Florida's Schedule

I have not heard one analyst say such, and I'm a football junkie.
USC has the tradition of playing ND who now sucks balls but you generally have a tough schedule. Cawacko's ass is puckering like a baby who just tasted a lemon for the first time since his mighty men of troy are busting like condoms.
The sec doesn't cause their in conference is so tough they beat the dog shit out of each other. Please tell me another time in history of the sport that 3 teams from the same conf in the top 8 nationally is a down year. thats hillarious
 
The thing that so many are forgetting is that the rest of the SEC looks weak because they play the best in the country.

Out of 12 teams, only two have losing records and only two have lost to a team with a losing record. So 10 out of 12 teams have not lost to a team that has lost more than they won.

By contrast, both OSU & USC have lost games to teams with losing records.

LSU has lost two games. They lost to the #1 & #2 teams in the country in the current BCS polls.

Georgia has 4 losses. They lost to the #1, #9 & # 12 teams in the country in the current BCS polls.

MS State has lost 6 games so far this year. They lost to the #1, #2, #7, #9, and #24 teams in the current BCS.



The SEC as a whole has 46 losses. If you throw out the two worst teams, the entire remaining conference has only 31 losses. And 17 of those losses came to the #1 & #2 teams in the nation.

So 55% of the losses for 10 out 12 teams in the SEC, were to the top two teams in the nation.

The problem is not the lower part of the conference. Its that this conference has the top two teams, and everyone has lost to us.
 
Last edited:
bravo, that's why you can't schedule top 15 out of conference it's suicide.
If your lucky enough to manage the mindfield of the SEC and become champion you play for and usually win the NC.

earlier in the year we had 3 in the top 5 for the first time in 50yrs.
Guess what, it was the SEC that had them 50 yrs ago.
 
WinterBorn said:
The thing that so many are forgetting is that the rest of the SEC looks weak because they play the best in the country.

Out of 12 teams, only two have losing records and only two have lost to a team with a losing record. So 10 out of 12 teams have not lost to a team that has lost more than they won.

By contrast, both OSU & USC have lost games to teams with losing records.

LSU has lost two games. They lost to the #1 & #2 teams in the country in the current BCS polls.

Georgia has 4 losses. They lost to the #1, #9 & # 12 teams in the country in the current BCS polls.

MS State has lost 6 games so far this year. They lost to the #1, #2, #7, #9, and #24 teams in the current BCS.



The SEC as a whole has 46 losses. If you throw out the two worst teams, the entire remaining conference has only 31 losses. And 17 of those losses came to the #1 & #2 teams in the nation.

So of all the losses in 10 out 12 teams in the SEC, 55% were to the top two teams in the nation.

The problem is not the lower part of the conference. Its that this conference has the top two teams, and everyone has lost to us.
Click to expand...

Wait, explain your second paragraph again.

When you play four creampuff OOC games it inflates your record and when the entire conference does it it inflates the conferences record.

The Pac 10 had 5 BCS ranked teams the SEC 3 and the SEC has two more teams in its conference. 50% of the Pac 10 teams are currently ranked while 25% of the SEC is. And the Pac 10 plays 9 conference games while the SEC plays 8 meaning the Pac 10 as a whole will have more loses (which is completely self deafeating but idiots run the Pac 10). So if you are one of the lower Pac 10 teams you are playing 5 ranked teams in conference and probably one ranked team OOC. Half your games against ranked teams. The SEC is nowhere near that.
 
there's a huge difference when all of your wouldnt' qualify for a bcs game being out of the top 9
we have 3 in the top 8
cherrypickers announamous called and they said your trying too hard.
 
Topspin said:
there's a huge difference when all of your wouldnt' qualify for a bcs game being out of the top 9
we have 3 in the top 8
cherrypickers announamous called and they said your trying too hard.
Click to expand...

Does the irony not strike you when bragging about a top 10 team that has not beaten a ranked opponent all season?
 
cawacko said:
Wait, explain your second paragraph again.

When you play four creampuff OOC games it inflates your record and when the entire conference does it it inflates the conferences record.

The Pac 10 had 5 BCS ranked teams the SEC 3 and the SEC has two more teams in its conference. 50% of the Pac 10 teams are currently ranked while 25% of the SEC is. And the Pac 10 plays 9 conference games while the SEC plays 8 meaning the Pac 10 as a whole will have more loses (which is completely self deafeating but idiots run the Pac 10). So if you are one of the lower Pac 10 teams you are playing 5 ranked teams in conference and probably one ranked team OOC. Half your games against ranked teams. The SEC is nowhere near that.
Click to expand...

The Big 10 and the Pac 10 have no undefeated teams. The SEC has two. Take away all the conference losses suffered by the top two teams in the Big 10 and the Pac 10 and distribute them among the other teams and you will have what the SEC has.

