Warrior General Games

Here is the SEC's record in bowl games during the course of "the streak", which are by definition against quality opponents:

2013 - 7-3
2012- 6-3
2011 - 6-2
2010 - 5-5
2009 - 6-4
2008 - 6-2
2007 - 7-2
2006 - 6-3

.671 winning percentage

That is why the weak OOC schedule retort is weak. We play by far more quality opponents in conference than anyone else, and when we play OOC foes in bowl games we win the vast majority of those as well.

Originally posted by RayRay99
You mean all of those tough OOC games against unranked opponents? The ones you played at home and lost 2 out of 3? I could argue any of the 6 games we play in division are better teams than anyone on your schedule.

Besides, y'all don't get to play the pussy card. We offered to play you, y'all were the pussies too scared to play us. Of course, that would have been considered part of the cupcake fest you refer to.

This is a reloading year for us. We are the youngest team in the SEC. Next year is the year we had high expectations for, not this year. Yet we still sit at 4-2 with our only losses against teams in the top 3. Y'all have no wins of consequence, and don't look like you will get any.

We will play on the national CBS broadcast this week while nobody can watch your game on the LHN. More exposure for A&M. Charlie Strong cannot recruit in Texas for Texas, so your talent level will continue to diminish while we cherry pick who we want. One of your DB commits did not attend the RRR so he could go to the Aggie game, decked out in Aggie gear hoping to get an offer.

Starting next year you won't even get to throw the OOC softball out there since we have legit OOC opponents for the foreseeable future. Not that we have to, but I would try to bolster my schedule too if I played in the weak ass Big XII.



Comparing BYU and UCLA to Lamar, Rice, and SMU is laughable and sad. But that's the status quo for aggies.

And it's pretty fucking ironic that you're using the rebuilding card while disparaging UT when UT has a new coaching staff, has had a number of players kicked off the team by that staff, and has lost their starting QB, starting C, and starting DT (all seniors) to injuries.

UT is also rebuilding. The difference is that, if you watch the games, you can see an absolutely noticeable improvement from game-to-game in UT. In contrast, aggie has been going downhill every season since Sumlin got there. With Sherman's OL graduating, it's becoming more and more clear that he's an average, gimmicky offensive coach who has no clue how to coach up a D. In contrast, UT has one of the sickest defenses in the country and will only be going up on offense as their brand new OL and QB grow and learn the system.

Face it. Sumlin's first year was a flash in the pan due to a weak schedule and Sherman's OL recruiting and development. You may still have the weak schedule, but Sumlin can't win with his own recruits and will never coach a quality D.

And your schedule next year is a joke. While ASU is a nice team to play, you're only playing 3 true road games. Too scared to play anyone in their home stadium? That seems to be the case. Just like the aggies to be a bunch of pussies about their schedule.

Originally posted by RayRay99
Here is the SEC's record in bowl games during the course of "the streak", which are by definition against quality opponents:

2013 - 7-3
2012- 6-3
2011 - 6-2
2010 - 5-5
2009 - 6-4
2008 - 6-2
2007 - 7-2
2006 - 6-3

.671 winning percentage

That is why the weak OOC schedule retort is weak. We play by far more quality opponents in conference than anyone else, and when we play OOC foes in bowl games we win the vast majority of those as well.


Aggie wasn't in the SEC most of those years. You were getting your asses kicked in the Big 12 before running away because it was too tough for you.

Originally posted by RayRay99
Oh, and remember all the posts regarding "those poor kids will be traveling a zillion miles and never play in from of Momma" posts about our move to the SEC?

2015 Schedule:
9/5: vs. Arizona State (in Houston)
9/12: vs. Ball State
9/19: vs. Nevada
9/26: vs. Arkansas (in Arlington)
10/3: vs. Mississippi State
10/10: BYE
10/17: vs. Alabama
10/24: at Ole Miss
10/31: vs. South Carolina
11/7: vs. Auburn
11/14: vs. Western Carolina
11/21: at Vanderbilt
11/28: at LSU

10 games within 3 hours of Houston.

It's not hard to stay close to home when you're too scared to play teams in their home stadium. Have fun playing ASU in Arlington while UT is going to Notre Dame.

And I wasn't aware there is a Western Carolina. What conference are they in?

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Comparing BYU and UCLA to Lamar, Rice, and SMU is laughable and sad. But that's the status quo for aggies.

And it's pretty fucking ironic that you're using the rebuilding card while disparaging UT when UT has a new coaching staff, has had a number of players kicked off the team by that staff, and has lost their starting QB, starting C, and starting DT (all seniors) to injuries.

UT is also rebuilding. The difference is that, if you watch the games, you can see an absolutely noticeable improvement from game-to-game in UT. In contrast, aggie has been going downhill every season since Sumlin got there. With Sherman's OL graduating, it's becoming more and more clear that he's an average, gimmicky offensive coach who has no clue how to coach up a D. In contrast, UT has one of the sickest defenses in the country and will only be going up on offense as their brand new OL and QB grow and learn the system.

Face it. Sumlin's first year was a flash in the pan due to a weak schedule and Sherman's OL recruiting and development. You may still have the weak schedule, but Sumlin can't win with his own recruits and will never coach a quality D.

