Started By
Message
re: Dawgs are going to the Orange bowl
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:36 pm to Sancho Panza
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:36 pm to Sancho Panza
Why
2
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:37 pm to UMRealist
It doesn't fricking matter so I'm not sure what the fascination with it is about...
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:41 pm to DynastyDawg
Yeah i mean it's obvious which is the better bowl. I'm just happy we are both inside the top 10 for a change. I wish our bowl wasn't being played at 12:30 but oh well that's my only gripe.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:44 pm to UMRealist
Cause last year neither one of us with the same record would've gotten as a good of a bowl.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:51 pm to Sancho Panza
Why?
Absolute best case scenario, we walk with an extra $300k after our small bonus when the payout money is divided 15 ways by the conference.
Absolute best case scenario, we walk with an extra $300k after our small bonus when the payout money is divided 15 ways by the conference.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 4:52 pm to Sancho Panza
quote:
Cause last year neither one of us with the same record would've gotten as a good of a bowl.
Say what?
If this was last year, MSU would be Sugar Bowl bound right now...
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:00 pm to engie
Maybe Muffin can get started on a diamond mine in Miami.
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:16 pm to engie
Perhaps, just remember getting snubbed in the past.
This year the 6 best bowls got 11 of the best teams + Boys sea State.
This year the 6 best bowls got 11 of the best teams + Boys sea State.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:22 pm to Sancho Panza
We were a lock for the Sugar as the #2 SEC team...
But I do agree that the new setup made a bunch of WAY more interesting matchups across the board. Better teams in the "BCS" bowls -- better teams in the minor bowls. This will be the most interesting SEC bowl season top to bottom that I ever remember seeing...
But I do agree that the new setup made a bunch of WAY more interesting matchups across the board. Better teams in the "BCS" bowls -- better teams in the minor bowls. This will be the most interesting SEC bowl season top to bottom that I ever remember seeing...
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:28 pm to engie
I'm confused as to how 6&6 sniffed #2?
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:32 pm to Sancho Panza
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:35 pm to Sancho Panza
We went 10-2 last I checked. And got the #2 SEC bowl slot behind Bama. That would have put us in the Sugar Bowl last year. This isn't difficult.
If you are now reversing the scenario where you put last year's teams into the structure -- we are most likely in Texas vs 6-6 or 7-5 Big12 team.
If you are now reversing the scenario where you put last year's teams into the structure -- we are most likely in Texas vs 6-6 or 7-5 Big12 team.
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:40 pm to engie
If you'll re-read my un-edited post the 2d & 3d words are "last year".
So, that 'splains it, thanks.
So, that 'splains it, thanks.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:44 pm to NIH
NIH, sorry you're retarded.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:44 pm to Sancho Panza
No, it doesn't.
Nothing you've said in this whole thread makes sense -- and I'm sick of spoonfeeding it to you. Everyone gets it -- you don't know what is going on and are talking out of your arse.
Moving on.
@ Sancho pulling out his downvotes. Not only that -- but self-upvoting. What a little bitch.
Nothing you've said in this whole thread makes sense -- and I'm sick of spoonfeeding it to you. Everyone gets it -- you don't know what is going on and are talking out of your arse.
Moving on.
@ Sancho pulling out his downvotes. Not only that -- but self-upvoting. What a little bitch.This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:46 pm to engie
Never mind, genius.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 5:54 pm to engie
quote:
@ Sancho pulling out his downvotes. Not only that -- but self-upvoting. What a little bitch.
You take this shite way too seriously.
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 6:09 pm to pivey14
Edits most, if not all, his posts, I clearly typed last year, which he missed.
My eyes are old & iPhone type small, I don't blame anyone for missing something.
Then assumed I didn't understand.
We're all Bulldogs; who just made the OB for the 1st time since 1940; yes, I know it was played in 1941.
Lighten up, Francis.
My eyes are old & iPhone type small, I don't blame anyone for missing something.
Then assumed I didn't understand.
We're all Bulldogs; who just made the OB for the 1st time since 1940; yes, I know it was played in 1941.
Lighten up, Francis.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 6:10 pm to pivey14
PV pls go b btch by self.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 6:17 pm to Sancho Panza
quote:
Edits most, if not all, his posts, I clearly typed last year, which he missed.
No one overlooked a damn thing about last year. I clearly addressed last year twice.
Your post implied to me and obviously NIH as well that our current record would have landed us in worse bowls "last year". Which I replied to -- and you replied to. You didn't bother clarifying(or changing) what you were trying to say until a half dozen posts later...
Even if your actual premise was about last year's records in the current structure instead of this year's records in last year's structure -- we still wouldn't have been in worse bowls, but would have been in just as good or better bowls with better matchups(changed tie-ins in Liberty to vs Big12, etc)...
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News