|
A lot of good matchups this Saturday. I find the A&M @ LSU game very intriguing and I don’t even care who wins. It’s mostly due to how desperate both teams are. Whichever team loses this game will have gone from “we’re ranked in the top 8” all the way down to “our SEC Championship dream is dead before we even reached the last week of September.” Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By churrasco: I'll do Michigan. They shouldn't be ranked. They lost to Western Michigan. Next. Wake Forest was 9-4 and beat two of the top 5 teams in the ACC last season. They re top 10 in returning starters and have upgraded at some key positions. To describe them as a "weak team" is erroneous. Furthermore, the fact that they are apparently in the bottom half of the ACC is tacitly admitting that the top half of the ACC is pretty good. That's beside the point. My contention is that the rankings are garbage. I don't give a damn where the CANES are ranked and neither should anyone else at this point. I think preseason rankings are stupid. I think teams should be ranked at midseason based on objective observable factors, the most important of which should be beating good teams. So we agree it's way too soon for any rankings. Originally Posted By churrasco: Originally Posted By WDEagle: Originally Posted By wakeboarder: Now do Or a team ranked #6 who has played two weak teams who are in the bottom half of their conference and Florida A & fucking M. Not saying that team isn't good, just that nobody they have played justifies that ranking. I'll do Michigan. They shouldn't be ranked. They lost to Western Michigan. Next. Wake Forest was 9-4 and beat two of the top 5 teams in the ACC last season. They re top 10 in returning starters and have upgraded at some key positions. To describe them as a "weak team" is erroneous. Furthermore, the fact that they are apparently in the bottom half of the ACC is tacitly admitting that the top half of the ACC is pretty good. That's beside the point. My contention is that the rankings are garbage. I don't give a damn where the CANES are ranked and neither should anyone else at this point. I think preseason rankings are stupid. I think teams should be ranked at midseason based on objective observable factors, the most important of which should be beating good teams. So we agree it's way too soon for any rankings. Agree, but it will never go away. |
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Hey, now. She wasn’t fired. She just got removed to “internet only.”  Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Originally Posted By RSG:
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_thumb/2102224787233812480/img/-NFh1xImJAyCcXdr?format=jpg&name=small Stupid fucking sports media. By the way, some lesbian skank sports reporter with her own show somewhere up north just got fired… she was one of the ones freaking out about it. Great firing. Hey, now. She wasn’t fired. She just got removed to “internet only.” Tomato/Toma-fuck that stupid bitch-toe.
|
|
Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Tomato/Toma-fuck that stupid bitch-toe. Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Originally Posted By RSG:
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_thumb/2102224787233812480/img/-NFh1xImJAyCcXdr?format=jpg&name=small Stupid fucking sports media. By the way, some lesbian skank sports reporter with her own show somewhere up north just got fired… she was one of the ones freaking out about it. Great firing. Hey, now. She wasn’t fired. She just got removed to “internet only.” Tomato/Toma-fuck that stupid bitch-toe. Reminds me of Office Space how Milton wasn’t “fired.” His desk simply got moved down to “Storage B” and he stopped receiving a paycheck. |
|
Originally Posted By RSG:
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_thumb/2102224787233812480/img/-NFh1xImJAyCcXdr?format=jpg&name=small Never talk to the media......for any reason |
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
Holly Rowe will be on the sidelines for Texas/Tennesse game.  Sark and Arch should decline to speak with her, but they won't. Monk |
"I'm a professional soldier. If you think you can use me like Ken and dress me like Barbi, you obviously recruited the wrong motherfucker." -- 30calTBLkid
"Its not easy to teach someone how to give a fuck." -- tweeter
"Its not easy to teach someone how to give a fuck." -- tweeter
|
Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Holly Rowe will be on the sidelines for Texas/Tennesse game. Sark and Arch should decline to speak with her, but they won't. Monk Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. |
|
President's 100 x2, US Army Distinguished Rifleman
Joined:
Dec 2004
Posts:
25321
EE: 100% (4)
OH, USA
|
Originally Posted By RSG:
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_thumb/2102224787233812480/img/-NFh1xImJAyCcXdr?format=jpg&name=small “I'm just here so I don't get fined.” |
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
Disclaimer: Nothing I post on the Internet, to include political commentary, implies official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement from my employer.
