College Football 2015-16

K newcomer. You begged for a response. I asked you to answer a simple question, and you've ignored it. If you want a debate but won't bother reading my posts, I'm done with you.

This is exactly why I've stopped getting dragged into stat debates with morons. You slap them in the face with proof, and their only response is "nuh uh". Not a good start for you, little kid, but the bar has been set so low by the rest of our Ohio state degenerates that I can't say that I'm surprised.

WhatsAmmataU_sl said:

K newcomer. You begged for a response. I asked you to answer a simple question, and you've ignored it. If you want a debate but won't bother reading my posts, I'm done with you.

This is exactly why I've stopped getting dragged into stat debates with morons. You slap them in the face with proof, and their only response is "nuh uh". Not a good start for you, little kid, but the bar has been set so low by the rest of our Ohio state degenerates that I can't say that I'm surprised.

Click to expand...

"Newcomer"? Sure bud, considering you are on the forum that represents the guild I was a core member within and don't even realize that while answering questions with questions. Are you truly this unfathomably low grade in terms of your intellectual level or are you trolling because I could see it going both ways since I have handled many a troll in my online days and you, truly, seem to be as dense as you come off.

That said, what "question" is that? The reference to "cherry picking"? I represented a historical, decade long and then more modern statement of facts. Who is cherry picking? So... in your view... an entire history, previous decade, and then previous three year mark is not a standard way of considering material? Wow... I am truly astounded by the sheer devolution in sports fans if you are being serious. Regardless, ask your question directly as I have nothing to hide and will answer it directly. Feel free to add a response to the question (which I asked first by the way but I'll play your grade school level game just to embarrass you again).

So... as it stands:

1) You call a guy a "newcomer" who has been apart of the founding member of this site for over a decade - ie:Fail
2) You feel a guy who missed approximately 10 games (and 7 other players to boot), due to suspension and being made of glass, is rated above the player in question (EE) despite the opposite being stated on multiple expert analysis sites, and Gurley being statistically worse in every single category... - ie:Fail
3) You answer questions with questions which is the typical manner by which people with no logical response will respond in order to shift the narrative: ie:Fail
4) You have used the words "retard", "moron", and "stupid" to describe what I have stated when each and every single thing I have stated is well thought out and backed by fact and every single thing you have stated is either speculation, falsehood, and/or elementary level name calling (which is another sign of loss of argument): ie:Fail
5) You attempt to claim some victory when you haven't backed up a single statement you have made... not even one... zero, zip, nil, nada: ie:Massive Fail

I can wait though... feel free to continue to support the guilds website though. Were you one of those who wanted to be one of us or were you one of those who pretended to be one of us? Gauging by the way you present yourself I am going with the former as there is a lot of jealousy, rage, and zero thought process coming out of you. Anyhow, like I said, I can wait for your response and will be absolutely more than happy to answer any and all questions you ask as I have not a single thing to hide and I already know you have nothing to win with in this "debate". However, feel free to try... it's enjoyable watching you fall apart post by post with excuses, shifting, name calling (while calling me a "kid" - that may be the best part), and appearing to know next to nothing about sports (as well as what this website even is/it's past).

He's an insufferable troll who should have been ban hammered long ago...nobody who has been posting here (or on foh) considers his opinion worthwhile.

Just ignore him.

I mean, this is the guy who just said "bowl games don't mean shit" when he has clung to the nutsack of the SEC's bowl record for years. It's comical at this point.