The top two teams in the PAC10 have 5 losses between them. The top two in the Big12 have 4 losses between them. That is where the difference in the appearances of the conference come in. Add 5 more losses around the PAC10 and 4 more around the Big10 and see whatyour standings look like.


This is not the best year for the rest of the conference, I have already said that. But the majority of the losses were to two teams, and they are currently ranked #1 & #2.
 
WinterBorn said:
The Big 10 and the Pac 10 have no undefeated teams. The SEC has two. Take away all the conference losses suffered by the top two teams in the Big 10 and the Pac 10 and distribute them among the other teams and you will have what the SEC has.

The top two teams in the PAC10 have 5 losses between them. The top two in the Big12 have 4 losses between them. That is where the difference in the appearances of the conference come in. Add 5 more losses around the PAC10 and 4 more around the Big10 and see whatyour standings look like.


This is not the best year for the rest of the conference, I have already said that. But the majority of the losses were to two teams, and they are currently ranked #1 & #2.
Click to expand...

Like I said the Pac 10 teams have more losses at the top because they play a harder schedule and don't get to not play the other top team in their conference. It's great Florida is undeafeated. They have also played 1 ranked team all year. That is a joke.
 
cawacko said:
Like I said the Pac 10 teams have more losses at the top because they play a harder schedule and don't get to not play the other top team in their conference. It's great Florida is undeafeated. They have also played 1 ranked team all year. That is a joke.
Click to expand...

I would gladly trade a Vandy or Kentucky during the regular season, as opposed to facing an undefeated Florida for the conference championship. This is the difference in how the SEC is structured vs. how the Pac 10 does it. While you play one extra conference game during the regular season, we have an actual conference championship game.

Several teams Florida has played, would have been ranked teams if Florida had not beaten them. You keep wanting to boast about this, but let' face it, if USC beat those teams it lost to, they probably wouldn't be ranked! It's about the lamest excuse I have ever heard for having a tough conference. More teams beat your teams and are ranked as a result, and that somehow makes your conference "stronger?"
 
Dixie said:
I would gladly trade a Vandy or Kentucky during the regular season, as opposed to facing an undefeated Florida for the conference championship. This is the difference in how the SEC is structured vs. how the Pac 10 does it. While you play one extra conference game during the regular season, we have an actual conference championship game.

Several teams Florida has played, would have been ranked teams if Florida had not beaten them. You keep wanting to boast about this, but let' face it, if USC beat those teams it lost to, they probably wouldn't be ranked! It's about the lamest excuse I have ever heard for having a tough conference. More teams beat your teams and are ranked as a result, and that somehow makes your conference "stronger?"
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph makes no sense Dixie. It's something someone from UCLA would say, "we'd be national champs if we didn't have to play a game".

My argument about playing nine conference games is the conference as a whole sustains more losses that way which has a negative effect on its rankings. Yet even with that it still has five ranked teams. I do not understand your Florida point. If teams that lost to Florida only had one loss they would be ranked. There are no one loss SEC teams not ranked.
 
God damn no wonder they talk about ignorance in the South. We are talking about the 2009 football season.

Fuck I love the South but no wonder that shit's so myopic there.
 
Some stud conerback from Southern Cali who 'SC wanted just verbally declared today to Florida. Had a big discussion on the board about California kids in the Rivals Top 100 over the past five, six years who left California and how they turned out. A couple of good ones but not a lot of success on the list. One of the monitors on the site put it this way...


Schools in these college towns, especially the South, love homegrown kids. If you're local, the boosters and alumni will push for you. The more backwater it gets, the more home cooking is an advantage. Kids from Southern California are forward-thinking and open minded. You have to be. This region is incredibly diverse and the pace of life is fast. However, kids are a bit naive and think every part of the country is like that. People in Los Angeles don't care where you're from because everyone in L.A. is from somewhere. It's not like that in some of these small college towns.
 
That's true but arrogant as fuck. Were a total class above you in football as is obvious by champions. So your compelled to say your area is classier. Nice dork boy
 
Buffalo Soldier said:
That's true but arrogant as fuck. Were a total class above you in football as is obvious by champions. So your compelled to say your area is classier. Nice dork boy
Click to expand...

I personally think LA sucks so its not like I'm rushing to its defense. Life in LA, for better or worse, is different than life in a small college town. I read what all the kids SC recruits say and a lot of comments by kids from the South who visit LA is about the fast pace of life and the fact that there are a billion people there.
 
cawacko said:
Your last paragraph makes no sense Dixie. It's something someone from UCLA would say, "we'd be national champs if we didn't have to play a game".

My argument about playing nine conference games is the conference as a whole sustains more losses that way which has a negative effect on its rankings. Yet even with that it still has five ranked teams. I do not understand your Florida point. If teams that lost to Florida only had one loss they would be ranked. There are no one loss SEC teams not ranked.
Click to expand...