Disclaimer: Nothing I post on the Internet, to include political commentary, implies official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement from my employer.
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. Sadly, his wife, Lindsey is battling brain cancer.  Monk |
"I'm a professional soldier. If you think you can use me like Ken and dress me like Barbi, you obviously recruited the wrong motherfucker." -- 30calTBLkid
"Its not easy to teach someone how to give a fuck." -- tweeter
"Its not easy to teach someone how to give a fuck." -- tweeter
|
Originally Posted By SoonerBorn: It is systemic. Something OU is doing is causing the players to get injured at a higher than normal percentage. It needs to be addressed. Originally Posted By SoonerBorn: Originally Posted By AlabamaFan64: That's some bad luck. It needs to be addressed. Strength and conditioning coach is generally the fall guy when the injury bug comes around. Sometimes it’s just bad luck. |
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio,
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Vivat Iesus.
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Vivat Iesus.
|
Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: I am still pissed they fired David Pollack. He knows ball. Sadly, his wife, Lindsey is battling brain cancer. Monk Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. Sadly, his wife, Lindsey is battling brain cancer. Monk As much as Pollack being fired sucks, I can at least understand the logic of giving loud, obnoxious attention-whores like Stephen Smith and Pat McAfee massive contracts while firing guys who make less than 10% of their salaries because they are good for ratings (though I’m definitely not a fan of either). However, with Holly Rowe, it makes ZERO sense. Outside of her friends and family, there might be 10 people on planet earth who will watch a game or a show because she is in it. If anything, she drives people away compared to what a hot 20-something would do. Sorry to hear about Mrs Pollack.
|
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: As much as Pollack being fired sucks, I can at least understand the logic of giving loud, obnoxious attention-whores like Stephen Smith and Pat McAfee massive contracts while firing guys who make less than 10% of their salaries because they are good for ratings (though I’m definitely not a fan of either). However, with Holly Rowe, it makes ZERO sense. Outside of her friends and family, there might be 10 people on planet earth who will watch a game or a show because she is in it. If anything, she drives people away compared to what a hot 20-something would do. Sorry to hear about Mrs Pollack. Steven Smith, Pat McAfee AND Holly Rowe are all reasons to avoid a show. I do not know a single person who enjoys watching them. |
WAR DAMN EAGLE!!!!!!
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: As much as Pollack being fired sucks, I can at least understand the logic of giving loud, obnoxious attention-whores like Stephen Smith and Pat McAfee massive contracts while firing guys who make less than 10% of their salaries because they are good for ratings (though I’m definitely not a fan of either). However, with Holly Rowe, it makes ZERO sense. Outside of her friends and family, there might be 10 people on planet earth who will watch a game or a show because she is in it. If anything, she drives people away compared to what a hot 20-something would do. Sorry to hear about Mrs Pollack. Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. Sadly, his wife, Lindsey is battling brain cancer. Monk As much as Pollack being fired sucks, I can at least understand the logic of giving loud, obnoxious attention-whores like Stephen Smith and Pat McAfee massive contracts while firing guys who make less than 10% of their salaries because they are good for ratings (though I’m definitely not a fan of either). However, with Holly Rowe, it makes ZERO sense. Outside of her friends and family, there might be 10 people on planet earth who will watch a game or a show because she is in it. If anything, she drives people away compared to what a hot 20-something would do. Sorry to hear about Mrs Pollack. Also, after Ole Miss beat LSU, I was watching the postgame on the field. I watched the blond woman’s interview with Pete Golding. Then they cut to $800k a year Holly Rowe interviewing Trinidad Chambliss and I changed the channel. If they had some non-repugnant 20-40 year old woman interviewing him instead, I’d probably keep watching. Of course that’s just me, but I doubt I’m the only one. |
|
