And do we all agree that UW is more experienced, talented and athletic than everyone they still have to play, other than Oregon and UCLA?
i think we can all agree that you have a simple mind, cannot handle the complexity of the ever-changing landscape of college ball and that you spend an inordinate amount of time speculating about where the mutts rank in terms of the Pac12 and nationally.
Let me help you out. Parity has come to the Pac12........somewhat. There may not be any more dominating teams. Thing of the past.
It is truly bizarre that you would think that a team like Cal beating the mutts means the Pac12 sucks. That Cal team is for real. Goff is most definitely for real. Get ready for him to pick apart your secondary saturday.
Cal beating Washington doesn't prove that the Pac-12 sucks.
The Pac-12 sucking is what proves that the Pac-12 sucks.
And do we all agree that UW is more experienced, talented and athletic than everyone they still have to play, other than Oregon and UCLA?
i think we can all agree that you have a simple mind, cannot handle the complexity of the ever-changing landscape of college ball and that you spend an inordinate amount of time speculating about where the mutts rank in terms of the Pac12 and nationally.
Let me help you out. Parity has come to the Pac12........somewhat. There may not be any more dominating teams. Thing of the past.
It is truly bizarre that you would think that a team like Cal beating the mutts means the Pac12 sucks. That Cal team is for real. Goff is most definitely for real. Get ready for him to pick apart your secondary saturday.
Ironic given your stance on the SEC. It's obvious that Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn are top 10 quality. Texas A&M is borderline, but Mississippi St. might just be that good. Oregon, Arizona, Stanford nor UCLA would be a top 5 team in the SEC this year. We might not have any Vandy's unless you count Colorado as part of the conference, but we have a crap load of B to C+ teams. I don't think depth of mediocrity equals quality with a conference. I still rank it higher than the Big10 and the ACC, but that isn't saying much.
Really? Do you really think 5 SEC teams will end up in the top 10? Auburn plays Georgia and the rest play each other. There will be a couple teams with three or four losses in the Peach and Gaytor Bowels.
As for the PAC 12, It's one and one versus the top 10. There's no shame in that.
And do we all agree that UW is more experienced, talented and athletic than everyone they still have to play, other than Oregon and UCLA?
i think we can all agree that you have a simple mind, cannot handle the complexity of the ever-changing landscape of college ball and that you spend an inordinate amount of time speculating about where the mutts rank in terms of the Pac12 and nationally.
Let me help you out. Parity has come to the Pac12........somewhat. There may not be any more dominating teams. Thing of the past.
It is truly bizarre that you would think that a team like Cal beating the mutts means the Pac12 sucks. That Cal team is for real. Goff is most definitely for real. Get ready for him to pick apart your secondary saturday.
Ironic given your stance on the SEC. It's obvious that Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn are top 10 quality. Texas A&M is borderline, but Mississippi St. might just be that good. Oregon, Arizona, Stanford nor UCLA would be a top 5 team in the SEC this year. We might not have any Vandy's unless you count Colorado as part of the conference, but we have a crap load of B to C+ teams. I don't think depth of mediocrity equals quality with a conference. I still rank it higher than the Big10 and the ACC, but that isn't saying much.
Georgia, the team that lost to South Carolina is top 10? Auburn and Alabama (likely) are top 10 quality. LIPO with the rest of those teams. Only a true moron would say the Pac 12 is better, but let's not go ESPN with the dick sucking of the SEC.
And do we all agree that UW is more experienced, talented and athletic than everyone they still have to play, other than Oregon and UCLA?
i think we can all agree that you have a simple mind, cannot handle the complexity of the ever-changing landscape of college ball and that you spend an inordinate amount of time speculating about where the mutts rank in terms of the Pac12 and nationally.
Let me help you out. Parity has come to the Pac12........somewhat. There may not be any more dominating teams. Thing of the past.
It is truly bizarre that you would think that a team like Cal beating the mutts means the Pac12 sucks. That Cal team is for real. Goff is most definitely for real. Get ready for him to pick apart your secondary saturday.
Ironic given your stance on the SEC. It's obvious that Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn are top 10 quality. Texas A&M is borderline, but Mississippi St. might just be that good. Oregon, Arizona, Stanford nor UCLA would be a top 5 team in the SEC this year. We might not have any Vandy's unless you count Colorado as part of the conference, but we have a crap load of B to C+ teams. I don't think depth of mediocrity equals quality with a conference. I still rank it higher than the Big10 and the ACC, but that isn't saying much.
And do we all agree that UW is more experienced, talented and athletic than everyone they still have to play, other than Oregon and UCLA?
Its obvious you live for responses on a fucking message bored as the only hobby you have. You're 81% inaccurate everytime you open your fuckhole. Clean the dried semen out your squinted eyes, focus and read whats said about you. This thread is a perfect snapshot.
Aubbie has obviously never eaten bad beaver or gotten shit on his dick from a broad after a good poundin.
Comments
The Pac-12 sucking is what proves that the Pac-12 sucks.
As for the PAC 12, It's one and one versus the top 10. There's no shame in that.