Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Sugar Kapaa
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BaqdAbLIgAAnktc.jpg:large

The SEC East sucks this year, mostly due to injuries. To imply that any of the recent Missouri teams would have won the SEC East in those years is pure folly. We know this year's Baylor team is better than any Baylor team in probably the past 30 years, yet in Missouri's case we are supposed to assume they has always been as good as they are now, just held back by their conference? Riiight.
Manziel didn't play in the Big 12, and A&M's defense sucks this year just like a typical Big 12 team, and they are middle-of-the-pack in the SEC West despite Manziel accordingly. Missouri is healthy, was fortunate (unlike SC) to play Georgia when Georgia was really banged up, and they have one of their better teams in recent years right now. Doing it consistently is going to be much more difficult.
As for TCU, puh-leeze. They don't have the players they did a few years ago. That 2010 team beat the shit out of RG3 and Baylor 45-10. No one in the Big 12 that year beat Baylor by as many points or held them under 24. Speaking of TCU and Baylor, this year's TCU team played Baylor (tied for 1st-2nd in the Big 12) closer than they played LSU (3rd in the SEC West).

Texas fans are just bitter that Ole Miss was a much tougher game this year than Oklahoma.

Originally posted by RayRay99
Mack only won 1 more conference title in the Big XII than we did. Let that sink in for a bit.

Are you actually arguing that A&M did as well as Texas while they were both in the Big 12? And are you actually arguing that A&M was better than mediocre while in the Big 12?

Originally posted by RayRay99
It has absolutely nothing to do with a new coaching staff for us and improved recruiting, the fact that Missou had won a share of 3 Big XII North titles, nor the fact the 2 "upgrades" were feeding on chum in the worst conferences in college football. NOTHING AT ALL.



It has to do with you having a much easier schedule in the SEC than in the Big 12 but still getting the SEC hype bump in the rankings. It has to do with Mizzou showing that a mediocre Big 12 team can switch to the SEC and be tops there in two seasons even with the same coaching staff and similar recruiting success. It has everything to do with the SEC being over-hyped.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
It has to do with you having a much easier schedule in the SEC than in the Big 12



Two can play at the conference hypocrisy game...

From 2012-2013:
A&M is 1-0 vs Big 12, 10-6 vs SEC, 0-0 vs other BCS
Missouri is 0-0 vs Big 12, 9-7 vs SEC, 2-1 vs other BCS

From 2008-2011:
A&M was 15-18 vs Big 12, 0-5 vs SEC, 1-2 vs other BCS
Missouri was 20-13 vs Big 12, 0-0 vs SEC, 5-3 vs other BCS*
* - includes a bowl game loss to Navy

The 2008 A&M team that went 2-6 in conference also lost to Arkansas State and Miami and nearly lost to Army and New Mexico.

So we are supposed to believe the Big 12 homers that:
A. Missouri's conference schedule is easier now... even though their conference record has gotten worse.
B. A&M was always as good as they are now... even though their results against the SEC and their results against the Big 12 have been much better the last two years than the previous four.
C. Playing in the Big 12 was holding these teams back... even though their results against other BCS conferences (outside of Big 12 and SEC) and bowl games were no better than their results against the Big 12.
What a bunch of horseshit!

Originally posted by TrevJo


Two can play at the conference hypocrisy game...

From 2012-2013:
A&M is 1-0 vs Big 12, 10-6 vs SEC, 0-0 vs other BCS
Missouri is 0-0 vs Big 12, 9-7 vs SEC, 2-1 vs other BCS

From 2008-2011:
A&M was 15-18 vs Big 12, 0-5 vs SEC, 1-2 vs other BCS
Missouri was 20-13 vs Big 12, 0-0 vs SEC, 5-3 vs other BCS

The 2008 A&M team that went 2-6 in conference also lost to Arkansas State and Miami and nearly lost to Army and New Mexico.

So we are supposed to believe the Big 12 homers that:
A. Missouri's conference schedule is easier now... even though their conference record has gotten worse.
B. A&M was always as good as they are now... even though their resuts against the SEC and their results against the Big 12 have been much better the last two years than the previous four.
What a bunch of horseshit!