Originally Posted By WDEagle: Steven Smith, Pat McAfee AND Holly Rowe are all reasons to avoid a show. I do not know a single person who enjoys watching them. Originally Posted By WDEagle: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: As much as Pollack being fired sucks, I can at least understand the logic of giving loud, obnoxious attention-whores like Stephen Smith and Pat McAfee massive contracts while firing guys who make less than 10% of their salaries because they are good for ratings (though I’m definitely not a fan of either). However, with Holly Rowe, it makes ZERO sense. Outside of her friends and family, there might be 10 people on planet earth who will watch a game or a show because she is in it. If anything, she drives people away compared to what a hot 20-something would do. Sorry to hear about Mrs Pollack. Steven Smith, Pat McAfee AND Holly Rowe are all reasons to avoid a show. I do not know a single person who enjoys watching them. I remember when ESPN tried to shoehorn Steven Smith into UFC coverage. It was a disaster. He confidently and loudly proclaimed things that were beyond idiotic while the regulars awkwardly tried to work around his idiocy without directly saying he was wrong. |
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Also, afree Ole Miss beat LSU, I was watching the postgame on the field. I watched the blond woman’s interview with Pete Golding. Then they cut to $800k a year Holly Rowe interviewing Trinidad Chambliss and I changed the channel. If they had some non-repugnant 20-40 year old woman interviewing him instead, I’d probably keep watching. Of course that’s just me, but I doubt I’m the only one. You are not. |
WAR DAMN EAGLE!!!!!!
|
Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Agree, but it will never go away. Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Originally Posted By churrasco: Originally Posted By WDEagle: Originally Posted By wakeboarder: Now do Or a team ranked #6 who has played two weak teams who are in the bottom half of their conference and Florida A & fucking M. Not saying that team isn't good, just that nobody they have played justifies that ranking. I'll do Michigan. They shouldn't be ranked. They lost to Western Michigan. Next. Wake Forest was 9-4 and beat two of the top 5 teams in the ACC last season. They re top 10 in returning starters and have upgraded at some key positions. To describe them as a "weak team" is erroneous. Furthermore, the fact that they are apparently in the bottom half of the ACC is tacitly admitting that the top half of the ACC is pretty good. That's beside the point. My contention is that the rankings are garbage. I don't give a damn where the CANES are ranked and neither should anyone else at this point. I think preseason rankings are stupid. I think teams should be ranked at midseason based on objective observable factors, the most important of which should be beating good teams. So we agree it's way too soon for any rankings. Agree, but it will never go away. Yes, but can we at least be intellectually honest? My argument is that we need to stop doing the "this team beat X ranked teams" thing, because the rankings are nonsense. The only reason that Miss St is ranked and WVU is not, is because the preseason rankings/polls (including the computer rankings, because the worst kept secret in the sport is that computer rankings are utilized by writers and pollsters as a crutch to avoid having to actually evaluate teams) skew the whole fucking thing. "but Miss St wasn't ranked in the preseason" Wrong. In fact they were ranked as high as 38th in the preseason rankings composite which you can view at Masseyratings and on average 54th. Whereas WVU was ranked 76th in the composite with high ranking of 55th. You see the problem? WVU started the season 22 spots behind Miss St before any games were played. WVU just beat a "ranked" opponent on the road. What did it earn them? A 25 point jump in the composite. Miss St earned a 12 point jump by beating an "unranked" opponent. Why? Because Scar was ranked 30th in the preseason composite after a 4-8 season and UVA was ranked 31st after an 11-3 season. Tell me how that makes sense. When someone makes the argument that team A has X number of "ranked wins" what they're arguing is that the difference between a quality win and "whatever" is the the differential between #s 25 and 26. When two teams who both lost 8 games last season begin the season with identical 3-0 records and one of those teams has a "ranked win" on their resume, then rankings logic should at the very least have both teams on equal footing. Why is that not the case? Because rankings logic doesn't work. |
Opportunity knocked but I was in the shower.
