Is it bad to rout a team everyone thought was good?

[detlef]

I've sort of brought this up before but here is another lame wrinkle in the pathetically random nature in which the beauty contest that is FBS Football is judged.

 

TCU routs Utah yesterday. Now, normally you'd think that's a 100% good thing for TCU. I mean, what better stamp on your resume than to throttle the #5 team in the BCS standings, right? Well, not so fast. One can only assume that, having been beaten by 40 at home, Utah is going to drop waaayyyy down in the polls. I have to imagine that loss is going to land them at least outside 15 and maybe lower than that. So now, TCU's best victory is against a team ranked just inside the top 20. Had TCU and Utah fought to a close win for TCU, voters may have "rewarded" Utah by saying, "Well, you barely got beat by the 3rd best team in the country. We have to drop you some, because that's what we do when teams lose. But maybe they drop back 2-3 spots." I mean, initially, the voters didn't drop Michigan at all when, as the #2 team in the country, they dropped an epic battle to #1 OSU. And why should they have? If they were right about OSU being 1 and Mich being 2 going into that week, what happened that Saturday to change that?

 

So, in other words, TCU may get penalized for laying the wood to Utah and seemingly exposing them as a team that obviously had no business being ranked that high to begin with. Even if what might actually be true is that TCU is just that good. Wouldn't you rather have a close win against a top 10 team on your resume than a blow-out against a top 20 team?

 

Though it didn't ultimately end up biting OU in the ass, things sort of smelled the same when they destroyed TTech a few years back. UT fans wanted to dismiss Tech from the discussion regarding the 3 way tie because obviously no team that could get beat as badly as they did deserved to be considered. So, of course, once they're removed, it becomes head to head between UT and OU and UT won that game. Had OU beaten Tech 35-28, rather than peeing all over them, Tech would still have been thought of as a team worthy of inclusion in the discussion and the three way tie business would seem more acceptable to all. Fortunately, the records trumped and we couldn't simply ignore the fact that Tech was tied for 1st with the other two and, ultimately, I think the Big 12 sent the right team to the title game. But at the core of UT's argument was the same thing that could work against TCU here.

[Rockerbraves]

Good point. Utah getting smashed makes you wonder about teams like TCU and Boise. Personally I believe beating the snot out of Utah at their place solidifies TCU position over Boise State should that last spot in the BCS NC game come down to those two teams, especially since Oregon State (one of Boise's so called quality wins) got beat as well.

[detlef]

Good point. Utah getting smashed makes you wonder about teams like TCU and Boise. Personally I believe beating the snot out of Utah at their place solidifies TCU position over Boise State should that last spot in the BCS NC game come down to those two teams, especially since Oregon State (one of Boise's so called quality wins) got beat as well.

Well, Utah getting smashed doesn't make you wonder any more about teams like TCU and Boise than teams like MSU getting smashed or Nebraska losing badly to a poor Texas team or Stanford losing to OU by 20 does about the larger conferences. Especially since the smashing was at the hands of another non AQ school. Now, if Utah played TCU close and had gotten it's ass kicked by a BCS school, you'd have a point.

[Rockerbraves]

Well, Utah getting smashed doesn't make you wonder any more about teams like TCU and Boise than teams like MSU getting smashed or Nebraska losing badly to a poor Texas team or Stanford losing to OU by 20 does about the larger conferences. Especially since the smashing was at the hands of another non AQ school. Now, if Utah played TCU close and had gotten it's ass kicked by a BCS school, you'd have a point.

Not exactly sure what the above means. Again, personally if I am TCU I like beating the crap out of Utah. I think it helps my case to play for the BCS NC, but I would be a fool to think that everyone would agree with me.

 

As a TCU fan I would be anxiously awaiting to see later today what the pollsters and computers think of my big win. Just saying...Boise fans certainly can't be any happier today.

[detlef]

Not exactly sure what the above means. Again, personally if I am TCU I like beating the crap out of Utah. I think it helps my case to play for the BCS NC, but I would be a fool to think that everyone would agree with me.

 

As a TCU fan I would be anxiously awaiting to see later today what the pollsters and computers think of my big win. Just saying...Boise fans certainly can't be any happier today.

