Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

O-H-I-O


wargograw

Recommended Posts

Exactly. You have to do what's best for your program, not for fans that want to talk trash. If Bama wins a national championship after playing 4 cupcakes, what do they care that Big 10 fans got to watch their team play Virginia Tech or an extra conference game? If you think playing a good non-con game is worth it for your team's early development or for recruiting, then go for it. If not, then don't. For many teams, it's smarter not to. Don't know why people get so worked up.

 

That said, I think the NCAA should change the rules to accommodate these. Either designate the first two weeks as preseason-style "exhibition" games, or mandate that P5 teams only play each other. It's cool with me. I hate that the cupcake games affect the data collection for college teams. It also means you can't really play fantasy with college teams. It's easy for the NFL because the delta between the best and worst team in the league is much smaller than that between Ohio State and Lamar.

Here is the point you miss.....it was the SEC coaches that were whining and crying about OSUs soft schedule this year. Specifically Steve Spurrier and Bret Bielama. And it is a laugh that they do so because: A. As I noted....it is the SEC that schedules more creampuffs than anyone and B. Bielama's team gets waxed by one of the creampuffs on his schedule..Toledo, and Spurrier gets waxed by the biggest cupcake in the SEC when it comes to football (Kentucky)

I mean....OSU played poorly against a mid major...and still came out ahead 38-0.

 

And FYI....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here is the point you miss.....it was the SEC coaches that were whining and crying about OSUs soft schedule this year. Specifically Steve Spurrier and Bret Bielama. And it is a laugh that they do so because: A. As I noted....it is the SEC that schedules more creampuffs than anyone and B. Bielama's team gets waxed by one of the creampuffs on his schedule..Toledo, and Spurrier gets waxed by the biggest cupcake in the SEC when it comes to football (Kentucky)

I mean....OSU played poorly against a mid major...and still came out ahead 38-0.

 

And FYI....

Their comments are not any less valid because of their losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And how were they the year before? And before that? And before that? I've asked you this before and you just shirked out of the conversation without answering. If you wanna call the PAC 12 the best conference, fine, go ahead, but you can't do it without any logical consistency unless you were doing the same for the SEC in that 9 year run.

 

No one cares that Big 10 teams added games against teams like Virginia Tech and another unranked conference team. That you actually think that gives you superiority over teams who have to play 6-7 ranked teams is laughable. And if you actually believe the rankings are bogus, then I offer up the same question I asked Woody.

 

The SEC is overrated when it comes to the rankings. (as evidenced by Saturday's results) As for Va. Tech being unranked....they were Top 10 program for years.....including when they were scheduled.

And, as I noted....some of that so called high ranking is because they play THE biggest cream puff schedules. I mean, in some cases they don't even play mid-majors....they are playing FCS teams.

So you can't answer the question I posed to Woody (and neither could he). Got it. SEC schedules are still harder than anyone's in the Big 10 even if they played every non-con game against top 25 teams (which they would lose a lot of).

 

Also, your avoiding of my question of whether the SEC was the best for those 7 years (based on your own logic) tells me you know it's true and won't admit it. You've now ignored that question I think 3 times on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to pick a B1G team that's better than the 10th best SEC team (not MSU or OSU)? A team among Minn, Wisco and Michigan. Or Toledo I guess...

 

Was the SEC the best conference for 7 years? Ehhh, maybe. They had the best team most years. You can also be the best and still be grossly overrated. Really its the entire SEC riding the success of a few top teams.

 

And yes, media bias and ranking bias plays a huge factor. Oversigning I a major factor. Abusing medical hardships to free up space. Bagmen. Etc.

 

The SECs reign of "dominance" was about as clean as a dusty piece of shit. The SEC / OSU fan response to an accusation like this seems to usually be 1) everyone does it! 2) just win baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why it's so hard for SEC fans to understand.....

 

6 or 7 SEC teams begin the year ranked, nearly all of them overrated----->said sec teams play cupcakes and score huge victories, "justifying" ranking----->SEC teams start conference play, the better but still overrated teams win against overrated opponents, further "justifying" their rise in the polls----->the SEC team with the fewest losses gets a free pass into The national championship, what is essentially a home game in their own backyard...a tremendous advantage for young amateur players....

 

Well until last year when there was actually a playoff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their comments are not any less valid because of their losses.

See my thread on the FCS teams that the SEC schedules.

SEC schools pile on cupcake after cupcake....including more FCS games than any other conf.....and they complain?

 

Perhaps their comments are not less valid......but it is invalid for THEM to be the ones making those comments.

Pot calling kettle black and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can't answer the question I posed to Woody (and neither could he). Got it. SEC schedules are still harder than anyone's in the Big 10 even if they played every non-con game against top 25 teams (which they would lose a lot of).

 

Also, your avoiding of my question of whether the SEC was the best for those 7 years (based on your own logic) tells me you know it's true and won't admit it. You've now ignored that question I think 3 times on this board.

The answer is: maybe, I don't know. Their rankings are based on cupcake scheduling.

 

I will say that the SEC has had dominant individual teams....but I don't know about them being the dominant conference.

