Hosak8
-
Posts
1,481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hosak8
-
Probably because the only people who don't hate Bammers are, well, Bammers.
-
I hope you feel dirty.
-
I think, and I could be wrong, but I think that Leach called the timeout hoping for the play to be reviewed. He was talking furiously with someone in the booth and with the refs. If that was the case, he is a total buffoon, and I feel so fortunate that he was not hired by Tennessee.
-
If Leach calls the timeout, I hope Nutt does score.
-
An onside kick from your own 7?!? HAHAHAHAHAHA... I hope Nutt doesn't punch another one in. Win with class, Rebs, win with class.
-
I may have to rethink my assessment that Ole Miss is not as good as Oregon State. I don't want to give Meph the satisfaction, but he was right, it would appear. Big 12 does not match up with the SEC well, it would appear. I hope Oklahoma proves me wrong, but I sincerely doubt that will happen.
-
Wait a second here... now I KNOW I read this one right. By your numbers, Oregon State is the better team, no? So, how again is the Florida loss better than the USC loss?
-
Except, that, they are. Not completely random, but random enough to treat them as completely random, from the offenses point of view. I actually agree with this point. Fumbles are random. However, they are not unimportant, and are a part of the game. Had you pointed out ONE loss, or maybe even TWO losses where fumbles played a key role, that would be one thing. However, you stated that Ole Miss' fumbles contributed to all their losses. That is not the sign of a great team. I sincerely believe that Oregon State beats Ole Miss 7 out of 10 times on a neutral field, Mephematics be damned.
-
Half right, huh? Well, I've been holed up at my in-laws for two weeks now, so if I were at home, that should account for a .25 swing, making me 75% right.
-
Now you're just being blind. As I posted that difference between the conferences was compared to the rankings before all the bowls...and the gap between the SEC and ACC actually shrunk. conference rankings right after the LSU game, direct quote Um, the ACC was down 1.19 and the SEC was up 1.44, the gap went from 3.22 to 0.59. Are you drunk? and you say I can't read... Not drunk at all, but I certainly did misread. You absolutely deserve to take that shot at me. :blush: My gaffe notwithstanding, I still assert that your point of Ole Miss being the better team (and therefore the better loss) is incorrect.
-
You said the point was never an argument over which team's loss was worse. I pointed out the fact that, indeed, it was. TVOR pointed out that USC lost on the Road, supporting his stance that it was a better loss than Florida losing to Ole Miss at home. Not that hard to grasp Meph. Come on, I realize that you're a math genius, but you can figure this reading stuff out.
-
Oh, geez. And there it is. Who ever said anything about Tennessee? They sucked this year. Does that make you feel better?
-
My lord, you lack basic reading comprehension. Please find ANYWHERE that I have said that USC is better than UF. I actually agree with you that they are very close to one another, and I agree that a USC-UF MNC game would be the best possible match up. Forgive me for not agreeing with your math on who the better team is (in terms of the Ole Miss vs. Oregon State discussion). After all, your math showed that the ACC actually widened the gap on the SEC following two ACC losses to SEC teams yesterday. Meth Math might say one thing. Common sense says another completely.
-
Really? Funny, because here's what was posted... and in this place called reality, home/road is a touchdown swing max. home/road doesn't mean as much as people think.
-
No, I get it. He's now suggesting that the 7 point swing should be distributed over two games, which was not the original point. He's adjusted his point in order to create the outcome that he wants to create. The original argument was that home-field advantage would only account for a 7 point swing. Never- NEVER- was neutral site part of the discussion. BUT YOU'RE THEN MAKING THE GAMES ROAD AND HOME AGAIN(ONLY REVERSED) YET MAKING THEM AS A DIRECT COMPARISON AGAIN Of course I am. The original argument was NEVER about neutral site games. The original point and statement was that home/road only equated to about a 7 point swing. There was never any stipulation about neutral sites and the point swing that might occur because of it. Seriously, reread the post I quoted a page ago. Did you just miss that one, or are you just ornery from watching the Big 10 lay another colossal egg during bowl season?
-
Ahh, Thom's just doing what he has to to convince people to not switch over to the Food Network.
-
don't hurt your back down there. =D>
-
Excellent post. This is probably your best post in a long, long time.
-
No, I get it. He's now suggesting that the 7 point swing should be distributed over two games, which was not the original point. He's adjusted his point in order to create the outcome that he wants to create. The original argument was that home-field advantage would only account for a 7 point swing. Never- NEVER- was neutral site part of the discussion.
-
No, I made it a 7 point swing, I just chose not to split the 7 between teams. Remember, you admitted it was up to a 7 point swing, so I just followed your logic. If you want the points split, we can. We'll give the home teams in your scenario 4 points and take 3 away from the losers... OM 35 - UF 27. (Still an 8 point difference, btw.) USC 25 - OSU 24. (Still a 1 point difference, btw.) The argument was never about neutral sites, it was about UF losing at home and USC losing on the road, and how those results would have possibly been different had the home fields been reversed. You can change the situation to neutral sites now that you've been owned, though that's pretty weak. Meph, FTL.
-
How? If it were a 2 TD swing, USC beats OSU 28-20, and Florida loses to Ole Miss 38-23. That's a 2 TD swing.
-
The Ole Miss dogging has to stop. Ole Miss is a better team than Oregon State and is one of the top twenty teams in the country. They're not chopped liver. I think people are going to be surprised tomorrow afternoon. I don't think they will win, but I think it will be a close game. That being said, Florida and USC are a toss up. Florida lost at home. The Trojans lost on the road. and in this place called reality, home/road is a touchdown swing max. home/road doesn't mean as much as people think. Your point works against you, since a TD would have won it for USC and a TD for Ole Miss would have made it an 8 point loss. In that case, USC is undefeated and Florida has an 8 point loss to Ole Miss. If your point is true, Oklahoma would be preparing to play USC in the Championship. You just inadvertently validated his point.
-
Let's make a list of some of the main reasons people bitch about the BCS. 1. It didn't pick the top two teams. 2. Someone else beat that team in the game. 3. My team is better than that team in the game. 4. That team lost to some crappy school. Almost all of the reasons that people bitch about the BCS have to do with that persons idea of who the "best" or "better" team is. So why should we replace it with a system that will find the "best" or "better" one less often? It's piss poor logic. Actually, you speaking for the rest of the country is pretty unbecoming. Most people want a new system because they believe that the champion will be determined on the field. The BCS is often criticized for not doing so. Of course you left that off the list, because had you not, you would have no argument. Case in point: Oklahoma. They beat Florida, they are the champions, despite what happened on the field against Texas. In a playoff, that is not the case. Both teams make the playoffs, Texas loses before playing Oklahoma, their entire argument is defeated.
-
Wonder why your other post was deleted? Hmmm... I know that every system crowns a champion, hence the reason why I have never made an argument for one system over another. I would prefer an 8 team playoff, sure, but I'm not going to argue that it would determine the "best" team any better than any other system. The "best" team is a myth, period.
-
I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse: We need a playoff to correct this stuff. A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system. So? Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion. The sheer absurdity of this statement is enjoyable enough, but I'd love to hear your logic behind this. because the best team doesn't always win and making the best teams play more games against good teams makes it more likely they lose? it's not rocket science, to most people. Which, again, plays to my point. It's cute- or pretty naive- that you (or anyone else) think that ANY sport is set up to determine the "best" team. It's not. Only to crown a champion.
