Started By
Message
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:23 pm to STL1
It's too bad that you're self esteem is tied to the results of your failing college football team and that you choose to make up "your truth" to assuage your hurt feelings.
Your salty vagina is weeping heavily.
Your salty vagina is weeping heavily.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:33 pm to Houag80
Self-esteem .. Vagina... How about sticking to football.... Weirdo....
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:35 pm to GamerAg
quote:
Check again. Currently higher than OU, Tenn, Vandy and Ole Miss
I'm still waiting for this weeks updates for SoS, should be out later today.
Going into the weekend, you were dead last in the SEC. You might have passed Ole Miss this weekend since you played Missouri and they played FCS, we'll see.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:40 pm to STL1
Just have to call BS on the whole SOS whining. Coming out of South Bend with a win is legit. Coming out of Baton Rouge at night with a win is legit. And they took care of business when they were supposed to.
Horns took the same crap last year for winning in the Big House and Kyle Field at night.
All you can do is play who's in front of you. Haters still gonna hate.
Horns took the same crap last year for winning in the Big House and Kyle Field at night.
All you can do is play who's in front of you. Haters still gonna hate.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:51 pm to GamerAg
quote:
ESPN LINK
Sagarin LINK
Neither of those are credible sources. They work off averages, which are terrible for this purpose.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:52 pm to HTX Horn
quote:
Just have to call BS on the whole SOS whining. Coming out of South Bend with a win is legit. Coming out of Baton Rouge at night with a win is legit. And they took care of business when they were supposed to.
Horns took the same crap last year for winning in the Big House and Kyle Field at night.
All you can do is play who's in front of you. Haters still gonna hate.
But it's not a vacuum, other teams are also playing those games and more of them.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:56 pm to 3down10
quote:
Neither of those are credible sources. They work off averages, which are terrible for this purpose.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of statistics credibility.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:03 pm to bfpri
quote:And we laughed at the constant threads crying about it the same way aggies are now.
They are way overrated but Texas last year was similar and lost to the only team they played with a pulse
Every fanbase in the SEC proclaims that it is head-and-shoulders tougher and different from every other conference... until a team people don't approve of start winning.
I'm with aggie fans on this one: the rest of you like OP are being hypocritical crybabies
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:05 pm to GamerAg
quote:
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of statistics credibility.
Or maybe there is a valid reason for it because I've got decent experience in this area and understand the flaws. As I said they use averages.
I'll demonstrate for you. 2 teams with a 2 game schedule.
Team A plays #49 and #50
Team B played #1 and #120
Who has the toughest schedule? If you use the shitty metrics I say do not have credibility, they would tell you Team A does. However, in reality team B's schedule is not only more difficult, it's significantly more difficult.
Why? Because a decent team who plays on Team A's schedule will likely be 2-0. While even a great team who plays on Team B's schedule will likely be 1-1. So the best way to measure SoS is not by any average rank, power or whatever of the teams played, but the expected losses a good or elite team would have on their schedule.
And using that kind of metric, Texas A&M was last among the SEC going into the weekend. And again, it's possible they have passed Ole Miss because Ole Miss played a FCS while A&M played what will be seen as probably your 2nd toughest game of the season in Missouri as computers don't know you played a 3rd string QB.
So unless you can show me a better way to calculate SoS, I'll be sticking the metrics I currently use. I hope other metrics like the ones you are citing wake up to the fact their metrics suck.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:08 pm to menu2
quote:
And we laughed at the constant threads crying about it the same way aggies are now.
Every fanbase in the SEC proclaims that it is head-and-shoulders tougher and different from every other conference... until a team people don't approve of start winning.
I'm with aggie fans on this one: the rest of you like OP are being hypocritical crybabies
This topic has been going on in the SEC long before you fricks joined. The East division has been getting easy schedules for years compared to the West. Although back in the early 2000's and late 1990's the East was arguably more difficult.
If Alabama had a weak schedule, you'd see 10 times the posts.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:18 pm to 3down10
quote:
But it's not a vacuum, other teams are also playing those games and more of them.
