|
On January 05 2013 15:43 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 15:12 Damiani wrote:On January 05 2013 14:17 don_kyuhote wrote:On January 05 2013 13:49 Jerubaal wrote:On January 05 2013 13:23 don_kyuhote wrote: Dang, A&M should have stayed at Big 12 so they could have gone 12-0 and play for the National Championship. Nah, they would have run into a hot team at the wrong moment and lost 2-3 games the same as they did in the SEC. That's what happens when you have to play 9 real games instead of 3. Given how K-State and Oklahoma, the class of Big 12 this year, were both exposed and dominated, I think it's silly to call big 12 games "real" games. Funny how you would say that about big 12 but yet no mention of Florida/LSU. But it's obvious you're one of the biggest if not the biggest SEC fanboy here. aTm would of definitely have at least 2 losses in the Big 12 this year. Did you see the Atm and Louisiana Tech game? Baylor would of definately given them a game. Btw after Bama loses to Notre Dame on Sunday i wonder how many SEC team would end up in the top 5. We know for sure Pac-12 got 2 locked in. Way to pick one game to put down a team. You want me to mention LSU? How about LSU 41 - 3 Washington? The Washington that beat your top 5 ranked or whatever Stanford. And it's also obvious you're one of the biggest if not hte biggest SEC hater here. SEC hater? me? Nah. I just speak the truth. I'm a die hard Buckeye fan. My next team is Florida ( May be hard to believe) followed by the Pac-12 since i live out west. I have no problems with the SEC that's deserving. I admitted that LSU was the best team in the country last year. I do have a problem with SEC retards who love to shove SEC shit down our throat just based on history and try to brainwash us with SEC bias craps. We got ESPN doing that for us already. Craps like" aTm would go undefeated in the big12 if they were still in the big 12. Or " no other conferences or teams would match up against the almighty SEC." And please don't go there with that x team beating y and y beat z who dominated x crap. That's another thing you SEC fanboys love to do. Stanford would not of lost to Washington if Hogan was at QB. FACT.
Edit: Oh and btw, i wasn't talking about the LSU vs Florida games. I was referring to their bowl games performances.
|
On January 05 2013 16:45 Damiani wrote: SEC hater? me? Nah. I just speak the truth. I was indeed convinced that you were an infallible arbiter of truth when you said this:
On October 07 2012 16:53 Damiani wrote: ... Bama is not that good. I can honestly say if they have to travel to W.virginia they would lose there. And if they come out to USC or Oregon or Stanford or even Oregon St they would lose.
|
On January 05 2013 18:38 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 16:45 Damiani wrote: SEC hater? me? Nah. I just speak the truth. I was indeed convinced that you were an infallible arbiter of truth when you said this: Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 16:53 Damiani wrote: ... Bama is not that good. I can honestly say if they have to travel to W.virginia they would lose there. And if they come out to USC or Oregon or Stanford or even Oregon St they would lose.
Lol. I maybe stretching it a little bit with West Virginia. But Bama would lose out west @ Stanford, definitely at Oregon and USC with Matt Barkely. Oregon St is a proven winner. But how is it bashing when it's true? You seriously think bama would beat Oregon Usc or Stanford on the road? You know that team Bama lost to at home? There's a whole bunch of those teams like aTm out west. You know all that talk about Oregon having no defense? Well they sure showed up against K-State didn't they? I think you pulled out a really bad example. I'm laughing at this more than i am taking it seriously. Bama is not that good. Get over it. They are overrated to the MAX.
|
lol. USC lost 4 games WITH Matt Barkeley. But hey they were all to tough pac-12 opponents so it doesn't count right? Oregon State is a proven winner....They lost to a very average Texas team who didn't even play very well. Stanford is probably the most Bama-like team of the bunch as far as style, but inferior. Oregon? lol. How about you go back and watch Oregon vs Auburn, or Oregon vs LSU or heck, Oregon vs Stanford 2012.
