There is nothing ironic about an incessant and mildly retarded gump taking shots at rival programs to fluff up his own insecure team persona. Cumpulsively works well though.
And I was wondering whether you use a dental dam when sucking off nik. Keep demeaning our coach, I would love to see you banned.
Since you've chosen to include my name in a retort to another's point of view I'll oblige and offer a few points that come to mind. Based on your inclusion of the Aggies in support of Florida's team last season, why isn't their schedule for 2013 also included in this "home scheduling" conversation? After all, there's no Georgia, there's no Florida. Am I wrong to assume the lack of their inclusion is due to the fact it doesn't fit an agenda? I'm willing to bet due, to a high degree of confidence, that if we took Florida and replaced it with any other team your tune would be dramatically different when it comes to my assertion that they were lucky to be where they were at the end of the 2012 season. The points I've listed as reasons I'm of the opinion they were lucky are things you've failed to address. Purposefully? That would be an assumption without anything to back it up—other than you haven't addressed them to this point. My statement about their luck is an opinion based on what actually happened. It's also an opinion I've seen nothing to dispute its veracity. In that light, I'll repeat what I've said with the hope you'll take the time to address these thoughts. If a team beats Missouri by seven, aided by short field situations for their two touchdowns, their chances bolstered by four turnovers by the opposing quarterback, in a game described by ESPN as a game "the Gators escaped with a win," certainly you aren't saying they weren't lucky. Perhaps you are. If so, you're in the vast minority. If a team beats Louisiana-Lafayette in the last seconds of the game with a touchdown from a blocked punt that majority you're not a part of describes that win as lucky. If a team struggles with Bowling Green it's a natural conclusion, and an accurate one, they have issues. What's perhaps the most important thing to note is if LSU wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot they wouldn't have lost to Florida. And, in that case, there's ample reason to think you wouldn't be maintaining this stance of luck not playing a major role in their ranking and won/loss record in 2012. These points are not in dispute. They are factual because they happened. My use of the terms "lucky" and "very fortunate" are in dispute in your eyes. So, I'll ask again. How? What pointed out in this reply is wrong? I'll close with this observation of mine. As a fan of SEC football I find it embarrassing that Florida lost to a team from the Big East in Louisville. Yet, at the same time, I find it defining of what kind of team the Gators fielded in 2012.
Well, I'm embarrassed that an SEC football team lost to a Clemson. Because we could not keep our defense off the field. I'm so ready for a competent offense. Offense the last couple of years may have cost us shots at 2 more NC's
You want to know the reason why their schedule was soft? The SEC thought they would suck balls. There was no reason to expect them to make the leap they did, nobody knew Johnny Football was going to be what he was. If both Missouri and A&M completely and utterly crash hardcore their first year in the SEC, while the SEC lovers would be able to pound their chests and say ha look at how good we are, it would also be a black eye for the league or be a why did we get these guys? So A&M went and overachieved and the SEC office was probably shitting their pants over the fact that they beat up their pretty boy team in Bama.
I didn't bring up what happened eight years ago in its singularity. I brought up what had happened in eight previous seasons. It goes to show that there was a period of sustained success in Blacksburg. It goes to show the chances of the season the Hokies had last year repeating themselves this year aren't high. In fact, you've bolstered that point to a greater degree by your mention of the 2011 and 2012 LSU teams. If I read you correctly your saying those two teams were very different. That characterization is not only fair, it's extremely accurate. Each and every year college teams are extremely different. My comment was to point out you're pointing to Va Tech yet the same things you were criticizing could, and should, be equally applied to the team LSU opens with this fall. Here's yet another situation which leaves me bewildered. In the section of my post which you've quoted I specifically said there is a valid argument to be made that they were over-rated. Yet that's the question you ask? What would I call them if not over-rated? When I've just said it was a valid description to say they were over-rated? Sir, it's an easy conclusion for me to make that you ignore what's being said a good majority of the time. That's one example. Another is found on this very page where, once again, when questioned about points made you just set them aside and move on. I've yet to make an excuse for anything. I'll readily offer another side to a discussion because there are always more than one way to look at something. After you brought another team into a discussion on an LSU forum, based solely on their record from last year, in regards to yet another team being discussed on an LSU forum how do you draw the conclusion that my insertion of TCU is somehow a non-factor? Especially given that the circumstances are practically identical. Centering on one specific point here for a second. If you believe that the suspension of TCU's quarterback last year didn't have a dramatic affect on their season, and you believe it should not be taken into account when looking at their record, I'm tempted to say "I'm lost." However, logic says you may be. Circling back to Michigan for just a second. I made no bones about our game with the Wolverines last year stating I didn't think they were the team they were cracked up to be. The one thing that shocked me about the game was Robinson getting 200 yards in the air. I didn't think they'd reach that mark because few quarterbacks have. He hit it on the nose. What Michigan did in 2011 wasn't able to be replicated in 2012 because people knew what they were coming with. I wonder if we'll see the same from opponents of Ohio State this year given the blueprint of 2012 with Braxton Miller.
Ole Miss also doesn't play Florida, doesn't play Georgia, doesn't play South Carolina. They do play a lot of Vandy and Mizzou, if you think that's really fair? Name that Team? In the post Bear Bryant era, since 1983 to present, we have 4 SEC teams. All 4 teams won a national championship and at least 2 SEC championships. All 4 teams have had at least 5 head coaches since 1983. As an added bonus, all 4 of these SEC teams play at least 2 of the other 3 every year. Team A compiled a record of 253-119-2 Team B compiled a record of 286-90-4 Team C compiled a record of 239-119-4 Team D compiled a record of 247-106-4 Which 4 SEC teams are we discussing and who can match the records with the SEC teams?
Then why did Mizzou draw Alabama last year? Are you suggesting the SEC offices were looking out for the Aggies this upcoming year but decided "we'll slam it to Mizzou in their first season?" Their opening the SEC play with one of the top six teams in the SEC doesn't show any of the favoritism you're suggesting for the Aggies.
Now that keen anticipation is at a fever pitch, here are the cold hard facts of life in the SEC for the last 30 years. Team A - Alabama Team B - Florida Team C - LSU Team D - Tennessee
