National Title Observations
-
Dude, you're the one that's saying the dynasty rubs you the wrong way because they don't play anyone. How does that only singularly apply to this year? You clearly made a general point that applies over several years. So I answered in that vain. I'm not sure logic is your strong suit.
Also, Ohio State losing 31-0 and then Alabama losing to the same team on the last play of the game in an epic matchup just a few days later is in the same year right? Or does that not count either?
Hey I bet if instead of playing at a neutral site, Alabama and Michigan State had played in East Lansing in 2015, Michigan State totally would've won instead of losing 38-0. Definitely.
Because they're in the SEC which is the best conference in the country, and any Ohio State fan has serious trouble disputing that.
They beat a ranked Penn State team in Happy Valley by 16, and that's before the dynasty really got going. Yeah I'm sure they're really scared of going to Wisconsin.
Schedules are arranged years in advance. When they stop playing D2 creampuffs, let me know.
Schedules are arranged years in advance. When they stop playing D2 creampuffs, let me know.
When Ohio State plays up to their level against common opponents, let me know.
Apparently you didn't read my comment. I stated OSU is chasing Alabama. Everybody is chasing Alabama, particularly since 2008. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/alabama/
And, this isn't exactly breaking news here, but Alabama was down for a period after Bear Bryant, but never really out. Always in the conversations of best program in the country, like about 6 or 7 other programs, even without winning national championships.
FYI...winning national championships is hard. This whole SEC superiority complex causes SEC fans to knock other programs, like Ohio State, Clemson, Texas, USC, Miami, Nebraska, Notre Dame etc etc because they don't play in the SEC. It's the SEC who's paranoid, that's why they rarely travel. Playing in Wisconsin isn't an easy chore, it's similar to LSU in fan craziness, and Saban would verify it from his days at MSU.
I would never knock Ohio State as a program. I've said it's the number 1 program of all time. And I grew up loving USC. Nebraska had their time in the limelight and were excellent but won't get back there without some major demographic shift in their area. 30+ years away at least. Notre Dame, sure. Give them alot of credit. Clemson I think is the #3 program in the country at the current moment (they are not, however, an all time top 5 powerhouse by any means). Miami is simply not in the all-time greats, though I do respect their work the last 30 years and love the culture there.
Oddly enough when I was growing up (during Alabama's lean years) I wasn't even aware that they were a powerhouse on the level of an Ohio State and USC. Fortunately I've learned quite a bit about the game since then.
Once upon a time the SEC may have been the best conference in the country. But the ACC has had their number for 2 years running..and the Big Ten is a better overall conference. SEC may have a couple of the best teams...but it drops off precipitously after that.
Nah. The ACC has one team (especially now with Jimbo gone), and the Big 10 has one team. I admit they're both on par with the best the SEC has to offer. That doesn't mean anything for the conference at large though.
Saban has capitalized using Hallmark Tressel-ball in a conference that is not only on a downswing, but (nearly) completely devoid of offensive talent.
Couple that with some EXTREMELY fortunate occurances, I.E. Texas without Colt McCoy, being gift wrapped a not-so-great ND squad and a rematch against LSU they never should have been given.
Still, what he has done is without equal in modern college football. That does deserve recognition.
It's not devoid of "talent" if we are to go by recruiting rankings. It is certainly devoid of offensive performance, if that's what you mean. But that's in large part due to the defenses being so good and how they stifle the development of most of the QBs. If my kid were a QB I wouldn't advise him to go to an SEC school honestly.
No one knows how the 2009 game goes even with Colt. I totally disagree that you can know definitely how a game will go based on the first two series. I have a friend who always goes "oh yeah, we're gonna blow these losers out" or "wow, we're gonna lose this game to these bums" based on the first series every single week. He almost always looks like an idiot no sooner than the end of the first quarter.
You're not actually gonna make the Oklahoma State argument, are you? You? A guy who respects defense? Come on.
Even without those two, the guy has 4 national championships. 3 in the last 6 years. I know you claim you're still giving him credit even while totally taking away from his accomplishments, but even in your scenario he's the GOAT.
-
Nah. The ACC has one team (especially now with Jimbo gone), and the Big 10 has one team. I admit they're both on par with the best the SEC has to offer. That doesn't mean anything for the conference at large though.
That is just stupid bias and prejudice. The SEC has two teams.....the Big Ten East alone had 4 teams better than any SEC team except the DDR and Georgia...and we don't really know about that since they never played.
-
The SEC has two teams? Even though it also has a team that beat both of them. Yeah. Ok.
I won't argue too much about the Big 10, but the ACC is way overrated.
-
The SEC has two teams? Even though it also has a team that beat both of them. Yeah. Ok.
I won't argue too much about the Big 10, but the ACC is way overrated.
The SEC has two teams? Even though it also has a team that beat both of them. Yeah. Ok.
I won't argue too much about the Big 10, but the ACC is way overrated.
Quoting Bill Parcells: you are what your record is....and over the last couple of years the ACC has handed the SEC their hat....and they have played a lot more games against each other than either plays, say, the Big Ten.
-
Well since the vast majority of the league didn't participate in that hat-handing, what the record says really means nothing.
-
The SEC has two teams? Even though it also has a team that beat both of them. Yeah. Ok.
I won't argue too much about the Big 10, but the ACC is way overrated.
Quoting Bill Parcells: you are what your record is....and over the last couple of years the ACC has handed the SEC their hat....and they have played a lot more games against each other than either plays, say, the Big Ten.
Quoting Bill Parcells: you are what your record is....and over the last couple of years the ACC has handed the SEC their hat....and they have played a lot more games against each other than either plays, say, the Big Ten.
The SEC and somewhat ACC have one slight inherent edge over the B1G, geography. Over the past 30-50 or more years the population have most definitely headed south and west why? The rust belt rusted, jobs, weather and the most important thing of all AIR CONDITIONING!
However elements like zika, floods, more extreme hurricanes, coast erosion and yes immigration from central and south may reverse some of these numbers.....we'll see.
-
Well since the vast majority of the league didn't participate in that hat-handing, what the record says really means nothing.
Well since the vast majority of the league didn't participate in that hat-handing, what the record says really means nothing.
There was certainly a sufficient sampling. 26 games between them just the last two years. And the fact is the VAST majority of the league DID participate. In 2016 and 2017....every SEC school but Missouri played an ACC opponent. And 9 of the ACC schools played an SEC opponent. (Miami, Virg. Duke, Pitt, BC, did not.)
And the ACC went 15-11 vs. SEC these past two years.
-
Well since the vast majority of the league didn't participate in that hat-handing, what the record says really means nothing.
There was certainly a sufficient sampling. 26 games between them just the last two years. And the fact is the VAST majority of the league DID participate. In 2016 and 2017....every SEC school but Missouri played an ACC opponent. And 9 of the ACC schools played an SEC opponent. (Miami, Virg. Duke, Pitt, BC, did not.)
And the ACC went 15-11 vs. SEC these past two years.
There was certainly a sufficient sampling. 26 games between them just the last two years. And the fact is the VAST majority of the league DID participate. In 2016 and 2017....every SEC school but Missouri played an ACC opponent. And 9 of the ACC schools played an SEC opponent. (Miami, Virg. Duke, Pitt, BC, did not.)
And the ACC went 15-11 vs. SEC these past two years.
And what was the record last year?
That's right.
-
There was certainly a sufficient sampling. 26 games between them just the last two years. And the fact is the VAST majority of the league DID participate. In 2016 and 2017....every SEC school but Missouri played an ACC opponent. And 9 of the ACC schools played an SEC opponent. (Miami, Virg. Duke, Pitt, BC, did not.)
And the ACC went 15-11 vs. SEC these past two years.
And what was the record last year?
That's right.
And what was the record last year?
That's right.
The point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majorityThe point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majority
-
And what was the record last year?
That's right.
The point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majorityThe point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majority
The point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majorityThe point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majority
It's 92.8571428571428571428571428571428571428571428%, sorry trying out a new online calculator doesn't have the decimal cutoff. I'll keep looking.
But 92.9% is pretty ok.
-
And what was the record last year?
That's right.
The point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majorityThe point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majority
The point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majorityThe point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majority
Yeah, I'll give that to you. Most of the teams were involved. Didn't realize that. Still, the SEC dominated the matchups last year, so your initial point was wrong anyway.
-
The point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majorityThe point is per your math 13 out of 14 is not a vast majority. If that is not a vast majority what is a vast majority
Yeah, I'll give that to you. Most of the teams were involved. Didn't realize that. Still, the SEC dominated the matchups last year, so your initial point was wrong anyway.
Yeah, I'll give that to you. Most of the teams were involved. Didn't realize that. Still, the SEC dominated the matchups last year, so your initial point was wrong anyway.
SEC had a slight edge I think maybe a one game edge.
-
-
5-7
Yeah that's one gameYeah that's one game
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