MIzzou's conference record is only worse because the SEC caught them in a down season last year. It only took two years for that lowly Big 12 team to take the same coach as well as Big 12 recruits to the top of the SEC East and a possible SEC championship. They might be in the SEC right now, but that's a Big 12 team.

A&M is performing about as they always have despite having an easier schedule in the SEC. Look at who A&M was playing against from the SEC in the 2008-2011 years--it was teams at the top of the SEC at the time. Now that they are in the SEC, they get to play all the dregs of the conference and not just the top teams. All that happened with the move was your sample size got bigger and it showed that their 0-5 record was an anomaly and not any type of proof of the quality of the competition of the league. They are doing better in the SEC than they did in the Big 12 because they have an easier schedule now. Hell, they've managed that record despite the fact that they've only beaten one ranked SEC team over the past two years. How does a team manage that record with only one win against a ranked team? They play a joke of a schedule.

And don't give me crap about A&M being much better against the Big 12 the past two years when they've only played one game.

Originally posted by TrevJo
The SEC East sucks this year, mostly due to injuries. To imply that any of the recent Missouri teams would have won the SEC East in those years is pure folly. We know this year's Baylor team is better than any Baylor team in probably the past 30 years, yet in Missouri's case we are supposed to assume they has always been as good as they are now, just held back by their conference? Riiight.
Manziel didn't play in the Big 12, and A&M's defense sucks this year just like a typical Big 12 team, and they are middle-of-the-pack in the SEC West despite Manziel accordingly. Missouri is healthy, was fortunate (unlike SC) to play Georgia when Georgia was really banged up, and they have one of their better teams in recent years right now. Doing it consistently is going to be much more difficult.
As for TCU, puh-leeze. They don't have the players they did a few years ago. That 2010 team beat the shit out of RG3 and Baylor 45-10. No one in the Big 12 that year beat Baylor by as many points or held them under 24. Speaking of TCU and Baylor, this year's TCU team played Baylor (tied for 1st-2nd in the Big 12) closer than they played LSU (3rd in the SEC West).

Texas fans are just bitter that Ole Miss was a much tougher game this year than Oklahoma.
i don't necessarily believe with whomever that posted whatever, but there are some small truths within those statements.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
MIzzou's conference record is only worse because the SEC caught them in a down season last year. It only took two years for that lowly Big 12 team to take the same coach as well as Big 12 recruits to the top of the SEC East and a possible SEC championship. They might be in the SEC right now, but that's a Big 12 team.

Missouri's conference record only rebounded as much as it did because they caught Georgia and Florida in huge down years, and they didn't have to play Auburn or Alabama or LSU this year.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Hell, they've managed that record despite the fact that they've only beaten one ranked SEC team over the past two years. How does a team manage that record with only one win against a ranked team? They play a joke of a schedule.

How many wins does Texas have against ranked teams in the last two years? Oh that's right, 1. And yet they're 12-5 in conference. Texas is 1-3 against ranked conference opponents and 11-2 against unranked conference opponents. A&M is 1-6 against ranked conference opponents and 9-0 against unranked conference opponents.Using your own logic, what does that say about Texas' schedule?

The reason A&M is only 10-6 in conference is that they've played at least 7 conference opponents that are better than anyone Texas has beaten, probably half a dozen teams that are as good as or better than anyone Texas has even played. A&M even won on the road against the team that thumped Texas--in Austin. No one is buying your bullshit that A&M has an easier schedule now.

Originally posted by TrevJo
Missouri's conference record only rebounded as much as it did because they caught Georgia and Florida in huge down years, and they didn't have to play Auburn or Alabama or LSU this year.

That happens to at least one SEC team every year. It's one of the main reasons the strength of the SEC is overrated.

Originally posted by TrevJo
How many wins does Texas have against ranked teams in the last two years? Oh that's right, 1. And yet they're 12-5 in conference. Texas is 1-3 against ranked conference opponents and 11-2 against unranked conference opponents. A&M is 1-6 against ranked conference opponents and 9-0 against unranked conference opponents.Using your own logic, what does that say about Texas' schedule?

The reason A&M is only 10-6 in conference is that they've played at least 7 conference opponents that are better than anyone Texas has beaten, probably half a dozen teams that are as good as or better than anyone Texas has even played. A&M even won on the road against the team that thumped Texas--in Austin. No one is buying your bullshit that A&M has an easier schedule now.

