He absolutley deserves credit for beating 4 patsies in the 3 ooc games and vandy.
THIS is why you can’t get a full stadium Beamer
- Thread starter robertfootball
- Start date
He absolutley deserves credit for beating 4 patsies in the 3 ooc games and vandy.
Some people's opinion an an anonymous message board doesn't make these teams any better or worse than they are.
And I would argue that ECU looks "decent" for a middle of the road, group of 5 school. A type of school that should not beat SEC teams outside of vandy.
Last edited:
Something Mike Leach and Mike Norvell and Bret Bielema and David Cutcliffe can't say.
Yet we have seen "decent" teams like ECU beat P5 teams many times over the years. Those are absolutely not given wins.
ECU hadn't had a winning record since 2014 before this year. Maybe you're thinking a long time ago.
Listen, if you're arguing that these games aren't 100% guarantees, then go right ahead. I don't think anyone is going to argue that. But they are warm up games, added to schedule for wins. Patsies, to put it bluntly.
There were no ooc games last year? Do you mean the year before?
I would say that a top 25 ranked app state team is not a patsy.
Ah, so why were they on the schedule?
"But they are warm up games, added to schedule for wins. Patsies, to put it bluntly."
They weren't top 25. They lost to "patsy" Georgia Southern the week before and dropped out.
Again, proving my point.
Yeah, App State. Their level of talent was well below ours. It's not as hard for a non-P5 team to scratch the top 25. So it doesn't mean the same as when we do it. That's about the time the team figured out the staff had no idea how to win.
Last edited:
I don't think you're using the word "proving" right.
That years app state team did in fact finish ranked. And was 13-1. Does that sound like any ooc team on this year's schedule?
Agreed on their level of talent and other points.
I also think it's unfortunate to run into one of those group of 5 schools when they are having a "great" season (by their standards). None of the teams on this year's schedule fit that criteria though.
But if losing to one of the best, ranked, G5 schools that year was so bad for Muschamp, a sign of the end of his tenure, was beating losing G5 schools or one sitting at 7-4, really that big of an accomplishment? To me, those games are expected wins, and only note worthy when they are upsets.
OK, so sometimes the circumstances change between the time you schedule a "patsy" and the time you actually play them. Sometimes they turn out to be much better than they were 5 years ago and sometimes you are much worse and in a rebuilding year with a new coach. In either scenario, you are happy to actually get the win.
And they got beat by Georgia Southern. A patsy.
Thus, proving my point. There are no "given" wins. If anybody should understand this, it's a Gamecock fan.
Last edited:
We've already covered this.
"Listen, if you're arguing that these games aren't 100% guarantees, then go right ahead. I don't think anyone is going to argue that. But they are warm up games, added to schedule for wins. Patsies, to put it bluntly."
That's not what you said. This is what you said.
"To be honest, the 3 ooc patsies and vandy made 4 wins before a down was played."
This is just flat incorrect, especially for the Gamecocks. Turned out to me incorrect for a few teams. That type of entitlement might be legit for Bama, but not us or many teams out there.
But it's not really about this anyway. You were trying to discredit the job Beamer has done by saying those were automatic and Florida was bad. Basically saying he had to get 1 win to be bowl eligible. Many of you are oblivious to how bad this could have gone given the challenges. Beamer has done a FANTASTIC job getting us bowl eligible when nobody thought it would happen.
It's actually a quote from me just a few posts above. Post #88.
Edit: But I'll try to head off this tangent by speaking plainly. I've said they are the "floor" as far as wins, and I've said any team with a pulse should be able to beat them. This does not mean I am building a structure with the victories, or that there are some living football teams and some zombie football teams.
These are expressions. They mean those games are easy wins. Gimmees in golf. Patsies. There is no point in arguing that they are 100% guaranteed because no one e is saying that.
Last edited:
This is actually pretty close. Those wins were as close to automatic as you get, and florida flat out gave up.
So now that you mention it, it does seem the monumental task of getting bowl eligible came down to one Auburn game. But that pretty much true for any P5 team floating around the 6 win bowl eligibility mark.
And Beamer deserves a ton of credit for getting us there when nobody thought he could.
Again, no. Not sure why you keep saying that. For some programs, that might be the case, but no us. Anybody that been a Gamecock fans knows this.
How many times to you have to see it with us and other programs to believe it?
Again, yes. I keep saying it because it's true.
Patsies are scheduled for wins, and usually for home revenue as well. (Yes I know ecu was a return trip. That was lambasted as stupid on this board many times)
His post just highlights how bad things are right now. We’ve hit the point where we are arguing beating Troy and ECU aren’t expectations.
I hope Beamer proves me wrong just to get past this misery.
Again no, you can say it a million times, but that doesn't make it true. There is a reason Vegas had us at 3.5 wins and not 4.5. If they were as automatic as you claim, it would have been 4.5.
Again, your comments are nothing but a way to discredit Beamer for what he has accomplished. Everybody has seen how some of these supposed "automatic" wins turn out for us and others.
But keep hatin'. About all you have left now.
LOL. You are the biggest source of misery on this board.
The humorous thing is I don't think he even realizes the irony there.
Again yes, you can say what you want a million times, and it won't make it true either. They are patsies, no matter how much you won't admit it.
As has been said a million times over the years, Vegas sets lines to even the betting on both sides. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't need to say it. They are not automatic wins. Period. Fact. We have seen it many times.
And if they set it at 3.5, what does that tell you about 4 automatic wins?
I expected us to beat App St. I expected us to beat the Citadel. Miss St expected to beat Memphis. FSU expected to beat Jacksonville St.
Expectations <> Automatic wins. Obviously, Vegas didn't expect us to beat all 4 of those teams. Coaches still have to get it done on the field, and some don't. And they were in better shape than we were when we started the season.
It tells you that a loss to EIU, ECU or Troy is way more devastating, when compared to the value of a win over those same teams. It’s incredibly embarrassing that Miss St and Duke lost to Memphis and Charlotte, respectively.
I'll agree they're not "automatic" wins. They are easy wins though, scheduled to pad the win column, because they're patsies.
I'll repost, you can substitute automatic for guarantee.
"Listen, if you're arguing that these games aren't 100% guarantees, then go right ahead. I don't think anyone is going to argue that."
I think even he gets that reasoning. But I made a comment about just having to show up, so he's going to go to his grave arguing that they aren't 100% victories, because arguing over semantics is all he has on this.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Without a doubt ... we are the BEST 0-10 conference team in the country- Latest: Pageland Gamecock
-
