Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 263

Thread: SEC Overrated?

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry34
    I understand that comment hits home a little but come on man. Since 2006, the year the SEC began its run of National Titles the only teams to win the championship have been UF, LSU, Bama each twice and Auburn once. Most of those wins have been lopsided with this years game being the closest.

    Georgia maybe on the verge of getting into Bama and LSU's class. But until this season they have been on the outside looking in struggling with big time opponents.

    Texas A&M looks like they might be a top 5 team going into next season. I was impressed with their defense last night just as much as the offense.

    South Carolina has been solid but I think their game against Michigan showed they are no powerhouse.

    Teams like Auburn and Tennessee have the resources to be great it will just be a matter of finding a coach like you said.
    It has nothing to do with "hitting close to home", it was a ridiculous comment by someone who apparently doesn't know much about the subject he's speaking on, and I'd say the same thing if the comment was about any other team. You see the LSU fan above you agreed with me, right? I hate Auburn and would love nothing more than them in the basement forever, yet I'm giving them respect in my previous post, same with other schools I don't like.

    The SEC's run really began at the turn of the century once Spurrier left Gainesville. I posted earlier that the last time the SEC had a losing record in bowls was 2002. That was Ron Zook's first year in Florida and around the time a couple of new hires got it going in Baton Rouge and Athens -- Saban and Richt. UGA won the SEC in '02 and LSU won it in '03, the Tigers beat Dawgs in the SECCG that year and UGA returned the favor two years later in the SECCG rematch. During that time, Meyer and Miles arrived, then Spurrier and Saban came back. Then Petrino, and Sumlin, now Bielema, and so on.

    About Georgia: Any school in the country that wins 10+ games eight different times in a decade, wins a major conference championship multiple times and a few BCS games is a powerhouse program. Most 10-win seasons and bowl wins in the "best conference" over a decade. Winning the NC would be great, but sustained winning is just as important. Gene Chizik just won a title 2 years ago and no one thinks he's a better coach or has a better coaching resume than Richt. Bowden and Paterno built their programs into powerhouses before finally winning it all and it took them both almost two decades to get a title. Oklahoma has blown more big games than anyone but no one with any sense would say the Sooners don't have an elite program, because they consistently win 10+ games and are always in the mix under Stoops. Before winning his Super Bowl, Peyton Manning was better than most QBs who had won a ring. Same with Marino.

    About SC: Spurrier turned South Carolina into a BCS threat, getting 10 wins a year. SOUTH CAROLINA. Maybe you don't understand how serious that is. SC has no history. The fact that he is there and consistently has them in or near the Top 10 makes them a legit contender. Almost like Stanford, who I'm sure most of you believe already is or will soon become a powerhouse. If the Gamecocks aren't a powerhouse, they are as close as you can get to being one. If UGA is not one after all those 10+ win seasons, SECCGs and BCS wins, then programs like Oregon and Stanford definitely aren't.

    About A&M: You're impressed with A&M becoming a title contender team after probably never noticing them before, but they hasn't raised the crystal football either, they have yet to win a BCS game, their own conference, or even their own division. Still, the future looks good for them, like it did for LSU and Auburn and UGA and others many years ago. The Aggies could be on the verge of becoming a powerhouse. So their success, along with the stats I gave about other teams bowl wins and 10+ win seasons over the last decade is more proof that the whole "big dropoff" comment is ridiculous.
    Last edited by Bravo95; 01-05-2013 at 02:44 PM.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    64,457
    vCash
    500
    The SEC suffered two bad losses (Florida overachieved all year and it culminated in a beat down against a far inferior team, and LSU just choked it away), but A&M smacking Oklahoma I think becomes the strongest argument for either side in this little "debate". The "A&M Defense: Why the SEC is Overrated", which has been used so much by people (mainly Jerry) in this thread looks a bit more silly now. They walloped the second best team the Big XII. To act like A&M's success in the SEC is still an indictment on the SEC's overratedness can't be an argument used. They clearly aren't the same team they were last year, and they clearly would have been the class of the BIG XII had they stayed there.
    I no longer care about anything here except for the Entertainment Forum, which sucks; the Music forum, which sucks; and the Magic forum, which does NOT suck.