On January 05 2013 18:49 Damiani wrote: You know that team Bama lost to at home? You know that team Oregon lost to at home? (hint: Stanford)
On January 05 2013 18:49 Damiani wrote: There's a whole bunch of those teams like aTm out west. There's a whole bunch of those teams like Stanford in the SEC
It's funny because you say you are Ohio State fan first and foremost, Florida fan 2nd, and Pac-12 fan 3rd. But you're hatred for SEC has so clouded your vision that you are defending those pac-12 teams more than their own fans would haha. I wonder how many USC fans would think USC can beat Bama....But since they're not the arbiter of truth, you are, I guess it doesn't matter.
|
On January 05 2013 19:18 don_kyuhote wrote:lol. USC lost 4 games WITH Matt Barkeley. But hey they were all to tough pac-12 opponents so it doesn't count right? Oregon State is a proven winner....They lost to a very average Texas team who didn't even play very well. Stanford is probably the most Bama-like team of the bunch as far as style, but inferior. Oregon? lol. How about you go back and watch Oregon vs Auburn, or Oregon vs LSU or heck, Oregon vs Stanford 2012.
Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 18:49 Damiani wrote: You know that team Bama lost to at home? You know that team Oregon lost to at home? (hint: Stanford) Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 18:49 Damiani wrote: There's a whole bunch of those teams like aTm out west. There's a whole bunch of those teams like Stanford in the SEC It's funny because you say you are Ohio State fan first and foremost, Florida fan 2nd, and Pac-12 fan 3rd. But you're hatred for SEC has so clouded your vision that you are defending those pac-12 teams more than their own fans would haha. I wonder how many USC fans would think USC can beat Bama....But since they're not the arbiter of truth, you are, I guess it doesn't matter.
Oh so you're one of those type of SEC homers who loves to talk about the past. Sure if you wanna look at it that way why don't you go back and check out Bama/UCLA. The last time Bama dared to step out west. I'm talking about 2012. Let's leave the past alone. I would admit to everything reasonable. Did i say if Oregon or Stanford came down south they would beat the shit out of the top tier SEC teams? No. Most likely not. Unlike you, you're insane enough to say if Bama comes out west they would beat the top tier Pac-12 teams like it's their stomping ground. In your world you think the SEC are invincible. You should check out Pete Carrols interview where he talked about how hard he tried to put SEC teams on their schedule but none of them would accept. He laughed so hard about that too. There's a reason why SEC don't come out west. Plain and simple. It doesn't favor them at all.
|
So to you, whoever plays at home would win regardless of who is actually better. Top pac-12 teams wouldn't win in SEC, and top SEC teams won't win in pac-12. Okay. Then how did you conclude that Bama is "not that good" while Oregon/Stanford/USC are? Let me guess, it's because their offense doesn't light up your eyes enough/bias against SEC (Stanford offense doesn't light up anybody's eyes)
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2013 18:49 Damiani wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 18:38 don_kyuhote wrote:On January 05 2013 16:45 Damiani wrote: SEC hater? me? Nah. I just speak the truth. I was indeed convinced that you were an infallible arbiter of truth when you said this: On October 07 2012 16:53 Damiani wrote: ... Bama is not that good. I can honestly say if they have to travel to W.virginia they would lose there. And if they come out to USC or Oregon or Stanford or even Oregon St they would lose.
Lol. I maybe stretching it a little bit with West Virginia. But Bama would lose out west @ Stanford, definitely at Oregon and USC with Matt Barkely. Good god. I really do wish TL had an ignore feature. What's that plug-in again?
And for the record, I think Damiani is 100% lying about his favorite teams. Motherfucker barely said a word about Florida in most of the pre-bowl talk and somehow thought FSU's run defense was the best in the country, even after Florida dropped 250 on them.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q=shazier&t=c&f=-1&u=damiani&gb=date&d= http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q=braxton&t=c&f=-1&u=damiani&gb=date&d=
Yeah, true Buckeyes fan. Why would a diehard fan ever talk about his team's best players, especially when they were unfairly snubbed from the Heisman discussion? (Not that they deserved to win, but they certainly deserved to compete with T'eo and Klein, respectively.)
I think he's lying about his favorite teams to try and gain credibility about being objective, but really he's just insane.
|
Agreed jibba. Daimani this is getting ridiculous
|
51134 Posts
Gah, it is literally impossible to find a stream for the U.S. Army All-American Bowl game (HS All-Star game).
|
On January 06 2013 00:03 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 18:49 Damiani wrote:On January 05 2013 18:38 don_kyuhote wrote:On January 05 2013 16:45 Damiani wrote: SEC hater? me? Nah. I just speak the truth. I was indeed convinced that you were an infallible arbiter of truth when you said this: On October 07 2012 16:53 Damiani wrote: ... Bama is not that good. I can honestly say if they have to travel to W.virginia they would lose there. And if they come out to USC or Oregon or Stanford or even Oregon St they would lose.
