Started By
Message
re: How come Florida and Georgia cant stop Mizzou from winning East?
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:04 am to reedus23
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:04 am to reedus23
quote:I have already beaten my Wife and killed my dog because of the 2014 WLOCP. Do you want me to burn my trailer too?
In the meantime, you never really addressed the OP did ya? Why can't UGA stop Mizzou from winning the east?
Truth is I have no fricking clue how we let a team we beat 34-0 win the East. It truly boggles my mind. But Mizzou won the games they needed to and they got there. We didn't.
1
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:26 am to kilo
Simply put, Missouri has been a better team and they have a large advantage in coaching.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:33 am to THWG247
quote:
quote:
same as winning the east.
If you were the best, then you would have actually won the east. Choke jobs against florida and SC are not excludible
Every game counts. Just about everyone knows Uga was better than mizzou last year and that mizzou won the east. Both are possible at the same time.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:47 am to kilo
With the talent they had Florida and Tennessee should not have been losing the last two years. Maybe the new coaches will fix it. Then all will be right in the world and we will have an all Blue Blood SEC championship game. Three Blue Bloods in the division and Mizzou wins it for two years. I'm pretty satisfied with that.
The 2013 SEC CG was winnable against Auburn but Auburn got the job done when they needed to in the 4th quarter. No one gave Mizzou much of a chance against Bama last year and Bama showed why from the 1st quarter on.
I had no problem with Will Muschamp in 2012 when they went 11-2 but man the fall was swift after that. From what I hear about how he left a unit as critical as the offensive line in a shambles for McElwain must make many glad he is gone.
How could you justify firing Mark Richt? He is in the hunt every year and almost won the conference in 2012. You could look at 2012 and say the real National Championship was played in Atlanta that year. That puts Mark Richt pretty close to winning it all...
The 2013 SEC CG was winnable against Auburn but Auburn got the job done when they needed to in the 4th quarter. No one gave Mizzou much of a chance against Bama last year and Bama showed why from the 1st quarter on.
I had no problem with Will Muschamp in 2012 when they went 11-2 but man the fall was swift after that. From what I hear about how he left a unit as critical as the offensive line in a shambles for McElwain must make many glad he is gone.
How could you justify firing Mark Richt? He is in the hunt every year and almost won the conference in 2012. You could look at 2012 and say the real National Championship was played in Atlanta that year. That puts Mark Richt pretty close to winning it all...
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:51 am to dhuck20
quote:
I have already beaten my Wife and killed my dog because of the 2014 WLOCP. Do you want me to burn my trailer too?
That there is sig quote material for someone.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:24 am to djsdawg
quote:
Uga was better than mizzou last year and that mizzou won the east
There is your problem in logic. The better team does not choke games away vs USC & Florida. Sure Georgia had a higher ceiling then Mizzou and won head to head BUT the better TEAM does not lose those games. Like I said Georgia was "better" in talent and upside but in RESULTS they were not.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:28 am to Tackle74
quote:
There is your problem in logic.
quote:
Georgia won head to head BUT the better TEAM does not lose those games.
Lol. Georgia and Missouri played each other in columbia and UGA won 34-0 in a game that was never remotely close. UGA was far better than missouri. I really don't understand why this whole topic is such a debate. It's pretty simple:
-Georgia was better than missouri, that is proven.
-Georgia lost other games to other teams, teams that missouri beat
-Therefore, missouri won the east based on having a better SEC record.
I mean it's not rocket science.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:40 am to WG_Dawg
It's like Mizzou fans are in complete denial as to what 34-0 (at home) really means.
To get beaten 34-0 at home is a total demolishment. It is a dismantling of your team on a molecular level. In all seriousness, who the frick ever gets beaten that bad - anywhere - let alone at home?
Add to this it was our first game without the best player in college football and it becomes even more of a laugher.
Seriously Mizzou fan - you need to let this one go. 34-0. At home. Keep up your argument as to who the better team was last season and you will keep getting this reminder: 34-0 at your place. Georgia went in without Todd Gurley and stomped a mud hole in your arse and then walked it dry in front of your home fans, your team's families, and whatever recruits you were stupid enough to have visit you for that game.
So please, tell us again how much better you were than Georgia last season.
Or - better yet - tell us how you hope to score at least one point against us next season. That would be a nice start.
To get beaten 34-0 at home is a total demolishment. It is a dismantling of your team on a molecular level. In all seriousness, who the frick ever gets beaten that bad - anywhere - let alone at home?
Add to this it was our first game without the best player in college football and it becomes even more of a laugher.
Seriously Mizzou fan - you need to let this one go. 34-0. At home. Keep up your argument as to who the better team was last season and you will keep getting this reminder: 34-0 at your place. Georgia went in without Todd Gurley and stomped a mud hole in your arse and then walked it dry in front of your home fans, your team's families, and whatever recruits you were stupid enough to have visit you for that game.
So please, tell us again how much better you were than Georgia last season.
