Recent Comments
Probability. Or think of it this way: If Team A had a 50% chance of winning in each game, you'd expect 6-6. If Team B had a 100% chance of winning in each game, you'd expect 12-0. If Team C had a 51% chance of winning in each game, what would you expect? If all that matters is being favored, then you should expect 12-0. But does that really make sense when you compare them to A & B? Do you really expect a team with 51% chance in each game to have the same record as one with a 99% chance? No, and the math supports this. So since UGA doesn't have a 100% chance of winning in each game, they aren't projected to go 12-0 despite being favored in every game.
If you set the bar that high, prepare to be disappointed. Even if the SEC gets 2 teams in the playoff, I don't like Mizzou's chances of finishing high enough to get a NY6 spot.
lol don't try to talk sense like that! I also love the "learning the system" argument that explains early-season struggles against the CSUs so well...
Ever played paintball with someone who bragged about their Matrix-level dodging while everyone tried not to laugh at the paint dripping from them? You're the internet equivalent of that person right now. Your mistakes may look different from your perspective, but that's what happens when you rush in with bad assumptions like a hillbilly schoolgirl. And since "defensive stops" =/= "turnovers returned for TDs" thanks for the additional laughs. UGA didn't blow Mizzou out, but Mizzou wasn't a play or two away from victory.
A 12-1 UM is almost certainly in over 11-1 LSU, fair or not.
Well, you first claimed that Mizzou had close games against UK, SCAR, and UGA. Then you switched to only talking about UK and SCAR. Goalposts = moved. Then you assumed, despite the fact that I mentioned there was a lot of hilarity to unpack, that there was only one thing I was talking about. Maybe I wasn't saying it was hilarious to call one score games against UK and SCAR close (which I wasn't - that is so obvious that I can't believe I have to point it out), but was instead laughing at a fan admitting that half their team was bad or thinking that a merely average defense would be enough to have a real shot against the best team in the division.
Pretty sure this is mostly (entirely?) based on their grades from last year, so that probably explains the position discrepancy.
I see you have proven your rhetorical acumen by resorting to name-calling, the highest form of debate. Well done. I also see that you conveniently made assumptions and moved your goalposts, further confirming your brilliance. Congrats. I think you can do better.
"And if Mizzou can just be average, then we don’t lose close games to Kentucky and SCar and UGA, etc." LOL, so much hilarity to unpack there.
I think that's what an ohio state university wants. We should try to get the sports media to stop feeding their narcissism.
Pretty sure bayou tiger was saying that there can be a big difference in how good #2 and #3 are. Rankings don't necessarily tell us that. But yes, being ranked #2 or #3 doesn't matter very much in the current system (and it matters even less in the offseason).
I highly doubt that a team that lost to unranked Iowa St. would have beaten that LSU team. And they certainly wouldn't have beaten them in a playoff - they wouldn't have even played LSU because Alabama would have thrashed them in the first round. OSU would've just given us a preview of '12 ND.
Y'all really should start putting disclosures at the beginning instead of the end.
I'm as serious as the author is sensible. He's saying the success of their season depends on a hypothetical matchup with a team that isn't on their schedule and one they might not even play at all this year. Seems far-fetched to me. So yeah, it was sarcasm.
C'mon people, UGA can't have a successful season unless they beat Bama. Even if they beat LSU/A&M/Auburn in the SECGC and Clemson in the NCG, it would still be a failure. And losing the SECCG to Bama or going to the playoff without playing in it but winning the NCG would be a failure. Obviously.
Interesting idea. I wonder how it'll work out.
Sounds pretty good. Smart way to fight declining attendance and/or improve the fan experience.
Eh, UF didn't look like they were trying to find an identity when they were beating up on the CSUs in September. You wouldn't really expect blowouts like that if identity was the main issue. But it may be a factor. Sample size of 2 is pretty small, and I think a yr 2 bump is fairly normal. (Also, the amount of returning talent on this team relative to all his other teams isn't really relevant to his yr 2 improvement.) Mullen's yr 1 was fairly high, so UF fans shouldn't necessarily go in thinking that no bump/slightly fewer wins would necessarily be too terrible or surprising.
Better. I would add the fact that several of UF's wins were pretty close last year, so there is a concern that they may not be as fortunate this year if they are in several close games again. I'd be more confident in them repeating/improving their record if their margin of victory (in SEC games) was higher, but their large margin of victory in non-conference games is at least somewhat encouraging.
Andrew, I was talking about Neil's.
If you want to converse instead of hurling ironic insults, feel free to join the discussion.
"Not all programs agree with Mullen and Florida’s proactive approach." Direct quote from the piece I was referencing, which goes on to try to say that FSU and UGA aren't as good as Mullen's UF's level. I do agree that such an opinion is unsupported BS.
We tend to forget/ignore that they also have a fair chance to lose at least one of the games they are favored in, potentially cancelling out that potential upset. A&M should be much better than the typical 7-win team, and they may win more than 7. But they have a brutal schedule that will test them physically and mentally, and it's hard to objectively predict a much better record than this.
That opening sentence doesn't make any sense. UGA won a championship in 2017 (SEC). And if only NCs count, then saying UGA "should have won" one in 2018 because they had a lead over the runner-up that got blown out doesn't make much sense.
This doesn't make sense; I just read a completely objective, evidence-based piece here about how UF was unique among its rivals because of its proactive approach to these kinds of situations. /s Before the Gator fans overreact, I think the problems obviously predate Mullen's HC tenure. But some of the problems still persist, and his approach, while not nearly the worst we've seen in football, hasn't exactly been flawless so far (despite what some may say). I do think some of the problems are widespread and important enough that they should be addressed at a higher level than individual teams, and I think fans shouldn't trivialize the issues by reducing them to punchlines about rival teams. Instead, we should all work together to make sure that the people and institutions we all hold so dear are worthy of our investments.
^Not enough info to tell which team you're referring to