Warrior General Games

Originally posted by cubsluver22
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.

Not validating, just saying that I am surprised you finally made a post that wasn't dumb.
I am sure the rest of GLB agrees.

College Football and now Hockey at the same time...Double Delight!!

Every year it's the same thing, the second a SEC fans team is not elite that season, they jump right into the welp the SEC is the best Conf in the nation arguments. Every season it's 2-3 good teams in the SEC and a bunch of nut hugging sissies. Defend you school not your conference. A and M sucked in the Big 12, had a couple of good seasons and they're right back to their suck ass ways.

Point taken Aggie...

Lets just take a quick look at the FINAL week of college football last year for an example (before the after bowl standings).

SEC managed to have 4 top 10 teams going into the bowl games.
AU - 2
AL - 3
Miz - 8
USC - 9

#2 Auburn LOST to a higher ranked team
#3 Alabama LOST to a lower ranked team #11 OK
#8 Missouri WON against a lower ranked team #13 OK ST
#9 USC WON against a lower ranked team #19 WISC

So, the top 10 had a .500 record and only 1 of those teams played someone out of their conference ranked HIGHER than they were...and that was a loss. Two wins and a loss against teams ranked outside the top 10. Nice work.

Lets go deeper..

#16 LSU beat UNRANKED Iowa by 7...yay
#21 TAM beat #24 Duke another lower seed win
And finally...
#22 Georgia lost to UNRANKED Nebraska...yikes

No bias there...they aren't even matching the final top 10 ranked SEC teams against other top 10 teams except in the final game where they had to. Missouri was likely their most convincing win of the bowl season.

Originally posted by mwoods07
Point taken Aggie...

Lets just take a quick look at the FINAL week of college football last year for an example (before the after bowl standings).

SEC managed to have 4 top 10 teams going into the bowl games.
AU - 2
AL - 3
Miz - 8
USC - 9

#2 Auburn LOST to a higher ranked team
#3 Alabama LOST to a lower ranked team #11 OK
#8 Missouri WON against a lower ranked team #13 OK ST
#9 USC WON against a lower ranked team #19 WISC

So, the top 10 had a .500 record and only 1 of those teams played someone out of their conference ranked HIGHER than they were...and that was a loss. Two wins and a loss against teams ranked outside the top 10. Nice work.

Lets go deeper..

#16 LSU beat UNRANKED Iowa by 7...yay
#21 TAM beat #24 Duke another lower seed win
And finally...
#22 Georgia lost to UNRANKED Nebraska...yikes

No bias there...they aren't even matching the final top 10 ranked SEC teams against other top 10 teams except in the final game where they had to. Missouri was likely their most convincing win of the bowl season.


Thanks for doing the work for me. By virtue of the bowl match ups, the SEC teams almost always play a lower ranked team in bowl games. They also benefit from the SEC scheduling method of playing an FCS team late in the season to get what is essentially an extra bye week. So while other teams have played a full conference schedule, the SEC gets a break late in the season that allows their players to heal while players in other conferences players are playing real games. But the media would never bring up that fact. That's just another part of the SEC bias. And you can already see that the cowards in college station are buying in with them scheduling Western Carolina late in the year next year. They play ASU and no one else out of conference so that, if they lose (and they will), they can hide behind the skirts of other SEC teams and get a boost in the rankings due to bias and not accomplishments.

Originally posted by mwoods07
So, the top 10 had a .500 record and only 1 of those teams played someone out of their conference ranked HIGHER than they were...and that was a loss.

lol at this out of context bullshit

Auburn played against the #1 ranked team, the best the rest of the country had to offer, a team that had won all of their games by 14+ and all but one of them by 27+... and led with mere seconds remaining before falling by 3. Meanwhile, in conference, Auburn had 4 wins by less than a touchdown, and a loss by 14. Seems to me that bowl result, compared to Auburn's conference result, is clear evidence that the conference was pretty fucking good.

It is also funny how they just pull the info for last season when the comparisons have been 2006-present.

If you think the way the SEC schedules is beneficial, y'all are dumbasses for not doing it.

We would have scheduled y'all for that Western Carolina spot, but y'all only want to get your asses kicked by schools not named Texas A&M. Y'all dodged playing us, yet continue to call us cowards and scared. Please address this LHF and explain how this makes any sense.

One thing is certain, the sips don't have to worry about any SEC bias when they are 2-4

Originally posted by RayRay99
It is also funny how they just pull the info for last season when the comparisons have been 2006-present.

If you think the way the SEC schedules is beneficial, y'all are dumbasses for not doing it.

We would have scheduled y'all for that Western Carolina spot, but y'all only want to get your asses kicked by schools not named Texas A&M. Y'all dodged playing us, yet continue to call us cowards and scared. Please address this LHF and explain how this makes any sense.

One thing is certain, the sips don't have to worry about any SEC bias when they are 2-4

We think the way SEC schedules is beneficial. We also think it makes them pussies. And, again, you are the school that ran away from playing us every year. We are playing Notre Dame, Cal, and Rice next year. What reason would we have to add you to the mix? Play an all time great. Check. Play a top university in California with similar academic prestige. Check. Play one non-BCS in-state team as we have done for years (there are a number of reasons we have done this--mainly that it can act as a tune up and as a favor to a smaller in-state program--and aggie doesn't fit the bill). Check.

Where does going 90 miles east to play a historically mid-level team in the same T.V. and recruiting market come into play? It doesn't. We aren't scared of you. You were scared of us when you ran away. We choose not to play you because it offers absolutely no benefit. Playing you won't expand our T.V. market. Playing you won't put us into new recruiting territory. aggie is not an all-time great, blue blood program like Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, and Ohio State--all teams we have on our future schedule instead of scheduling little brother aggie. Face it, you define your entire history and culture as a comparison to Texas and when you guys fled you lost that. We don't define anything about ourselves with reference to you. We aren't going to just start playing you again without getting some benefit out of it and you can offer us none.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/texas-longhorns-aggies-rivalry-charlie-strong-kevin-sumlin-big-12-cfb-am-072414

Originally posted by Chollie
“You would like to see it happen,” Strong said. “At some point it needs to happen. We need to play them.”

Regardless, saying we ran away because we were "scared" just so we could face the SEC West buzzsaw each year is idiotic. I could give two shits whether we played again (and the majority of the fanbase feels that way), but it is a fallacy to say the rivalry has no benefit. You are acting like a jilted bride who got left at the altar and tells her girlfriends later, "I never really loved him anyway."

As for our OOC scheduling, first we are criticized for playing scrubs, then when we schedule Arizona St. it is not good enough. When we follow them up with UCLA, Oregon, and Notre Dame, what will be the mantra then?

Originally posted by RayRay99
Regardless, saying we ran away because we were "scared" just so we could face the SEC West buzzsaw each year is idiotic. I could give two shits whether we played again (and the majority of the fanbase feels that way), but it is a fallacy to say the rivalry has no benefit. You are acting like a jilted bride who got left at the altar and tells her girlfriends later, "I never really loved him anyway."

As for our OOC scheduling, first we are criticized for playing scrubs, then when we schedule Arizona St. it is not good enough. When we follow them up with UCLA, Oregon, and Notre Dame, what will be the mantra then?

First of all, I only pulled last year because I didn't have time to compile more...no other reason.

Secondly, if the SEC started to regularly schedule Oregon, Ohio State, Oklahoma, UCLA, Notre Dame...then yes, I would be impressed. FSU plays both Florida and Miami every single season. Yes,those schools are always top tier, but they are more time than any out of conference teams that the SEC plays on a regular basis.

My point is that LSU is unranked today...Miss State used that win (among the Auburn win) to gain a #1 slot because LSU was WAY overrated in the pre-season...if they weren't overrated so badly, then Miss State is a low top 10 team right now...where they should be...thank you BIAS.

If the rankers want to choose 1 SEC team to get behind, then that's great, but choosing 4-5 of them hoping that they will get one right, just doesn't cut it. Pick one, and then let the season dictate the rest.

Originally posted by mwoods07
First of all, I only pulled last year because I didn't have time to compile more...no other reason.

Secondly, if the SEC started to regularly schedule Oregon, Ohio State, Oklahoma, UCLA, Notre Dame...then yes, I would be impressed. FSU plays both Florida and Miami every single season. Yes,those schools are always top tier, but they are more time than any out of conference teams that the SEC plays on a regular basis.

My point is that LSU is unranked today...Miss State used that win (among the Auburn win) to gain a #1 slot because LSU was WAY overrated in the pre-season...if they weren't overrated so badly, then Miss State is a low top 10 team right now...where they should be...thank you BIAS.

If the rankers want to choose 1 SEC team to get behind, then that's great, but choosing 4-5 of them hoping that they will get one right, just doesn't cut it. Pick one, and then let the season dictate the rest.

A&M would play Texas every year if they weren't cowards. We are playing Arizona St, UCLA, Oregon, and Notre Dame OOC in the coming years.

Let's say USCw started the season unranked. They beat up on 3 scrubs in OOC play, then beat #8 Arizona on the road, then #6 Stanford and #2 Oregon at home. You don't think they would soar to the top of the rankings based on 3 consecutive top 10 victories when FSU eeked out victories against the only two teams with a pulse they have played? SEC or not, that is impressive.

The record of FSU's opponents is 19-18. The record of Mississippi St.'s opponents is 24-13. I think preseason ranking are crap too, thye shouldn't do the first polls until Week 5 or so imo. However, if you win all of your games, it doesn't matter where you started, or who you played when if you are in a big boy league. You will be at the top of the rankings and in the playoff.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/10/17/6995009/oklahoma-football-chaplain-arrested-for-alleged-drugs-scheme

cubs multi?

Originally posted by Spread-em offense
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/10/17/6995009/oklahoma-football-chaplain-arrested-for-alleged-drugs-scheme

cubs multi?

Jeez, we suck. With this team we would only beat the sips by 14 or so.

lol