Or - better yet - tell us how you hope to score at least one point against us next season. That would be a nice start.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:42 am to GoldenDawg
they quite clearly weren't better than georgia last season. However, they had a better season, because they won games against teams that we lost to. Overall body of work; they come out on top. The season is a grind and they handled it better. But as to which team was better..there's a reason teams play against each other, and we saw how that turned out. Again, not sure why both sides can't understand some of these facts.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:42 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Lol. Georgia and Missouri played each other in columbia and UGA won 34-0 in a game that was never remotely close. UGA was far better than missouri. I really don't understand why this whole topic is such a debate. It's pretty simple:
-Georgia was better than missouri, that is proven.
-Georgia lost other games to other teams, teams that missouri beat
-Therefore, missouri won the east based on having a better SEC record
See there is the problem the better team wins more games when it counts and Georgia did not therefor they were not the better team. Georgia had a higher ceiling or more potential and could even play a better game then Mizzou. They could not though as a team get it done through the season. Look according to your logic the Gators and Cocks were better then Georgia. Hell Indiana was better then Mizzou because they beat them head to head. That is quite frankly a loser's argument.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:42 am to GoldenDawg
Don't argue with the Yankees.... >And you know this maaaan<
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:46 am to Tackle74
quote:
there is the problem the better team wins more games when it counts
So the uga/missouri game "didn't count"? I'm giving missouri credit here, I'm saying yall won more games than us and yall took care of business in games that we did not. You won the east fair and square and you earned it. But you weren't better than georgia. The 2 teams played, we know who was better.
quote:
Look according to your logic the Gators and Cocks were better then Georgia.
Well, those teams beat us. So I think it'd be a fair assessment to say that at the time of the game those teams were better. We had a better season than those teams the same way missouri had a better season than us...we won more games than they did and accomplished more overall than they did. It's also worth pointing out that the UGA/SC game was a 3 point game that wasn't decided until a minute left, whereas we beat missouri 34-0. You can't really explain that away.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:47 am to Tackle74
quote:
There is your problem in logic. The better team does not choke games away vs USC & Florida. Sure Georgia had a higher ceiling then Mizzou and won head to head BUT the better TEAM does not lose those games. Like I said Georgia was "better" in talent and upside but in RESULTS they were not.
Silly tiger, Indiana happened. Are you saying the better team loses to Indiana and 34-0 to a gurley-less Uga team at home? Now THAT is an illogical thought.
This post was edited on 7/4/15 at 10:49 am
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:55 am to WG_Dawg
Missouri had a better team last year then UGA . The record proves it . UGA was by far the better team the day they played. UF was not a better team then UGA last year just for the day they played. The only argument UGA could have is if they played much tougher teams from west.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:56 am to WG_Dawg
There are wins. Then there are huge wins.
Then there are historic beat downs. 34-0 is an historic beat down. In all honesty that has to be on the top, or at least on the short list, of the worst beating a Missouri team has ever taken at home.
Courtesy of a team you were better than?
Yeah, we had two teams beat us last year, and the gators beat us pretty good. No doubt.
But I don't think we've EVER taken a beating like that at home, although in 1995 Spurrier ran it up on us 52-17 after taking a 38-17 score into the 4th quarter.
Be thankful Richt has more mercy than Spurrier (which isn't that hard, actually) or it would've even been a more humiliating shut out loss.
Then there are historic beat downs. 34-0 is an historic beat down. In all honesty that has to be on the top, or at least on the short list, of the worst beating a Missouri team has ever taken at home.
Courtesy of a team you were better than?
Yeah, we had two teams beat us last year, and the gators beat us pretty good. No doubt.
But I don't think we've EVER taken a beating like that at home, although in 1995 Spurrier ran it up on us 52-17 after taking a 38-17 score into the 4th quarter.
Be thankful Richt has more mercy than Spurrier (which isn't that hard, actually) or it would've even been a more humiliating shut out loss.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:05 am to Tackle74
So the better team loses to a terrible Big Ten team?
This post was edited on 7/4/15 at 11:30 am
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:12 am to tjv305
quote:
Missouri had a better team last year then UGA . The record proves it . UGA was by far the better team the day they played. UF was not a better team then UGA last year just for the day they played. The only argument UGA could have is if they played much tougher teams from west.
Every game counts when discussing the better team. Go game by game and compare the teams played. Once you do that, you will see that The rankings of the 2 teams was accurate.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:15 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
WG_Dawg
I think we are closer in opinion then it looks like. I agree Georgia had a better team at its peak performance then Mizzou easily. I just tend to look at the entire season as the measure of a team. You seem to be judging by which team was better if both teams played there best. Georgia was the better game team and Mizzou the better season long team.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:16 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
There are wins. Then there are huge wins
At the end of the year they all count as either a W or a L.
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:17 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
Then there are historic beat downs. 34-0 is an historic beat down. In all honesty that has to be on the top, or at least on the short list, of the worst beating a Missouri team has ever taken at home.
You don't know much about our history when we were "lost in the wilderness'.
I do agree though, Georgia won in the head to head and was the better team that day. Georgia should always be better than Mizzou, with all the obvious advantages. I have zero probs with Georgia, I've always like them, even before we joined the SEC.
The fact is though, Richt always finds a way to lose games, critical games, that he shouldn't. The last two years, Mizzou has taken advantage of that and won the East. It's that simple in my book.
Page 10 of 13
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News