It seemed like you were trying to use Utah's bad defeat to define TCU and Boise. If it defines either of those two, it obviously only defines TCU, and simply defines them as a team capable of beating a team considered to be good by a huge margin.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

How good was Utah to begin with? Utah could very well drop a couple more and be outside the Top 25. There best win this year was Air Force. They struggled to beat Pittsburgh at home and Pitt isn't that good this year.

 

As far as the BCS, it won't hurt TCU, unless Utah starts dropping their remaining games. Your perceived SOS is largely defined in the computers vs the record of the opponents that you beat. It's why Boise's likely dropped a little with Oregon State now once again a .500 football team, and Virginia Tech will finally have to play the meat of their ACC Schedule. TCU will be fine, and Rocker is right, I think this firmly establishes TCU ahead of Boise, which is huge in terms of getting an Automatic BCS bid. TCU beat Utah in an actual road game (as in they didn't cry until it was moved to a neutral field) and Utah is just as good as Oregon State or Virginia Tech, if not better. Plus the Mountain West as a whole is far superior than the WAC, which should be an FCS conference.

[Rockerbraves]

It seemed like you were trying to use Utah's bad defeat to define TCU and Boise. If it defines either of those two, it obviously only defines TCU, and simply defines them as a team capable of beating a team considered to be good by a huge margin.

So how far do you think Utah falls in the rankings?

 

Your originally a west coast man, right? Rememeber the days when Arizona State was a question mark great team prior to joining the Pac10? I'm sure back then many would have argued on their behalf as well. You would have thought that joining the PAC10 would have just imporoved Arizona State's capability to recruit and they would continue to win games like they did prior to joiining a AQ conference. But what has Arizona State actually done on a national level since being forced to play a legit schedule?

 

My point is that it's only human nature to discount teams like TCU, Utah and Boise who play inferior competition week in and week out. Looking at TCU's schedule I find it sort of funny that their two most impressive wins were against Baylor and Oregon State both of which got beat yesterday.

[wildcat2334]

How good was Utah to begin with? Utah could very well drop a couple more and be outside the Top 25. There best win this year was Air Force. They struggled to beat Pittsburgh at home and Pitt isn't that good this year.

 

As far as the BCS, it won't hurt TCU, unless Utah starts dropping their remaining games. Your perceived SOS is largely defined in the computers vs the record of the opponents that you beat. It's why Boise's likely dropped a little with Oregon State now once again a .500 football team, and Virginia Tech will finally have to play the meat of their ACC Schedule. TCU will be fine, and Rocker is right, I think this firmly establishes TCU ahead of Boise, which is huge in terms of getting an Automatic BCS bid. TCU beat Utah in an actual road game (as in they didn't cry until it was moved to a neutral field) and Utah is just as good as Oregon State or Virginia Tech, if not better. Plus the Mountain West as a whole is far superior than the WAC, which should be an FCS conference.

 

 

how about we just give credit for good wins? Utah evidently is not a BCS challenger, but still a damn good team that had won 21 straight at home. TCU dominated them and was impressive as hell. Really impressed by both TCU and Boise, well coached and dialed in every week. Sorry Brian, even a loss to an FCS team aside, VT is going to win the ACC and be ranked from here on in.

 

Utah will likely win out and go to the Vegas bowl or something, which is about where they belong.

 

my top 5

 

Oregon

Auburn

TCU

Boise St.

Stanford

[muck]

If last week was the first week of national rankings, TCU would be in the top two (and maybe numberr 1) ... Oregon and Auburn are infront of TCU largely because of the national notariety (imo), not because people really believe that, a neutral site, three-team round robin would result in Oregon 2-0, Auburn 1-1 and TCU 0-2.

[detlef]

So how far do you think Utah falls in the rankings?

 

Your originally a west coast man, right? Rememeber the days when Arizona State was a question mark great team prior to joining the Pac10? I'm sure back then many would have argued on their behalf as well. You would have thought that joining the PAC10 would have just imporoved Arizona State's capability to recruit and they would continue to win games like they did prior to joiining a AQ conference. But what has Arizona State actually done on a national level since being forced to play a legit schedule?

 

My point is that it's only human nature to discount teams like TCU, Utah and Boise who play inferior competition week in and week out. Looking at TCU's schedule I find it sort of funny that their two most impressive wins were against Baylor and Oregon State both of which got beat yesterday.