Joined:
Jun 2010
Posts:
28218
EE: 100% (140)
OK, USA
|
Originally Posted By churrasco: Would someone please explain to me why Miss St is ranked and WVU isn't. Or why Missouri is ranked #19 and Duke, Pitt, VT and UCLA are not ranked? Each of those teams has a win vs a P4 team with a winning record, while Missouri has beaten: Ark Pine Bluff - HBCU Kansas - 1-2 Troy - Sun Belt You can also make a case for OkSt being unranked with a win over then #3 Oregon being unranked. |
Proud supporter of Team Ranstad
Tennessee Squire and Maker's Mark Ambassador
"Every time a Garand ejects its clip an angel gets its wings." RIP, I-M-A-WMD
Tennessee Squire and Maker's Mark Ambassador
"Every time a Garand ejects its clip an angel gets its wings." RIP, I-M-A-WMD
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Holly Rowe will be on the sidelines for Texas/Tennesse game. Sark and Arch should decline to speak with her, but they won't. Monk Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. If ESPN fired her, they’d have a massive lawsuit and the woke mob after them. ESPN is owned by the mouse, so they are the woke mob. |
|
Originally Posted By churrasco: Yes, but can we at least be intellectually honest? My argument is that we need to stop doing the "this team beat X ranked teams" thing, because the rankings are nonsense. The only reason that Miss St is ranked and WVU is not, is because the preseason rankings/polls (including the computer rankings, because the worst kept secret in the sport is that computer rankings are utilized by writers and pollsters as a crutch to avoid having to actually evaluate teams) skew the whole fucking thing. "but Miss St wasn't ranked in the preseason" Wrong. In fact they were ranked as high as 38th in the preseason rankings composite which you can view at Masseyratings and on average 54th. Whereas WVU was ranked 76th in the composite with high ranking of 55th. You see the problem? WVU started the season 22 spots behind Miss St before any games were played. WVU just beat a "ranked" opponent on the road. What did it earn them? A 25 point jump in the composite. Miss St earned a 12 point jump by beating an "unranked" opponent. Why? Because Scar was ranked 30th in the preseason composite after a 4-8 season and UVA was ranked 31st after an 11-3 season. Tell me how that makes sense. When someone makes the argument that team A has X number of "ranked wins" what they're arguing is that the difference between a quality win and "whatever" is the the differential between #s 25 and 26. When two teams who both lost 8 games last season begin the season with identical 3-0 records and one of those teams has a "ranked win" on their resume, then rankings logic should at the very least have both teams on equal footing. Why is that not the case? Because rankings logic doesn't work. Originally Posted By churrasco: Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Originally Posted By churrasco: Originally Posted By WDEagle: Originally Posted By wakeboarder: Now do Or a team ranked #6 who has played two weak teams who are in the bottom half of their conference and Florida A & fucking M. Not saying that team isn't good, just that nobody they have played justifies that ranking. I'll do Michigan. They shouldn't be ranked. They lost to Western Michigan. Next. Wake Forest was 9-4 and beat two of the top 5 teams in the ACC last season. They re top 10 in returning starters and have upgraded at some key positions. To describe them as a "weak team" is erroneous. Furthermore, the fact that they are apparently in the bottom half of the ACC is tacitly admitting that the top half of the ACC is pretty good. That's beside the point. My contention is that the rankings are garbage. I don't give a damn where the CANES are ranked and neither should anyone else at this point. I think preseason rankings are stupid. I think teams should be ranked at midseason based on objective observable factors, the most important of which should be beating good teams. So we agree it's way too soon for any rankings. Agree, but it will never go away. Yes, but can we at least be intellectually honest? My argument is that we need to stop doing the "this team beat X ranked teams" thing, because the rankings are nonsense. The only reason that Miss St is ranked and WVU is not, is because the preseason rankings/polls (including the computer rankings, because the worst kept