Lol. I maybe stretching it a little bit with West Virginia. But Bama would lose out west @ Stanford, definitely at Oregon and USC with Matt Barkely. Good god. I really do wish TL had an ignore feature. What's that plug-in again? And for the record, I think Damiani is 100% lying about his favorite teams. Motherfucker barely said a word about Florida in most of the pre-bowl talk and somehow thought FSU's run defense was the best in the country, even after Florida dropped 250 on them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q=shazier&t=c&f=-1&u=damiani&gb=date&d=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q=braxton&t=c&f=-1&u=damiani&gb=date&d=Yeah, true Buckeyes fan. Why would a diehard fan ever talk about his team's best players, especially when they were unfairly snubbed from the Heisman discussion? (Not that they deserved to win, but they certainly deserved to compete with T'eo and Klein, respectively.) I think he's lying about his favorite teams to try and gain credibility about being objective, but really he's just insane. What ? Why on earth would i talk about Braxton or Shazier in the Heisman talk when i dont think they're not even going to be top 3. Just because i don't go all fanboyish on my favorite team on this board doesn't mean they're not my favorite team. What kind of dumb logics is this? Seriously where is this ignore button. Ohio St. is my favorite team followed by the gators son. Who the hell are you to try to convince other people they're not.
|
On January 05 2013 21:03 don_kyuhote wrote: So to you, whoever plays at home would win regardless of who is actually better. Top pac-12 teams wouldn't win in SEC, and top SEC teams won't win in pac-12. Okay. Then how did you conclude that Bama is "not that good" while Oregon/Stanford/USC are? Let me guess, it's because their offense doesn't light up your eyes enough/bias against SEC (Stanford offense doesn't light up anybody's eyes) Come on man. You're a joke. Here let's make it clear. I DO NOT hate the SEC. Like i said before i hate retards who goes blind when it comes to SEC talks. I've never, NEVER woken up one day and bash the SEC out of the blue on this board. All my anti SEC talks are responses to some SEC clown who talks as if SEC rules college football. When i said Bama is "not that good" i didn't mean it as tho they're just an avg B team. I was referring it to how grossly overrated they are. Bama is a good team. A top 5 caliber team. But they are definitely not the team everyone hype them up to be. Bama is a good team don't get me wrong. But when you say some stupid stuffs like " Bama would beat those top tier pac-12 teams on the road." i had to jump in and say something. Ya it's quite hard and disgusting for college football fans to know and accept that a 1 loss SEC team would make it into the BCNCG over any other 1 loss teams outside of the SEC. And that's a proven fact in 5 of the last 6 years.
Edit: You know what i'm done talking about the SEC. After Notre Dame shuts down Bama let's see how good the SEC really is when the final rankings comes out. Let's see how many SEC teams would crack the top 5.
|
On January 05 2013 10:17 Jibba wrote: The SEC are bad guys who are proud of it. Notre Dame are bad guys who pretend to be good guys (and then sweep their players' rape cases under the rug.) If you actually knew anything about that case you would know how stupid the whole thing was (and it was sexual assault that was accused, not rape), and the only people even talking about it right now are ND haters who just want an excuse to hate the team. ND did nothing wrong and the girl in question was mentally unstable and had falsely accused others before, and there was no evidence that any of her allegations were true. The only bad thing was the idiot friend texting her threatening messages, but he was in no way involved in the investigation or in the administration at ND. Talking about this now, this long after it happened, and clearly with no knowledge of the actual case just makes you look like a hater and a moron.