Fair enough. It's just that I found it odd that you implied that Utah getting housed somehow shed light on what kind of teams TCU and Boise St were and that's just plain silly. Especially considering that they got housed by one of the other two. Again, if Utah got beat up by a team from a BCS conference, it might actually be an indictment (though not exactly fairly so since nobody has been banging the Utah drum like they have TCU's or BSU's, so it seemed that most didn't think they were of the same caliber anyway). However, it's just plain silly to say, well Utah just got beat, so much for TCU or BSU being any good.

 

And that's what your statement seemed to infer.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Fair enough. It's just that I found it odd that you implied that Utah getting housed somehow shed light on what kind of teams TCU and Boise St were and that's just plain silly. Especially considering that they got housed by one of the other two. Again, if Utah got beat up by a team from a BCS conference, it might actually be an indictment (though not exactly fairly so since nobody has been banging the Utah drum like they have TCU's or BSU's, so it seemed that most didn't think they were of the same caliber anyway). However, it's just plain silly to say, well Utah just got beat, so much for TCU or BSU being any good.

 

And that's what your statement seemed to infer.

 

Boise and TCU are just as good as anyone. That has never been my issue. I just flat out think they don't play a schedule worthy enough to say "You deserve to play for all the marbles in this already screwed up system that is as Exclusive as it gets." Get me a 12 team playoff, and I would have no problem at all putting them in there and say, here, do something you don't EVER have to do, and that's beat 3-4 legit good teams back to back to back to back. They don't even have to play Above Average teams back to back to back to back. If it's unfair to say that because it's pre-determined before the season, I say tough rocks, because many of the years it's pre-determined before a ball has been kicked, of the final 2 teams. (2004, 2005, and 2009 come to mind). Before each of those seasons, the final 2 was set in stone before a coin had been tossed on any game. How fair is that? Forget about Boise and TCU. How fair is that to ANY team? Knowing that, one of those teams HAS to lose a game for them to drop. Again, saying that takes nothing away from those teams, but it makes everything pretty meaningless.

[Rockerbraves]

Boise and TCU are just as good as anyone. That has never been my issue. I just flat out think they don't play a schedule worthy enough to say "You deserve to play for all the marbles in this already screwed up system that is as Exclusive as it gets." Get me a 12 team playoff, and I would have no problem at all putting them in there and say, here, do something you don't EVER have to do, and that's beat 3-4 legit good teams back to back to back to back. They don't even have to play Above Average teams back to back to back to back. If it's unfair to say that because it's pre-determined before the season, I say tough rocks, because many of the years it's pre-determined before a ball has been kicked, of the final 2 teams. (2004, 2005, and 2009 come to mind). Before each of those seasons, the final 2 was set in stone before a coin had been tossed on any game. How fair is that? Forget about Boise and TCU. How fair is that to ANY team? Knowing that, one of those teams HAS to lose a game for them to drop. Again, saying that takes nothing away from those teams, but it makes everything pretty meaningless.

Right or wrong getting into the BCS NC can often take years. The only reason why I'm not absolutely 100% totally against either TCU and especially Boise making the BCS NC this season if things fall right for them is because they have produced win/loss records over the past few seasons worthy of not being considered one hit wonders.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

Right or wrong getting into the BCS NC can often take years. The only reason why I'm not absolutely 100% totally against either TCU and especially Boise making the BCS NC this season if things fall right for them is because they have produced win/loss records over the past few seasons worthy of not being considered one hit wonders.

Exactly. Why did we ignore the fact that OSU played basically two good teams (one of which, UT was vastly overrated going into the season) the year they got waxed by Fla in the NC game? Because they're OSU. And, OSU has done enough over time to get the benefit of the doubt. Hell, why did we assume that their conference games (outside of Michigan) were anything to point to? Because, over time, we've grown to believe the Big 10 is a reputable conference.

 

So, why are we finally considering TCU or BSU for a shot, provided enough things break the right way? Because we're used to seeing their name in the top 10.

[Rockerbraves]

According to CBS Sportsline here are the SOS of the BCS top ten. Maybe more people should be questioning Oregon instead of TCU or Boise. Exactly how many above .500 teams have the Ducks actually played this season?