secret in the sport is that computer rankings are utilized by writers and pollsters as a crutch to avoid having to actually evaluate teams) skew the whole fucking thing. "but Miss St wasn't ranked in the preseason" Wrong. In fact they were ranked as high as 38th in the preseason rankings composite which you can view at Masseyratings and on average 54th. Whereas WVU was ranked 76th in the composite with high ranking of 55th. You see the problem? WVU started the season 22 spots behind Miss St before any games were played. WVU just beat a "ranked" opponent on the road. What did it earn them? A 25 point jump in the composite. Miss St earned a 12 point jump by beating an "unranked" opponent. Why? Because Scar was ranked 30th in the preseason composite after a 4-8 season and UVA was ranked 31st after an 11-3 season. Tell me how that makes sense. When someone makes the argument that team A has X number of "ranked wins" what they're arguing is that the difference between a quality win and "whatever" is the the differential between #s 25 and 26. When two teams who both lost 8 games last season begin the season with identical 3-0 records and one of those teams has a "ranked win" on their resume, then rankings logic should at the very least have both teams on equal footing. Why is that not the case? Because rankings logic doesn't work. SEC SEC SEC. I don’t particularly like it either. Rather wish Texas was ranked 10 or so right now… it’ll never happen though because talking about college football makes money. Rankings are just another way to generate talk about college football. |
|
Originally Posted By lilMAC25: If ESPN fired her, they’d have a massive lawsuit and the woke mob after them. ESPN is owned by the mouse, so they are the woke mob. Originally Posted By lilMAC25: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Holly Rowe will be on the sidelines for Texas/Tennesse game. Sark and Arch should decline to speak with her, but they won't. Monk Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. If ESPN fired her, they’d have a massive lawsuit and the woke mob after them. ESPN is owned by the mouse, so they are the woke mob. Replace white Holly Rowe with an Hispanic woman who is at least decent looking. It wouldn’t even have to be one of those hot weather girls with the huge asses. Though, I wouldn’t complain if it was.  Attached File Attached File |
|
Week 4 draft Saturday TV schedule. Attached File |
WAR DAMN EAGLE!!!!!!
|
Originally Posted By leemozoid: You can also make a case for OkSt being unranked with a win over then #3 Oregon being unranked. Originally Posted By leemozoid: Originally Posted By churrasco: Would someone please explain to me why Miss St is ranked and WVU isn't. Or why Missouri is ranked #19 and Duke, Pitt, VT and UCLA are not ranked? Each of those teams has a win vs a P4 team with a winning record, while Missouri has beaten: Ark Pine Bluff - HBCU Kansas - 1-2 Troy - Sun Belt You can also make a case for OkSt being unranked with a win over then #3 Oregon being unranked. Tulsa has a better case at this point in the season but they'd have to win their next 5-6 games to even be considered. On the other hand, if OkSt wins their next 5 they'll be top 15 at worst. |
Stupid fucking Commies
Monk |
"I'm a professional soldier. If you think you can use me like Ken and dress me like Barbi, you obviously recruited the wrong motherfucker." -- 30calTBLkid
"Its not easy to teach someone how to give a fuck." -- tweeter
"Its not easy to teach someone how to give a fuck." -- tweeter
|
Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Holly Rowe will be on the sidelines for Texas/Tennesse game. Sark and Arch should decline to speak with her, but they won't. Monk I'd just ignore her and tell tne equipment manager to go talk to her |
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
|
Originally Posted By TXBO:
|
Can't, Won't, let them infringe me! If I'm caught, "Boys! Avenge me!"
|
Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Also, after Ole Miss beat LSU, I was watching the postgame on the field. I watched the blond woman’s interview with Pete Golding. Then they cut to $800k a year Holly Rowe interviewing Trinidad Chambliss and I changed the channel. If they had some non-repugnant 20-40 year old woman interviewing him instead, I’d probably keep watching. Of course that’s just me, but I doubt I’m the only one. