You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
James proved in on the field long before January 1992 by the way
By your logic, no he didn't. Helfrich is about to be twice the coach James ever was 1 real championship vs. 1/2 of one. Just going by facts here, straight numbers, your logic.
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
James proved in on the field long before January 1992 by the way
By your logic, no he didn't. Helfrich is about to be twice the coach James ever was 1 real championship vs. 1/2 of one. Just going by facts here, straight numbers, your logic.
Not really following that. James had 5 Rose Bowls, and Orange Bowl and the 84 National Championship by that date as well as the 91 title.
Oregon is on a run better than anything James did and if Helfrich sticks around 18 years he may indeed end up with far better numbers
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
@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.
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
Stanford was shit early in the year and lost games. Now they look like the 2nd best team in the Pac12
Arkansas was shit early in the year and lost games. Now they look like the 2nd(?) best team in the SEC
Beating Maryland is not a big fucking deal, neither is beating Texas. Both those teams seasons were really similar.
So you're saying the Pac-12 season started on November 22nd?
Even then, I'd take Arizona's wins over Utah and Arizona State during that time frame ahead of Stanford's wins over Cal, UCLA, and Maryland.
Judging teams by selective time periods of a season instead of the entire season is fucktarded Doog logic at its best.
I watch the games, if they played today Stanford would wipe the floor with Arizona. There is no objective proof to back that up, just a pretty obvious eye test.
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
@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.
@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.
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
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 9-3
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the Coogs
HTH
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail?
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
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 9-3
HTH
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...
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the Coogs
HTH
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail?
Why do you ignore the detail UCLA beat Az and Stanford never played Az?
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
Because UCLA played Stanford, while Arizona played the Coogs
HTH
Stanford fucking sucks. If you couldn't beat them at home this year, you don't deserve the division title.
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.
You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
You will stick with it because you need to hang onto anything to continue the PAC 12 sucks mantra.
Record against Pac12 teams? Arizona was second best. 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.
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.
Missouri made the SEC title game, therefore they are better than Georgia, even though Georgia beat them 34-0 in Missouri.
Arizona got a much tougher opponent than USC and Stanford did, but Doogs hate facts.
I didn't know you considered yourself a doog?
You've been hating facts all over this thread. I'm glad you think beating Maryland somehow proves Stanford is a good team though.
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.
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.
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.
When we last saw UCLA, they got plungered by Stanford 31-10 at home. Tell me again how UCLA is better than Stanford.
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.
Head to head: 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
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 9-3
HTH
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...
I'll grant you the OOC schedule argument. UCLA played a better (but not great) OOC schedule.
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.
Comments
James proved in on the field long before January 1992 by the way
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
Oregon is on a run better than anything James did and if Helfrich sticks around 18 years he may indeed end up with far better numbers
@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.
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
Arizona 7-2
UCLA 6-3
Stanford 5-4
Arizona > UCLA > Stanford
HTH
Both teams played Oregon. Why do we keep ignoring that detail?
Alabama is better than Ohio State and would beat Oregon
Trust me on that
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.