 

1) Oregon - 83

2) Auburn - 5

3) TCU - 55

4) Boise State - 64

5) LSU - 1

6) Stanford - 50

7) Wisconsion - 56

8) Nebraska - 33

9) Ohio State - 67

10) Oklahoma State - 24

[wildcat2334]

According to CBS Sportsline here are the SOS of the BCS top ten. Maybe more people should be questioning Oregon instead of TCU or Boise. Exactly how many above .500 teams have the Ducks actually played this season?

 

1) Oregon - 83

2) Auburn - 5

3) TCU - 55

4) Boise State - 64

5) LSU - 1

6) Stanford - 50

7) Wisconsion - 56

8) Nebraska - 33

9) Ohio State - 67

10) Oklahoma State - 24

 

 

solid point, but the Ducks SOS will go up quite a bit with CAL, UA and OSU coming up - does that include USC or no?

 

on another note - Sagarin SOS has the Pac 10 owning the top 1-9 overall SOS............not sure how LSU would be #1 on any SOS - no one in the country has or will play Oregon State's schedule - certainly not LSU

[Rockerbraves]

solid point, but the Ducks SOS will go up quite a bit with CAL, UA and OSU coming up - does that include USC or no?

 

on another note - Sagarin SOS has the Pac 10 owning the top 1-9 overall SOS............not sure how LSU would be #1 on any SOS - no one in the country has or will play Oregon State's schedule - certainly not LSU

Not sure why it wouldn't count USC? For what it is worth CBS has Oregon State's SOS as #12. Perhaps CBS is not as impressed with TCU & Boise as you are. Certainly not LSU

 

Let's compare Oregon State's schedule vs LSU. Tell me why you say "certainly not LSU"

 

Oregon State Schedule

 

Sep 4 @TCU Lost 21-30

Sep 18 Louisville Won 35-28

Sep 25 @Boise St. Lost 24-37

Oct 2 Arizona St. Won 31-28

Oct 9 @Arizona Won 29-27

Oct 16 @Washington Lost 34-35

Oct 30 California Won 35-7

Nov 6 @UCLA Lost 14-17

 

LSU Schedule

 

Sep 4 @North Carolina Won 30-24

Sep 11 @Vanderbilt Won 27-3

Sep 18 Mississippi St. Won 29-7

Sep 25 West Virginia Won 20-14

Oct 2 Tennessee Won 16-14

Oct 9 @Florida Won 33-29

Oct 16 McNeese State Won 32-10

Oct 23 @Auburn Lost 17-24

Nov 6 Alabama Won 24-21

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Most SOS is rated simply as the win percentage of your opponents. It's why everytime Oregon State loses, Boise States computer ranking takes a hit. Last year Iowa's computer ranking kept rising, because teams like Arizona, and Iowa State kept winning as the season wore on, as did Penn State. Some computers have different formulas, but by in large that's all "SOS" is.

 

For the record, Oregon State has played a tough schedule, but I would say LSU's is tougher, and there is one HUGE difference... LSU has WON their games, Oregon State is a chump .500 team that isn't even bowl eligable yet, and if they do make a bowl, likely will lose again.

 

And detlef, even if you subscribe to the notion that the Big Ten was bad in 2006, once again, even in down years, it is still light years better than your non-bcs conferences. Playing Northwestern is still tougher than playing New Mexico State. Now I'm not saying that the Ohio States or (pick your random Big 6 SEC team) don't get ranked based in some part of things they've done in the past, but Ohio State was preseason ranked #1 that year, went wire to wire #1 and won every game rather convincingly (even the Michigan game, they covered). They ran into a buzzsaw against Florida. What did Florida do that year? The SEC wasn't that special in 06. They beat LSU at home, which isn't much better than Ohio State beating Michigan. LSU blew out Notre Dame in the bowl game, but Michigan and USC blew them out during that season too anyway, so it wasn't like LSU did anything special. So who did Florida play? Arkansas? Slow Big Ten Wisconsin beat them, and USC destroyed them. No biggie. Florida certainly isn't known for playing anyone outside of there conference (crap on Texas all you want, but Texas was better than anyone Florida played non conference). So what did Florida do in the regular season? Don't talk to me about how Ohio State skated by an easy Big Ten, when Ohio State did just as much as Florida to get to that game. People bring up 2006 as some sort of example, and I'm not sure why. Yes there was some argument as to whether or not Michigan should play Ohio State in a rematch. As probably the biggest Big Ten fan on this board, I was not one of those people, because I do believe that you should win your conference to get into that game, which Michigan didn't do. It's also important to note, that NO ONE gave Florida a shot in that game; in other words Ohio State didn't just get there based on there prior reputation. They got there because almost everyone thought they were a great team. Personally I think there 05 team that lost to Vince Young and Texas at home, and Penn State in Happy Valley later that year and ran up 600 yards on Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl was a much more complete team, with a much better defense with Hawk, Schlegel, and Carpenter.

