Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you made a prediction. I wasn't calling you out for that. I just think its weird for someone to hang out on a CFB message board without having a team. It's cool though, whateves. But you still won't admit you're a Vols fan? Wow.
I don't and never have "hated the SEC". I just call it like it like I see it.
In my book the word **** shouldn't require asterisks, next time I know to use the word crap.
As for me "slurping" the cowboys (which could be considered a personal attack and against the TOS and I'm not the first person to say that to you in the last 24 hrs. just sayin), ummm yeah, dig up my quote. Give me a surprise because I'm no fan of the sheephumpers.
"our" LOL. Just admit it and move on.
I didn't say I wasn't a Vol fan... My post is clear in that, as I said I don't root for a Anyone "even" the Vols. which implies that is my team. I just said you never hear me rooting for anyone. Can you read?
And for all the talk of petty TOS violations: You seem to direct a lot of your posts toward me... Which is "harrassment" a definite TOS violation!!! Especially with the vulgar language. Another TOS violation.
So you may wanna check yourself... Before "attacking" me, a third TOS violation!
I think if Oregon beats Standford once, and USC twice, the Ducks have to be in the Natty...does anyone disagree with this...if you do...well your just wrong. Spank yourself and send yourself to bed with out dinner.
I think if Oregon beats Standford once, and USC twice, the Ducks have to be in the Natty...does anyone disagree with this...if you do...well your just wrong. Spank yourself and send yourself to bed with out dinner.
"As though empirical evidence is akin to fossil records and climate change data, it's as if no one in the evangelical South is capable of copping to the evidence at hand. In the 2010-11 bowl season, for instance, the SEC posted a .500 record (5-5), same as the then Pac-10 and MAC, slightly worse than the Big East (4-2), and slightly better than the ACC (4-5). Those results moved the wonks at statistical aggregator SportsRatings to report, "In the end, no conference really dominated the bowl season, with most leagues overperforming [Big Ten] or underperforming [SEC] only marginally against expectations."
"Despite this underwhelming performance, however, the 2011 preseason table was set up once again to facilitate an SEC title run based on an utterly manufactured and bogus perception of strength."
Some "sour grapes", some interesting facts.
Last edited by nevergoingback; 09-19-2012 at 07:37 PM..
"As though empirical evidence is akin to fossil records and climate change data, it's as if no one in the evangelical South is capable of copping to the evidence at hand. In the 2010-11 bowl season, for instance, the SEC posted a .500 record (5-5), same as the then Pac-10 and MAC, slightly worse than the Big East (4-2), and slightly better than the ACC (4-5). Those results moved the wonks at statistical aggregator SportsRatings to report, "In the end, no conference really dominated the bowl season, with most leagues overperforming [Big Ten] or underperforming [SEC] only marginally against expectations."
"Despite this underwhelming performance, however, the 2011 preseason table was set up once again to facilitate an SEC title run based on an utterly manufactured and bogus perception of strength."
Some "sour grapes", some interesting facts.
I don't think the argument was ever that the SEC was necessarily best from top to bottom. Once you get past the top two or three schools in any conference, the rest of the field is going to vary from one team to the next, one year to the next. Rather, the argument has been - and continues to be - that the SEC has the elite teams in the country; it produces the very best teams in the nation. Sure, go ahead and chalk up a win for the Big 12 as a result of Texas' beat down of Ole Miss. The bigger question is, how would Texas do against Alabama or LSU?
The other thing is, although the SEC has won 6 straight BCS titles, I don't think anyone necessarily thought of the SEC as being truly "dominant" until last year. It wasn't really until last year that people began to see how strong the SEC has become. But not before then. Sure, Auburn won the BCS but barely; Alabama beat Texas but Texas had a major injury; Florida beat OU but not easily; LSU beat OSU, but how would they have done against USC - don't know (ditto the 2003 season); maybe Florida was pretty convincing in 2006/7 over OSU but nobody was talking SEC dominance then. Now, though, yeah, I think the SEC is beginning to separate itself a little. Not to say that they can't be upset in a BCS or major bowl game, but it would be the result of a combination of a tremendously good performance for the non-SEC opposition and a below-average one by the SEC squad.
Well, when you have so many people willing to do anything to see an SEC team in the championship game and the fact that the teams are voted makes it almost guaranteed for them to be in the game.
Not necessarily. FSU beats Clemson this weekend. They should cruise in if Oregon drops. Plenty of unbeatens in the Big 12. One of them could make it out. Personally, I don't see a repeat or all-SEC Natty this year.
Well, when you have so many people willing to do anything to see an SEC team in the championship game and the fact that the teams are voted makes it almost guaranteed for them to be in the game.
Uh, check it -- the SEC was the first team to propose the move to an expanded title game format. The voters, including the coaches, agree that the SEC has been the better conference. And besides, in six BCS title game appearances, why can't other conferences win just so much as ONE game? I mean seriously dude...can't even win a single game against the SEC in the big one. lol! Looks like a case of butt-hurt.
Uh, check it -- the SEC was the first team to propose the move to an expanded title game format. The voters, including the coaches, agree that the SEC has been the better conference. And besides, in six BCS title game appearances, why can't other conferences win just so much as ONE game? I mean seriously dude...can't even win a single game against the SEC in the big one. lol! Looks like a case of butt-hurt.
If you go back and read my post you can put two and two together to find the answer to your question.
Talking about butt-hurt, I wasn't addressing you, or anyone for that matter, but you felt that you needed to add this. You probably went to an SEC school and aren't secure enough about it to leave well enough alone. Just to make sure that you understand this I'll add something for you: LOL
I think if Oregon beats Standford once, and USC twice, the Ducks have to be in the Natty...does anyone disagree with this...if you do...well your just wrong. Spank yourself and send yourself to bed with out dinner.
If they go undefeated, yes, they'll be in the BCS title game. But losing one game is risking being on the outside looking in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
