Dissed by Dick Nerdstreet again | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Dissed by Dick Nerdstreet again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
23
Reaction Score
10
If you look at their schedule and their performances, they were a prototypical BE champion. Which means, not very good. And not much better than the middle of the pack in the conference.
actually, they were in a 4-way tie for first in an 8 team conference - so they were both conference champs AND middle of the pack all at the same time
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,364
Reaction Score
68,239
"Without looking why don't you tell me why you can't even consider what happened in the Southern Miss game?"

Can you be more explicit? What?

I don't think Ville was much better. Plain and simple. Better, yes. Head and shoulders, no? And rankings mean squat really in this respect because all hell breaks loose around the 20s, and teams with wildly different schedules are bunched up. That being said, I don't dispute your Ville ranking, I was generally very surprised they beat Florida, based on what I'd seem of Ville over the year. I'd put them at 25. And I'd say UConn was a little better than 75-85 but not much (i.e. one of the worst BCS teams but better than most nons). I just don't think there is a great deal separating the 25th from the 60th best. Granted, the 25th is definitely better than the 60th, but put them in a game, and I think you'd be hard pressed to spot the 60th team more than a touchdown.

Southern Miss and Louisville was played in a deluge of biblical proportions. To anyone reasonable the conditions were unplayable.

There is a damn big gap between 25-60 and UConn was nowhere near 60. If Uconn was better than most of the non-BCS teams why are you arguing they aren't better than Western Michigan who was a terrible non-BCS team? Seriously what is wrong with you?
 

pepband99

Resident TV nerd
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,761
Reaction Score
9,694
Southern Miss and Louisville was played in a deluge of biblical proportions. To anyone reasonable the conditions were unplayable.


For once, Whaler is spot on. I specifically remember HOWLING laughing at the conditions at that game.
 

HuskyHawk

The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
32,780
Reaction Score
85,249
In a sport with 130 teams and then another 50 that play at least a game against those 130, there are a lot of different ways to come by a 10-2 record. I look at Louisville's schedule and its margins and I think of it as middling. I could go to another conference and see a 7-5 record of a better team. I agree Ville was better than UConn last year. Do I think they were much much better? No. Middling, like most BE champs. When you see physical domination on the field, only then are you much better. I didn't see it with Louisville. This is also why I disagree with your take on West Michigan and on USF as well.

In 2010, during UConn's BCS season, the year they beat West Virginia, UConn lost to a Louisville team that was sub-.500 in the BE. I'd love to hear your assessment of those teams at the time. When I look at it, that UConn team was at best even with Ville. Not better.

You two sure you're not brothers or something?

I think UL was worse than they were perceived to be. They played their best game of the year in a bowl against a team that was pissed that it had failed to even win its division in SEC and was ready to hit the beach.

UConn was much better than its record, and lost between 2-3 games on pure mental errors, bad coaching and brain farts of various kinds. We lost at least three games to teams with lesser talent and won one against a team with better talent, Louisville.

Louisville was better. Clearly better. But 20-80 ranking better? No. Not close to that. I think UL goes into 2013 highly overrated based on that bowl win. I think UConn comes into 2013 underrated, since a normal turnover margin alone would have made a huge difference for the Huskies, and the mental mistakes can be corrected.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,690
Reaction Score
48,051
Southern Miss and Louisville was played in a deluge of biblical proportions. To anyone reasonable the conditions were unplayable.

There is a damn big gap between 25-60 and UConn was nowhere near 60. If Uconn was better than most of the non-BCS teams why are you arguing they aren't better than Western Michigan who was a terrible non-BCS team? Seriously what is wrong with you?

Holy cow, so I list a whole bunch of games and you come up with an anomaly!!!
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,690
Reaction Score
48,051
Southern Miss and Louisville was played in a deluge of biblical proportions. To anyone reasonable the conditions were unplayable.

There is a damn big gap between 25-60 and UConn was nowhere near 60. If Uconn was better than most of the non-BCS teams why are you arguing they aren't better than Western Michigan who was a terrible non-BCS team? Seriously what is wrong with you?

And another unbelievable comment. Most of the BCS teams? There were 68 teams! Wow. Can you count? They lost two games in a row to W. Mich! You put way too little emphasis on that result. Michigan losing a game to App State is an anomaly. UConn losing 2 to W Mich is not. You're asking me if I believe UConn was much better than W. Mich.? Of course I don't.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,364
Reaction Score
68,239
And another unbelievable comment. Most of the BCS teams? There were 68 teams! Wow. Can you count? They lost two games in a row to W. Mich! You put way too little emphasis on that result. Michigan losing a game to App State is an anomaly. UConn losing 2 to W Mich is not. You're asking me if I believe UConn was much better than W. Mich.? Of course I don't.

There were 124 FBS teams in 2012. Please tell me where you'd place Louisville, UConn and Western Michigan.

I have them 20, 80 and 100.

Let's hear your nonsense.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,690
Reaction Score
48,051
There were 124 FBS teams in 2012. Please tell me where you'd place Louisville, UConn and Western Michigan.

I have them 20, 80 and 100.

Let's hear your nonsense.

You wrote that UConn is not only better than WM but MUCH better!!!!

80 to 100 is MUCH?

How much college football do you watch?
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
2,236
Reaction Score
2,482
The two of you disputing this is like two fat people arguing who looks better in a banana hammock
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,364
Reaction Score
68,239
You wrote that UConn is not only better than WM but MUCH better!!!!

80 to 100 is MUCH?

How much college football do you watch?

I actually said a good amount. But I like how you won't rank them.

This doesn't even deserve a response but I guarantee I watch 5-6x more than you. For example I knew about Louisville and Southern Miss because I watched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
392
Guests online
2,141
Total visitors
2,533

Forum statistics

Threads
159,643
Messages
4,198,603
Members
10,065
Latest member
Rjja


.
Top Bottom