|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.205.10.55
In Reply to: RE: Regmac, let's look at last year's bowl games, okay? posted by tinear on October 27, 2014 at 13:47:23
...to win any discussion with Regmac.
He's made up his mind a won't let facts get in the way.
Follow Ups:
"He's made up his mind a won't let facts get in the way."
Perhaps you should post in French because you obviously lack command of English. Can you offer a convincing argument to counter my contention that the SEC has been the dominant football conference during the past eight years? If so, let’s see it. It will amuse the regulars. ~:)
even tin doesn't deny that. Since tin brought up last year's bowls, I'll re-mention some previously presented FACTS - The SEC's opponents were higher ranked and had fewer losses than the down on their luck PAC whatever conference. That the SEC didn't play PAC Weenies is a reflection of contractual bowl tie ins, and not, lol, fear of the PAC Weenies.
tin is right on one matter, the SEC's string of 7 or 8 (so many I've forgotten) National Championships was rudely interrupted last year by the Jameis Winston led Seminoles. BFD.
--------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C
H
E
E
S
E
A
N
D
O
N
I
O
N
S
Oh no....."
...my comments are not about the SEC but about reggie's "mine is bigger than yours" posts.
opponents? Yes. Did they lose the two key match ups of their best 2 teams?
Yes.
Yet, this year, they began the season very highly rated. Both MI teams got high rankings for beating teams that were shown to have been overrated LAST year.
I'm not saying, I'll repeat this again, that the PAC IS BETTER.
My point is that THERE IS NO LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR SAYING THE SEC IS THE BEST.
Period.
"Yet, this year, they began the season very highly rated."
Tin, good buddy, if you study the link I’ve provided you will see that the AP, USA Today, and the Coaches Poll all had three SEC teams ranked in the Preseason Top 10. Moreover, the week one power rankings had three SEC teams in the Top 10. Do you really think that coaches from other conferences conspired with the AP and USA Today to give the SEC an artificial boost in the rankings?
A more plausible explanation would be to acknowledge that coaches have intimate knowledge as to which schools have the most returning starters and the best crop of freshmen and redshirt athletes.
Preseason, the AP had Bama ranked number 2 and Auburn 6. USA Today had Bama 2 and Auburn 5. If you look at this week’s Top 25 rankings you will see that Bama is number 3 and Auburn 4th. Since this is week 10 of the season I think the preseason rankings for the SEC have proven accurate. South Carolina has been the only disappointment.
And it should be noted that Georgia was ranked number 12 preseason and is currently 9th, indicating another accurate preseason assessment. What’s more, LSU was ranked 13th preseason and is currently 16th. What the coaches and analysts did not anticipate was the great start of both Mississippi squads. But that’s merely gravy.
The conference that was vastly overrated, as I’ve mentioned before, turned out to be your own pac-12. USC, UCLA and Stanford have slipped noticeably in the polls. Preseason, all three California patsies were ranked in the Top 15. Today, none of them are ranked in the Top 20. USC and Stanford were dropped from the Top 25 while UCLA clings to the 25th spot. That's the same UCLA that was ranked 7th preseason. ~:)
The SEC is the most powerful conference in college football. Do you believe that someone is paying someone off to rank so many of it's members so highly? Is there a conspiracy?
We'll try to make it 9 of 11.
LSU, over the last 40 years (where, on average, we've been a middle of the road SEC team) 22 wins, Pac Weenies, 4 wins. I think that just about says it all.
--------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C
H
E
E
S
E
A
N
D
O
N
I
O
N
S
Oh no....."
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: