Started By
Message
re: "Ole Miss coach Freeze reduced to tears by juco signature"
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:36 pm to MaesterMullen
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:36 pm to MaesterMullen
Sorry a little late to the daily Mississippi IM thread?
quote:
well to be fair, so are ya'll.
Look no matter how you look at it ... and we did say historically ... at least we can claim a national championship or two.
Can you???
ETA: Oh and BTW John Vaught was the winningest College Football coach before Coach Bear Bryant ... so not exactly the definition of being "HISTORICALLY shite"
This post was edited on 12/21/12 at 5:39 pm
2
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:38 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
will always be greater than being a sub .500 program
We are actually > .500 on the field. Those bullshite forfeits from the 70's are the reason we are under .500
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:39 pm to McRebel42
quote:
Oh and BTW John Vaught was the winningest College Football coach before the Bear
"Old times there are not forgotten"
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:42 pm to McRebel42
quote:
Look no matter how you look at it ... and we did say historically ... at least we can claim a national championship or two.
Minnesota, Illinois, and Syracuse also won national championships. To me, these programs are also historicially shite, in the grand scheme of things.
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:46 pm to CoonassBulldog
quote:
We are actually > .500 on the field. Those bull shite forfeits from the 70's are the reason we are under .500
Okay, so you can add back 18 wins and one tie.
But subtract 1 win for 1993 when Bama had an ineligble player and later forfeited.
515 + 18 = 533
548 - 18 = 530
39 + 1 = 40
So you're now 533-530-40.
3 games above .500.
Congratulations!
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:52 pm to MaesterMullen
quote:
Minnesota, Illinois, and Syracuse also won national championships. To me, these programs are also historicially shite, in the grand scheme of things.
So what does that make you, who can't even claim one ... when these so called "really shitty" programs do???
This post was edited on 12/21/12 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:52 pm to MaesterMullen
quote:
well to be fair, so are ya'll.
You serious, Clark?
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:53 pm to CoonassBulldog
Hey at least we have something to look back onto ... can you say that ... Oh wait yeah that's where the cowbell comes from
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:55 pm to CoonassBulldog
quote:
Freeze did a good job this year- no disputing that. But I think annoiting him King at this point is way premature. He won Round 1 on your field. Next year will be alot harder and you know it.
Is Chris Wilson still your DC? Seems to be a lot easier with us adding Brassell and DT, while losing two total starters in year two of a brand new system. Why would it be harder? You have another Thorpe winner that can cover Moncrief? Picked up some new tackles that can block CJ?
Posted on 12/21/12 at 5:58 pm to Whereisomaha
Hell picking up a tackle that can block the tight end EJ Epperson would be a huge improvement.
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:01 pm to McRebel42
quote:
So what does that make you, who can't even claim one ..
historically shite....
i never claimed otherwise.
state fans don't suffer from delusions of grandeur, unlike some other programs
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:05 pm to MaesterMullen
If we're historically shite then you are historically diarrhea.
Don't try to compare the two.
Don't try to compare the two.
This post was edited on 12/21/12 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:06 pm to MaesterMullen
Ole miss sells to women. The blindside made some nice booster $. That's their fanbase. A bunch of women.
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:07 pm to CoonassBulldog
quote:
It is bullshite. State redshirted 17 guys or so this year- that means we only had 67 or 68 available at most. And we lost a couple of guys to injuries- dropping our number further. Others teams in the SEC were in the low 60's. Spew that crap somewhere else
The majority of teams have 85 scholarship players. We didnt. We had some where between 70-76 scholarship players. When Freeze wanted to voice his concerns with depth he chose to use the number of players available to play instead of the low 70 number because that's what matters. No I don't think we had only 59 players am everyone else had 85, but we had around 10 less scholarship players than everyone else we faced, which was the point. What are you even arguing? I said you were deeper than us, which you were.
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:08 pm to OBReb6
Don't you mean fullback 
Mississippi State: where Thorpe winners are embarrassed
by a first year sophomore out of community college
Mississippi State: where Thorpe winners are embarrassed
by a first year sophomore out of community college
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:11 pm to CoonassBulldog
quote:
Uhhhh- no. An Egg Bowl win and a shitty bowl appearance only gets you past Missouri and Kentucky at this point. You have more work to do.
Please point out how you are the better program. And if you go with 8>6 then you conceded that USM is a better program because they won more games last year
This post was edited on 12/21/12 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:15 pm to Whereisomaha
Because Dan mullen tells them everything they need to know. He found out all you have to do is run your mouth at state schedule a few mid majors and you have a lifetime extension.
If croom would have coined the term tsun the inbreds would have crowned him king
If croom would have coined the term tsun the inbreds would have crowned him king
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:15 pm to CoonassBulldog
Dp
This post was edited on 12/21/12 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 12/21/12 at 6:23 pm to MaesterMullen
Posted on 12/21/12 at 7:20 pm to Al Bundy Bulldog
quote:
What they decided to do was come up with a composite ranking and what this is it takes the average of their (247), Rivals, Scout, and ESPN's rankings. This way you can see an overall average.
Thanks Al.
Page 10 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News