    Love y'all!

    Except for all of y'all.

    #FreePablo
    #FreeManRam
    #FreePablo

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,203
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo95 View Post
    It has nothing to do with "hitting close to home", it was a ridiculous comment by someone who apparently doesn't know much about the subject he's speaking on, and I'd say the same thing if the comment was about any other team.

    You see the LSU fan above you agreed with me, right? I hate Auburn and would love nothing more than them in the basement forever, yet I'm giving them respect in my previous post, same with other schools I don't like.

    The SEC's run began at the turn of the century once Spurrier left Gainesville. I posted a while back that the last time the SEC had a losing record in bowls was 2002. That was Ron Zook's first year in Florida, and around the time new hires got it going in Baton Rouge and Athens -- Saban and Richt. UGA won the SEC in '02 and LSU won it in '03, they beat UGA in the SECCG that year and UGA returned the favor two years later in the SECCG rematch. In that time, Meyer and Miles arrived, then Spurrier and Saban came back. Now here comes Sumlin.

    About Georgia: Any school in the country that wins 10 games eight different times in a decade, wins a major conference championship multiple times and a few BCS games is a powerhouse program. Most 10-win seasons and bowl wins in the "best conference in CFB" over a decade, but "on the verge" you say? Winning the NC would be great, but sustained winning is equally as important. Gene Chizik just won a title 2 years ago and no one thinks he's a better coach or has a better coaching resume than Richt. Bowden and Paterno built their programs into powerhouses before finally winning it all and it took them both almost two decades to get a title. Oklahoma has blown more big games than anyone but only a fool wouldn't consider them an elite program, because they consistently win 10+ games and are always in the mix under Stoops.

    About SC: Spurrier turned South Carolina into a BCS threat, getting 10 wins a year. SOUTH CAROLINA. Maybe you don't understand how serious that is. SC has no history. The fact that he is there and consistently has them in or near the Top 10 makes them a legit contender. Almost like Stanford, who I'm sure most of you believe already is or will soon become a powerhouse. If UGA is not one after all those ten win seasons, SECCGs and BCS wins, then certainly no one can call other programs like Oregon or Stanford one either -- no hardware but winning 10+ games a year and always in the mix. If the Gamecocks aren't a powerhouse, they are as close as you can get to being one.

    About A&M: You're impressed with A&M becoming a title contender team after probably never noticing them before, but they hasn't raised the crystal football either, they have yet to win a BCS game, their own conference, or even their own division. Still, the future looks good for them, like it did for LSU and Auburn and UGA and others many years ago, yes the Aggies could be on the verge of becoming a powerhouse. So their success, along with the stats I gave about other teams bowl wins and 10 win seasons just shows the whole "big dropoff" comment is even more ridiculous.
    The title of the thread is "SEC overrated?". If that started in 2002 then Auburn wouldn't have been left out in 2004. The perception that the SEC is king started the night Florida beat OSU for the title in 2006. The next year LSU got into the title game with 2 losses because of the respect people now had for the SEC which wasn't there a few years prior. I think it was justified at the time. But in the last few years especially there has been a perception that 5 or 6 teams in the SEC are fixtures in the top 10 in the country.

    I think the bowl performances of LSU, UF, SC and Georgia proved that perception wrong. But you and the people that vote in the polls disagree. That's why I think the conference is overrated as a whole today. I've never said the conference is bad at football or that Georgia or South Carolina are bad programs. There not.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry34
    The title of the thread is "SEC overrated?". If that started in 2002 then Auburn wouldn't have been left out in 2004. The perception that the SEC is king started the night Florida beat OSU for the title in 2006. The next year LSU got into the title game with 2 losses because of the respect people now had for the SEC which wasn't there a few years prior. I think it was justified at the time. But in the last few years especially there has been a perception that 5 or 6 teams in the SEC are fixtures in the top 10 in the country.

    I think the bowl performances of LSU, UF, SC and Georgia proved that perception wrong. But you and the people that vote in the polls disagree. That's why I think the conference is overrated as a whole today. I've never said the conference is bad at football or that Georgia or South Carolina are bad programs. There not.
    Auburn was left out because there were three undefeated teams at the end, and USC & Oklahoma started the season ranked #1 and #2 respectively, while Auburn was ranked 17th. It was bad luck/timing for them, but no undefeated school from a power conference will get jumped in a situation like that, no matter who the top conference is.

    The perception did not begin in 2006, well maybe for you if that's when you started watching CFB, but in case you forgot, the reason why LSU became relevant once again is because Saban won a national title there in '03. Are we're supposed to ignore that? UGA got back on the map because they hired the "hottest" assistant from the FSU dynasty to be their new HC and he immediately made them a Top 5 team, won the SEC, and the Sugar Bowl.

    I remember the national talk back then was how the SEC was going to fall off for good once Spurrier left. But the success of those two hires changed the landscape and made the conference attractive, suddenly every coach wanted to get in the SEC (or so it seemed). I also remember people crying about bias or whatever because Saban's LSU team played for the national title in their own backyard in the Superdome, so yes the winning and whining from outsiders goes back longer than '06.

    Some have already said that the conference isn't a strong as it has been. But just because a team performs poorly in a bowl game doesn't mean they aren't one of the best teams in the country, it usually just means they got beat by some other team. If ND or Bama loses the title game decisively, does that mean either of them weren't one of the 10 best teams in the country pound for pound? Of course not, the other team just might be better or better prepared on that day.

    If Ole Miss or Bama wins their bowl game, it will continue the nation's longest active streak of consecutive seasons with a .500 record or better in bowls among the 6 major conferences. And it goes back longer than 2006. That stuff matters to people who vote in the polls, and most importantly, it has an impact on the next season's preseason rankings as well because that's the last game people remember before they consider returning starters and recruiting numbers. So when those non-SEC programs keep losing their bowl games then crying about bias in voting the following season, they have no one to blame but themselves. You see how A&M's performance changed your perception of them going into next season? They're also in the SEC, doing it same the way the other SEC teams have done it, and voters feel the same way.
    Last edited by Bravo95; 01-05-2013 at 03:59 PM.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,203
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo95 View Post
    Auburn was left out because there were three undefeated teams at the end, and USC & Oklahoma started the season ranked #1 and #2 respectively, while Auburn was ranked 17th. It was bad luck/timing for them, but no undefeated school from a power conference will get jumped in a situation like that, no matter who the top conference is.

    The perception did not begin in 2006, well maybe for you if that's when you started watching CFB, but in case you forgot, the reason why LSU became relevant once again is because Saban won a national title there in '03. Are we're supposed to ignore that? UGA got back on the map because they hired the "hottest" assistant from the FSU dynasty to be their new HC and he immediately made them a Top 5 team, won the SEC, and the Sugar Bowl.

    I remember the national talk back then was how the SEC was going to fall off for good once Spurrier left. But the success of those two hires changed the landscape and made the conference attractive, suddenly every coach wanted to get in the SEC (or so it seemed). I also remember people crying about bias or whatever because Saban's LSU team played for the national title in their own backyard in the Superdome, so yes the winning and whining from outsiders goes back longer than '06.

    Some have already said that the conference isn't a strong as it has been. But just because a team performs poorly in a bowl game doesn't mean they aren't one of the best teams in the country, it usually just means they got beat by some other team. If ND or Bama loses the title game decisively, does that mean either of them weren't one of the 10 best teams in the country pound for pound? Of course not, the other team just might be better or better prepared on that day.