|
On January 06 2013 04:23 Damiani wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 21:03 don_kyuhote wrote: So to you, whoever plays at home would win regardless of who is actually better. Top pac-12 teams wouldn't win in SEC, and top SEC teams won't win in pac-12. Okay. Then how did you conclude that Bama is "not that good" while Oregon/Stanford/USC are? Let me guess, it's because their offense doesn't light up your eyes enough/bias against SEC (Stanford offense doesn't light up anybody's eyes) Come on man. You're a joke. Here let's make it clear. I DO NOT hate the SEC. Like i said before i hate retards who goes blind when it comes to SEC talks. I've never, NEVER woken up one day and bash the SEC out of the blue on this board. All my anti SEC talks are responses to some SEC clown who talks as if SEC rules college football. When i said Bama is "not that good" i didn't mean it as tho they're just an avg B team. I was referring it to how grossly overrated they are. Bama is a good team. A top 5 caliber team. But they are definitely not the team everyone hype them up to be. Bama is a good team don't get me wrong. But when you say some stupid stuffs like " Bama would beat those top tier pac-12 teams on the road." i had to jump in and say something. Ya it's quite hard and disgusting for college football fans to know and accept that a 1 loss SEC team would make it into the BCNCG over any other 1 loss teams outside of the SEC. And that's a proven fact in 5 of the last 6 years. Edit: You know what i'm done talking about the SEC. After Notre Dame shuts down Bama let's see how good the SEC really is when the final rankings comes out. Let's see how many SEC teams would crack the top 5. I'm not any more of a joke than you are my friend. Except you live in a blackhole where you think your warped logic and reason are truth, everyone else is retard. Oh and now you want to use the ranking as measuring stick? lol. When too many sec teams are ranked high for his taste, rankings doesn't mean shit. When enough pac-12 teams are ranked high, rankings should be a measuring stick. Why am I not surprised....regardless, sec will have 2 in top 5, as will pac-12. I wonder how many Pac-12 teams would crack top 10... But nope, it doesn't matter who's in top 25 or top 10, only top 5 counts and by that standard, pac-12 is equal with sec. Right? You spewing ridiculous claim about SEC goes back to last year. I don't remember your exact wording, but something along the lines of OK state (or was it Stanford Oregon?) would have crushed Bama so hard, some MAC school defense would have shut down LSUs offense. etc. And I bet you're going to answer with "Are you serious? hahahaha, how can you not see the obvious truth that they would?" Good thing you decided to stop talking about SEC. I'm tired of shouting at a wall.
|
On January 05 2013 13:23 don_kyuhote wrote: Dang, A&M should have stayed at Big 12 so they could have gone 12-0 and play for the National Championship. Surely it's just a coincidence that A&M had their most successful season in 15 years when they finally left the Big 12 right
|
United States22883 Posts
Yes? It kind of had something to do with having the best player in the country.
I mean, how much of an impact can one player have anyways? I guess I'll have to think about that as I watch the Colts and fucking Redskins in the playoffs today.
|
To be fair it's true that Manziel helped big time. (Redskins are a way better example than the Colts though, Luck's QB rating is 26th in the NFL) But A&M's problem in the past wasn't not scoring enough. They always had games where their defense got shredded. Last season they had 4 losses where they gave up over 35 points, including a 53-50 loss to KSU. In 2009, in all 7 of their losses they gave up 35+, including 2 games over 60. Their defense had one of their better recent seasons, even though Manziel doesn't play LB.
If the SEC was really on such a completely different level that their 5th-best team would go unbeaten in any other conference, then it's pretty unlikely that a new team would have as great a first season in there as A&M did. All those NFL offenses should have been putting up 50+ ppg on their pathetic high school defense.
|
United States22883 Posts
Well, A&M probably wouldn't be unbeaten in the Big 12 because of the danger of getting into shootouts, but part of the reason they could score so easily in the Big 12 before having an elite QB was because the Big 12 is awful at pass defense (which is why its receivers get such huge numbers and then are below average in the NFL.) We also know Missouri's QB didn't enjoy the switch very much.
There's definitely fewer good offenses in the SEC but the teams are rounded out better (top 6, I mean - the SEC is definitely more polarized), plus there's still a lot of good running backs. I think it's fair to say A&M's defense got a bit of a break, but the offense had to work a lot harder.
|
A&M did better because our TEAM is better. This year's team would blow out any A&M team since 1999. We have new coaches across the board, new offensive and defensive schemes, new players (recruiting has been on an uptick for the last five years, Mike Sherman wasn't a total bust), and new confidence.
|
ND +10? Yes please. Overrated SEC ftw!
|
My prediction for the Discover BCS National Championship is + Show Spoiler + In all seriousness I don't see ND having much success moving the ball 27-10 Roll Tide.
|
|
|
|