Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to Boobie
RoadDawg55
Member Posts: 30,144
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?
Comments
-
I actually think Missouri is second best by default if nothing else. Wisconsin and Michigan State are clearly the second best in the B1G.
Arizona has a clear logical on the field claim to second in the PAC. Not sure why that is so difficult to accept. -
Georgia was 2nd best in the SEC.
Free Gurley! -
Don't bother, he has his facts and us Doogs hate them.
-
They beat Oregon for sure, but they were gifted wins by Cal and us (sorry Damone)RaceBannon said:I actually think Missouri is second best by default if nothing else. Wisconsin and Michigan State are clearly the second best in the B1G.
Arizona has a clear logical on the field claim to second in the PAC. Not sure why that is so difficult to accept. -
Why do you hate UTSA??DerekJohnson said:
They beat Oregon for sure, but they were gifted wins by Cal and us (sorry Damone)RaceBannon said:I actually think Missouri is second best by default if nothing else. Wisconsin and Michigan State are clearly the second best in the B1G.
Arizona has a clear logical on the field claim to second in the PAC. Not sure why that is so difficult to accept. -
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.RaceBannon said:You can do that for every team. That's why I'll stick with what actually happened
-
I think I was quite clear as to why I am sticking with it. I don't insist that everyone agrees. They can be wrong. It's cool.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
I'd say it if Arizona had won. -
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. -
Such a fag Bannon
-
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. -
I rest my case
James proved in on the field long before January 1992 by the way -
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. -
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.RaceBannon said:I rest my case
James proved in on the field long before January 1992 by the way -
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
-
What if UCLA doesn't win?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. -
Arizona didn't beat OREGON though. Winky face rofl still luv ya buddy!!1!
-
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.Doogles said:
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.RaceBannon said:I rest my case
James proved in on the field long before January 1992 by the way
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 -
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 -
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. -
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
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.
