That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.
Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.
Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.
Good stuff #55. K-State also beat Auburn for 59 minutes too. If not for Pete Carroll's butterfingered draft pick, Kstate beats Auburn at the beginning of the year. and the SEC shows what it is, a heavily over-inflated conference, in every facet. .
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.
Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.
Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.
Good stuff #55. K-State also beat Auburn for 59 minutes too. If not for Pete Carroll's butterfingered draft pick, Kstate beats Auburn at the beginning of the year. and the SEC shows what it is, a heavily over-inflated conference, in every facet. .
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. In fact ITS BOOBSfs to say close loses are ANYTHING but Fucking Losses.
I actually agree about close losses, which is one of the problems with SRS.
Beating 4 top 25 teams isn't impressive when you shit away a home game against Stanford to win your division though. UCLA was bipolar as hell last year.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.
Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.
Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.
Good stuff #55. K-State also beat Auburn for 59 minutes too. If not for Pete Carroll's butterfingered draft pick, Kstate beats Auburn at the beginning of the year. and the SEC shows what it is, a heavily over-inflated conference, in every facet. .
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
I remember during the gayme, the buttsnifers made every excuse in the world for the reigning runner-up. If the SEC was half as great as they claimed, Allbarn wouldn't have had any problem. If their thief QB had been suspended, they would have lost....but ESPN talks about Winston non-stop...no stories on all the SEC players and their thievery and rapes though.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. In fact ITS BOOBSfs to say close loses are ANYTHING but Fucking Losses.
I actually agree about close losses, which is one of the problems with SRS.
Beating 4 top 25 teams isn't impressive when you shit away a home game against Stanford to win your division though. UCLA was bipolar as hell last year.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.
Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.
Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.
Good stuff #55. K-State also beat Auburn for 59 minutes too. If not for Pete Carroll's butterfingered draft pick, Kstate beats Auburn at the beginning of the year. and the SEC shows what it is, a heavily over-inflated conference, in every facet. .
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
I remember during the gayme, the buttsnifers made every excuse in the world for the reigning runner-up. If the SEC was half as great as they claimed, Allbarn wouldn't have had any problem. If their thief QB had been suspended, they would have lost....but ESPN talks about Winston non-stop...no stories on all the SEC players and their thievery and rapes though.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.
Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.
Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.
Good stuff #55. K-State also beat Auburn for 59 minutes too. If not for Pete Carroll's butterfingered draft pick, Kstate beats Auburn at the beginning of the year. and the SEC shows what it is, a heavily over-inflated conference, in every facet. .
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
I remember during the gayme, the buttsnifers made every excuse in the world for the reigning runner-up. If the SEC was half as great as they claimed, Allbarn wouldn't have had any problem. If their thief QB had been suspended, they would have lost....but ESPN talks about Winston non-stop...no stories on all the SEC players and their thievery and rapes though.
The first 6 thieves and rapes are consensual in the SEC.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
I completely disagree. I don't have a problem with SRS, and think it can be useful, but it's not the bible either. It's a formula. Results are results. Beating 4 top 25 teams is better than beating one. I don't think close losses should be rewarded. A team that goes 2-6 in conference is mediocre at best. Rewarding them with a #12 ranking is ridiculous. And while the SEC was a strong conference, they also shit the bed come bowl season. Ole Miss was plungered, Miss State was beaten soundly, Auburn lost to a Wisconsin team coming off a 59-0 loss, LSU lost to a mediocre Notre Dame.
Arkansas lost a late season game to Missouri after their impressive 47-0 two game stretch. They were plungered by Auburn and Georgia. They improved as the season went along and the arrow is pointing up, but they weren't close to being the #12 team.
Kansas State beat Texas 23-0. UCLA beat Texas by 3. Was Kansas State 20 points better than UCLA? No, and UCLA beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Stanford lost to ASU, who was plungered by UCLA. Than Stanford plungered UCLA. Comparing scores is futile.
Good stuff #55. K-State also beat Auburn for 59 minutes too. If not for Pete Carroll's butterfingered draft pick, Kstate beats Auburn at the beginning of the year. and the SEC shows what it is, a heavily over-inflated conference, in every facet. .
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
I remember during the gayme, the buttsnifers made every excuse in the world for the reigning runner-up. If the SEC was half as great as they claimed, Allbarn wouldn't have had any problem. If their thief QB had been suspended, they would have lost....but ESPN talks about Winston non-stop...no stories on all the SEC players and their thievery and rapes though.
The first 6 thieves and rapes are consensual in the SEC.
So were their first 6 BCS titles in a row over college football nation. Then the butthurt began, then the excuses, then the rape whistle was being max blown.
That article illustrates why so many schools have shit schedules. 8 wins!!!1111!!!
Nobody even looks at how bad the wins were and how many games the team playes
8 wins and #41 in SRS.
Arkansas was 7-6 but was #12 in SRS...better than every pac-12 school but Oregon.
They were better than UW, but that's ridiculous. They beat one team that finished in the top 25, and that was a free falling Ole Miss that was plungered in their bowl game.
UCLA beat four teams that finished in the top 25 (#12 ASU, #18 Kansas State, #19 Arizona, #20 USC).
Its an objective formula. UCLA was #14.
Arkansas lost to Alabama by 1, Miss St by 7 on the road and crushed Ole Miss and LSU by a combined 47-0. They also beat Texas by 24 in the bowl game who UCLA only beat by 3 at the start of the year. Their last 5 games against Texas and 4 ranked teams they only gave up 9ppg.
Christ.
Definitive.definitive.combo.relative/date.combo of nonsense
Comments
By the way careabout and all you SEC buttsniffers, Did you know KSTATE had 15 fucking WALKONS on the field, most in BIG roles? ESPN says the best talent is in the south. Florida, Texas and Cali have the talent (which is why the SEC is looking everywhere but "their South" for players and raiding these states. Florida nor Texas are 'southern' states..
If you're going to tout the SEC, Run it thru puppy first so I can objectively discard it before it reaches the viwers here.
Beating 4 top 25 teams isn't impressive when you shit away a home game against Stanford to win your division though. UCLA was bipolar as hell last year.
Definitive.definitive.combo.relative/date.combo of nonsense
But, still.. .