[wildcat2334]

Most SOS is rated simply as the win percentage of your opponents. It's why everytime Oregon State loses, Boise States computer ranking takes a hit. Last year Iowa's computer ranking kept rising, because teams like Arizona, and Iowa State kept winning as the season wore on, as did Penn State. Some computers have different formulas, but by in large that's all "SOS" is.

 

For the record, Oregon State has played a tough schedule, but I would say LSU's is tougher, and there is one HUGE difference... LSU has WON their games, Oregon State is a chump .500 team that isn't even bowl eligable yet, and if they do make a bowl, likely will lose again.

 

not sure exactly what your point here is - we were talking SOS - what in the world does OSU's record have to do with anything?

 

with USC, Standford and Oregon on deck - there is no doubt the Beavs played the toughest schedule in the country - and it isn't even that close - I am sure Rocker would even agree with that. They will play zero FBS and will have played...

 

#1 Oregon

#3 TCU

#4 BSU

#6 Stan

#18 AZ

Edited November 10, 2010 by wildcat2334

[Rockerbraves]

not sure exactly what your point here is - we were talking SOS - what in the world does OSU's record have to do with anything?

 

with USC, Standford and Oregon on deck - there is no doubt the Beavs played the toughest schedule in the country - and it isn't even that close - I am sure Rocker would even agree with that. They will play zero FBS and will have played...

 

#1 Oregon

#3 TCU

#4 BSU

#6 Stan

#18 AZ

The difference is IF Oregon State won those games obviously all the above teams would not be as highly ranked and if SOS is based off win/loss records Oregon State's SOS would be adjusted accordingly.

[Square]

Well, Utah getting smashed doesn't make you wonder any more about teams like TCU and Boise than teams like MSU getting smashed or Nebraska losing badly to a poor Texas team or Stanford losing to OU by 20 does about the larger conferences. Especially since the smashing was at the hands of another non AQ school. Now, if Utah played TCU close and had gotten it's ass kicked by a BCS school, you'd have a point.

Nebraska lost by 7 points and they literally dropped 3 wide open touchdown passes in the game.

 

But whatever, I'm getting tired of 5 threads on the same stupid subject. I know my favorite team isn't good enough to play for a NC. I haven't watched enough of the other teams to know who really deserves to play and I believe the "eyeball" test that some of you put stock into is just as easily proven wrong as polls, quality wins, or SoS. Det seems to think that when a big 10, Big 12, or SEC team gets ranked high and beats everyone convincingly that they "skate" through an easy conference yet we should just automatically include a non-auto qualifying team into the NC when they "skate" through an easy schedule. Doesn't make sense to me, but I have no doubt that nobody here is going to change anybody's mind so I'm done with this forum for awhile (not saying anybody cares, just saying this is getting old).

[wildcat2334]

The difference is IF Oregon State won those games obviously all the above teams would not be as highly ranked and if SOS is based off win/loss records Oregon State's SOS would be adjusted accordingly.

 

ya I get that Rocker- if you honestly look at the entire schedules for LSU and Oreg State- and think LSU has a tougher schedule- than I don't really know what to say - other than your out of yer mind

 

I give Oreg. State props but at the same time if they played a cupcake non conference they would be probably be 6-2 and in the BCS top 25 so as effing bad ass as that schedule was, it is going to cost them.........

[detlef]

Nebraska lost by 7 points and they literally dropped 3 wide open touchdown passes in the game.