    If Ole Miss or Bama wins their bowl game, it will continue the nation's longest active streak of consecutive seasons with a .500 record or better in bowls among the 6 major conferences. And it goes back longer than 2006. That stuff matters to people who vote in the polls, and most importantly, it has an impact on the next season's preseason rankings as well because that's the last game people remember before they consider returning starters and recruiting numbers. So when those non-SEC programs keep losing their bowl games then crying about bias in voting the following season, they have no one to blame but themselves. You see how A&M's performance changed your perception of them going into next season? They're also in the SEC, doing it same the way the other SEC teams have done it, and voters feel the same way.
    I guess we just have different opinions on this topic obviously. I feel that the national championship game is basically set up today for 2 SEC teams to make the championship unless another school goes undefeated and there aren't 2 undefeated SEC teams. If all 3 teams have one loss the 2 SEC will get in. If the word overrated bothers you than just use bias. Also the respect given to the SEC today is night and day compared to back in '03.

    Bowl records are great but when you are favored to win every game is it always that impressive? I laughed at the matchups when the bowl games were announced because of course Stanford, Oregon and KSU wouldn't be playing SEC teams. I was actually shocked that LSU and Florida lost I thought the only game the SEC might lose was the Northwestern one. I think the SEC is the best conference I just don't think they are so much better than the rest of college football that they should get such control over the championship game. Hopefully a playoff will be the solution to that problem.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,203
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRamForPrez24 View Post
    The SEC suffered two bad losses (Florida overachieved all year and it culminated in a beat down against a far inferior team, and LSU just choked it away), but A&M smacking Oklahoma I think becomes the strongest argument for either side in this little "debate". The "A&M Defense: Why the SEC is Overrated", which has been used so much by people (mainly Jerry) in this thread looks a bit more silly now. They walloped the second best team the Big XII. To act like A&M's success in the SEC is still an indictment on the SEC's overratedness can't be an argument used. They clearly aren't the same team they were last year, and they clearly would have been the class of the BIG XII had they stayed there.
    Wait a second I didn't even start the A&M debate and I was agreeing with I think Wingman that I thought A&M's performance was being over-hyped because of the win over Bama despite losing to UF and LSU.

    So now I'm the only person who was surprised that a .500 big12 team had success in the SEC? Ok fine.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,703
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry34 View Post
    Wait a second I didn't even start the A&M debate and I was agreeing with I think Wingman that I thought A&M's performance was being over-hyped because of the win over Bama despite losing to UF and LSU.

    So now I'm the only person who was surprised that a .500 big12 team had success in the SEC? Ok fine.
    You think Texas A&M would have been a .500 team had they stayed in the Big 12? Apparently you didn't see them ***** slap Oklahoma 41-13.... I think there is a strong argument that Texas A&M would have very likely won the Big 12 had they stayed this year.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,203
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    You think Texas A&M would have been a .500 team had they stayed in the Big 12? Apparently you didn't see them ***** slap Oklahoma 41-13.... I think there is a strong argument that Texas A&M would have very likely won the Big 12 had they stayed this year.
    No that's not what I meant. I wasn't even making the Texas A&M argument really, I think I brought up the .500 point about a month ago but it was in response to something someone else said.

    I think A&M would have probably won the Big12 too especially if they could of avoided an early season slip up. I was really impressed with their defense completely shutting the door on Oklahoma in the 2nd half last night.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    A&M's 2012 coach (Sumlin) > A&M's 2011 coach (Mike Sherman)
    A&M's 2012 QB (Manziel) > A&M's 2011 QB (Tannehill)
    A&M's 2012 defense (22.5 PPG, 28th) > A&M's 2011 defense (28.2 PPG, 70th)

    You wanna know who's REALLY glad the Aggies are in the SEC now? The Longhorns and their 68th ranked defense. A&M would have gladly ran up the score on them in Austin this year if they stayed.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,329
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo95 View Post
    The perception did not begin in 2006
    The current national perception of the SEC absolutely did begin in 2006 when Florida annihilated Ohio State. That's when the "SEC speed" myth/no myth began. Obviously prior to that the SEC was viewed among the elite conferences but now it is the elite conference.

