of your posts, I find sticking a pencil in my eye becoming a more appealing option.

[War Machine Dawg]

You two are definitely simple minded mfers, no doubt about that. No one ever said we didn't claim or enjoy that win. But when discussing a BIGGER picture situation, it behooves you to look at facts and actual and objective results.

So says he of the bi-polar that has been banned from literally every SEC/MSU message board multiple times. Go crawl back under a rock, then die.

[PassInterference]

LSU Edge vs MSU

Rational (non random variables)
1) MSU is physical football team, even when bad. LSU has the same type of athlete. LSU does not freak out in manhood games.
2) MSU in 20 years has rarely had an OL to match LSUs DL. Even when MSU is good, we have had a weak link or two on the OL
3) MSUs passing game has never been so complicated to take advantage of LSU core weakness, low team IQ...note how Penn State, Iowa, and other Yankee teams have given LSU fits with less talent than us.
4) Raw talent, LSU has no. 1 picks every year, major talents like Claiborne, Peterson, and Mingo. LSU basically has few peers in raw talent. USC, Florida State, Alabama...

Irrational (random factors)
1) bad calls, Brandon Toefield fumbled before crossing the goal line, got a free TD in a game that eventually went into OT and we lost
2) under what cosmic circumstance does a SEC program have Henig as their QB?
4) the entire nation had evolved to spread attack and using athletes to defeat talent...except us with Croom and his OC
5) shitty LSU players seem to have career days against us. Craig steltz had five picks against us. Mettenberger plays like a Heismann against us, throws 3 picks against OM.

Why the future is better:
1) we have Dak
2) we have passing game playmakers
3) Mullen has 5 years experience in matching our athletes to LSU
4) we have 1999 talent on the DL

This.

Its both. The streak is there mostly because they are usually better than us. But even when we were clearly a better team, strange shit happened and LSU wins. When we are even or when we have a chance to pull an upset, weird shit happens like we fumble a simple toss pitch. Who fumbles a toss pitch? I have never seen a fumbled toss pitch except when MSU has a chance to upset LSU.

[Jack Lambert]

How many times has GA beaten Fl in football in the past 20 years?

[Dawg61]

How many times has GA beaten Fl in football in the past 20 years?

6 times but they have won the last 3 in a row.

[NorCalDawg]

Great, thought-provoking topic, Shotgun.

Rational. LSU has had better talent, more depth, a better athletic department, and better coaching for most of the last 2 decades. If we had the same level of talent, depth and coaching they've had, or vice-versa, this wouldn't even be a question. It's the way we think makes it irrational. They don't have any kind of voodoo magic spell on us, but if we think they do then they do. That's irrational.

I think you have to look at the Cubs as an outlier. The White Sox and the Red Sox went 87 and 85 years, respectively, without a title. A bad pitch here or an error there and either of those teams could still be in a World Series drought. However, if it makes the Cubs and Cubs fans feel better to say it's the "Curse of the Billy Goat", then that's the way they rationalize it which, in itself, is irrational.

Let's look at it another way. LSU is a nationally recognized, winning program. If you had to put a plan together to compete at LSU's level, what would it look like? First, you might want to make your program more attractive in order to bring in better talent. You would hire the best coaching staff possible and pay them competitive salaries. Then, you would work on your facilities to make them second-to-none and so on, and so on, and so on.... These are all rational things. Conversely, if you expect to compete with the LSU's and Bama's of the world without doing some or any of these things, then that would be irrational. My point is, a rational approach yields rational results.

I feel if we continue in the direction we're headed, rationally speaking, we will be consistently competitive with the LSU's and Bama's of the world.

[Reason2succeed]

MSU has never had the passing game that could neutralize the physicality of LSU. This year we do. This year WE WILL WIN. I will be there.

[ShotgunDawg]

These are all great answers. Keep them coming.

In light of the Marcus Spears comments on the SEC Network, my goal with this thread was for MSU people to think through this predicament, and come to an understanding that, while we have been unlucky in this streak, there is no curse. There is no magic spell that LSU has had over MSU. For the most part, the streak has been rational, with some unfortunate, irrationality thrown in.

All this to say, things have changed at MSU, there should be no fear of LSU because we have made up tremendous ground and are now, factually, a bigger football team them. We can win this game, and what has happened over the past 22 years, should have absolutely no bearing.

[Dawgcentral]

Rational: the past should have no bearing on this year's game with LSU.

Irrational: Ask John Bond what it will take. He never lost to them.

[grinnindawg]

"He used to have a saying which I HATED about how you could only get a team up for about three games a year."
This was my biggest gripe with Jackie. He loved to hear himself talk so much he said it over and over and over.

Even his best teams played with a lack of intensity for too many games.
FB must be played with passion and intensity.

I think he meant you can only play with over the top emotion a few times a year.
That I'll agree with.

I think you are also correct in his lack of focus on LSU.

[gravedigger]

Lsu streak is due to 2 things.

1. Them being better at the time we play.

2. If not #1, our team believing they were.

75% of the time it's been #1.

[BulldogBear]

***It's because the guy playing as LSU on the playstation keeps hitting the reset button***

Now for a serious answer. Let me try to give a rational reason for an irrational streak. I'll lead by using a real life metaphor which may work. My family has a big dove hunt at the farm every opening day. Last year I hadn't done any wing shooting for a couple of years because I'd had scheduling conflicts for a a couple hunts in a row. So last year I went 0-37. Let that sink in fellow dove hunters. 0. FOR. 37. I had no idea why. The first few times it may have been lack of muscle memory, older eyes than before, lack of practice. I didn't just jump right back in so to speak. I wasn't good enough yet. After missing the first 8-10 however, it may have become mental. Finally on shot #38 I got one. Within an hour we finished to go watch gameday on the DirecTV satellite my cousin brought and fire up the grill and I had 12 doves. After the first, muscle memory and confidence returned and I got those 12 in 24 shots. Even two of them were hit on the first shot. Fifty percent is decent to good for doves. The reason I started missing was rational but became irrational. The times they're just good and we sucked, that's all the explanation we need and it is rational. The times we've been close it's like when you're trying so hard you screw it up.

As for the three games per year thing. I think that's probably about right 2-4, maybe 5. But you shouldn't just say 17 it for the other games. You try to stay up for all of 'em but realistically know that you probably won't play above and beyond but for about 3 games.