 

But whatever, I'm getting tired of 5 threads on the same stupid subject. I know my favorite team isn't good enough to play for a NC. I haven't watched enough of the other teams to know who really deserves to play and I believe the "eyeball" test that some of you put stock into is just as easily proven wrong as polls, quality wins, or SoS. Det seems to think that when a big 10, Big 12, or SEC team gets ranked high and beats everyone convincingly that they "skate" through an easy conference yet we should just automatically include a non-auto qualifying team into the NC when they "skate" through an easy schedule. Doesn't make sense to me, but I have no doubt that nobody here is going to change anybody's mind so I'm done with this forum for awhile (not saying anybody cares, just saying this is getting old).

I'll make you a deal. I'll agree to disagree, provided you're actually disagreeing with what I said, rather than what you're pretending I said. I do not intend to discount the big conferences in favor of smaller schools. I simply don't want the smaller schools to be completely removed from the conversation right from the outset and have it be that they can't have a shot no matter what. That is all. Everyone assumes TCU and BSU have an easier path this year than some AQ schools have had in the past and I guess I just need to see some evidence to support that. Sure, in general, conferences like the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC are going to be harder paths. Hell, almost always, actually. But I do think there have been enough examples of times when the main conferences have been down that you all can't lean on that argument as much as you do.

 

Hell, take OSU '06 like I brought up. Sure, their path was likely harder than BSU's or TCU's this year. But not by a ton. And yet, there wasn't a doubt in anyone's mind that there was exactly one team that 100% belonged in the NC game. No question at all. We were all looking at the undisputed #1 team in the country. As for Brian trying to discredit FL in the same year, I don't know how much that strengthens his point. Great, so both FL and OSU skated their way to the title. This isn't about bashing OSU, it's about refuting the notion that, each and every year, these teams are facing a much harder path. Hard enough to make that argument trump all. So, just like we all "knew" OSU was the #1 team, we all, apparently, know that BSU and TCU are pretenders that have no business staking a claim for a spot in the title game regardless of how many teams remain unbeaten. That it's not enough that they get passed over by any BCS schools that go undefeated, that they should get passed up by some who don't.

 

And I just have a hard time accepting the absolute nature of that argument, especially considering the flawed nature of the game and how often it's done a horrible job providing us with two worthy opponents.

 

This doesn't even bring up the fact that, once upon a time, going undefeated and beating a 4 loss Michigan team in the Holiday bowl was enough to earn BYU the NC over a one-loss Washington team that looked better against stronger teams. Now it seems that going undefeated isn't even enough to earn a small conference school a chance to earn the NC on the field.

Edited November 10, 2010 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

ya I get that Rocker- if you honestly look at the entire schedules for LSU and Oreg State- and think LSU has a tougher schedule- than I don't really know what to say - other than your out of yer mind

 

I give Oreg. State props but at the same time if they played a cupcake non conference they would be probably be 6-2 and in the BCS top 25 so as effing bad ass as that schedule was, it is going to cost them.........

My response has more to do with you saying "certainly not LSU"

 

If Oregon State played LSU schedule and LSU played Oregon State's schedule their win/loss records would likely be the same. Of course we could both argue that either could be better, but on paper Oregon State would lose 4 playing LSU's schedule.

 

Getting back to Oregon SOS being ranked 83rd that's even after playing the #6 BCS team Stanford. Makes you sort of wonder just how good the Ducks really are?

Edited November 10, 2010 by Rockerbraves

[wildcat2334]

My response has more to do with you saying "certainly not LSU"

 

If Oregon State played LSU schedule and LSU played Oregon State's schedule their win/loss records would likely be the same. Of course we could both argue that either could be better, but on paper Oregon State would lose 4 playing LSU's schedule.

 

 

look, minus the 2 FBS cupcakes - no questions LSU has a tough schedule,

 

After reviewing Oreg State's tho it is clear the AD and Riley plain lost their minds bc that schedule is absolutely ridiculous

[Rockerbraves]

look, minus the 2 FBS cupcakes - no questions LSU has a tough schedule,

 

After reviewing Oreg State's tho it is clear the AD and Riley plain lost their minds bc that schedule is absolutely ridiculous

When was this schedule put together? If it was years ago that schedule certainly would not have looked that tough. It's not like TCU and Boise strike fear year end and year out. Pretty sure LSU had negotiated a home and home with TCU sometime in the future and trust me LSU fans are not calling our schedule maker crazy. Few years back LSU scheduled Fresno when they were a hot team and LSU blew them out the year they played.