T1B

STFU you SEC Ball-Sucking Homer.

Voting Alabam #1 isn't the issue. Putting Georgia and UF ahead of ND is. It was Franklin's way to toe the party line and be ready if a bigger SEC job comes calling.

Exactly. Not surprised that SoDumb Sam doesn't get it.

Sudden Sam wrote: We'll see who the best team is in January.

No we won't.


Oregon won't be playing in the MNC.


Oregon would clean Notre Dame's clock and Notre Dame will beat Alabama.


All we'll find out is that Alabama is barely a top ten team in "the year of shit" when all is said and done.

And still Oregon's supposedly shitty defense held down Auburn's offense much better than Bama's or any other SEC defense could manage, so what does that say?

How good is Bama's defense, really, when they got lit up the only two times they faced decent offenses. After seeing what A&M and Georgia did to Bama, it's not exactly unrealistic to imagine Oregon erupting in similar (or worse) fashion against them.

Props the the Independence Bowl for telling LA Tech to shit or get off the pot.

No wonder they told LA Tech to fuck off when LA Tech said well we will come if we don't get anything better.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Van wrote:And still Oregon's supposedly shitty defense held down Auburn's offense much better than Bama's or any other SEC defense could manage, so what does that say?

Wrong, my friend.

With Cam Newton running things, Auburn had 519 total yards against Oregon. Against Alabama, they had 324. Auburn had 28 first downs against the Ducks and 17 on Bama.

Interestingly, Bama's offense produced the same # of 1st downs as Oregon against Auburn (23) and had 446 total yards compared to 449 for Oregon.

Oh, okay, M2.

So now it's purely about statistics and not scoreboard?



Btw, did you watch both games? I'm sure you did. See, when push came to shove, Newton and Auburn straight-up torched Bama's defense in their own house. In the title game against Oregon...not so much. Oregon consistently kept Newton off his game and out of the endzone.

Van wrote:How good is Bama's defense, really, when they got lit up the only two times they faced decent offenses. After seeing what A&M and Georgia did to Bama, it's not exactly unrealistic to imagine Oregon erupting in similar (or worse) fashion against them.

That I don't doubt at all.

So why do you try to separate them from ND, Bama, and Stanford as not being a good team? They usually beat Stanford, and even this year it went to OT and involved missed kicks by Oregon before they finally fell. It's not as if they got their asses kicked.

Jsc810 wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Why is that shocking that someone would vote another team over Notre Dame? Maybe they think those teams are better. Hell, Vegas does, too.

What Vegas does is to try to get even money on both sides of the bet, thus ensuring that Vegas wins, regardless of the final score. Who Vegas thinks is actually better factors into the line, but so does public perception.

I think we tried to explain to Sam before. Learnin' ain't one of his strong points.

Goobs, that was Py, not Sam. Py's the one who doesn't seem to understand that the oddsmakers do nothing but attempt to gauge the public's perceptions of each team in an effort to create 50-50 betting splits. He thinks they just go by which team is actually better.

Sudden Sam wrote:Van, I said I'd rank Oregon #3 right now.

You also said this...

Sam wrote:Stanford is a good team.

Alabama is a good team.

Oregon has a good offense.

There's a difference.

You can't have it both ways. Clearly you believe that Oregon is not a good team, at least not compared to those other two, despite the fact that Oregon has proven themselves against Stanford. Along the way, you conveniently fail to apply the same yardstick to Bama that you apply to Oregon. When Bama's defense gets smoked, you excuse it and just keep on talking about their superior defense. When Oregon gets shut down one time, it's proof-positive to you that their defense sucks and their offense can't succeed against a good defense.

Never mind their overall record of total offensive dominance. That's just the result of playing bad defenses. Bama's defensive statistics? They're not the result of playing bad offenses. Nope, it's just about Bama's defense. The A&M and Georgia games didn't even happen.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Van wrote:Goobs, that was Py, not Sam. Py's the one who doesn't seem to understand that the oddsmakers do nothing but attempt to gauge the public's perceptions of each team in an effort to create 50-50 betting splits. He thinks they just go by which team is actually better.

I think Py knows more about all that than any of the rest of us.

Why? His comments indicate otherwise.

Then look at their final offensive statistics, as well as those of their opponents. Apply the same logic.

Van wrote:Goobs, that was Py, not Sam. Py's the one who doesn't seem to understand that the oddsmakers do nothing but attempt to gauge the public's perceptions of each team in an effort to create 50-50 betting splits. He thinks they just go by which team is actually better.

My mistake. And I'm going to resist the urge to stereotype all those slack-jawed hayseeds from the South.

Van wrote:So now it's purely about statistics and not scoreboard?

Like 6 straight?
Like LSU 40 Oregon 27?

Once again...Oh, that was different.

You forgot carpetbagging. You sure youse a southern boy, boy?

Python wrote:

Van wrote:So now it's purely about statistics and not scoreboard?

Like 6 straight?

How many of those BCS gifts that the SEC received involved a game against Oregon?

One. And it came down to the last play of the game.

Like LSU 40 Oregon 27?

Once again...Oh, that was different.

Yes, it was. It was also only one game from a span of three years. I'm fairly certain that Bama, LSU and just about every team in the nation was similarly 'held' to 27 points a couple-few times over the same period.