Jim Harbaugh is an awkward weirdo (Colin Cowherd hangs up on him)
-
Alright, I don't believe I've engaged you in a Michigan/OSU conversation yet. Some other posters here have proven a complete lack of common sense and reasoning on the topic, but I'll start with giving you the benefit of the doubt.Harbaugh is crazy like a fox, he already has a team in shambles in the media. Let's be honest Michigan Football is horrible right now and he's convincing top talent to go there.
What exactly do you mean by "team in shambles"? We had a bad record, but the team is not in shambles.
Hoke also convinced top talent to go here, they were just never properly developed. As of right now, Harbaugh has put together a pretty large class, and it is still early. The class is a mix of lower ranked guys our staff sees as diamonds in the rough, and some highly ranked guys. We're also leading on the top recruit in the country. The common theme though is that every player is a good athlete and student. They're definitely looking for a type of player.
So, please tell me how you think the team was in shambles? You may be right, I just don't like the wording.
Harbaugh hasn't won a game yet, and our school has gotten the most press over the summer. It has been the summer of Harbaugh, and I don't mind.
Alright, I don't believe I've engaged you in a Michigan/OSU conversation yet. Some other posters here have proven a complete lack of common sense and reasoning on the topic, but I'll start with giving you the benefit of the doubt.
What exactly do you mean by "team in shambles"? We had a bad record, but the team is not in shambles.
Hoke also convinced top talent to go here, they were just never properly developed. As of right now, Harbaugh has put together a pretty large class, and it is still early. The class is a mix of lower ranked guys our staff sees as diamonds in the rough, and some highly ranked guys. We're also leading on the top recruit in the country. The common theme though is that every player is a good athlete and student. They're definitely looking for a type of player.
So, please tell me how you think the team was in shambles? You may be right, I just don't like the wording.
Harbaugh hasn't won a game yet, and our school has gotten the most press over the summer. It has been the summer of Harbaugh, and I don't mind.
I assume by saying that the team is in shambles the poster means that they are nowhere near the competitive team they used to be....they have fired two HCs in the last 5 years. They have played at or below .500 ever since Carr left. They were once a team that everyone counted on being in the race for the Big Ten title...if not beyond. Now, they are not.
And it remains to be seen if Harbaugh can elevate them to their former status.
Expectations are that he will....because he is a proven winner and is a hard driver.......if a bit goofy, which can't be held against him...as so aren't most of us.
-
To be fair we won a BCS bowl in that time too.
But yeah, we've played below expectations, no doubt. I just don't consider that "in shambles". Maybe its just me. I think we're in pretty good shape right now.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
To be fair we won a BCS bowl in that time too.
But yeah, we've played below expectations, no doubt. I just don't consider that "in shambles". Maybe its just me. I think we're in pretty good shape right now.
To be fair we won a BCS bowl in that time too.
But yeah, we've played below expectations, no doubt. I just don't consider that "in shambles". Maybe its just me. I think we're in pretty good shape right now.
Rich Rod, 3-9, 5-7 & 7-6
Hokey Pokey 11-2, 8-6, 7-6 & 5-7
They've lost to some god awful teams. And it won't be agreed upon here but the Big 10 isn't even close to the best conference in college football.
-
Right, they definitely have underperformed. I just don't see that as "in shambles".
Also, I don't think anyone would make the claim that the B1G is the best conference in the country. They're on the way up, but not the best.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Right, they definitely have underperformed. I just don't see that as "in shambles".
Also, I don't think anyone would make the claim that the B1G is the best conference in the country. They're on the way up, but not the best.
Right, they definitely have underperformed. I just don't see that as "in shambles".
Also, I don't think anyone would make the claim that the B1G is the best conference in the country. They're on the way up, but not the best.
They're your team so I get that but as an outsider, OU fan, since Carr they've been awful by Wolverine standards.
-
To be fair we won a BCS bowl in that time too.
But yeah, we've played below expectations, no doubt. I just don't consider that "in shambles". Maybe its just me. I think we're in pretty good shape right now.
To be fair we won a BCS bowl in that time too.
But yeah, we've played below expectations, no doubt. I just don't consider that "in shambles". Maybe its just me. I think we're in pretty good shape right now.
Semantics. Many (even fans of that team) may consider a team that was a perenniell contender for league titles....even national titles, that is now lucky to go .500 to be in shambles.
You can call it what you want. What do you want to call it?
-
Right, they definitely have underperformed. I just don't see that as "in shambles".
Also, I don't think anyone would make the claim that the B1G is the best conference in the country. They're on the way up, but not the best.
Right, they definitely have underperformed. I just don't see that as "in shambles".
Also, I don't think anyone would make the claim that the B1G is the best conference in the country. They're on the way up, but not the best.
They just have the best team.
And FYI, the best conference in the country is probaly the Pac 12.
-
Right, they definitely have underperformed. I just don't see that as "in shambles".
Also, I don't think anyone would make the claim that the B1G is the best conference in the country. They're on the way up, but not the best.
They just have the best team.
And FYI, the best conference in the country is probaly the Pac 12.
They just have the best team.
And FYI, the best conference in the country is probaly the Pac 12.
Hahahahahaha. Ahhhh hahahahahah. Nice one, Gip.
-
They just have the best team.
And FYI, the best conference in the country is probaly the Pac 12.
Hahahahahaha. Ahhhh hahahahahah. Nice one, Gip.
Hahahahahaha. Ahhhh hahahahahah. Nice one, Gip.
Yes, it is nice....because it is true......better non conf record.....better bowl record. I didn't check but I wager they had a better record head to head with just about every other conference.
-
Aggies got suck of being second rate in an average conference. So now they latch on to the "ESS EEE SEE" thing
-
Hahahahahaha. Ahhhh hahahahahah. Nice one, Gip.
Yes, it is nice....because it is true......better non conf record.....better bowl record. I didn't check but I wager they had a better record head to head with just about every other conference.
And what about the year before? The year before that? Before that? And about 5 of the prior years before that? I already posted that info and you declined to respond.Yes, it is nice....because it is true......better non conf record.....better bowl record. I didn't check but I wager they had a better record head to head with just about every other conference.
They can have best conference for this season. But it'll be a one-year wonder.
-
And what about the year before? The year before that? Before that? And about 5 of the prior years before that? I already posted that info and you declined to respond.Yes, it is nice....because it is true......better non conf record.....better bowl record. I didn't check but I wager they had a better record head to head with just about every other conference.
They can have best conference for this season. But it'll be a one-year wonder.
And what about the year before? The year before that? Before that? And about 5 of the prior years before that? I already posted that info and you declined to respond.
They can have best conference for this season. But it'll be a one-year wonder.
I doubt it.....they may have been better all along.....you can check the records if you like. They just didn't self annoint themselves as the best the way the sec did.
-
By your own argument, better non conference record and bowl record=best conference. Ok. I'll bite. In the BCS era, Pac 12 is 141-112 against the Power 5 and the Big East (55.7%). The SEC is 185-149 (55.4%) (cue your "the SEC plays a bunch of cupcakes!" argument even though it has played 80 more games against Power 5 schools than the PAC). The SEC blows the PAC out of the water if you eliminate those Big East games and only go with true Power 5 matchups. Head to head the SEC is 14-13 against the PAC. Sure, it's close. So go to the next relevant stat. The vaunted bowl record.
2014: SEC 7-5 (58.3), PAC 6-3 (66.6)
2013: SEC 7-3 (70), PAC 6-3 (66.6)
2012: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 4-4 (50)
2011: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 2-5 (28.6)
2010: SEC 5-5 (50), PAC 2-2 (50)
2009: SEC 6-4 (60), PAC 2-5 (28.6)
2008: SEC 6-2 (75), PAC 5-0 (100)
2007: SEC 7-2 (77.8), PAC 4-2 (66.6)
2006: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 3-3 (50)
2005: SEC 3-3 (50), PAC 3-2 (60)
2004: SEC 3-3 (50), PAC 3-2 (60)
2003: SEC 5-2 (71.4), PAC 4-2 (66.6)
Wikipedia pages on the subject only go this far back. The SEC had equal or more wins EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. It had an equal or higher winning percentage all but 4 times (out of 12). The SEC is 8-7 in bowls head to head. That's clearly a win for the SEC. To further belabor the point, we can look at the all-time bowl records. The SEC is 227-170-9, a 57% win percentage. The PAC is 131-113-5 , 53.6%. We can go to the next stat. This time it will be my own criterion, since yours leave out a very relevant figure:
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
Ever: SEC 29, PAC 15
BCS Era: SEC 9, PAC 1 (technically this was vacated)
Since 2006: SEC 7, PAC 0
-
By your own argument, better non conference record and bowl record=best conference. Ok. I'll bite. In the BCS era, Pac 12 is 141-112 against the Power 5 and the Big East (55.7%). The SEC is 185-149 (55.4%) (cue your "the SEC plays a bunch of cupcakes!" argument even though it has played 80 more games against Power 5 schools than the PAC). The SEC blows the PAC out of the water if you eliminate those Big East games and only go with true Power 5 matchups. Head to head the SEC is 14-13 against the PAC. Sure, it's close. So go to the next relevant stat. The vaunted bowl record.
2014: SEC 7-5 (58.3), PAC 6-3 (66.6)
2013: SEC 7-3 (70), PAC 6-3 (66.6)
2012: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 4-4 (50)
2011: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 2-5 (28.6)
2010: SEC 5-5 (50), PAC 2-2 (50)
2009: SEC 6-4 (60), PAC 2-5 (28.6)
2008: SEC 6-2 (75), PAC 5-0 (100)
2007: SEC 7-2 (77.8), PAC 4-2 (66.6)
2006: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 3-3 (50)
2005: SEC 3-3 (50), PAC 3-2 (60)
2004: SEC 3-3 (50), PAC 3-2 (60)
2003: SEC 5-2 (71.4), PAC 4-2 (66.6)
Wikipedia pages on the subject only go this far back. The SEC had equal or more wins EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. It had an equal or higher winning percentage all but 4 times (out of 12). The SEC is 8-7 in bowls head to head. That's clearly a win for the SEC. To further belabor the point, we can look at the all-time bowl records. The SEC is 227-170-9, a 57% win percentage. The PAC is 131-113-5 , 53.6%. We can go to the next stat. This time it will be my own criterion, since yours leave out a very relevant figure:
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
Ever: SEC 29, PAC 15
BCS Era: SEC 9, PAC 1 (technically this was vacated)
Since 2006: SEC 7, PAC 0
By your own argument, better non conference record and bowl record=best conference. Ok. I'll bite. In the BCS era, Pac 12 is 141-112 against the Power 5 and the Big East (55.7%). The SEC is 185-149 (55.4%) (cue your "the SEC plays a bunch of cupcakes!" argument even though it has played 80 more games against Power 5 schools than the PAC).
Non-Conference games? Of course you discount the fact that there were at much of this time at least 2-4 more teams in the SEC than the P-10. I would think there would be more games.
The SEC blows the PAC out of the water if you eliminate those Big East games and only go with true Power 5 matchups.
Really? You want to eliminate games vs. Miami/BC/Pitt and others (I am sure eliminating those matchups would make the SEC look better)
Head to head the SEC is 14-13 against the PAC. Sure, it's close.
Since when?
So go to the next relevant stat. The vaunted bowl record.
2014: SEC 7-5 (58.3), PAC 6-3 (66.6)
2013: SEC 7-3 (70), PAC 6-3 (66.6)
2012: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 4-4 (50)
2011: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 2-5 (28.6)
2010: SEC 5-5 (50), PAC 2-2 (50)
2009: SEC 6-4 (60), PAC 2-5 (28.6)
2008: SEC 6-2 (75), PAC 5-0 (100)
2007: SEC 7-2 (77.8), PAC 4-2 (66.6)
2006: SEC 6-3 (66.6), PAC 3-3 (50)
2005: SEC 3-3 (50), PAC 3-2 (60)
2004: SEC 3-3 (50), PAC 3-2 (60)
2003: SEC 5-2 (71.4), PAC 4-2 (66.6)
I would really like to see the stats on neutral sites. That is....any game not played in the home conferece area. In other words...no SEC games played in FLa/Ga/Lou/Ala etc. No P-12 games played in Cal, Ariz.
Wikipedia pages on the subject only go this far back. The SEC had equal or more wins EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. It had an equal or higher winning percentage all but 4 times (out of 12). The SEC is 8-7 in bowls head to head. That's clearly a win for the SEC. To further belabor the point, we can look at the all-time bowl records. The SEC is 227-170-9, a 57% win percentage. The PAC is 131-113-5 , 53.6%. We can go to the next stat. This time it will be my own criterion, since yours leave out a very relevant figure:
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
Ever: SEC 29, PAC 15
How can going back just 44 years be "ever"?
BCS Era: SEC 9, PAC 1 (technically this was vacated)
Since 2006: SEC 7, PAC 0
Yes, I do discount titles a bit.....because that measures one team. No doubt the SEC has had the single best teams over the last decade....but not overall best.
-
Yeah you're right on that point. Slipped my mind.
Well I really want to eliminate games against teams like UCONN. That was more my point. Since they are no longer power 5 anymore.
BCS era. If you can find the numbers for earlier periods then be my guest.
And I would like to see the records of the teams that were playing each other. USC beating Vanderbilt doesn't mean much of anything and neither does Alabama beating Colorado. But alas, all you said was "bowl records." I provided them. They didn't support you.
Don't know what you mean with the 44 years comment. The article I got that from had all time national championships.
The competition in the league is what made those national champions. It doesn't happen in a vacuum although Ohio State was the closest thing.
-
I'd hope the two conferences that have the most "home" bowl games do the best in them...
-
You really do just argue for the sake of it. Gipper and I are going into stuff we haven't discussed yet and you just want to rehash stuff we spent 5 pages talking about already. What's the point? Get a life.
-
5 pages ago? You're fucking talking about bowl records right now, lol.
It takes two to argue. No one is making you respond.
I don't really care about your current SEC vs PAC argument. The SEC has been overrated, but also the best, for a while. Their dominance is falling off though. Everything comes in cycles. NCAA sanctions and investigations could have sped it up, but whatever. The only thing worse than SEC fans at its peak may be fans as they fall back to earth...
-
Yeah you're right on that point. Slipped my mind.
Well I really want to eliminate games against teams like UCONN. That was more my point. Since they are no longer power 5 anymore.
BCS era. If you can find the numbers for earlier periods then be my guest.
And I would like to see the records of the teams that were playing each other. USC beating Vanderbilt doesn't mean much of anything and neither does Alabama beating Colorado. But alas, all you said was "bowl records." I provided them. They didn't support you.
Don't know what you mean with the 44 years comment. The article I got that from had all time national championships.
The competition in the league is what made those national champions. It doesn't happen in a vacuum although Ohio State was the closest thing.
Yeah you're right on that point. Slipped my mind.
Well I really want to eliminate games against teams like UCONN. That was more my point. Since they are no longer power 5 anymore.
BCS era. If you can find the numbers for earlier periods then be my guest.
And I would like to see the records of the teams that were playing each other. USC beating Vanderbilt doesn't mean much of anything and neither does Alabama beating Colorado. But alas, all you said was "bowl records." I provided them. They didn't support you.
Don't know what you mean with the 44 years comment. The article I got that from had all time national championships.
My bad. I misread what you said. I thought you were just counting titles going back 44 years. But you were counting the titles of just the SEC and P-12....which added up to 44. I misspoke.
The competition in the league is what made those national champions. It doesn't happen in a vacuum although Ohio State was the closest thing.
I think that competition is overrated. Yes, you have to win 1 or 2 tough games.....but really, traditionally beating up on VAndy/MSU/Ole Miss does not make a team all that tough.
-
5 pages ago? You're fucking talking about bowl records right now, lol.
It takes two to argue. No one is making you respond.
I don't really care about your current SEC vs PAC argument. The SEC has been overrated, but also the best, for a while. Their dominance is falling off though. Everything comes in cycles. NCAA sanctions and investigations could have sped it up, but whatever. The only thing worse than SEC fans at its peak may be fans as they fall back to earth...
5 pages ago? You're fucking talking about bowl records right now, lol.
It takes two to argue. No one is making you respond.
I don't really care about your current SEC vs PAC argument. The SEC has been overrated, but also the best, for a while. Their dominance is falling off though. Everything comes in cycles. NCAA sanctions and investigations could have sped it up, but whatever. The only thing worse than SEC fans at its peak may be fans as they fall back to earth...
Chalk up another one: Can't argue without cursing. You and I spent like 5 pages going over stuff that you're trying to bring up again here. I never said "ago" as in it was in this thread. Pay attention.
At least you've made a major concession here.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login