 

And really......who cares about other teams inside or outside your conference? You root for an individual school to do well.

 

I/many of us here root for Ohio St. Woody roots for Michigan. I have no problem if Michigan sucks....he has no problem if Ohio st. Sucks. Your loyalty is to your school, not the laundry of the other teams your school plays.

How would Indiana or Purdue help Ohio State be the best?

How would Kentucky and Vanderbilt winning help Texas A&M do well? Do you as an A&M fan really give a shit if Kentucky and Vandy suck or don't? Or Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia?

 

As long as Ohio State does well, all the rest of them can fuck off and die! (figuratively).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to pick a B1G team that's better than the 10th best SEC team (not MSU or OSU)? A team among Minn, Wisco and Michigan. Or Toledo I guess...

 

Was the SEC the best conference for 7 years? Ehhh, maybe. They had the best team most years. You can also be the best and still be grossly overrated. Really its the entire SEC riding the success of a few top teams.

 

And yes, media bias and ranking bias plays a huge factor. Oversigning I a major factor. Abusing medical hardships to free up space. Bagmen. Etc.

 

The SECs reign of "dominance" was about as clean as a dusty piece of shit. The SEC / OSU fan response to an accusation like this seems to usually be 1) everyone does it! 2) just win baby!

You say "maybe." Who else has a good case for "best conference" during those 7 years and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why it's so hard for SEC fans to understand.....

 

6 or 7 SEC teams begin the year ranked, nearly all of them overrated----->said sec teams play cupcakes and score huge victories, "justifying" ranking----->SEC teams start conference play, the better but still overrated teams win against overrated opponents, further "justifying" their rise in the polls----->the SEC team with the fewest losses gets a free pass into The national championship, what is essentially a home game in their own backyard...a tremendous advantage for young amateur players....

 

Well until last year when there was actually a playoff...

Oh I get the point people are making. But until last year there was no proof it was bogus because the SEC was still dominating bowls. Again I ask, what is the standard for best conference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is: maybe, I don't know. Their rankings are based on cupcake scheduling.

 

I will say that the SEC has had dominant individual teams....but I don't know about them being the dominant conference.

 

And really......who cares about other teams inside or outside your conference? You root for an individual school to do well.

 

I/many of us here root for Ohio St. Woody roots for Michigan. I have no problem if Michigan sucks....he has no problem if Ohio st. Sucks. Your loyalty is to your school, not the laundry of the other teams your school plays.

How would Indiana or Purdue help Ohio State be the best?

How would Kentucky and Vanderbilt winning help Texas A&M do well? Do you as an A&M fan really give a shit if Kentucky and Vandy suck or don't? Or Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia?

 

As long as Ohio State does well, all the rest of them can fuck off and die! (figuratively).

They were also based on dominating bowls 8 or 9 years straight. So I ask you as well, what is the standard for best conference? Titles don't matter. Noncon doesn't matter. I can only assume bowls don't matter to you. I can only assume NFL talent doesn't matter to you. What is the standard?

 

Also, I could ask you the same thing. Why does it bother you so much that the SEC is called the best conference or that they get more respect in the rankings? Clearly, OSU's ability to win a national championship is not at all impeded by either of these facts, yet you go out of your way to bash the SEC constantly. So I put your question back on you. Why do you care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were also based on dominating bowls 8 or 9 years straight. So I ask you as well, what is the standard for best conference? Titles don't matter. Noncon doesn't matter. I can only assume bowls don't matter to you. I can only assume NFL talent doesn't matter to you. What is the standard?

There is no standard.....no one should give a shit. Like I said, I don't care if Michigan/Wisc/Indiana/Rutgers win or lose bowl games.

Why create something out of nothing.

 

Also, I could ask you the same thing. Why does it bother you so much that the SEC is called the best conference or that they get more respect in the rankings?

As we have said ad nauseum....because I think overall they are overrated....and get some of that poll run of beating creampuffs.

"Look how tough we were against Tennessee Martin and Western Carolina" Four different SEC schools scheduled those weaklings"

I think that if they manned up on their scheduling....they would have a more legitimate claim as "the best conference" if indeed they are.

(going 1-6 vs. ACC last year certainly does not them the toughest...for that year anyway).

 

Clearly, OSU's ability to win a national championship is not at all impeded by either of these facts, yet you go out of your way to bash the SEC constantly. So I put your question back on you. Why do you care?

Perhaps because I care about equity.

Again....4 or 5 SEC schools didn't bother to schedule a single non-conf. P5 opponent. Every single one of them but one scheduled an FCS school.

I mean....you boast about having Arnold Schwarzegger strength, but it is like Arnold trying to make his reputation against PeeWee Herman.

At least pit your schedule against The Rock or Hulk Hogan.....not PeeWee and Woody Allen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And how were they the year before? And before that? And before that? I've asked you this before and you just shirked out of the conversation without answering. If you wanna call the PAC 12 the best conference, fine, go ahead, but you can't do it without any logical consistency unless you were doing the same for the SEC in that 9 year run.

