For the record, I think you actually make a good point with the turnover margin. We talk a lot of shite because it's fun and because frick you, but obviously we're not going to be landing 4+ interceptions per game the entire season, and we're really going to feel the difference in the games when we don't. My problem here is that this began with an objective look at how an almost surely fluky turnover margin has assisted us, and ended with a bunch of baseless conjecture that does nothing but show how you're incapable of being objective.

quote:
Ole Miss and State just threw balls to defenders sitting in their zones in many cases.

quote:
Franks was still trying to hold off OM because you couldn’t put a team away despite 11 combined turnovers/failed conversions.

quote:
The two teams combined for 0 points on 6 specified drives inside the Arkansas 30, many of which were due to unforced errors, drops and penalties.

quote:
Correct, a very anomalous game statistically. (when your own poor performance against Vanderbilt is brought up)

quote:
Barely, and like the OM game largely because of numerous missed chances by State deep into Arkansas territory.

quote:
After they had already gotten into position to kick the game winning FG that they attempted the very next play. It was a bad call but let’s be honest, you’d have won on a fluke technicality. That call had nothing to do with skill or the game in general and Arkansas did nothing to force it. The better team won, bad call aside.

quote:
Two of the failed 4th downs were wide open drops.

quote:
And if he’d just kicked the 4 field goals he could have instead of failing on 4th down they’d have won even WITH 7 turnovers

quote:
Georgia in the second half and Auburn in the first quarter and half stuck to this model and outscored Arkansas a combined 49-0.

All of these things you said are dependent on the assumption of the opposing team playing a perfect or near perfect game, while Arkansas continues to play a nearly entirely flawed game. You don't get to talk about fourth down attempts as though they're all guaranteed. That's a calculated risk. You don't get to talk about missed FGs, QBs making poor decisions, coaches not adjusting, dropped passes, mental errors of all sorts, and decisions to not go for FGs. Because in this endeavor, you assume these attempts all would have worked out against our defense, and you assume that none of the similar mistakes Arkansas made would have worked out anyway.

It's a shame because it completely discredits a pretty good point, because you devolved into a bunch of mental gymnastics and one-sided, biased statistics cherry picked to make your argument look good. It's especially evident in the Auburn game. We don't get to talk about how a singular event in reffing flubs that led to an immediate rule change went against us? We don't get to talk about how if we hadn't missed the XP, we'd have been 31–30? Or that if we had missed the XP and not tried for two failed 2PC, it'd have been 30–30 and the end of the game would have been handled much differently? Funny how it's a different story when you talk about Auburn or Ole Miss. You're playing out a completely different version of every down of every game in your head, where everything melted down for Arkansas and came up gold for the other team, and then you're saying "well, I've ran the simulations, and you may be shocked to find Arkansas is actually not very good."