And your schedule next year is a joke. While ASU is a nice team to play, you're only playing 3 true road games. Too scared to play anyone in their home stadium? That seems to be the case. Just like the aggies to be a bunch of pussies about their schedule.



Go ahead, ignore all the valid information in my post and continue to post drivel. It is the longhorn way. We are in a 4 game stretch where every team is in the top 7 of the AP poll, but please continue telling me how our schedule sucks because y'all were too pussy to play us and we had to scramble to find teams willing to play that had openings immediately on the schedule.

We kicked numerous players off the team this offseason too, dipshit. 7 of our 10 DL are underclassmen, and 16 out of 25 on defense. We have no LB depth because of players being dumbasses.

Your salty defense is giving up 1.4 fewer ppg than our crappy one.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Aggie wasn't in the SEC most of those years. You were getting your asses kicked in the Big 12 before running away because it was too tough for you.

Us being in the SEC has nothing to do with these figures, it has to do with the "SEC bias" argument. Try to keep up.

Saying we ran from the Big 12 to the SEC because the Big 12 was too tough is like saying jellyfish scare me, so I am going swimming with great white sharks instead. You sound stupid making that argument, just admit it was a fantastic move by A&M already.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
It's not hard to stay close to home when you're too scared to play teams in their home stadium. Have fun playing ASU in Arlington while UT is going to Notre Dame.

Maybe, just MAYBE, that was ASU's decision so they could get some face time with Texas recruits and invite them to the game on an unofficial visit close to their home. Or, maybe we have more pull than y'all and can force Big 5 schools to forgo a home game for the honor of playing us. Nah, it obviously is that we are scared to go on the road.

In 5 yrs there won't be this or that Conf, there will be super conferences IMO

Originally posted by cubsluver22
In 5 yrs there won't be this or that Conf, there will be super conferences IMO

smartest thing cubs has said in ages

Originally posted by RayRay99
Here is the SEC's record in bowl games during the course of "the streak", which are by definition against quality opponents:

2013 - 7-3
2012- 6-3
2011 - 6-2
2010 - 5-5
2009 - 6-4
2008 - 6-2
2007 - 7-2
2006 - 6-3

.671 winning percentage

That is why the weak OOC schedule retort is weak. We play by far more quality opponents in conference than anyone else, and when we play OOC foes in bowl games we win the vast majority of those as well.


To each their own...and statistics are only as good as what you feed into them. For instance. If you take their ENTIRE record against other conferences (instead of picking only bowl games), you will see their winning percentage drop off substantially.
SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8

Either way, I personally do believe that the SEC is given a bias in the standings each year. My guess is the top two teams in the SEC are elite and the rest are just good...as with most other major conferences.

Originally posted by RayRay99
Go ahead, ignore all the valid information in my post and continue to post drivel. It is the longhorn way. We are in a 4 game stretch where every team is in the top 7 of the AP poll, but please continue telling me how our schedule sucks because y'all were too pussy to play us and we had to scramble to find teams willing to play that had openings immediately on the schedule.
.

But, this is my problem with it...is the SEC only "good" because of the biased rankings? I mean, Auburn could potentially have a 3 loss season this year, but the Miss St. win against them (along with the now unranked LSU win and soon to be unranked TAM win) thrusts them into 1st place? I mean, seriously?

Again, my question is "are the SEC ranked high because they are really that good, or are they just "that good" because they keep getting ranked so high in the preseason"?

Originally posted by Spread-em offense
smartest thing cubs has said in ages

Stfu, I don't need your dumbass validating my Post. Go hug nuts in some other forum or beg for OAIs cause your not smart enough to make one of your own.

Originally posted by mwoods07
To each their own...and statistics are only as good as what you feed into them. For instance. If you take their ENTIRE record against other conferences (instead of picking only bowl games), you will see their winning percentage drop off substantially.
SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8

Either way, I personally do believe that the SEC is given a bias in the standings each year. My guess is the top two teams in the SEC are elite and the rest are just good...as with most other major conferences.

The regular season record is irrelevant in this discussion because we are talking about bias in the rankings. Regular season results oftentimes are from match ups that are not equal. Bowl games are more similar matchups against opponents with similar results.

Originally posted by mwoods07
But, this is my problem with it...is the SEC only "good" because of the biased rankings? I mean, Auburn could potentially have a 3 loss season this year, but the Miss St. win against them (along with the now unranked LSU win and soon to be unranked TAM win) thrusts them into 1st place? I mean, seriously?

Again, my question is "are the SEC ranked high because they are really that good, or are they just "that good" because they keep getting ranked so high in the preseason"?

The SEC has won their out of conference postseason matchups to prove their superiority. That is why the conference gets the benefit of the doubt, it is based on resent historical results. If the SEC struggles for a few seasons, whomever shows the results and wins will get that same "bias". Bias is a poor term because it implies benefits not earned. When you are dealing with something as subjective as a poll, you have to find differentiations between teams with similar records. Some of those are the strength of schedule, quality of opponent in wins and losses, and recent historical results. It isn't bias, it is analysis.