What doesn't make sense? There are no one loss teams because they lost to Alabama and Florida! Had they been playing in the Pac 10, those would be wins and not losses, and you would be using them to define your "strong" conference. The fact that Alabama and Florida beat them, doesn't mean they aren't good teams or the SEC is weak, it just means that Alabama and Florida beat them, therefore, they aren't ranked.

Your argument is, the Pac10 plays 9 conference games instead of 8 like the SEC, but the SEC has an added Championship Game... The Pac 10 doesn't! If Alabama and Florida didn't have to meet in a Championship Game, and instead, included another SEC opponent like Vandy or Kentucky in the regular season, it would be comparable in "strength" to the Pac 10. USC plays an extra conference game against Oregon State, and Alabama has to beat the #1 team in the nation.... but somehow that makes the Pac 10 a stronger conference... I am just not getting that!
 
Dixie said:
What doesn't make sense? There are no one loss teams because they lost to Alabama and Florida! Had they been playing in the Pac 10, those would be wins and not losses, and you would be using them to define your "strong" conference. The fact that Alabama and Florida beat them, doesn't mean they aren't good teams or the SEC is weak, it just means that Alabama and Florida beat them, therefore, they aren't ranked.

Your argument is, the Pac10 plays 9 conference games instead of 8 like the SEC, but the SEC has an added Championship Game... The Pac 10 doesn't! If Alabama and Florida didn't have to meet in a Championship Game, and instead, included another SEC opponent like Vandy or Kentucky in the regular season, it would be comparable in "strength" to the Pac 10. USC plays an extra conference game against Oregon State, and Alabama has to beat the #1 team in the nation.... but somehow that makes the Pac 10 a stronger conference... I am just not getting that!
Click to expand...

Again, I said look at the strength of schedules of teams in the two conferences and then look at the results. With harder schedules and two less teams in its conference the Pac 10 has 5 ranked teams and the SEC has 3.

My point about playing nine conference games is the Pac 10 as a whole has five more losses. Playing 8 conference games and a title game costs the SEC one more loss. If the SEC played nine conference games and a SEC championship game the conference would have seven more losses. The SEC eliminates one conference game and replaces it with a Div II game. That's the difference. But my point is the paragraph above.
 
cawacko said:
Again, I said look at the strength of schedules of teams in the two conferences and then look at the results. With harder schedules and two less teams in its conference the Pac 10 has 5 ranked teams and the SEC has 3.

My point about playing nine conference games is the Pac 10 as a whole has five more losses. Playing 8 conference games and a title game costs the SEC one more loss. If the SEC played nine conference games and a SEC championship game the conference would have seven more losses. The SEC eliminates one conference game and replaces it with a Div II game. That's the difference. But my point is the paragraph above.
Click to expand...

The SEC eliminates one conference game and replaces it with an OOC opponent, not necessarily a Div. II opponent, and they also have an additional championship game between the two best in the conference, which the Pac 10 avoids.

The point I am trying to make is, you are counting teams who are ranked because they BEAT your team, where the SEC doesn't get to count those teams because they LOST and are not ranked because of it. It's just a convoluted way for you to derive at the conclusion the Pac 10 is a stronger conference. If Alabama and Florida LOST to half the teams they played, and those teams became ranked because they BEAT Alabama and Florida, would it mean the SEC had a stronger conference? That is what you are claiming, and it's absurd.
 
Dixie said:
The SEC eliminates one conference game and replaces it with an OOC opponent, not necessarily a Div. II opponent, and they also have an additional championship game between the two best in the conference, which the Pac 10 avoids.

The point I am trying to make is, you are counting teams who are ranked because they BEAT your team, where the SEC doesn't get to count those teams because they LOST and are not ranked because of it. It's just a convoluted way for you to derive at the conclusion the Pac 10 is a stronger conference. If Alabama and Florida LOST to half the teams they played, and those teams became ranked because they BEAT Alabama and Florida, would it mean the SEC had a stronger conference? That is what you are claiming, and it's absurd.
Click to expand...

Dixie, these teams can/would still be ranked if USC beat them. They obviously wouldn't be ranked as high. Losing to Florida and Alabama doesn't mean an SEC team can't be ranked. LSU is in the Top 10 and they lost to Florida and Alabama. I'm not arguing pro USC I'm arguing pro Pac 10 and it is not conveleuted to say a conference with two less teams but two more ranked teams is better.

And for shits and giggles I'll throw in the Pac 10's 5-0 bowl record from last year however I'm only arguing this year the conference is better.

Edit: And Dix you say not necessarily a Div II opponent but I just showed you every team in your conference but one plays a Div II opponent this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top