Here are how the SEC and B10 look over the past decade(looking at the entire decade of teams new to the conference, not just their recent year(s) in the conference)

Elite Teams:
SEC - Alabama(3 national titles), Florida(2 national titles)
B10 - Ohio St(1 national title)

Great - (Top 10 caliber teams over the past decade, often in the national title hunt discussion)
SEC - Georgia, LSU(1 national title), Auburn(1 national title)
B10 - Wisconsin

Good teams (top 25 more often than not over the past decade):
SEC - Missouri, South Carolina
B10 - Nebraska, Michigan St

Average teams(occasionally ranked, regular bowls over the past decade)
SEC - Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Texas A&M
B10 - Michigan, Iowa, Minnesotta, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland

Below average (rarely make a bowl)
SEC - Kentucky, Vanderbilt
B10 - Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana

So at the top two tiers, the SEC dominates, and the B10 definitely has more below-average teams to beat up on. If you look at the conferences at position #5-10 or so, yeah maybe the middles are roughly even, but the top of the SEC is better than the B10, and the bottom of the B10 is worse than the SEC.

joeboo_sl said:

Here are how the SEC and B10 look over the past decade(looking at the entire decade of teams new to the conference, not just their recent year(s) in the conference)

Elite Teams:
SEC - Alabama(3 national titles), Florida(2 national titles)
B10 - Ohio St(1 national title)

Great - (Top 10 caliber teams over the past decade, often in the national title hunt discussion)
SEC - Georgia, LSU(1 national title), Auburn(1 national title)
B10 - Wisconsin

Good teams (top 25 more often than not over the past decade):
SEC - Missouri, South Carolina
B10 - Nebraska, Michigan St

Average teams(occasionally ranked, regular bowls over the past decade)
SEC - Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Texas A&M
B10 - Michigan, Iowa, Minnesotta, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland

Below average (rarely make a bowl)
SEC - Kentucky, Vanderbilt
B10 - Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana

So at the top two tiers, the SEC dominates, and the B10 definitely has more below-average teams to beat up on. If you look at the conferences at position #5-10 or so, yeah maybe the middles are roughly even, but the top of the SEC is better than the B10, and the bottom of the B10 is worse than the SEC.

Click to expand...

Michigan State and Wisconsin need to be switched. The Spartans have consistently done well for several years in a row now, certainly better than Wisconsin. Not to mention Dantonio is one of the most underrated coaches in D1 in my view. Also, Georgia is most certainly not a great team as they have done absolutely nothing of worth in a very long time now and have had one serious contender team in the past, what, twenty years?

Missouri lost to Indiana so while I agree that Indiana is bottom tier it is difficult for me to place Mizzou at "good" instead of average but due to them winning the division they earned it. We will just have to see how they play and if they can be consistent. I have them above Georgia but certainly not "great". What amazes me is that Texas A&M and Mizzou were perennial losers year in and year out in the Big 12 and then, all of a sudden, have had great success within the SEC. My list is a bit different:

Elite:
Alabama, Ohio State

Great:
Michigan State, LSU, Auburn

Good:
Wisconsin, Nebraska (very fringe on this one), Missouri, South Carolina (very fringe on this one)

Average:
Ole Miss, Mississippi State (the two teams from MS were the most overrated top 5 teams I have ever seen in my entire life. It was a massive joke they were rated so high), Penn State, Minny, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida

Below Average:
Michigan, Iowa, Rutgers, Maryland, Kentucky, Vandy

There is no doubt that the Big 10 has some shitty teams but, frankly, I couldn't care less as all I care about is my team. That said, the SEC East is horrendous in comparison to the West. I see Mizzou running that division for awhile if they can keep recruiting well.

I wasn't talking about just last year. I was talking about a 10-year period. Wisconsin has been significantly better than Michigan St over the past decade(but I would give MSU the nod in the last 3-4 years for sure), Wisconsin has won 10+ games in 6 of the last 10 years. And Georgia might be borderline "great", but they have won the East 3 times and finished in the top 10 4 times in the last decade. Sure, they haven't played for a national title, but they've been consistently REALLY good almost every year(ranked 8 out of 10 years to end the season, and ranked at some point during ALL of those seasons)

You're also missing about 6 teams from your list, you only have 22 listed, the two conferences have 28 teams combined. You're missing Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, and Illinois from the Big 10(all below average), and missing A&M and Tennessee from the SEC. But to be fair, I missed Tennessee in mine too, I couldn't decide whether to put them at "average" or "below average" and then forgot to add them at all.

Why an arbitrary look back of 10 years? 10 years ago is irrelevant. Texas was the best team in the country, USC dynasty conversations were a thing, and nobody gave a shit about the SEC. Florida winning 2 titles is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the here and now. The SEC is a better conference but there isn't much of a difference.

The SEC is just insanely overhyped in the media. SEC teams all ranked in the top 10 during 2014: Bama, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Miss St, Auburn, Georgia. That is fucking ridiculous. Only two were in the top 10 at the end of the year, which is much more realistic.

An average over the last 10 years is relevant. Yes, Texas and USC were dominant 10 years ago...at that one snapshot in time of 2005, but looking at their average season over the past 10 years gives you a different view of them which is a little more accurate.

No single season is indicative of the general state of a program. You need a little bit of time to see the recent trends, but I do think that looking back too far is totally irrelevant. No one gives a crap how many titles a team won before we were all born. 10 years is a pretty happy medium(but I would listen to a 5-year window argument as well)

joeboo_sl said:

An average over the last 10 years is relevant. Yes, Texas and USC were dominant 10 years ago...at that one snapshot in time of 2005, but looking at their average season over the past 10 years gives you a different view of them which is a little more accurate.

No single season is indicative of the general state of a program. You need a little bit of time to see the recent trends, but I do think that looking back too far is totally irrelevant. No one gives a crap how many titles a team won before we were all born. 10 years is a pretty happy medium(but I would listen to a 5-year window argument as well)

Click to expand...

5 years should be the maximum. I argue 2 or 3 should be the metric for current condition. Texas elite as fuck from 05 through 09 and then fell off a cliff. A 10 year window captures far too much. Most programs have had at least one coaching change during that window.

If you want current condition then the window needs to be small because so much can change in a single offseason. If you want to take into account potential then you need a larger window (10+ years) plus a host of other factors. Using Texas as an example: current condition as poor, but the program is elite because it is only a matter of time until Texas is at the top again due all the built in advantages.

Another example to show why 10 years is irrelevant to current state: Lets say Bama has a down year next year and doesn't make it to the SEC title game. No biggie, one year. The next year things get a little worse, they aren't even in the top 2. Year three, middle of the road SEC West team, the game appears to be passing Saban by. Year four, middle of the road again, Saban retires. It does not matter that Bama has 3 titles within that 10 year window anymore.

Edit: Oh yea and before you say well that is unlikely! It has recently happened to Texas, USC, Florida (twice), Tennessee, Miami, Auburn, Florida State, Pedo St., and Nebraska, and that is just off the top of my head.

I definitely don't expect Bama to win a national title 3 out of every 4 or 5 years, but I think they'll be a serious contender every year that Saban is there, he'll probably get another title or two before he goes(even though that might take another 5 or 10 years). I could see him retiring with 4 or 5 titles in 12-15 years at Alabama.

I also don't think we'll see another team win 3 titles in 4 years anytime soon again, that was a pretty phenomenal run that will be really difficult to duplicate again.

I do think the SEC is looking at a lot of major coaching changes probably in the next 5-10 years. Spurrier will retire(will SC go back to their history of suckage, or stay relevant?), Pinkel at Missouri and Saban at Alabama are the same age, both in their mid 60s now, I can't see either coaching into their 70s. I think both Pinkel and Saban retire in under 10 years for sure, maybe closer to 5. I also don't think Richt can go another year or two without an SEC east title and stay in Georgia. That fanbase is rabid for a big season. A good chunk of the big-name coaches in the SEC could be gone within another 5 years.

Gone for what reason? Being forced out/fired, or just moving on to a different school of his own chosing?

LOL

Louisville to debut wild new uniforms against Auburn in season opener | AL.com

Shit I think that looks pretty cool

Intrinsic_sl said:

It isn't whether you win or lose, it is how good you look doing it.

Click to expand...

are you Oregon?

Regime_sl said:

Every summer for the last 13 years this thread has been pure laughs.

Click to expand...

You like my initiation of the newcomer Ray Ray?