| Date | TFG | RBA | Away Team | TFG | RBA | Home Team | Plays | Odds TFG / RBA |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003/08/30 | 112 | / 113 | LA-Monroe | 7 | at | 20 | / 20 | LSU | 49 | 171 | 96.8% | / 98.6% |
| 2003/09/06 | 17 | / 16 | LSU | 59 | at | 69 | / 74 | Arizona | 13 | 173 | 72.6% | / 87.6% |
| 2003/09/20 | 5 | / 3 | Georgia | 10 | at | 14 | / 11 | LSU | 17 | 181 | 40.2% | / 30.0% |
| 2003/09/27 | 13 | / 9 | LSU | 41 | at | 74 | / 83 | Mississippi St. | 6 | 158 | 85.0% | / 90.4% |
| 2003/10/11 | 16 | / 16 | Florida | 19 | at | 7 | / 11 | LSU | 7 | 157 | 67.2% | / 51.6% |
| 2003/10/18 | 12 | / 9 | LSU | 33 | at | 39 | / 45 | South Carolina | 7 | 156 | 63.6% | / 80.1% |
| 2003/10/25 | 19 | / 21 | Auburn | 7 | at | 6 | / 5 | LSU | 31 | 148 | 75.8% | / 69.0% |
| 2003/11/01 | 71 | / 83 | LA Tech | 10 | at | 6 | / 3 | LSU | 49 | 168 | 94.0% | / 95.8% |
| 2003/11/15 | 4 | / 5 | LSU | 27 | at | 13 | / 21 | Alabama | 3 | 162 | 60.7% | / 82.8% |
| 2003/11/22 | 3 | / 5 | LSU | 17 | at | 28 | / 24 | Mississippi | 14 | 164 | 79.8% | / 84.5% |
| 2003/11/28 | 13 | / 21 | Arkansas | 24 | at | 5 | / 5 | LSU | 55 | 150 | 68.2% | / 83.0% |
| 2003/12/06 | 3 | / 4 | LSU | 34 | vs | 5 | / 6 | Georgia | 13 | 161 | 53.1% | / 33.9% |
| 2004/01/04 | 1 | / 2 | Oklahoma | 14 | vs | 3 | / 3 | LSU | 21 | 166 | 39.7% | / 43.8% |
| LSU Tigers | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | WinPct | SoS | Off. | Def. | Pace | ||||||
| 2003 | 0.917 | 3 | 0.595 | 20 | 27.9 | 5 | 10.7 | 3 | 163.0 | 110 | |
Justin
Ah, the 2003-2004 season. The first of USC's AP national titles, but the one that the BCS doesn't recognize. TFG, though, actually agrees with the BCS on this one; USC had an excellent offense at 31.1 PPH, but their 13.6 PPH defense didn't do them any favors. LSU, however, is a different story. In fact the main contrast between the 2003 squad and the 2007 team is that this year's team relied more on defense. Look at their last entry, and then look at this one. Only once did a team crack the 20-point barrier against the 2003 Tiger squad, whereas it happened seven times in 2007. Even adjusting for strength of opponent and pace -- two of the 2007 games went into 3OT -- this squad flat-out played defense at a higher level than in later years, and it paid off for them in the form of a national championship.
| LSU Tigers | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | WinPct | SoS | Off. | Def. | Pace | ||||||
| 2003 | 0.991 | 3 | 0.558 | 18 | 23.7 | 4 | 7.0 | 4 | 164.7 | 107 | |
Eddie
For the second time in this list, (1) Southern Cal has reason to be upset because they had to sit at home and watch (2) Oklahoma play (3) LSU in the national championship game. This defense was every bit as nasty as 2011's defense. The 2003 team was led by DL Chad Lavalais and CB Corey Webster to a 3.8 +/- 6.3 PPH efficiency. The offense was surprisingly effective at 34.4 +/- 21.3 PPH, even if they were occasionally flaky and completely unmemorable. In the end, they were able to upset (yes, upset) Oklahoma in the national championship game, earning perpetual trolling rights over USC fans.
Follow us on Twitter at @TFGridiron.
