(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:17 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  The #10 team in the nation losing to an unranked team that just lost to a team that said ranked team already molly whopped is laughable. Also the PAC cannibalizing itself and ruining its already thin playoff chances is always laughable.

Both statements make little sense. First, my comment was made when the score was 21-20 and the game not yet over, so the ranked team hadn't lost yet. Even if we look at the final score, a 3-point favorite losing by 7 is hardly laughable, it happens several times every week.

Second, a conference cannibalizing itself is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it could be a sign of strength. E.g., if a conference consisted of 10 teams, all of whom were as good as Alabama and Clemson, all of them would go 6-6 or thereabouts, but that wouldn't mean they were a weak conference. Only OOC games determine how strong a conference is. Heck, one reason why the ACC has put a team in the playoffs every years is because the ACC is relatively weak, such that their one excellent team often doesn't face many conference challenges where they can get knocked off.

Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

except that he thinks depth overrules everything else...

(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:17 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  The #10 team in the nation losing to an unranked team that just lost to a team that said ranked team already molly whopped is laughable. Also the PAC cannibalizing itself and ruining its already thin playoff chances is always laughable.

Both statements make little sense. First, my comment was made when the score was 21-20 and the game not yet over, so the ranked team hadn't lost yet. Even if we look at the final score, a 3-point favorite losing by 7 is hardly laughable, it happens several times every week.

Second, a conference cannibalizing itself is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it could be a sign of strength. E.g., if a conference consisted of 10 teams, all of whom were as good as Alabama and Clemson, all of them would go 6-6 or thereabouts, but that wouldn't mean they were a weak conference. Only OOC games determine how strong a conference is. Heck, one reason why the ACC has put a team in the playoffs every years is because the ACC is relatively weak, such that their one excellent team often doesn't face many conference challenges where they can get knocked off.

Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

Clemson is the best team. Does anyone perceive the ACC as the best conference, or even a good one?

If you are now reduced to arguing that Utah's ranking was what made the score laughable, well you've given up the ghost.

(09-21-2019 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:17 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  The #10 team in the nation losing to an unranked team that just lost to a team that said ranked team already molly whopped is laughable. Also the PAC cannibalizing itself and ruining its already thin playoff chances is always laughable.

Both statements make little sense. First, my comment was made when the score was 21-20 and the game not yet over, so the ranked team hadn't lost yet. Even if we look at the final score, a 3-point favorite losing by 7 is hardly laughable, it happens several times every week.

Second, a conference cannibalizing itself is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it could be a sign of strength. E.g., if a conference consisted of 10 teams, all of whom were as good as Alabama and Clemson, all of them would go 6-6 or thereabouts, but that wouldn't mean they were a weak conference. Only OOC games determine how strong a conference is. Heck, one reason why the ACC has put a team in the playoffs every years is because the ACC is relatively weak, such that their one excellent team often doesn't face many conference challenges where they can get knocked off.

Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

Clemson is the best team. Does anyone perceive the ACC as the best conference, or even a good one?

If you are now reduced to arguing that Utah's ranking was what made the score laughable, well you've given up the ghost.

except here are the rules... from week 1
The rules as to what qualifies:

DII over DI always
FCS over FBS always
G5 over P5, unless it is a ranked G5
Unranked over ranked always

Lastly, a Vegas spread getting blown out of the water (off by more than 3 TDs).


In general, it's good form to wait until the 2nd quarter until posting a score.

(09-21-2019 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:17 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  The #10 team in the nation losing to an unranked team that just lost to a team that said ranked team already molly whopped is laughable. Also the PAC cannibalizing itself and ruining its already thin playoff chances is always laughable.

Both statements make little sense. First, my comment was made when the score was 21-20 and the game not yet over, so the ranked team hadn't lost yet. Even if we look at the final score, a 3-point favorite losing by 7 is hardly laughable, it happens several times every week.

Second, a conference cannibalizing itself is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it could be a sign of strength. E.g., if a conference consisted of 10 teams, all of whom were as good as Alabama and Clemson, all of them would go 6-6 or thereabouts, but that wouldn't mean they were a weak conference. Only OOC games determine how strong a conference is. Heck, one reason why the ACC has put a team in the playoffs every years is because the ACC is relatively weak, such that their one excellent team often doesn't face many conference challenges where they can get knocked off.

Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

Clemson is the best team. Does anyone perceive the ACC as the best conference, or even a good one?

If you are now reduced to arguing that Utah's ranking was what made the score laughable, well you've given up the ghost.

Yes. Clemson's success has helped the perception of the ACC. That's why the ACC is considered on par with the Pac 12 despite performing significantly worse over the last few years. Thanks for making my point for me.

(09-21-2019 02:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:17 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  The #10 team in the nation losing to an unranked team that just lost to a team that said ranked team already molly whopped is laughable. Also the PAC cannibalizing itself and ruining its already thin playoff chances is always laughable.

Both statements make little sense. First, my comment was made when the score was 21-20 and the game not yet over, so the ranked team hadn't lost yet. Even if we look at the final score, a 3-point favorite losing by 7 is hardly laughable, it happens several times every week.

Second, a conference cannibalizing itself is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it could be a sign of strength. E.g., if a conference consisted of 10 teams, all of whom were as good as Alabama and Clemson, all of them would go 6-6 or thereabouts, but that wouldn't mean they were a weak conference. Only OOC games determine how strong a conference is. Heck, one reason why the ACC has put a team in the playoffs every years is because the ACC is relatively weak, such that their one excellent team often doesn't face many conference challenges where they can get knocked off.

Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

Clemson is the best team. Does anyone perceive the ACC as the best conference, or even a good one?

If you are now reduced to arguing that Utah's ranking was what made the score laughable, well you've given up the ghost.

except here are the rules... from week 1
The rules as to what qualifies:

DII over DI always
FCS over FBS always
G5 over P5, unless it is a ranked G5
Unranked over ranked always

Lastly, a Vegas spread getting blown out of the water (off by more than 3 TDs).


In general, it's good form to wait until the 2nd quarter until posting a score.

Except ....those are the rules if you want to post a score in the 'laughable scores' thread. They mean nothing in other threads.

Hint: this isn't the laughable scores thread.

(09-21-2019 03:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 02:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Both statements make little sense. First, my comment was made when the score was 21-20 and the game not yet over, so the ranked team hadn't lost yet. Even if we look at the final score, a 3-point favorite losing by 7 is hardly laughable, it happens several times every week.

Second, a conference cannibalizing itself is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it could be a sign of strength. E.g., if a conference consisted of 10 teams, all of whom were as good as Alabama and Clemson, all of them would go 6-6 or thereabouts, but that wouldn't mean they were a weak conference. Only OOC games determine how strong a conference is. Heck, one reason why the ACC has put a team in the playoffs every years is because the ACC is relatively weak, such that their one excellent team often doesn't face many conference challenges where they can get knocked off.

Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

Clemson is the best team. Does anyone perceive the ACC as the best conference, or even a good one?

If you are now reduced to arguing that Utah's ranking was what made the score laughable, well you've given up the ghost.

except here are the rules... from week 1
The rules as to what qualifies:

DII over DI always
FCS over FBS always
G5 over P5, unless it is a ranked G5
Unranked over ranked always

Lastly, a Vegas spread getting blown out of the water (off by more than 3 TDs).


In general, it's good form to wait until the 2nd quarter until posting a score.

Except ....those are the rules if you want to post a score in the 'laughable scores' thread. They mean nothing in other threads.

Hint: this isn't the laughable scores thread.

hint, it sure as hell ain't the Utah/USC thread either.... You said that it didn't belong in the laughable score thread, and to that I say you are wrong.

(09-21-2019 03:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 03:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 02:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 08:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Kind of missing the point. First, the fact that Utah was a dog on the road against an unranked team while being ranked #10 in the country shows that they never should have had the ranking, especially after they predictably lost. Their ranking is whats laughable. Second I wasn't calling the Pac weak, quite the contrary. Its a very competitive league. However, the league is also struggling with its perception. What the Pac needs more than parity is for USC, Oregon, or maybe Stanford to put together some excellent seasons and make the Pac a player in the playoff era. Conferences live and die by their best teams (i.e. OU, Bama, OSU, and Clemson). The Pac cannibalizing year after year is laughable because its so predictable.

Clemson is the best team. Does anyone perceive the ACC as the best conference, or even a good one?

If you are now reduced to arguing that Utah's ranking was what made the score laughable, well you've given up the ghost.

except here are the rules... from week 1
The rules as to what qualifies:

DII over DI always
FCS over FBS always
G5 over P5, unless it is a ranked G5
Unranked over ranked always

Lastly, a Vegas spread getting blown out of the water (off by more than 3 TDs).


In general, it's good form to wait until the 2nd quarter until posting a score.

Except ....those are the rules if you want to post a score in the 'laughable scores' thread. They mean nothing in other threads.

Hint: this isn't the laughable scores thread.

hint, it sure as hell ain't the Utah/USC thread either.... You said that it didn't belong in the laughable score thread, and to that I say you are wrong.

And ipso fatso QED you remain wrong about that.