Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to Boobie
Comments
-
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. -
Arizona isn't the second best team because it won the South. Arizona is the second best team because it won the South AND because every but Oregon in the North is clearly worse than Arizona.RoadDawg55 said:By your logic, Arizona is the 2nd best PAC 12 team. So is Wisconsin the Big 10's 2nd best? Missouri in the SEC? Was UCLA better than Oregon in 2012? How about ASU in 2013?
If you somehow want to say that wins over UW, UCLA, and Maryland somehow make Stanford the second best team in the conference, you hate the Pac-12 more than I do. -
It appears that there are a lot of Sark clones on this bored who think that almost winning games means more than actually winning games.
-
So what happens on the field matters?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. -
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. -
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'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. -
Stanford was shit early in the year and lost games. Now they look like the 2nd best team in the Pac12TierbsHsotBoobs 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.
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. -
It's this FS logic that prevented Carroll's SC from ass fucking the SEC. Great teams get better as the season progresses, that's when the best football is played by the most cohesive units.
Zona is not the second best team in the Pac, fuck your records. Don James sucked as head coach until january 1992 too. -
So you're saying the Pac-12 season started on November 22nd?BallSacked said:
Stanford was shit early in the year and lost games. Now they look like the 2nd best team in the Pac12TierbsHsotBoobs 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.
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.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/24/stanford-cardinal
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.
