Running bowl thread

Agreed, I was more going on the historical perspective and not based on this one year. The SEC was rightly terrible after Florida and 'Bama.

 

Of course, when Utah blew out Alabama, it proved that the MWC (and Boise!) was super-superior and awesometastic, and the MWC backers would brook no excuse-making on Alabama's part.

Was Cincy's coaching staff in disarray when it gave up 36, 44 and 45 points in three of its last four games? Of course not.

Cincy had a shit defense and got away with it because its opponents had worse defenses. When it ran into a team with a semi-decent D, it got hosed, giving up more points to Florida than anyone in the SEC did and more points than anyone except their three patsies did.

Florida kicked Cincinnati's ass up and down the field. And if a loss by an SEC team proves something, then a blowout win by an SEC team proves something, coaching staff excuses notwithstanding.

 

I see, so when UConn beat South Carolina, what did that prove re: Big East versus SEC?

I'll hang up and listen....

 

You're absolutely right. It proved that Florida was better than Cincinnati on that given night, just as last year's Sugar Bowl proved Utah was better than Alabama on that given night.

But wins by Utah, et all, against the big boys do carry more significance because of all the people who claim the MWC can't compete with the big boys. It shows they are wrong. Nobody is saying that about the SEC.

 

A. That South Carolina sucks out loud and is coached by a has-been.

B. That the middle echelons of the SEC weren't especially good this season. No one's said they're not. But even a down SEC is 5-4 with one game to play.

And micro, at least you concede that you're giving Utah's win more value. But while no one's saying the SEC can't compete, there are plenty saying that the top teams in the SEC aren't any BETTER than the top teams in other conferences. Florida hammering the everloving crap out of the only other unbeaten BCS-conference team would suggest that in fact those top SEC teams are better.

And if Utah's win over Alabama proves the little guys can play with the big boys, what does Hawaii's loss to Georgia prove?

Obviously, tomorrow night will either provide more evidence to back up my argument or pretty much completely undermine it. Suffice it to say I feel confident my argument will stand.

 

No, no, no - Utah's win last year was only because Alabama was disappointed by not getting to the national title game and thus didn't play hard. If those two teams played ten times, Alabama would have won nine of them. [/SEC fanboys]

:

 

And Cincy's blowout loss was only because it lost its coach.

If excuses don't fly for Alabama, they don't fly for Cincy.

 

Really - is that what I said?

Or did I say, now for the tenth time at least, that Florida was better than Cincy but Cincy was better than it showed the night of the Sugar Bowl and I think anyone with more than half a brain that isn't a silly fanboy would agree with that.

It is nice that you keep wanting to make ficticious arguments to support your lame fanboy house of cards about the big bad SEC, but please stop you are embarrassing yourself.

SEC fanboys make excuses for every bowl loss -- nobody, at least nobody on here, has tried to make an arguement that Cincinnati was better than Florida. Not one.

Plenty of SEC fanboys, however, still try to make the argument that Alabama was better than Utah and Georgia was better than WVU a few years back......

 

That I should never, ever make a bet like that again.

 

I've never made the argument that Georgia was better than WVU a few years back -- even though WVU led 28-0 and 35-7 only to win 38-35. Georgia was woefully underprepared for that game and got jumped, simple as that.

As for what's implied when someone says 'Cincinnati is better than they showed,' well, that's in the eye of the beholder. But it's funny how the results on the field don't matter as much, how the results on the field aren't the be-all end-all, when the results on the field don't go the way you want them to.

Better than they showed or not, I can't imagine anyone was surprised that Florida scored 51 points on Cincinnati, not after Cincinnati spent all of November giving up shedloads of points to anyone who asked nicely.

 

Ok, let me rephrase for the blockheads who are making blockhead idiotic arguments......

Cincinnati's OFFENSE - which lost its coach and its play caller - was better than it played.

And it has nothing to do with results going one way or the other, I have no vested interest in any of these teams.

But you are right about this -- after three years of denial or whatever you've finally conceded what a lot of us have been trying to say -- results on the field IN BOWL GAMES are not the be-all, end-all because there are so many variables and so much of a disconnect between games....

Of course, unless an SEC team wins the bowl game, then it proves that the SEC is superior and too fast for everyone else....

 

Right. Because your views on the SEC are uncolored and free from bias. You've never taken an on-the-field result to mean anything more than one game. OK then. Sure thing.

And I'm sure Cincinnati's offensive struggles were purely due to the loss of its coach and quarterback, and nothing to do with Florida's defense.