That was the ranking when they played them. They beat them. That obviously affected their rankings afterward. What about Alabama? Are you saying App State could play Bama within 4? What you watched was an aberration. It wouldn't happen again.
Weigman possibly will get start for Texas A&M vs South Carolina
- Thread starter BattleshipTexas
- Start date
Yes, I know it's an age old debate, but I always prefer the later rankings as they are based on more games played.
Also, saying they could play Bama within 4 is called transitive logic, and doesn't really apply to college football, imo.
As for it being an aberration? That is certainly one opinion.
The sky is blue, so I must be right. Make as much sense as what you are saying. Don't ignore facts, even if they don't have shit to do with the argument.
And you won't type it, because you know if they played again, TAMU would kill them.
I get that you're embarrassed about admitting you ignore the facts, but this inane response is pretty stupid, even by your standards.
That is certainly an opinion. Good thing we have a game between them to review, so we don't have to make up "what ifs".
You are the one that should be embarrassed for believing that stats have to be close for a win to be considered a fluke. Has nothing to do with it.
Stats have to be close for a win to be considered a fluke?
I think you should reread that again, slowly. And stop drinking so early in the morning.
Agreed.
Flukes to me are this, or when a team is beaten statistically but scores off a turnover or blocked punt (or multiple) to win the game.
Like rocket Ishmael running back two punts for tds in a game against Michigan where they were handled otherwise.
That makes it a fluke. ZERO chance that would happen again. 180 yards of offense for TAMU? When they averaged 350 on Bama/Arkansas/Miss St?
Unless you think that was just App St's great defense, the same defense that gave up over 550 the week before to UNC?
None of that is a fluke. That's just you not giving value to the stats you don't consider important.
I'm the one saying stats are important while you ignore them.
You're making less sense than usual, which isn't much to begin with. Are you on something today?
Yes, you are the one saying stats are important, but only some stats, not others. Stats don't win games, just like stats don't determine what is and isn't a fluke.
Bless your heart.
And you're the one bragging about ignoring stats while not understanding what fluke means.
But that's okay, I don't expect much more out of you when you're in one of these hormone induced hissy fits. I am concerned you're on something though, as you seem even more disoriented than usual.
It’s easy to see who the best team is in any game. When it is over, you just read the numbers on the scoreboard and see who has the most.
Stop with the “if they played again” stuff. You cannot repeat the game under the same circumstances, cannot go back in time and redo. You got to play the game at the time it is played.
As the experts say, “Statistics are for losers.” You can quote all the stats you rung up on me but if I have more points in the end, you are the loser.
Simple.
Stop with the “if they played again” stuff. You cannot repeat the game under the same circumstances, cannot go back in time and redo. You got to play the game at the time it is played.
As the experts say, “Statistics are for losers.” You can quote all the stats you rung up on me but if I have more points in the end, you are the loser.
Simple.
No. You claim the stats mean it wasn't a fluke, but your examples of flukes just ignore stats like turnovers and yards/points from special teams.
And your absurd personal attacks just show that you've lost the argument and know it. But that's nothing unusual. You've rarely been correct about anything. Either that, or you are just a contrarian troll.
Again, either way, just bless your heart.
I actually specifically addressed turnovers and points from special teams in my examples. I'll even bold it for you.
Flukes to me are this, or when a team is beaten statistically but scores off a turnover or blocked punt (or multiple) to win the game.
Like rocket Ishmael running back two punts for tds in a game against Michigan where they were handled otherwise.
Are you unaware that when I type "turnover", I mean turnovers? Or that "punts" refer to special teams plays?
And you wonder why I think there's something seriously wrong with you? Youre not just arguing opinions now, but directly contradicting what was posted in a lame attempt to claim you "won". You either dont even read others' posts in your rush to argue, or you don't understand the written English language.
Last edited:
But that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that since they beat them once they would be them again and such is not the case. I believe A&M would be at least a 12 point favorite if they played again.
That's not what I'm saying when I say "transitive logic" at all.
That term means, team A beat team B by 10, and team B beat team C by 10, therefore team A should beat team C by 20.
We've seen too many times team A beat team B, and team B beat team C, and then team C beats team A for me to apply that logic to games not played. That's why I would not use the App/a&m game to determine the spread of a mythical App/Bama game.
Last edited:
Interesting how they refer to us as “uSC”. Is that common around the country? Not sure I like it. Probably better than UofSC but I prefer just SC since we’ve essentially lost the “USC” battle.
But there is no difference. You're still using previous games played to hypothetically conclude what a future game would be. The point is it works in NEITHER instance.
Transitive logic, by definition, is about three teams, so it doesn't fit a rematch of the same two teams.
If you want to argue predicting a rematch is the same as predicting outcomes when a third team is introduced, I would disagree.
I will agree that neither is a guarantee, or a sure thing by any stretch.
Do you even read what YOU type?
You specifically listed those as reasons to call something a fluke because they are "beaten statistically", as if turnovers and points/yards of special teams aren't a statistical part of the game. Both are a huge part of the game, and there is nothing flukish about either.
You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Getting less yards of offense or giving up more on defense, but winning because of a defensive or special teams score IS NOT A FLUKE. THREE phases to the game. ANY of the THREE can be the difference between winning and losing.
Last edited:
Yes, I went back and read where I listed turnovers and punts right before you said I was ignoring turnovers and special teams. (In case you didn't know, punts are part of special teams) I read it again too because it gave me that good of a laugh. I was almost willing to let it pass since you were posting before 5am, but then you just doubled down.
And no, I'm not surprised you just keep digging deeper rather than a simple "oh I missed that" or some such thing.
It seems pretty standard for your hysterical outbursts.
Don’t to get into somebody else’s argument, but have a question. Would you rather your team out gain the opponent 350 yds to 200 yds with a 16-10 first down advantage and give up two blocked punts or vice versa? The team that blocks the punts wins almost every time. Specialty team errors or big plays (kick returns, say) negate a lot of offense.
It is the first time I have ever seen it, so it may not be that common. Real Texas fans hate it when someone calls us "UT" as that is Tennessee. We like to be called "Texas". That is what the flagship school of a state should be. So I would embrace "South Carolina" and refuse any other name. I do think most people assume USC means Southern Cal.
The most frustrating game I ever attended was a North Carolina State vs Texas game, a home game very early in Mack Brown's career at Texas. Texas outplayed NC State in every facet of the game, first downs, yardage, interceptions, passing and running, etc. But NC State had this slippery No. 21. He blocked three punts all leading to TDs and NC State upset Texas by some score like 24-21. The first time, Okay. The second time the crowd was PO'ed. Right before the third time, the whole crowd was chanting "block No. 21". But it was like the guy was invisible to blockers. He ran right by guys who made no effort to stop him. Mack Brown made no adjustments at all. My first doubts about Mack crept in. After two blocked punts, wouldn't the special teams coach grab a couple of the upbacks and say "I don't care what else happens, you block No. 21".
I didn't miss anything. You clearly said...
"Flukes to me are this, or when a team is beaten statistically but scores off a turnover or blocked punt (or multiple) to win the game."
You CLEARLY factored out scores off turnovers or special teams from this mythical "beaten statistically" status that you have twisted yourself into believing exists without those factors.
That. Is. Wrong. 100%. Period.
Yep. You are right. That is on the coaches. If the other team identifies a weakness in the scheme or in a player and exploits it, and if you don't have good coaching to counter, the opposing team can take advantage of it over and over again. That's not a fluke, that's good coaching taking advantage of bad coaching.
Same goes for turnovers. DCs identify the players that play loose with the ball and make their players aware that those guys are prime pickin'. I believe it was a Florida coach that said that in a postgame press conference about a few guys on our team a few years ago. They saw it on film, but our coaches must have missed it and we ended up having a ton of turnovers that game. Those turnovers weren't flukes. By design, they knew they had a good chance of getting those turnovers.
Sure you did.
And yet my quote, bolded to help you understand.
So yes, you missed quite a lot.
Last edited:
I imagine that was tremendously frustrating, similar the to the Michigan/ND game I mentioned.
I'm also sure most Texas fans walked away from that game saying they'd win if the game was played again, and that it was a fluke win for state.
(Edit: I'll also point out that you made the same "mistake" I made when you said Texas outplayed state in every facet of the game. Everyone else knew what you meant, but a certain poster will ignore all of your post and focus solely on the idea that those punt blocks count as part of the game, so Texas didn't outplay them in EVERY facet of the game.)
Last edited:
True, but given the rarity of blocked punts, much less multiple in a game. Would you feel more comfortable relying on a strong offense, or that punt block team for a season? (If we were forced to choose)
while I'll agree, we did manage to win against the wildcats at their place when the broke in a new QB...so who knows. If we can manage the two turnovers that rattler will probably have and the D plays lights out....we may have a chance....js