 

No one cares that Big 10 teams added games against teams like Virginia Tech and another unranked conference team. That you actually think that gives you superiority over teams who have to play 6-7 ranked teams is laughable. And if you actually believe the rankings are bogus, then I offer up the same question I asked Woody.

 

The SEC is overrated when it comes to the rankings. (as evidenced by Saturday's results) As for Va. Tech being unranked....they were Top 10 program for years.....including when they were scheduled.

And, as I noted....some of that so called high ranking is because they play THE biggest cream puff schedules. I mean, in some cases they don't even play mid-majors....they are playing FCS teams.

 

 

Giving credit to VT for being ranked in the past while completely disregarding the SEC's dominance for a span of 8 years or so is insanely laughable.

 

 

 

For the record, the SEC is also 21-12 vs. Big Ten teams since 2007.

 

 

Also for the record, the Aggies have no claim whatsoever to any SEC dominance. That's like Rutgers trying to claim any sort of Big Ten ties.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Giving credit to VT for being ranked in the past while completely disregarding the SEC's dominance for a span of 8 years or so is insanely laughable.

 

I don't recall giving credit to VT for being ranked or unranked. Someone here tried to discredit them however because they were unranked. All I know is that VT has been a very competitive program over a long period of time....and that anyone who thinks scheduling them constitutes the scheduling of a cupcake has shit for brains.

 

 

 

For the record, the SEC is also 21-12 vs. Big Ten teams since 2007.

That is actually better on the Big Ten's side than I would have thought...given all the crowing.

 

 

Also for the record, the Aggies have no claim whatsoever to any SEC dominance. That's like Rutgers trying to claim any sort of Big Ten ties.

Precisely.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They were also based on dominating bowls 8 or 9 years straight. So I ask you as well, what is the standard for best conference? Titles don't matter. Noncon doesn't matter. I can only assume bowls don't matter to you. I can only assume NFL talent doesn't matter to you. What is the standard?

There is no standard.....no one should give a shit. Like I said, I don't care if Michigan/Wisc/Indiana/Rutgers win or lose bowl games.

Why create something out of nothing.

 

Also, I could ask you the same thing. Why does it bother you so much that the SEC is called the best conference or that they get more respect in the rankings?

As we have said ad nauseum....because I think overall they are overrated....and get some of that poll run of beating creampuffs.

"Look how tough we were against Tennessee Martin and Western Carolina" Four different SEC schools scheduled those weaklings"

I think that if they manned up on their scheduling....they would have a more legitimate claim as "the best conference" if indeed they are.

(going 1-6 vs. ACC last year certainly does not them the toughest...for that year anyway).

 

Clearly, OSU's ability to win a national championship is not at all impeded by either of these facts, yet you go out of your way to bash the SEC constantly. So I put your question back on you. Why do you care?

Perhaps because I care about equity.

Again....4 or 5 SEC schools didn't bother to schedule a single non-conf. P5 opponent. Every single one of them but one scheduled an FCS school.

I mean....you boast about having Arnold Schwarzegger strength, but it is like Arnold trying to make his reputation against PeeWee Herman.

At least pit your schedule against The Rock or Hulk Hogan.....not PeeWee and Woody Allen.

 

 

So you care about equity. That's no better than the people that care about conference dominance. I'll tell you the same thing you tell everyone, root for your team, mind your business.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Giving credit to VT for being ranked in the past while completely disregarding the SEC's dominance for a span of 8 years or so is insanely laughable.

 

 

 

For the record, the SEC is also 21-12 vs. Big Ten teams since 2007.

 

 

Also for the record, the Aggies have no claim whatsoever to any SEC dominance. That's like Rutgers trying to claim any sort of Big Ten ties.

 

 

 

 

Well SEC dominance is proven in non-con and bowl games (or, if we use Gipper's standard, merely by scheduling), none of which (out of 17) we have lost as an SEC member, despite playing a conference co-champion in 2012 (while we finished 5th in our conference), a team in a bowl game that had 2 more wins than us during the season, and, recently, the #15 ranked team (while we were unranked)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well SEC dominance is proven in non-con and bowl games (or, if we use Gipper's standard, merely by scheduling), none of which (out of 17) we have lost as an SEC member, despite playing a conference co-champion in 2012 (while we finished 5th in our conference), a team in a bowl game that had 2 more wins than us during the season, and, recently, the #15 ranked team (while we were unranked)

Really? Last year the ACC went like 6-1 vs. SEC in non-con and Bowl games. That is more than a representative sample. the obvious conclusion is that the ACC was better last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Last year the ACC went like 6-1 vs. SEC in non-con and Bowl games. That is more than a representative sample. the obvious conclusion is that the ACC was better last year.

And we were better the previous 9 I think it was. So either acknowledge that, or stop mentioning it.

 

And don't use my standard when you were very clear about what yours was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we were better the previous 9 I think it was. So either acknowledge that, or stop mentioning it.

 

And don't use my standard when you were very clear about what yours was.

I didn't even know about the previous years. There was no reason to look it up.

No one else here cares about so called "conference pride" as there is no such thing. I only looked it up because it seemed important for no reason to you SEC latecomers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...