|
|
|
10EC
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2012, 04:03:43 EDT » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Clockwork Orange
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2012, 04:07:40 EDT » |
|
The trifecta: crybaby, conspiracy theorist, idiot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Stay patient and be strong, 'cause it's gonna hit. And when it hits, it's gonna hit hard."  |
|
|
|
VOLMAN
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2012, 04:22:50 EDT » |
|
season what the average rank of each team was.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stogie Vol
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2012, 04:27:41 EDT » |
|
Wow. For someone who says, "Better off without 'em", he sure does expend a lot of time and energy obsessing over us.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Volznut
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2012, 04:40:31 EDT » |
|
A very simplistic look. To really look at how the SEC has fared, you need to look at how the SEC top teams have fared vs other top teams, and what the percentage of SEC bottom teams like Vandy and Uk have played other top conf and lost.
The SEC has won lately because the TOP SEC teams have just been more dominant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EmerilVOL
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2012, 05:19:36 EDT » |
|
Let me see Oregon which was #3 was Tiger clawed by 13 points in September and Alabama in Oct/Nov lost by three points to LSU and this is an arguement for Oregon to be more highly considerd? Damn son where the hell did you ever learn your arguement and debate theory....USC?????? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I made this post and I approved it. EmerilVOL  |
|
|
|
Quasi EVol
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2012, 10:23:41 EDT » |
|
Of COURSE they'd be better off without the SEC - for the same reason the Washington Generals would be better off without the Harlem Globetrotters.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BanditVol
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2012, 11:15:11 EDT » |
|
He minimizes the obvious. The sec got it done in the championship matches. Florida started the run and he ignores the fact that OSU was HEAVILY favored in that game. That was what started it. In fact this is the glaring omission or distortion in his argument. His stats cover 12 years when even an SEC diehard will admit the dominance only extends for 6. And along those lines he ignores auburn getting screwed in 2004, which really and truly makes the 12-year period even more ridiculous. He should start with the premise that the SEC has been dominant for 6 years and do THOSE stats. I would be willing to bet big that we dominate in every category, or at least do much better.
As for ESPN orchestrating a consipiracy, I don't see it. They only got on board after the train left the station. It may be true that since 2008 the SEC has had an easier time getting to the championship and ESPN has played a role in this, but IMO we earned it by winning from 2006-2008, including the key win against heavily hyped OSU in 2006.
Now I will say this...I don't think our run is AS dominant as some. I thought the UF-OK, bammer-fake UT, and Auburn-Oregon games were actually very competitive and could have gone the other way with a few bounces. In fact, without the stupid play call by Mack Brown that got his QB injured I think Texas might have taken bammer in 2009. Regardless, the bottom line is that the streak of dominance is SIX years, not 12,and for him to base the other stats on a 12-year period is a joke.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 11:24:16 EDT by BanditVol »
|
Logged
|
"The speed of our movements is amazing, even to me, and must be a constant source of surprise to the Germans.” G. Patton
|
|
|
|
Black Diamond Vol
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2012, 03:38:19 EDT » |
|
Just noticed that his book is published by Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS- one of those evil corporations who televises the SEC. So if his theory is correct, a portion of the proceeds from every book he sells will go to ensure that the SEC remains on top. Our diabolical plan for world domination is coming together perfectly.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
