Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to Boobie
Comments
-
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that -
Twisting. I was using your fucktarded logic.TierbsHsotBoobs said:What we learned in this thread:
@RoadDoog55 thinks UCLA is better than Stanford and Arizona, even though UCLA lost at home to Stanford 31-10 in its last game and UCLA finished behind Arizona in the Pac-12 South. -
Here's my fucktarded logic:RoadDawg55 said:
Twisting. I was using your fucktarded logic.TierbsHsotBoobs said:What we learned in this thread:
@RoadDoog55 thinks UCLA is better than Stanford and Arizona, even though UCLA lost at home to Stanford 31-10 in its last game and UCLA finished behind Arizona in the Pac-12 South.
Arizona 7-2
UCLA 6-3
Stanford 5-4
Arizona > UCLA > Stanford -
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the Coogs. Reverse that and it's very probable Ucla is 10-2 and south champs and Az is 9-3TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH -
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the CoogsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail? -
And UCLA played a much tougher non conference schedule. And will very likely finish higher in the final polls. And beat Arizona head to head. But still...BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the Coogs. Reverse that and it's very probable Ucla is 10-2 and south champs and Az is 9-3TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH -
A lot of hypotheticals here
Alabama is better than Ohio State and would beat Oregon
Trust me on that -
Why do you ignore the detail UCLA beat Az and Stanford never played Az?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the CoogsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail? -
Both teams played USC. One lost at home. The other plungered USC. In the big picture, UCLA is better.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the CoogsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail? -
I'll grant you the OOC schedule argument. UCLA played a better (but not great) OOC schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
And UCLA played a much tougher non conference schedule. And will very likely finish higher in the final polls. And beat Arizona head to head. But still...BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the Coogs. Reverse that and it's very probable Ucla is 10-2 and south champs and Az is 9-3TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH
I love how somehow shitting their pants at home against Stanford is actually an argument on behalf of UCLA's superiority to Arizona though.
Head to head don't matter if there isn't a tie to break. -
By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2 -
Because he's fucking stupid and needs something to help him feel better about his SEC shitting the bed. It's why he has to resort to having pride about being the most annoying fucktard on the web.BallSacked said:
Why do you ignore the detail UCLA beat Az and Stanford never played Az?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the CoogsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail? -
And while we're at it, why isn't USC better than Stanford? USC beat Stanford and had a better OOC schedule after all.
-
I didn't even mention Stanford. I'm using facts with UCLA, yet you insist on Arizona being 2nd best. The only thing said about Stanford was that Arizona's conference and non conference schedules were easier than Arizona's.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
BallSacked also said Stanford would plunger Arizona if they played tomorrow. I agree and it's obvious, but there have been enough hypotheticals. -
Arkansas beat Texas worse than UCLA and it was at the end of the season when Texas was really improved and playing better.
So Arkansas is better than UCLA and the second best Pac 12 team
Pretty sure we said that awhile ago -
USC beat Stanford, so they are better than Arizona and UCLA, right?RoadDawg55 said:
Because he's fucking stupid and needs something to help him feel better about his SEC shitting the bed. It's why he has to resort to having pride about being the most annoying fucktard on the web.BallSacked said:
Why do you ignore the detail UCLA beat Az and Stanford never played Az?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.BallSacked said:
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the CoogsTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Head to head:RoadDawg55 said:
Wow, just wow. UCLA beat Arizona. Rather easily. The last time we saw Zona they were plungered by Oregon and lost to a MWC team. But the bowl season doesn't matter. All that matters is that Arizona (very luckily, but enough hypotheticals) went 7-2 in conference while the other teams went 6-3. Bowl season and head to head doesn't matter according to you.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona beat Oregon and UCLA lost to Oregon. That's why Arizona won the South. Somehow beating the best team in the conference gets you no respect among Doog Nation.RoadDawg55 said:
UCLA beat Arizona. Will finish the year ranked higher when they win tonight. They also played a much tougher non conference schedule. In fact, there schedule was rated right at the top for toughest in the country.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.RoadDawg55 said:
If you can't dig a little deeper to see they weren't the 2nd best team, I can't help you. They won't end up ranked 2nd best. I was unaware bowl games don't count. There are five Pac 12 teams ranked 10-25, including two Arizona lost against.dnc said:
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best.RoadDawg55 said:
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
National ranking? Arizona was second best.
Placement in conference bowel hierarchy? Arizona was second best.
Arizona was the second best team in the conference by every possible metric. This isn't some statistical fluke or relic of being in a worse division. They were the second best Pac12 team this year.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
You will say it's all hypothetical, but Arizona skipped Stanford and Oregon State. UCLA skipped WSU and Oregon State. Switch schedules and UCLA wins the South.
I get that it's college football and there is no true right answer, but it's not hard to see Arizona is not the 2nd best team.
If you insist on only using facts, Arizona is not going to end the year ranked as the 2nd best team in the PAC 12.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548317
UCLA beat Arizona and lost to Stanford.
In the NFL, Arizona wins the tiebreaker between the three teams by better conference record since all three teams didn't play each other.
If UCLA was so much better than Arizona, how come they lost three conference games?
Thanks for teaching me that 6-3 = 5-4 > 7-2 though. That was an awesome math lesson.
The fact that the second best team in the Pac-12 standings lost to a MWC team proves that the conference sucks though. At least we agree on that
HTH
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail?
I'm still trying to figure out who you guys think the second best team in the Pac-12 is as your arguments keep changing after I blow them up with actual facts. -
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
-
So you're saying Stanford is better than UCLA and Arizona RIGHT NOW.RoadDawg55 said:
I didn't even mention Stanford. I'm using facts with UCLA, yet you insist on Arizona being 2nd best. The only thing said about Stanford was that Arizona's conference and non conference schedules were easier than Arizona's.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
BallSacked also said Stanford would plunger Arizona if they played tomorrow. I agree and it's obvious, but there have been enough hypotheticals.
Pick a fucking team and stick with them. -
Arkansas would beat UCLA with Jerry Neuheisel playing QB. Agree 100%.RaceBannon said:Arkansas beat Texas worse than UCLA and it was at the end of the season when Texas was really improved and playing better.
So Arkansas is better than UCLA and the second best Pac 12 team
Pretty sure we said that awhile ago
Good job Race, fag. -
I agree with this, but we could play this game with every conference. Clearly Arkansas would move up in the SEC hierarchy if there were more games to play.BallSacked said:
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
On the entire body of work we have right now, Arizona was the second best team in the conference. If UCLA looks really good tonight I will probably revise that opinion. But Arizona is either second best by a bit or behind second best by a bit. Either way, the second best team in the Pac wasn't impressive this year. -
Jerry >>> Brett.BallSacked said:
Arkansas would beat UCLA with Jerry Neuheisel playing QB. Agree 100%.RaceBannon said:Arkansas beat Texas worse than UCLA and it was at the end of the season when Texas was really improved and playing better.
So Arkansas is better than UCLA and the second best Pac 12 team
Pretty sure we said that awhile ago
Good job Race, fag.
-
So you think beating Cal, UCLA, and Maryland proves Stanford is the second best team in the Pac-12 right now.BallSacked said:
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
You hate the Pac-12 more than I do. -
That's what my eyes are telling me. They also told me that the Mississippi's were frauds, LSU sucked, and Alabama was down.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think beating Cal, UCLA, and Maryland proves Stanford is the second best team in the Pac-12 right now.BallSacked said:
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
You hate the Pac-12 more than I do.
Considering you thought, the SEC had 3 of the 4 best teams, I'd say your eyes are worse than @GrandpaSankey's.... Before he could see. -
Hurtful
-
The second best team in every conference wasn't that impressive if you take their entire body of work. Especially in the SEC whose top teams lost to:dnc said:
I agree with this, but we could play this game with every conference. Clearly Arkansas would move up in the SEC hierarchy if there were more games to play.BallSacked said:
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
On the entire body of work we have right now, Arizona was the second best team in the conference. If UCLA looks really good tonight I will probably revise that opinion. But Arizona is either second best by a bit or behind second best by a bit. Either way, the second best team in the Pac wasn't impressive this year.
*A third string QB
*Barry Fucking Alvarez
*An offense from WWI era
*ND coming off a four game plunger fest by the pac12.
-
Why do you hate TequillaCU?BallSacked said:
The second best team in every conference wasn't that impressive if you take their entire body of work. Especially in the SEC whose top teams lost to:dnc said:
I agree with this, but we could play this game with every conference. Clearly Arkansas would move up in the SEC hierarchy if there were more games to play.BallSacked said:
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
On the entire body of work we have right now, Arizona was the second best team in the conference. If UCLA looks really good tonight I will probably revise that opinion. But Arizona is either second best by a bit or behind second best by a bit. Either way, the second best team in the Pac wasn't impressive this year.
*A third string QB
*Barry Fucking Alvarez
*An offense from WWI era
*ND coming off a four game plunger fest by the pac12.
-
I was proven wrong about the SEC by facts and I acknowledged it accordingly.RoadDawg55 said:
That's what my eyes are telling me. They also told me that the Mississippi's were frauds, LSU sucked, and Alabama was down.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think beating Cal, UCLA, and Maryland proves Stanford is the second best team in the Pac-12 right now.BallSacked said:
Right now I think Stanford is the best team. Az had the best season. They had the best season because they missed Stanford, because @TheChart is a fucktard, and because @SonnyDykes Hail Mary D is fucktarded.TierbsHsotBoobs said:By the way, since you guys clearly think Stanford is better than Arizona and UCLA, stick to the argument that Stanford is the second best team in the conference.
5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2
But if Stanford played AZ today, the trees would beat AZ like the entire Cosby family gang plunger raping Janice Dickinson.
You hate the Pac-12 more than I do.
Considering you thought, the SEC had 3 of the 4 best teams, I'd say your eyes are worse than @GrandpaSankey's.... Before he could see.
If you think a team that has beaten three teams with winning records this season (UW, UCLA, Maryland) is the second best team in the Pac-12, your hatred of the conference impresses me and I salute it.
Thanks for finally picking a team and for teaching me that 5-4 > 6-3 > 7-2. -
If we are going by the best 2nd best team, the Big 10 wins. And we all know the Big 10 sucks.
-
Bingo. EVERYONE sucks.RoadDawg55 said:If we are going by the best 2nd best team, the Big 10 wins. And we all know the Big 10 sucks.
That's been my point for a whole day here. Sorry I couldn't make it clearer even though I said it that way 206 times. -
Not using the Bowl criteriaRoadDawg55 said:If we are going by the best 2nd best team, the Big 10 wins. And we all know the Big 10 sucks.
Ohio State will lift some boats, on a more serious note. And Harbaugh
Change is the only constant
