B10 West Rankings
- Thread starter StoneTempleHusker
- Start date
they play Ole Miss and @ Tenn
then they play the SEC West champ in the title game
that's 3 good teams
Tennessee was much better last year until their QB was injured near the end of the season..
But yea 2 good teams till the SEC CCG.
Whatever…massive improvement this year over the last 6…I’ll take it.
Some would be miserable regardless of the outcome.
.
@Tennessee is the only even slightly challenging game they play all year. Scheduled...not including playoffs of course...you make me spell this out.
Ole Miss is only ranked because somebody has to be. They're decent but not good.
Why can't you ever admit the truth? Georgia's schedule is extremely weak...admit it...
Your statement was that they don’t even play one good team all year
Now you seem to be walking that back while accusing me of never being able to admit the truth
Funny
Here’s something to consider:
UGA and Mich have embarrassing schedules
However, because the B1G west is such putrid dogshit, Michigan is really putting itself in a position where they cannot recoup a reg season L in the B1G title game because nobody will be impressed by a win over the B1G west representative
UGA I believe could survive a reg season L if they come back and beat whichever good & highly rated team wins the SEC west
UGA and Mich have embarrassing schedules
However, because the B1G west is such putrid dogshit, Michigan is really putting itself in a position where they cannot recoup a reg season L in the B1G title game because nobody will be impressed by a win over the B1G west representative
UGA I believe could survive a reg season L if they come back and beat whichever good & highly rated team wins the SEC west
Pretty much the same but Minnesota ahead of us because they did win…
1. Wisconsin
2. Iowa
3. Minnesota
4. Nebraska
5. Purdue
6. Illinois
7. Northwestern
1-7 any order. The first bigten team to score 17 and not give up a special teams or defensive TD against iowa will beat them and that’s any remaining team on their schedule including NW. Once again iowa is the fake id of CFB.
I don't watch a ton of Pac 12 football but didn't Oregon, Washington, and USC all get new coaches and new qb's in the last 2 years? Is it not possible that the Pac 12 has gotten noticeably better since these coaches joined the conference? All 3 teams have portal qb's who have played a ton of games.
Has Texas underperformed? Clearly, but you cannot use a hypothetical to prove that Utah is better when the only time they played throughout that period, Texas won the game by 4 TDs.
Ok, you finally admitted, for the first time, that Georgia's schedule is embarrassing.
At least Michigsn plays @Penn State. Which is much tougher than anything on Georgia's schedule.
Not really the case at all. Just based on how those bowls are selected, which is far from matched up according to skill, seems like there's often one of the two teams that feels like they got shafted by having to settle for that particular bowl, while the other team is really happy to be there.
And then there's often one of the two teams that has a couple guys going into the NFL draft who sit the bowl out, while the other team has none.
You lose a couple guys who are projected to be playing on Sunday (which is big in college football) and your team doesn't even think they should be there...you've got some pretty watered down football for a meaningless bowl game that isn't really a true representation of what kind of team you had in the regular season.
Happens quite a bit.
So far all I see is speculation, assumptions and hyperbole.
If it is that one sided and prevalent, it shouldn’t be that hard to prove with some empirical data right?
I'm sure there's data on players sitting out bowl games because they're entering the draft. The "we didn't really want to be there" excuse is pretty subjective, so not sure how to prove that. Feel free to dig deeper if you want. I, personally, don't give enough of a shit to spend the time. I'm just going by the fact that outside of a handful of games (including the playoffs), bowl games are widely thought of as meaningless. I don't need empirical data to know that.
Ok so now we are changing the argument. I replied to a guy who wrote the following.
"I don't really have a dog in these fights but non-playoff bowl games are a joke. Good players don't play more than half the time."
To which I replied, I would assume that it affects both teams that play in the game. I would assume this because he wrote good players don't play more than half the time. Again my assumption would be that both teams have good players. Both teams are going to have someone not playing in the game due to draft, injury, coaches deciding to play some younger players, whatever the case. To which you replied "And then there's often one of the two teams that has a couple guys going into the NFL draft who sit the bowl out, while the other team has none." and a bunch of other stuff that was not pertinent to my response.
Both statements were made as if there was some sort of easily verified or documented proof of this. So I asked for it. In reality, one of you was using hyperbole and the other was just making shit up.
I don't mind having discussions regarding opinions, for example, non CFP bowl games suck or whatever. But when people start convoluting the discussion by putting unverifiable statistics in their argument, then it becomes a bit annoying, for lack of a better term. Both of you made statements as if they were facts, when in reality you were just stating an opinion, and backed you opinion with bull shit.
This disagreement seems easy enough to resolve. Can't someone figure out if any players or coaches were absent from the 2019 Texas/Utah bowl game?
the fact texas has not won a b12 championship in 14 years while utah has won two p12s in the past three years is not a hypothetical. unless your point is that the b12 is and has been far superior to the p12, which may be true.
Last edited:
The claim that Utah would have curbstomped Texas, as you claimed in the post I responded to, was the hypothetical. Especially when the one time they played, Texas won the game by 4 TDs.
There is no need to be hypothetical when it comes to winning conference titles. Winning a title is something that actually took place.
Yeah, as I mentioned, I don’t really give a shit. It’s cool that you do though. You should definitely keep digging into this.
Ha ha so why reply with bull shit stats to support a position if you don’t give a shit?
my curb stomp comment was based on the two leagues being equal. if you believe the p12 is inferior to the b12, then i agree with your point. since they don't play each other, outside one bowl appearance, it's rational to conclude utah has had the better program the past few years based on performance/championships.
So in the past 10 seasons the Big 12 has a 21-14 record against the PAC 12. The one game where Utah played Texas, Texas won by 28.
To take it further, your reply was somehow to compare Colorado and Utah as being an equal replacement to Texas and Oklahoma. Yet those 2 are a combined 3-5 against the Big 12
i guess if you've lost the debate your tactic is to talk about something else. okay.
Your argument is hypothetical. You are using Utah winning PAC 12 titles to prove they are a better team.
In the two years in which Utah won’t the Pac 12 title, both years they had 4 losses.
They also played 8 out of conference games (including bowls) and they are 3-5 in those games.
So again logical or hypothetical?? Lol
Last edited:
