Posted: 1/27/2013 9:37 AM
Posted: 1/27/2013 9:49 AM
"Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.”—Benjamin Franklin, 1706–1790
Posted: 1/27/2013 9:55 AM
Posted: 1/27/2013 11:04 AM
Posted: 1/27/2013 11:31 AM
Jim Delany has expanded the Big Ten once again, and with that, conference schedules for football and basketball could begin to increase as well.
After announcing the addition of Maryland to the league Monday, Big Ten commissioner said during a national teleconference that the league's conference football schedule could increase to nine games, and the league's basketball slate could jump up to as many as 20 contests for each team.
Posted: 1/27/2013 11:58 AM
UCLAMarv wrote: Has the Big Ten given any consideration in switching a 9 conference games over the past few years?
Posted: 1/27/2013 12:21 PM
UCLAMarv wrote: Ktffan--You have no equals when it comes to posting fiction; my previous statement was 100% correct, and the article I posted dissecting the fraud that is the SEC and pointing out their unmatched addiction to padding their schedules against FCS schools is also correct.Deal with it!
Posted: 1/27/2013 1:32 PM
cincydawg4 wrote: I don't see much difference in playing Georgia State (FCS) versus Buffalo or Florida Atlantic. A decent team is going to blast any of them at home. Georgia State is probably a tougher out.A cream puff is a cream puff, no matter their classification.Most teams play three a year OOC and one BCS level team, fact. No decent team will be challenged by those three cream puffs played at home. Who cares who they are?
Posted: 1/27/2013 1:43 PM
NorfolkVaTiger wrote: UCLAMarv wrote: Ktffan--You have no equals when it comes to posting fiction; my previous statement was 100% correct, and the article I posted dissecting the fraud that is the SEC and pointing out their unmatched addiction to padding their schedules against FCS schools is also correct.Deal with it!Marv, have you bothered to look at either of my posts in this thread pointing out the gross factual errors in your posts? You haven't responded to either.I posted links to a database that shows how incredibly far off your numbers are.Are you deliberately ignoring the facts? At least respond with how I'm wrong if you think that's the case. Right now you appear to be someone stuck on a script that doesn't need facts to support it.
Posted: 1/28/2013 1:13 AM
Posted: 1/28/2013 6:10 AM
Posted: 1/28/2013 7:00 AM
UCLAMarv wrote: NorfolkVaTiger---That writer made a few mistakes in his article, and after doing some research on my own, here's what I found.1)---His assertion that the SEC played all of those 215 of 416 OOC games (bowl games included) against bottom feeders was distorted in part by his double-counting of the SEC's 26 games against the WAC, although he pointed out that only three of those games were against Boise St. or Fresno St.OTOH, 18 of the Pac-10's 65 games against WAC schools were against either BSU or FSU, thereby increasing the possibility of an OOC loss, which represents a 180% reversal from the SEC's dominant mindset of avoiding upper-level programs whenever possible, and especially on the road.As others have pointed out on this board, Alabama & Auburn are really hell-bent on doing so, and have only a handful of OOC road games during the 15 years of the BCS era.2)---His assertion that SEC schools rarely leave the Deep South to play upper-echelon programs either in the Midwest or in the western half of the country is unimpeachable; contrast the OOC schedules of the past 10, 20 or 30+ years for USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon & ASU agaainst Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, LSU & Florida and you'll see an extremely wide margin in quality of opponents comfortably favoring the Pac-10/Pac-12.If you disregard the traditional USC/ND & UF/FSU matches, the SEC is even farther behind, and the Gators are well behind the 'Canes & the 'Noles in OOC scheduling choices, as everyone knows; their 'We play FSU every year' boast doesn't hold water since FSU's program has imploded over the past dozen years since they lost If most of the SEC schools won't spend 2-4 hours on a plane to prove themselves against upper-echelon programs in other regions or time zones, there's no reason for them to be taken seriously from a national perspective, regardless of what ESPN claims.If ESPN wishes to spend time praising the SEC elite and absurdly pumping the schools in the lower half of that conference, including the ludicrous cheerleading for Mississippi St. last year as well as Arkansas & South Carolina in recent years, their bias is undeniable, and any claims they might have for being impartial are equally asinine..
A FEW???? A few??? It's hard to find anything he got right.
First of all, you know the WAC is not an FCS conference, right?
On top of that SEC teams did not play 26 games against WAC teams.
Mistakes for the SEC were as follows:
The SEC played more than 416 non-conference games, and they weren't 315-101. They weren't 87-79 against "BCS Schools". They weren't 12-12 against The Big Ten. They weren't 14-14 against The Big 12. They weren't 12-10 against the Big East. They weren't 39-32 against the ACC. They did not have 199 wins against FCS schools, they did not have 16 losses against FCS schools, they did not win 47.8% of their wins against FCS schools. They did not have 109 regular seasong games against BCS schools. The number of road games and percentages is also wrong.
Mistakes for the PAC-12 were as follows:
The PAC played less than 315 non-conference games, and their record was not 206-109. They were not 76-72 against "BCS schools". They were 25-17 against The Big 10, they weren't 11-5 against the ACC, and they weren't 4-5 against the Big East. They did not have 43 wins against FCS. They did not have 2 losses against FCS schools. Of course the win percentages against FCS is also wrong. They did not have 162 regular season games against BCS and MWC teams, they did not have 114 regular season games against BCS schools. The PAC did not have 85 non-conference road games.
The article even blew the USC numbers.
Almost everything in that article was wrong, and yet you seemed to accepted it to the that you're defending it as "correct" when the extremely obvious flaws are pointed out to you.
The writer of this article in no way established himself as someone who's giving accurate information, far less good information. That stats blown were easy stats and easy stats is not going to give you a decent conference comparison. If a guy blew the easy stats, he's certainly not going to give you an in-depth anaysis. Yet he posts this on the internet and guys accept the information he gives without fail, even though it gave a far from accurate picture. You bought it to the point that you are posting it years later. A work of fiction made that deep impression on you.
Come on, be better than that.
Posted: 1/28/2013 8:01 AM
Posted: 1/28/2013 9:12 AM
Last edited 1/28/2013 9:22 AM by rivergator
Posted: 1/28/2013 9:47 AM
scarlet71 wrote: WHO CARES ABOUT THE $EC.......DON'T KNOW WHY THEY TROLL THIS BOARD? WE ALL KNOW THE REASON
Posted: 1/28/2013 10:04 AM
Posted: 1/28/2013 10:17 AM
scarlet71 wrote: scarlet71 wrote: WHO CARES ABOUT THE $EC.......DON'T KNOW WHY THEY TROLL THIS BOARD? WE ALL KNOW THE REASON
Posted: 1/28/2013 2:02 PM
cincydawg4 wrote: scarlet71 wrote: scarlet71 wrote: WHO CARES ABOUT THE $EC.......DON'T KNOW WHY THEY TROLL THIS BOARD? WE ALL KNOW THE REASONI believe it was an OSU fan who started this post, and that is true for many other posts which involve the SEC. SEC fans "troll" this board because of the warm welcome Buckeye fans here have extended to MOST of them.
Posted: 1/28/2013 2:38 PM
Posted: 1/29/2013 5:02 PM
16isles wrote: Michigan doesn't have anybody down low. What win by Michigan has impressed you? I forgot.... Kansas.
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|