phxcat wrote:
I'm glad that you are able to trade any hope of success for your own team for the ability to brag about the success of other teams in your conference. I'm glad that your school has fulfilled its dream of moving out of a conference that you feel has slighted you to a cult of a conference where the big dogs have everyone else in a position where they are perfectly OK with losing as long as the big dogs are happy. However, you have a very strong tendency to argue your points using pretty bad logical fallacies.
I like how you accuse me of using the SEC's greatness to feel better about Mizzou, then you proceed to tell me things like, "K-State could beat A&M." Do you have anything to back that up outside of your own opinion?
As you know, I am very opinionated. You are too. That's great for both of us. However, it's human nature to allow our own feelings to shape our opinion, which causes flawed logic many times. I am certainly not perfect at having the most fair and unbiased opinions because of human nature. But, I try to look at actual results, rather than my feelings or personal opinions. (Though, I'm not perfect at it by any means.)
phxcat wrote:
Bowl games are largely determined by matchups and the long lay off between the end of the regular season and the games. With K-State, the defense shut down Oregon's offense as well as can be expected. The conventional wisdom going into the game was that K-State could only hope to contain Oregon's offense and outscore them on offense. For the most part (and take away the 8 points from the return which was ST) and K-State allowed 27. On offense, Colin Klein was just not himself, and hasn't been since his concussion, and I also read a thread where some Texas fans noted that an offensive lineman was tipping the plays with his stance. That is something that a month off gives the coaches plenty of time to notice and exploit. Bottom line, though, despite the fact that the Big XII thoroughly stomped the best of the PAC in other games, Oregon is probably the best team in the country, and the worst match-up for K-State, and I would still like K-State's chances against either Alabama or ND.
These seem like a bunch of excuses to me.
phxcat wrote: Big Game Bob always loses bowl games.
So, it's ok that Oklahoma got blown out by a former Big 12 team because losing bowl games is what Big Game Bob does best?
phxcat wrote:K-State stops Manziel and wins that game if they are playing instead of OU. TCU should have beat MSU and would have, except for a muffed punt that should never have been fielded, and then compounded by trying to scoop it up and run rather than securing the ball.
This is purely an opinion. Do you have any actual results that would back up this statement?
phxcat wrote:Only Two schools lost bad games, WVU and ISU, but you have to remember that these are the schools finishing in the same position in conference as SEC schools like Missouri who aren't even good enough to make a bowl game.
Mizzou's bowl game opponents can do no worse than 7-2, if not 8-1 (depending on who wins the BCS Championship). Both WVU's and ISU's opponents went 4-5 in bowl games.
phxcat wrote:[Texas and Baylor beat ranked PAC teams. Baylor, who late in the season looked like it wouldn't even make a bowl game, beat the PAC south champion.
Congrats? The "upgraded" Big 12 still managed to go 4-5 in bowl games.
phxcat wrote:How bad is Florida?
You're asking how bad Florida is because they lost a bowl? Well, crap. How bad is West Virginia? TCU? Oklahoma? K-State? Remember, this Big 12 was supposed to be upgraded with WVU and TCU. So, why the 4-5 bowl record when the Big 12 went 6-2 last year?
phxcat wrote:with the bowl system the way it is, it is difficult to compare conferences even after the bowls. You could make a much stronger case had Florida not lost, but when you start down that road, you have to accept the fact that the Big East, with their winning bowl record and dominant BCS win is, in fact, the best conference in college football.
I agree with this! There are different ways to see which conference is best, and the bowls are just one. They are an imperfect way of judging the conferences. But, they are one of the main ways used to form an opinion about conferences. So, right or wrong, they play on big impact on people's opinions. Therefore, based solely on the bowl results, you can see the SEC did better than the Big 12....again.
phxcat wrote:
I really hate that you force me to defend KU again, but when you say that they are the worst team in college football, you may be right, but you only have a limited sample size to make that claim. Every team they lost to wen to a bowl game. Had they played Colorado's schedule, chances are that they would have won a few games. Had they played Missouri's schedule, chances are they would have won a few games.
Be careful here because you're using a lot of personal opinion rather than actual results. So, there's a lot of gray area here. What exactly do you see in Missouri's schedule that would suggest KU would have won a few games? Who cares if every team KU lost to went bowling? Same thing happened to Mizzou. In fact, of the teams Mizzou lost to, only 1 (maybe 2...depending on Alabama) also lost their bowl game. KU can't say that. Of course, they can't say a lot of things.
phxcat wrote:
Fifth Tier (teams that are just bad, and won't beat anyone but each other)
Kansas, Missouri, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee
Looking at this, which conference is best top to bottom?
Again, you're dealing with your own personal opinion here, rather than actual results. Of the so-called fifth tier teams you've listed, only Kansas hasn't won a conference game in the last 3 years. The rest have won conference games....and Auburn even won a national championship. So, based on your own listing, it's not illogical to conclude that the SEC is better from top to bottom. SEC it is, then. Of course, that's just my opinion.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)