Printable View
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Federalist Engineer
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
***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.