Old **** is old
College Football 2012 Thread
- Thread starter EXOTICLEX
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Typical sec nut hanger article.
I am pretty sure this bowl season proved otherwise. Florida who was what the 2nd r 3rd best team got beat by a Big East team. Really best conference lost to a Big east team?
. Georgia and South Carolina both had all they could handle by Big 10 teams. LSU lost to Clemson an ACC team. So put of the top 6 SEC two had blowouts, two had to scrap for a win and two lost to teams from the bottom two BCS conferences.Typical sec nut hanger article.
I am pretty sure this bowl season proved otherwise. Florida who was what the 2nd r 3rd best team got beat by a Big East team. Really best conference lost to a Big east team?
But who won the Championship? Oh that's right, an SEC team did. It is ignorant of you to ignore the fact that the SEC is the best conference in college football. They have won SEVEN straight bcs Championships in a row! If thats not the best, then please explain to me what your definition of a great football conference is, instead of giving lame immature responses such as saying that those wins were "mythical."
But who won the Championship? Oh that's right, an SEC team did. It is ignorant of you to ignore the fact that the SEC is the best conference in college football. They have won SEVEN straight bcs Championships in a row! If thats not the best, then please explain to me what your definition of a great football conference is, instead of giving lame immature responses such as saying that those wins were "mythical."
Having the best team doesn't make the whole conference best
A great conference is great top to bottom. Not one where a number of teams have horrible records. If they were truly that great why did a number of the top teams lose to teams from what many believe are greatly inferior conferences in the biggest games?
Also the SEC has the benefited from the bias that has been created by the nut swinging media.
Oh and if you want to talk about immature you have taken it a much higher level in this thread.
Now go back to your troll hole.
Having the best team doesn't make the whole conference best
A great conference is great top to bottom. Not one where a number of teams have horrible records. If they were truly that great why did a number of the top teams lose to teams from what many believe are greatly inferior conferences in the biggest games?
Also the SEC has the benefited from the bias that has been created by the nut swinging media.
Oh and if you want to talk about immature you have taken it a much higher level in this thread.
Now go back to your troll hole.
That's what you play for, the national Championship!
You think that the SEC isn't great because they have several bad teams in their conference? Name ONE conference that doesn't have several bad teams. Your argument is terrible.
If the SEC is not the best, then please explain to me what your definition of a great football conference is.
And once again on team doesn't make a conference the bestThat's what you play for, the national Championship!
You think that the SEC isn't great because they have several bad teams in their conference? Name ONE conference that doesn't have several bad teams. Your argument is terrible.
. Do you not understand English? If not oh well I don't speak redneck so I don't what other language to use.
They all have good teams ok teams and bad teams. If they were truly as good as your believe they would have won EVERY bowl game with ease especially the top teams, yet they didn't. That proves 100% they are not as dominant as you want to believe.
So then you believe the C-USA or WAC to be the best conferences in football? Because they're the only two that finished better this bowl season.
And once again on team doesn't make a conference the best
Do you not understand English? If not oh well I don't speak redneck so I don't what other language to use.
They all have good teams ok teams and bad teams. If they were truly as good as your believe they would have won EVERY bowl game with ease especially the top teams, yet they didn't. That proves 100% they are not as dominant as you want to believe.
This isn't even an argument, you can't even answer a simple question, yet you're insulting my intelligence.
You're just a typical SEC hater, with the grammar skills of a four year-old girl.
316what
The Real Vic Mackey
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 5,277
- Reaction score
- 3
Didn't say that but if they are the best why did they finish behind anyone?
I mean if they are so much better why are they losing?
Maybe you can answer it. Snoop doesn't seem to have the intellect to respond with anything but stating they won the national championship.
Ok I'll stop repsonding to snoop.
Because everyone loses sometimes. Here is a decades worth of bowl records from 2000-2009. Now you can add what's happened in 10, 11, and 12 for all conferences but you'd only be padding the stats. So with this record and 7 straight BCS titles, if your arguement is that the SEC is not the best conference, please provide evidence and your answer of who is.
https://blog.philsteele.com/2010/07/10/conference-bowl-rankings-past-decade/
Saying everyone loses sometimes would actually defeates the purpose of any stat they uses a record of wins and loses. The confernce with the worst record could just of had bad games at the wrong time.
I don't think any conference is truly the best. Trying to force one to be the best only creates a bias which gives them an unfair advantage over other teams when they automaticlu overrate them purely based on a perceived idea they are in best conference so they must be better.
For many years the PAC-10 was at a disadvantage for making bowls. They were the last conference that made teams play EVERY team in conference vs allowing them another southeastern tech. So that was one less easy win which for many teams is the difference between a bowl birth and no bowl birth. So stats can easily lie.
It actually doesn't defeat the purpose. Sometimes is an exception it's not the rule. Hell it's not even the average when looking at the stats. No team is at a disadvantage because teams make their own schedules outside of their conference. Some schedule fluff, others schedule pay days, and others schedule litmus games. Win six and you're in a bowl, there's no advantage to get to that six and if you're arguement is for an easy win getting a team into a bowl, well that's hardly worthy of even being mentioned in a best conference conversation. I think there are a lot of great individual teams from conferences all around. Teams that are better than a lot of SEC teams, but as a conference I don't think there is even an arguement to be made for any other.
Enough bickering if you please.
Zodach
Super Freak
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,023
- Reaction score
- 5
The SEC has proven to be the best conference on the field. They certainly have their share of bad teams, but how many conferences have ever had 4 different teams win a national championship in such a short period of time and win 7 in a row? I think that's unprecedented.
They pay their coaches top dollar, are located in a region that produces the best talent in the country, and they have their conference commissioner as the head of the NCAA infractions committee (just sayin').
They pay their coaches top dollar, are located in a region that produces the best talent in the country, and they have their conference commissioner as the head of the NCAA infractions committee (just sayin').
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
I really hate college football. The whole scheduling system is ****ed up. The conferences are either overhyped or underappreciated. You can never have simple "fairness". I'm also tired of the damn creampuff nonconference games.
Hold onto your hats for my revolutionary idea:
Do away with conferences. You're either Division I or you're not. All Division 1 teams get put into a computer system.
The simple requirement is that each team plays 6 home and road games and poof: out comes a completely RANDOM schedule for all D1 teams.
Some teams get easy schedules some teams don't. Boo hoo cry me a river. It was random. Good luck next year, no one wants to hear the ****ing whining.
Because there are no conferences we now have a few extra weeks on the schedule to expand the playoffs.
The top 32 teams with the best records get in, even if its University of Kalamasoo or whatever because they completely lucked out in scheduling. They beat the teams they were given. A W is a W. Pointspreads or strength of schedule mean nothing.
Hold onto your hats for my revolutionary idea:
Do away with conferences. You're either Division I or you're not. All Division 1 teams get put into a computer system.
The simple requirement is that each team plays 6 home and road games and poof: out comes a completely RANDOM schedule for all D1 teams.
Some teams get easy schedules some teams don't. Boo hoo cry me a river. It was random. Good luck next year, no one wants to hear the ****ing whining.
Because there are no conferences we now have a few extra weeks on the schedule to expand the playoffs.
The top 32 teams with the best records get in, even if its University of Kalamasoo or whatever because they completely lucked out in scheduling. They beat the teams they were given. A W is a W. Pointspreads or strength of schedule mean nothing.
Yet going into the MNC game he changed his stance on helmet to helmet hits and lets not forget the poorest investigation into a clear rules violation both occurred under his watch, and both involve SEC schools (just sayin)
Similar threads
