re: Congratulations Missouri on finishing as the second best SEC team. Unbelievable

It just baffles me how someone can really argue that a team that finished lower in the standings is better than the one who finished above them. They played 5 common opponents in the SEC. The team that finished higher in the standings went 5-0 in those games. The team that finished lower in the standings went 3-2 in those games. It just isn't logical to say that the team that finished lower in the standings was better than the team that finished higher.

quote:

---

Mizzou won the division. Case closed.

ETA - Only way South Carolina can claim to be better is if it won a higher title - for example, the national championship.

---

Exactly.

Its fun dragging their fans that like to flame along to expose them just a little. They were pretty obnoxious right up until we punched our ticket to Atlanta for the SECCG.

Good times.

quote:

---

It just baffles me how someone can really argue that a team that finished lower in the standings is better than the one who finished above them. They played 5 common opponents in the SEC. The team that finished higher in the standings went 5-0 in those games. The team that finished lower in the standings went 3-2 in those games. It just isn't logical to say that the team that finished lower in the standings was better than the team that finished higher.

---

So... it baffles your mind that a team that beat you is confused by your claim to being better than them? Even though when you actually played them, at your house, with your ball, during your party, you couldn't beat them?

Let's actually use logic... You have a blind taste test comparing sodas (for instance). Soda A versus soda B, Soda A wins. Soda B versus sodasC-G, soda B wins. Soda A versus sodas C-F, soda A wins, but loses against sodas G and H. Your telling me that soda B tastes better than soda A even though it doesn't when compared to each other? That doesn't make any sense...

Boy you are all over the field on this one.

quote:

---

So... it baffles your mind that a team that beat you is confused by your claim to being better than them? Even though when you actually played them, at your house, with your ball, during your party, you couldn't beat them?

Let's actually use logic... You have a blind taste test comparing sodas (for instance). Soda A versus soda B, Soda A wins. Soda B versus sodasC-G, soda B wins. Soda A versus sodas C-F, soda A wins, but loses against sodas G and H. Your telling me that soda B tastes better than soda A even though it doesn't when compared to each other? That doesn't make any sense...

---

You cant just wash away bad wins in conference and focus on one game.

Last year all you fricks told us it wasnt about "one" game and you had to have depth to run the SEC gauntlet and now this year, you trot out this song and dance.

The SEC isnt a one game show. Its a grueling grind of a schedule that takes a commitment form coaches and players to get through.

Seems like the standings have it right in gauging the better team in the East. Mizzou prevailed through its hardships and South Carolina did not. I know this will come as a shock to some of the Cocks but the SEC East title wasnt won that night in Columbia Mo when the Mizzou kicker hit the upright. It was won in games where Mizzou ground out wins against teams South Carolina could not. It was won when Mizzou defeated its West opponents Texas A & M and Ole Miss while South Carolina played Arkansas and Miss State.

No, make no mistake about this, Mizzou is the better team in the SEC. The proved that on the field of play through and entire SEC season.

quote:

---

You guys are some insecure mo fos.

---

Yall are the ones that are saying its not even debatable!

Mizzou's resume is great. Only 2 losses both to top 10 teams and one in 2OT. USC's resume is on par with it though even with the loss to UT because Mizzou's only has 2 victories over ranked teams, one of which is 4 loss aTm that is barely in the top 25.

Just can't believe that some people think its preposterous to even consider a team that finished 11-2 with 3 victories over the top 15 as number 2 in the conference. And beat the team claiming to be the undisputed number 2 head to head to boot.

Congrats on the Cotton Bowl. It will be interesting to see who ends up ranked number 5 on Tuesday(assuming this is when the final AP and coaches poll come out)

quote:

---

cap 1 > cotton

---

#13 Oklahoma State vs #8 Mizzou
#9 South Carolina vs #18 Wisconsin

Tell me more....

quote:

---

Are all people in South Carolina this stupid or is it just you?

By your argument, South Carolina is better than mizzou because they beat them (in OT thanks to a shanked FG).

With that in mind, I can assume that Tennessee and Georgia are better than South Carolina since they beat you.

We beat Tennessee and Georgia comfortably so we are a better team than both of those teams who are better than South Carolina. See how this works?

This is why Mizzou got FIRST in the east and South Carolina got SECOND. Because Mizzou is a better team.

---

If UGA and Tennessee had comparable records and were in this discussion then you would have a point, but they don't and neither do you. We beat you, we're better than you, get used to it...

So your argument is malleable in any way you wish as long as it reinforces your originally biased presupposition. If y'all had lost in Columbia and won the East, we'd hear this same garbage about how y'all were the better team because you won the East.

not that it matters but Bama would be favored against Mizzou or USC.

If you take the entire season, Bama is #2, IMHO