I'm not saying there aren't differences in SOS. But OOC schedules are made years in advance. Not a program's fault if the year they play ND, Michigan, Clemson they happen to suck.
There's also really no control over conference schedules. When LSU is on your schedule it's a circle-the-date type of game. And honestly can say that about 75%+ of the teams in SEC which is why I'm glad to be here.
Now scheduling the likes of UTEP, Samford, etc. is open to criticism. But all SEC schools do the same.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:36 pm to STL1
quote:
You ever watch football before?! You must have a kicker! If not, you're forced to go for it on 4th down almost every possession that is not in chip-shot range. If not you're punting where you may try a 40-50 yarder. Look at the margin of victory in the SEC this year, under 10 pts. per game I believe & tell me a good kicker is not important.
Did Missouri not have a kicker or something? What is this about? Missouri only had one drive where they got into field goal range without scoring a touchdown and in that drive they kicked a fricking 49 yard field goal. They made all their extra points? Their kicker had virtually zero impact on the game except a small positive one.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:40 pm to Ag_16
Absolutely LOVE this crying and gnashing of teeth. Hope it continues through Jan!
Yes, A&M is absolutely one weak team. Anyone who watches them should know it.
Yes, A&M is absolutely one weak team. Anyone who watches them should know it.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:44 pm to EZOU
quote:
. Guess we’ll see how they do against the big boys.
LOL. The "big boys" keep changing.
Tell me, exactly WHO are the big boys? I want names.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:50 pm to 3down10
quote:
So unless you can show me a better way to calculate SoS, I'll be sticking the metrics I currently use. I hope other metrics like the ones you are citing wake up to the fact their metrics suck.
I believe what you are describing is strength of record, not strength of schedule. Amd i believe A&m has the #1 SOR in the country.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 5:08 pm to MoonMoon2020
quote:
I believe what you are describing is strength of record, not strength of schedule. Amd i believe A&m has the #1 SOR in the country.
I know the difference, I have experience with these things directly in terms of generating advanced stats etc.
Strength of record is just a ranking stat. I generally consider it to be worthless. It's mostly just the fact you are 9-0 than the strength of schedule that puts you there. Which is fine, I mean I wouldn't have a problem with A&M being #1 in the polls etc. But it's just not a useful stat in itself when it comes to the actual strength of teams or the strength of the schedule they've played.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 5:19 pm to JJxvi
This thread is exhausting.
Fact: Mizzou has been very good the past few years.
Fact: Mizzou barely lost to Bama and Vandy this year.
Fact: Mizzou had our arses handed to us Saturday.
Fact: We belong in the SEC.
Fiction: We should expect 10-2 every year. Do I want that? Yes. Is it realistic? No. That doesn’t make me “self-deprecating.” It means I’m rational.
Fiction: Drink is a crappy coach. Um, his record proves otherwise. The big wins WILL come.
Fiction: A&M should be embarrassed about their schedule. What the hell? They just beat us and we’re dissing them? Ridiculous! They’re a good team. They outperformed Bama against us.
Fact: Mizzou has been very good the past few years.
Fact: Mizzou barely lost to Bama and Vandy this year.
Fact: Mizzou had our arses handed to us Saturday.
Fact: We belong in the SEC.
Fiction: We should expect 10-2 every year. Do I want that? Yes. Is it realistic? No. That doesn’t make me “self-deprecating.” It means I’m rational.
Fiction: Drink is a crappy coach. Um, his record proves otherwise. The big wins WILL come.
Fiction: A&M should be embarrassed about their schedule. What the hell? They just beat us and we’re dissing them? Ridiculous! They’re a good team. They outperformed Bama against us.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 5:38 pm to JJxvi
Mizzou has a very good kicker lost early in the season. The freshman kicker.is not good right now, nor do they trust him. Having a kicker that can kick like Blake Craig would change the strategy on a lot of drives. Not having a kicker also changes your strategy. Even if it didn’t look like a play involved, the kicker yet, the strategy has to be considered long before you get into kicking range at times. In summary, it sucks to not have a kicker you can trust.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 5:42 pm
Popular
Back to top


1



