re: S.O.S. and "Resumes" Are Complete BS

Yeah but what some fail to realize is OSU is claiming wins for their resume against La-Laf and Tulsa. No offense but they are not world beaters. GSU could probably beat both, but no one gives them credit because they are DI-AA. UM thought the same thing about App State.

Also they claim victories over Mizzou and Texas, both 7-5 teams. The only ranked team either beat was Mizzou beating Texas. Yes maybe their record of 7-5 is better than UF or MSU record of 6-6, but lets look at who UF and MSU played. MSU 6 losses were against every ranked SEC team in the BCS, including 4 that are currently ranked in the top 10. You think Mizzou or Texas would be be 7-5 if they had to play LSU, UA, Ark, UGA, AU, and USC. Neither team would be bowl bound IMO. UF has 5 losses against those teams.

So now those 7 wins for OSu over teams with winning records, lets not forget FBS teams like it matters, but 2 are cupcakes for a power conference(freebees) and the other 2 are no better than 6-6 MSU or UF.

Their resume is as overblown as a janitor listing his job on a resume as a sanitation engineer.

There is no winning your conference when there isn't a championship game. It is made up, a formality, and bullshite. Team A goes 8-4 with every win being OOC. Team B goes 11-1 and only loses to a team in conference. Team A won the conference they're the best! No frick that.

quote:

---

No bud I really don't. I want to wait to form opinions on how strong teams and conferences are until after bowl season.

It's much easier to determine when you put the #6 of one conference up against the #6 team of another.

---

So you don't even watch / completely ignore regular season OOC games? Really?

quote:

---

So you don't even watch / completely ignore regular season OOC games? Really?

---

I don't and why I do not give much credit to the wins by OSU over La-Laf and Tulsa.

quote:

---

I don't and why I do not give much credit to the wins by OSU over La-Laf and Tulsa.

---

So you think there's a serious chance Bama would get crushed by West Virginia this year.

When you only play 12 games in a season you don't lose to a 6-6 team. You just can't afford to do that unless you have an extra game ( CCG ). All bets were off when OSU lost to a BARELY bowl eligible team. You can't determine enough by looking at who the teams beat ( S.O.S ). But look at the two losses and it's pretty clear who should go.

But they wouldn't be in the talks of a championship game, just a bcs game which lays on the bcs system.
If we are talking about s.o.s not being the big factor, let me make an example. (sorry for making it resemble this year, but try not to put bama in your minds)
You have one team undefeated, they are going to the nc.

Now we have two more teams.
Team A. They went 11-1. In a hard conference too. The only lost came from the other team going to the NC, but they didn't win their conference.

Team B. They went 11-1. They are in a pretty good conference, but not like team A's. Their lost came from an average team, but they went to win their conference.

If we didn't use s.o.s as the main factor, you can throw out who each team lost too, and how hard their conference is because that all is a part of s.o.s. So what does that leave you to judge with? Just who won their conference.

I like s.o.s. Its what put bama in the nc.

End all be all.

HOW DO WE KNOW THE BIG 12 IS ANY GOOD?

HOW DO WE KNOW THE PAC 12 IS ANY GOOD?

LSU fans will say the Pac 12 isn't because they beat Oregon. So did USC. Transitive property doesn't work. So what's the justification for the perception of some conferences?

quote:

---

End all be all.

---

Then you have to say how do we know the sec is any good?

Even though we all know the sec is the best, your argument has to include the sec.

You are just assuming we are the best, and you know what assuming does.