You should edit your post a few more times, because that's a terrible argument. Nothing you say about Texas, true or not, is a logical response to my statement.

The SEC needs to drop Vandy and bring in FSU Not that it will happen, but that would be awesome.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
A&M is performing about as they always have despite having an easier schedule in the SEC. Look at who A&M was playing against from the SEC in the 2008-2011 years--it was teams at the top of the SEC at the time. Now that they are in the SEC, they get to play all the dregs of the conference and not just the top teams.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
And don't give me crap about A&M being much better against the Big 12 the past two years when they've only played one game.

As for the above lines of horseshit...
A&M lost to a 2009 Arkansas team that went 3-5 in conference. They lost to a 2009 Georgia team that went 4-4 in conference. In 2008 they lost to Arkansas State and nearly lost to New Mexico and Army. There's no merit to the argument that they would have done well if they were in the SEC instead of the Big 12. Their conference losses since joining the SEC, on the other hand, actually have been against the top of the SEC. They've lost to 1 team that went 5-3 in conference and the 5 other losses have all been against teams that were 6-2 or better in conference.

Regarding vs the Big 12 the last two years, yes it's only 1-0, but that's after having going 1-8 against Oklahoma prior to that, with average score of 21-45. And they beat the Sooners by 28 after the Sooners went 8-1 in the Big 12 with their only loss by 5 points.

Now I have never argued that there aren't some bad teams at the bottom of the SEC. There are. That's all you can really knock the conference for. But to me that isn't the point. The point is--the reason everyone cares about conference supremacy--when it comes down to BCS voting at the end, who is worthy, the top of the SEC or the top of the rest of the country? The SEC has proven in the championship games that the top of the SEC is worthy. You can't win the SEC without being healthy, on an up season, and battle-tested.
Going forward, the same factor that makes the bottom of the SEC weaker (the growth of the conference to 14 teams) only serves to make the top of the conference stronger--more teams equals greater chance of a bad team and more teams equals greater chance of a great team. The Big 12, meanwhile, continues to churn out relatively mediocre conference champions.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
That happens to at least one SEC team every year. It's one of the main reasons the strength of the SEC is overrated.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But while you can sneak by for the regular season with a relatively easy schedule, you can't sneak by the regular season and the conference championship game without a true test. Alabama's regular season schedule was similar to Missouri's last year, but they proved themselves by beating the best of the superior division that year (Georgia). If Missouri beats Auburn, that will be something.

Which goes back to the point in my most recent post. Not all SEC teams are great, not all SEC schedules are great, but to win the SEC is a lot harder than to win the Big 12.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
You should edit your post a few more times, because that's a terrible argument. Nothing you say about Texas, true or not, is a logical response to my statement.

Your statement didn't make any sense to begin with. Let's try this again, this time by something other than knocking Texas, since knocking Texas is too easy.

You're saying that being 10-6 in conference despite only 1 win against a ranked opponent proves their schedule is a joke. That is idiotic.
Firstly, losing to a ranked team is not an indication of a weak schedule.
Secondly, How many ranked teams do you expect them to play in conference? There are 6 BCS conferences and only 25 ranked teams. 3 of the ranked teams are not even in BCS conferences, so 22 ranked BCS teams divided by 6 conferences is only 3.7 ranked teams per BCS conference. The SEC has 5 other ranked teams this year (not counting A&M), and A&M has played 4 of them. Last year the SEC had 5 other ranked teams and A&M played 3 of them (would have played 4 had they won the divison, but they didn't). How is that a joke of a schedule? If you're going to use "ranked teams" as your measurement of what is a good schedule and what isn't, I'd like to hear how many ranked teams in other conferences have played against more ranked conference conference opponents in the last two years than A&M.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Are you actually arguing that A&M did as well as Texas while they were both in the Big 12? And are you actually arguing that A&M was better than mediocre while in the Big 12?

Nope, I am just pointing out that during the worst stretch in our existence and arguably your best y'all could only muster 1 more conference title than us

I just watched this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8zZRBTOcnY of UT winning a National Championship a few years back. I was lookin for one of Aggies but apparently TV wasn't invented back then.