why? if you've got a play that works keep using it until it doesn't work. i like the brand building on this one. use it a lot... use it consistently as that wink wink that a recruit is about to commit or something but fucking keep revving the engine on a purple muscle car and use it. way better than a 48 minute video of boating to work and being at the office before the janitor... who fucking cares if you can get up at 5am when your competitors are staying up til 3am recruiting.
I love how the media is so fucking desperate to rank USC...fucking hell their coaching is still shit, their recruiting has been going downhill for the last 3 years and their QBs are literally getting injured week-in, week-out. As if JT Daniels sticks around if he doesn't win the job outright.
Both teams too high. PFF likes us a lot better than anyone else. Metric type stuff puts so much emphasis on close losses and blowout wins.
Upsets happen. If the score differential is within 1-3 points the better team wins 60% of the time. 4-7 it gets to the better team 65% of the time.
The reason why that makes some people here so jaded is our systematic close losses. The mental aspect of that isn't really captured well by "the metrics". It is somewhat fair that we're rated highly because we have the horses to win and we've shown we can play with good teams. We just had the zit factor with Pete where we didn't get the W's.
The algorithm that captures mental toughness first will win.
Both teams too high. PFF likes us a lot better than anyone else. Metric type stuff puts so much emphasis on close losses and blowout wins.
Upsets happen. If the score differential is within 1-3 points the better team wins 60% of the time. 4-7 it gets to the better team 65% of the time.
The reason why that makes some people here so jaded is our systematic close losses. The mental aspect of that isn't really captured well by "the metrics". It is somewhat fair that we're rated highly because we have the horses to win and we've shown we can play with good teams. We just had the zit factor with Pete where we didn't get the W's.
The algorithm that captures mental toughness first will win.
Good points
But Michael Wilbon and I will still yell at the clouds
Both teams too high. PFF likes us a lot better than anyone else. Metric type stuff puts so much emphasis on close losses and blowout wins.
Upsets happen. If the score differential is within 1-3 points the better team wins 60% of the time. 4-7 it gets to the better team 65% of the time.
The reason why that makes some people here so jaded is our systematic close losses. The mental aspect of that isn't really captured well by "the metrics". It is somewhat fair that we're rated highly because we have the horses to win and we've shown we can play with good teams. We just had the zit factor with Pete where we didn't get the W's.
The algorithm that captures mental toughness first will win.
Good points
But Michael Wilbon and I will still yell at the clouds
I still remember some arguing that Arkansas at 7-6 was actually better than a 13-1 Florida State. A team with much less talent and 6 losses is better than a team with one loss because they played some SEC teams tuff. It was so fucking stupid.
I still remember some arguing that Arkansas at 7-6 was actually better than a 13-1 Florida State. A team with much less talent and 6 losses is better than a team with one loss because they played some SEC teams tuff. It was so fucking stupid.
You mean the 2014 Florida State team that won seven games by six points or less in a weak ACC and proceeded to get blown out by Oregon in the playoffs by 39? That Florida State team?
Seems like if you were going to cherry pick one example out of the history of college football to prove the metrics wrong you could have come up with something a little better.
I still remember some arguing that Arkansas at 7-6 was actually better than a 13-1 Florida State. A team with much less talent and 6 losses is better than a team with one loss because they played some SEC teams tuff. It was so fucking stupid.
You mean the 2014 Florida State team that won seven games by six points or less in a weak ACC and proceeded to get blown out by Oregon in the playoffs by 39? That Florida State team?
Seems like if you were going to cherry pick one example out of the history of college football to prove the metrics wrong you could have come up with something a little better.
I never could figure out Brent Bulimia at Arky. He was very good at Wisconsin but it turns out everyone is very good there but he built this big ass HOG line at Arky and they were all Airport but 7-6.
I never could figure out Brent Bulimia at Arky. He was very good at Wisconsin but it turns out everyone is very good there but he built this big ass HOG line at Arky and they were all Airport but 7-6.
The SEC West is no place for less than great
No QB and he didn’t have the talent to beat Bama, LSU, Auburn, etc. It really is a tough place to win. A really good coach would and they have before, but you need to be elite and evaluating, recruiting, and developing to have a shot there. The new coach will be fired in three years too.
Comments
1. Oregon
2. Arizona State
3. Cal
4. USC
5. Utah
6. Oregon State
7. Washington
8. Stanford
9. Colorado
10. Washington State
11. UCLA
12. Arizona
UW at 7 is a joke imo.
The reason why that makes some people here so jaded is our systematic close losses. The mental aspect of that isn't really captured well by "the metrics". It is somewhat fair that we're rated highly because we have the horses to win and we've shown we can play with good teams. We just had the zit factor with Pete where we didn't get the W's.
The algorithm that captures mental toughness first will win.
But Michael Wilbon and I will still yell at the clouds
Seems like if you were going to cherry pick one example out of the history of college football to prove the metrics wrong you could have come up with something a little better.
The SEC West is no place for less than great
@18mileperhourtreadmill is a thing of the past it looks like.