    I don't agree with Jerry that things are set up for the SEC to get two berths in the National Championship Game every year (that couldn't be farther from the truth honestly) but for someone to even suggest that, and he's not the only one who thinks so, is a testament to how far the league has come.

    We all remember the hype favoring tOSU heading into that game and a large contingent of people who went as far as to suggest Florida wasn't worthy and it should have been Michigan in a rematch. The combination of that hype and the way the game ended has greatly contributed to the SEC's success since. Without that victory, LSU doesn't get into the big game the next year with two losses.

    Had the Big XII been on some kind of streak or done something to separate themselves from the rest of the country prior to last season, there's no way that Alabama-LSU rematch happens. Without Florida's dominant win over Ohio State in '06, that rematch never happens.

    And I know because I'm a Florida fan it's going to seem as though I'm directing the bulk of the credit for the dawn of the SEC's reign to my team, but we SECians can direct much of the credit and our gratitude to ESPN, Kirk Herbstreit, and UCLA. The Bruins last week upset of USC allowed Florida into the game in the first place.

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish1314
    The current national perception of the SEC absolutely did begin in 2006 when Florida annihilated Ohio State. That's when the "SEC speed" myth/no myth began. Obviously prior to that the SEC was viewed among the elite conferences but now it is the elite conference.

    I don't agree with Jerry that things are set up for the SEC to get two berths in the National Championship Game every year (that couldn't be farther from the truth honestly) but for someone to even suggest that, and he's not the only one who thinks so, is a testament to how far the league has come.

    We all remember the hype favoring tOSU heading into that game and a large contingent of people who went as far as to suggest Florida wasn't worthy and it should have been Michigan in a rematch. The combination of that hype and the way the game ended has greatly contributed to the SEC's success since. Without that victory, LSU doesn't get into the big game the next year with two losses.

    Had the Big XII been on some kind of streak or done something to separate themselves from the rest of the country prior to last season, there's no way that Alabama-LSU rematch happens. Without Florida's dominant win over Ohio State in '06, that rematch never happens.

    And I know because I'm a Florida fan it's going to seem as though I'm directing the bulk of the credit for the dawn of the SEC's reign to my team, but we SECians can direct much of the credit and our gratitude to ESPN, Kirk Herbstreit, and UCLA. The Bruins last week upset of USC allowed Florida into the game in the first place.
    Maybe it changes based on where we live or something. Atlanta is sort of the epicenter of college football with media/fans of pretty much every team, and once Spurrier left, all I heard and read from the outsiders was how the league wasn't the same anymore, then the league had the losing bowl record and it was just looking shaky.

    I never once thought the Buckeyes were going to win that NC game even though I wanted them to, but I guess I had a different perspective having watched Andre freakin' Caldwell go off on my team that year in the Cocktail Party while Matt Stafford just stunk it up. Ugh...

    But yeah I don't agree with the notion that the SEC is just handed two berths. Most of these non-SEC teams have the opportunity right in front of them and blow it. Look at Oregon this year (and I'm not trolling, Ducks fans). Same with K-State. All of these teams know SEC teams are lurking and just lose it on their own. That's how this sport has always been. UGA lost an agonizing game against Bama, but you guys didn't see me ranting and railing about UF getting in the Sugar Bowl ahead of my guys. We had our chance and blew it, someone else behind us capitalizes (or is supposed to, at least), end of story. Same way with the NC. Instead of getting mad at the SEC bias, they need to be mad at the teams that allow it to happen.
    Last edited by Bravo95; 01-05-2013 at 07:54 PM.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,703
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo95 View Post

    But yeah I don't agree with the notion that the SEC is just handed two berths. Most of these non-SEC teams have the opportunity right in front of them and blow it. Look at Oregon this year (and I'm not trolling, Ducks fans). Same with K-State. All of these teams know SEC teams are lurking and just lose it on their own. That's how this sport has always been. UGA lost an agonizing game against Bama, but you guys didn't see me ranting and railing about UF getting in the Sugar Bowl ahead of my guys. We had our chance and blew it, someone else behind us capitalizes (or is supposed to, at least), end of story. Same way with the NC. Instead of getting mad at the SEC bias, they need to be mad at the teams that allow it to happen.
    I agree and have always thought that as well.

    2006

    You had Michigan who lost to Ohio State in a big game near the of the season.

    You had USC who lost to UCLA the last game of the season.

    You had Florida who lost to 10-2 Auburn at the midway point of the season.

    If Florida had lost at the end of the season they don't get in over Michigan.

    All USC had to do was beat UCLA and they are in instead of Florida.


    2007


    This is a year that people talk about LSU getting in with 2 losses.

    LSU wins the SEC has 2 losses both in triple overtime by a field goal to ranked teams. They also had 6 wins over ranked opponents.

    USC has 2 losses one of them to a 4-8 Stanford team.

    Missouri had 2 losses both to Oklahoma by 10 and 22 points.

    Kansas lost the last game of the season and didn't even play for their conference championship.

    Oklahoma had 2 losses both to good but unranked teams. The only team with an argument here IMO

    Georgia had 2 losses but didn't win the SEC and lost by 21 to Tennessee.

    West Virginia had 3 losses but to Pitt and South Florida.

    Hawaii was undefeated but didn't play anybody.

    LSU had the best resume of all the 2 loss teams.


    2008

    Florida went 12-1 winning the SEC and losing very early in the season. Not only that but they won 9 in a row by a margin of 430-117. They beat Arkansas by 31, LSU by 30, Kentucky by 58, Georgia by 39, South Carolina by 50, Florida State by 30 and then #1 Alabama by 11.

    Texas, Penn State and Texas Tech were all ahead of Florida at points after their loss during the season and they all lost.

    Utah went undefeated but were not a BCS conference. Probably the only team with any argument here IMO


    2009

    Alabama went 14-0 and won 12 of those games by double-digits. No argument there.... Unless you think that TCU, Boise State or Cincinnati should have got in over Alabama.


    2010

    Auburn went 14-0 and beat 6 ranked teams. No argument there... Unless you think that TCU should have got in over Auburn.


    2011

    This is the one that people have a problem with and first off LSU went undefeated and won the SEC beating 8 ranked teams including Oregon and West Virginia out of conference there was no doubt they were the #1 team in the country.

    Alabama lost to #1 LSU by a field goal in overtime.

    Stanford and Oklahoma State were to be ahead of Alabama but they lost. Stanford lost by 23 points to Oregon and Oklahoma State lost to 6-6 Iowa State.

    Its hard to make an argument for those teams being better than Alabama or having a better resume. The only argument is if you don't think 2 teams from the same conference should be able to play.


    2012

    Alabama had been #1 for pretty much the entire season and then lost by 5 to Texas A&M who is gonna finish ranked in the top 5.

    Ohio State went 12-0 but was banned from postseason play.

    Oregon and Kansas State were both ahead of Alabama in the rankings and lost the next to last week of the season. Were both expected to lose and not see Alabama move up a single spot?

    The only team with an argument here is Oregon (Kansas State got blown out by Baylor) but they lost after Alabama and when they were only one spot ahead in the rankings.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    Georgia had 2 losses but didn't win the SEC and lost by 21 to Tennessee.
    The loss to SC hurt more than that one. Gamecocks were terrible that season and Tony Wilson dropped the go-ahead TD. I'll never forget that game. The whole team was just flat from the start up in Knoxville, but that was a good Vols team so I still believe UGA would have been in position to sneak in if that was the only loss.
    Last edited by Bravo95; 01-05-2013 at 10:16 PM.

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,329
    vCash
    1500
    When counting those victories over ranked teams, is that ranked when they played or ranked when it's all said and done? Tennessee was ranked when Florida played them this year.

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    I usually count the ranking when the teams played each other. I mean, A&M fans will always say they knocked off the #1 team in the country this year no matter what happens in the national title game.

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •