Gators will win 2009-2010 CFB National Championship

[Boxslayer]

A thoughtless response Box.

If anyone else played that kind of OOC competition, they'd probably escape unscathed and uninjured too.

Maybe that's a smart way to go about it because when all is said and done, they have 33% less chance of being injured by season's end than everyone else has. USC played Texas with 7 of its front line defenders hurt on the bench. They were out for most of the season because they played teams with enough studs to risk that kind of injury.

You play cupcakes, you will be healthy. Nice strategy. And when it comes around to bowl time, who do you think comes to play with their team 100% healthy or close to it? Would that be the team that plays all those cupcakes or the team that plays some serious competition?

I still don't get why you put so much importance on just BCS games. Werent there another 1/2 dozen SEC teams in other bowls in a given year? Only one or 2 will play in BCS games so you are only looking at 15% of the whole picture. But it's a nice looking slice of cherry pie.

I gotta hand it to you SEC diehards. You sure know how to cherry pick your facts. How about the whole picture instead of just a few BCS games that suit you? That's what's really relevant because it would be taking into account the whole current/recent scenario of the entire conference. Not just your top 1 or 2 teams vs whoever.

... and remember this: When people point out how cheap Florida's OOC games have been, we are talking about 20 years of it, not just a select few to make an argument. So don't give me that BS about UM and FSU. They play UM once every 3 years now. They play the Citadel about as often. Why toss FSU as your argument suggests, why not toss out the Citadel instead and show up for once and play someone who might just beat you? That suggests chickenshit scheduling and nothing but.

Half this post doesn't make any sense, and the other half I've already responded to regarding scheduling and why things are done the way they are. But you've avoided that post, waited a few days, and gone back to your nonsensical ways. You refuse to look at the reality of the situation that I laid out because it's too much fun for you to use the words "fear" and "scared" and "chickenshit". Whatever helps you get over the fact that at this current point in time, the SEC is the elite conference in college football and for whatever reason, you just can't handle that. So you break out the excuses and conspiracy theories. I believe all of the stuff you are bringing up is what they call "loser talk." There are a certain set of rules in place, everyone plays by the same rules, and the SEC keeps winning. Those are the facts and they are indisputable.

The only part here I haven't completely addressed is why I feel BCS Games are the best measure of conference strength. You conveniently dismiss it as cherry pie. Then, ironically chose to determine that OOC Scheduling and frequent flyer miles determines true national champions, and I am the one only looking at a certain piece of the pie? Here is why I chose BCS Games:

#1 - It avoids the motivation excuse from any side. 99% of the time, everyone is motivated to be in a BCS Bowl. You have a few rare exceptions, but mostly two teams will line up and play and you'll get a winner.

#2 - # of different teams and the BALANCE of those teams reaching a BCS Bowl can show how a conference's depth is and how often new teams change power. Being a Pac-10 expert, you already know that the Pac-10 is the worst conference in college football in being top heavy.

#3 - It all but guarantees that two teams from conferences will be paired up evenly. Many times, the SEC #7 team will face an ACC #4 team in a bowl game. That doesnt really give us a feel for who the better conference is. Shouldn't the 4th best team from one conference beat the 6th or 7th best team of another conference? In BCS Games you typically have #1 vs. #1 or #1 vs. #2. Rarely, very rarely, is it #1 vs. #3 or worse.

#4 - Proven teams are in BCS Games. If Memphis wins 6 games every year because of a horseshit schedule, should we REALLY say Memphis is an annual bowl team, they are legit, etc? But if you are in a BCS Bowl game it means you probably won your conference or came just about as close as the other team who did win it. Pitting conference winners head to head is a good way, not the only way, but a good way to tell strength of conference. It means your cliched never ending argument about travel mileage is all for not because every year an SEC team gets into the BCS Game vs. another conferences top team, they win and aren't exposed as your theory implies they should.

Those 4 criteria make BCS games more reliable than your average bowl game and damn more reliable than a regular season game.

 

[Conan]

OK Box, let's say for the sake of argument that you are right about the BCS bowls being the true indication of conference strength...

Of course you know that since 2000, the SEC is 11-4 in BCS bowl games. If as you have argued, this is the true measure of conference strength, than what does the Pac-10's 9-2 record in BCS bowl games over the same period mean? 5 Pac-10 teams have played in BCS bowl games over that period. Both Washington teams, both Oregon teams and USC.

Wouldn't an 88% winning percentage be an indication that the Pac-10 is a better conference than the SEC with a 73% winning record? I'm only going by your own means of reasoning to determine that. I think you just said it was "damn reliable." Is that more "loser talk" for me to quote you on that?

 

[CoachLT]

The ONE title that I know for sure that USC has issssssssssss Losing @ home , straight up,to the ALL TIME pointspread Underdog! A HUGE 41 point Dog, Stanford!:nohead: Gosh,how I do LOVE College Football.:toast: LT

 

[Conan]

##)

 

[OnWisconsin]

scheduling 4 cream puffs ooc is a liability. making an argument about the stronger conference is always going to be debateable at the end of the season. looking at who those teams played outside their conference is easier and more justifiable. 10 months from now, no one's going to give a shit about what happened in last year's bcs.

one of the first defenses a person will put up is: but our conference is better! yeah well, that citadel game really helps your cause.

 

[guitarjosh]

The ONE title that I know for sure that USC has issssssssssss Losing @ home , straight up,to the ALL TIME pointspread Underdog! A HUGE 41 point Dog, Stanford!:nohead: Gosh,how I do LOVE College Football.:toast: LT

Actually a small number of books put out lines for the App. St. Michigan game that had a higher point spread.

 

[BenLaw47]

scheduling 4 cream puffs ooc is a liability. making an argument about the stronger conference is always going to be debateable at the end of the season. looking at who those teams played outside their conference is easier and more justifiable. 10 months from now, no one's going to give a shit about what happened in last year's bcs.

one of the first defenses a person will put up is: but our conference is better! yeah well, that citadel game really helps your cause.

Florida beat Oklahoma right? Ok just checking.

 

[OnWisconsin]

Florida beat Oklahoma right? Ok just checking.

there you go, looking back. sure, fla. beat ou. come september who's gonna care, and come december who's gonna care when it comes time to leave someone out? the argument that you beat ou last year won't hold much weight. that weak ooc is going to come back and bite the gator in the ass.....

 

[BenLaw47]

there you go, looking back. sure, fla. beat ou. come september who's gonna care, and come december who's gonna care when it comes time to leave someone out? the argument that you beat ou last year won't hold much weight. that weak ooc is going to come back and bite the gator in the ass.....

Last year, try about a month ago. And, apparently it didn't bite us in the ass as we took care of the Sooners ON THE FIELD. Try again

 

[Boxslayer]

OK Box, let's say for the sake of argument that you are right about the BCS bowls being the true indication of conference strength...

Of course you know that since 2000, the SEC is 11-4 in BCS bowl games. If as you have argued, this is the true measure of conference strength, than what does the Pac-10's 9-2 record in BCS bowl games over the same period mean? 5 Pac-10 teams have played in BCS bowl games over that period. Both Washington teams, both Oregon teams and USC.

Wouldn't an 88% winning percentage be an indication that the Pac-10 is a better conference than the SEC with a 73% winning record? I'm only going by your own means of reasoning to determine that. I think you just said it was "damn reliable." Is that more "loser talk" for me to quote you on that?

No because 90% of that is USC. It proves USC is a great team, which they are, and it proves nothing about the Pac-10. Which was why 4 posts ago, I made the point to take out each conference's top team and the SEC suffers no drop off while the Pac-10 drops off worse than any other conference.

2nd of all, I would say the BCS has been around since 1998, and why on God's green earth you would stop at the year 2000 to look at records when the beginning of the BCS's history was just 2 measley years away and spin the facts in favor of the Pac-10 is exactly why I am not responding to any more threads that involve you because I once thought I was getting involved with an open minded conversation, but that is obviously not the case. I'm going to guess that the Pac-10 went 0-3 in the Rose bowl from 1998-2000 and that was why you chose to conveniently throw those stats out. How fair of you.

In fact, that is quite a pattern with you. The SEC owns the all time record vs. the Pac-10 head to head, but if you throw away games that were played and wipe them off the face of the earth, and look at a certain set of years - Pac-10 has the advantage. SEC has a better BCS record, but if you wipe 1998-2000 off the face of the earth, and twist the facts - Pac-10 looks good again. And oh, SEC keeps winning national titles, but if you wipe their out of conference stuff off the face off the earth, Pac-10 travels really really far on airplanes.

Too much fact twisting, too much cherry picking for my taste.

This is a JOKE of an argument, and I'm done going in circles. If you're reasoning for why the Pac-10 is so good involves USC and the 9 dwarves, plane mileage, and fact twisting you have a poor argument.

You are worse than every SEC homer you attack.

 

[Illini]

No because 90% of that is USC. It proves USC is a great team, which they are, and it proves nothing about the Pac-10. Which was why 4 posts ago, I made the point to take out each conference's top team and the SEC suffers no drop off while the Pac-10 drops off worse than any other conference.

2nd of all, I would say the BCS has been around since 1998, and why on God's green earth you would stop at the year 2000 to look at records when the beginning of the BCS's history was just 2 measley years away and spin the facts in favor of the Pac-10 is exactly why I am not responding to any more threads that involve you because I once thought I was getting involved with an open minded conversation, but that is obviously not the case. I'm going to guess that the Pac-10 went 0-3 in the Rose bowl from 1998-2000 and that was why you chose to conveniently throw those stats out. How fair of you.

In fact, that is quite a pattern with you. The SEC owns the all time record vs. the Pac-10 head to head, but if you throw away games that were played and wipe them off the face of the earth, and look at a certain set of years - Pac-10 has the advantage. SEC has a better BCS record, but if you wipe 1998-2000 off the face of the earth, and twist the facts - Pac-10 looks good again. And oh, SEC keeps winning national titles, but if you wipe their out of conference stuff off the face off the earth, Pac-10 travels really really far on airplanes.

Too much fact twisting, too much cherry picking for my taste.

This is a JOKE of an argument, and I'm done going in circles. If you're reasoning for why the Pac-10 is so good involves USC and the 9 dwarves, plane mileage, and fact twisting you have a poor argument.

You are worse than every SEC homer you attack.

Fucking classic post, box.

 

[Flsunman]

Conan: Doesn't this detective guy sound conspiously like flsunman. Do you think he took on a new name because no one listened to him under the old one? Maybe he was cloned and it was their destiny to find each other on the forum. They could start a new thread and call it "just the two of us".

First off dummy, that aint me. Secondly, you better listen up come SEC saturday next year, I clean house in that conference year in and year out. I only exclusively bet the SEC. Have a giid day and go gators!

 

[Flsunman]

Im not an SEC fan or homer. I just thought you were delusional. Which you clearly are or just flat out jealous considering the amount of time you have poured in to trying to expose the SEC. Blah blah blah non conference this that. Besides USC you know the Pac-10 is pretty weak and you can't handle it. Get over it.

LOL!! Yeah, it's a whiny tranny who can't take the fact that the pac-shit blows. It's a loser, I decided that years ago. And it's a tranny, be careful!!

 

[Flsunman]

No because 90% of that is USC. It proves USC is a great team, which they are, and it proves nothing about the Pac-10. Which was why 4 posts ago, I made the point to take out each conference's top team and the SEC suffers no drop off while the Pac-10 drops off worse than any other conference.

2nd of all, I would say the BCS has been around since 1998, and why on God's green earth you would stop at the year 2000 to look at records when the beginning of the BCS's history was just 2 measley years away and spin the facts in favor of the Pac-10 is exactly why I am not responding to any more threads that involve you because I once thought I was getting involved with an open minded conversation, but that is obviously not the case. I'm going to guess that the Pac-10 went 0-3 in the Rose bowl from 1998-2000 and that was why you chose to conveniently throw those stats out. How fair of you.

In fact, that is quite a pattern with you. The SEC owns the all time record vs. the Pac-10 head to head, but if you throw away games that were played and wipe them off the face of the earth, and look at a certain set of years - Pac-10 has the advantage. SEC has a better BCS record, but if you wipe 1998-2000 off the face of the earth, and twist the facts - Pac-10 looks good again. And oh, SEC keeps winning national titles, but if you wipe their out of conference stuff off the face off the earth, Pac-10 travels really really far on airplanes.

Too much fact twisting, too much cherry picking for my taste.

This is a JOKE of an argument, and I'm done going in circles. If you're reasoning for why the Pac-10 is so good involves USC and the 9 dwarves, plane mileage, and fact twisting you have a poor argument.

You are worse than every SEC homer you attack.

Yeah, very well said and very true!

 

[socalgator]

No because 90% of that is USC. It proves USC is a great team, which they are, and it proves nothing about the Pac-10. Which was why 4 posts ago, I made the point to take out each conference's top team and the SEC suffers no drop off while the Pac-10 drops off worse than any other conference.

2nd of all, I would say the BCS has been around since 1998, and why on God's green earth you would stop at the year 2000 to look at records when the beginning of the BCS's history was just 2 measley years away and spin the facts in favor of the Pac-10 is exactly why I am not responding to any more threads that involve you because I once thought I was getting involved with an open minded conversation, but that is obviously not the case. I'm going to guess that the Pac-10 went 0-3 in the Rose bowl from 1998-2000 and that was why you chose to conveniently throw those stats out. How fair of you.

In fact, that is quite a pattern with you. The SEC owns the all time record vs. the Pac-10 head to head, but if you throw away games that were played and wipe them off the face of the earth, and look at a certain set of years - Pac-10 has the advantage. SEC has a better BCS record, but if you wipe 1998-2000 off the face of the earth, and twist the facts - Pac-10 looks good again. And oh, SEC keeps winning national titles, but if you wipe their out of conference stuff off the face off the earth, Pac-10 travels really really far on airplanes.

Too much fact twisting, too much cherry picking for my taste.

This is a JOKE of an argument, and I'm done going in circles. If you're reasoning for why the Pac-10 is so good involves USC and the 9 dwarves, plane mileage, and fact twisting you have a poor argument.

You are worse than every SEC homer you attack.

Box-if I had the time and thought process I probably still wouldn't have thought of this good post to Conan. Conan does have a few good points-and I respect his opinions. But he sounds downright bitter and jealous of the SEC dominance on the national picture.
And yes he did omit those years to favor the Pac-10. 1998-Michigan beats WAZU to win a share of the national championship. 1999-Wisky beats UCLA, 2000-Wisky beats Stanford. How convenient Conan of you leaving out these key years, I guess it would lower the winning percentage of the Pac-10 and deflect your arguments.
Yes you beat the fact in our heads already-UF does play 2-3 generally weak OOC games every year. The rest of the SEC is amping up their OOC schedules, UGA, Vols, Ole Miss, BAMA in the next few years so maybe Florida and LSU will take suit in the few open games on their schedule that they have.
Hopefully the SEC will play the Pac-10 in ANY bowl game so some arguments could be settled in this post. And yes Box there is a HUGE drop off in the Pac-10 after USC. Not so in the SEC.
I made a good chunk of change betting Florida after the Ole Miss game-they were killing everyone after Tebow's rant in the press conference after.
I pretty much did my arguing for the SEC earlier in this thread-I'm over and out.

 

[heatherRays]

whats the current odds btw?

 

[heatherRays]

i think Florida has a real good shot to win it again but its not a lock

 

[heatherRays]

USC may be a better play at better value, you think?

 

[cashflow50]

Might as well start of this thread now. The Gators are going back to back and will capture another CFB Title next year. Tebow may or may not win another Heisman; He may ultimately do well in the NFL; that is not the topic of this thread though. This thread is simply to call it out now that Florida goes back2back. Those who disagree feel free to state your thoughts in here. I will be pulling this thread back up after next years championship game and addressing each and everyone who comes in here to slam the Gators so be prepared; and when I slam you don't come back with "That's his last game and now he won't make it in the NFL". When this thread is pulled back up it won't be about what could or couldn't happen in his future in the NFL but instead about the National Title that I called out now. Be prepared if you come in this thread to swallow your pride when I call you out boys!!!!!!

2009-2010 National Champions--- Your Florida Gators!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think it would be possible, but without mr harvin....they might not..although they still got a ton of talent on both sides of the ball...it think SC might

 

[5-0SAT]

UF loses 3 games in '09. Florida will miss Harvin in a big big way. GL