Mook wrote:You don't think the human pollsters will move Kansas up in their polls if they win out? If Kansas wins out they will play in the NC game.......if you don't believe this, then you ain't too bright.
Dinsdale wrote:Kansas is looking like the only team from the 12 that can make the BCS Bowl.
Yeah, I guess
one of us ain't too bright, eh?
War Wagon wrote:Assuming that MU and KU both take care of business this Saturday, then the loser of the game at Arrowhead will NOT drop out of the Top 10.
Ohhhhkay, B12 bandwagoner.
I don't think you realize just how badly the pollsters are looking for a reason to send those scabdick schedule-jokers down the where they belong.
And then, we have Tardman...
Truman wrote:
'Cept a one-loss KU won't be any worse than seventh
Serious question -- do you honestly believe a one-loss team with the 1024th ranked schedule in D3 is going to get a #7 ranking?
Really?
Get the fuck out of here -- people are trying to talk
college football.
Hawaii is unbeaten with a JV schedule. How's that working for them?
Kal will still be unranked. Hemorrhage much, Spin-sy? Back away from the Quality Loss argument….
Ok, since you ain't none too bright either, I'll help you out...
Uhm...
The "quality of loss" argument was YOURS.
Remember?
If not, you might wanna go take a long look at the forst post in this thread.
My responses were... are you ready?
Sarcasm, in response to your unbelievably moronic "quality of loss" argument... that you saw fit to start a thread over.
Remember?
Lost on QuackFan is that The XII actually plays a prime time Championship Game. Now there's a concept! The two best teams in the league play for the right to represent their Conference in the National Championship Game due to the BCS points racked up by the victor for actually winning the game! What a Country! You PAC-types should really look into this….
You mean add an extra game to the schedule pitting two teams that have already played, so they can rack up cheesey extra BCS points and still see PAC teams go to BCS bowls over them?
Here's the dealio -- we invented Bowl Games here Out West. WE gave YOU the plan. Either stick to it, or withdraw from OUR bowl system.
Buncha gravytrainers.
What I noticed was that your "computers" (Sagarin) had Kansas listed at #1. Can't have it both ways, Dins. KYOA much?
Tardman...
I'd strongly suggest learning what the fuck you're talking about before you open your Atomic Punksuckers.
Yes, Sagarin indeed has KU at #1.
And if after December 1st, Sagarin still has KU at #1?
It means Sagarin doesn't count for KU.
Tell me you knew?
The computers are even less impressed with Mizzou than the humans are. And they'll be really unimpressed with KU if/when they lose... then the tiny little bit of SoS any of the B12 contenders had goes out the window.
You mean… Somehow Kal all-of-a-sudden got better? Laughable is that you hang your hat on w's over teams that lost to the likes of
Coal Miner's Daughter State and
Free the Tree's University.[/quote]
Nonsequiturstrawmansayshwat?
Did Kal and Mizzou play, and I didn't hear about it?
Did Michigan and Mizzou play this season? I don't remember that, either.
Because neither happened.
So what, exactly, are you babbling about?
I mentioned that the computers aren't impressed with Mizzou as far as top 2's go(FACT). Your response?
Well... YOU LOST TO KAL!!!!"
Uhm... if X=Y, then the moon is made of green cheese?
What the fuck are you talking about?
:lol:
Kansas is looking like the only team from the 12 that can make the BCS Bowl... sorry, Misery Fan.
Translation: [Desperation]
Gawd, I hope OU wins…[/Desperation].
Huh?
Again, explain to me any scenario where, assuming both Oregon and Mizzou win out, that Mizzou will leapfrog Oregon.
And when I say "explain," I don't mean "BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! YOU LOST TO KAL!!!!" I mean, like how Mizzou is going to make up a huge chunk of computer points with a weak schedule... and please bear in mind that
reality says that if Mizzou wins out, KU and OU are no longer top-10 teams, assuming those chasing them win out.
You know... like things that are actually relevant to the discussion. You pretty much filled your quota of childish nonsensical rhetoric in one big wad, so try and focus next time, OK?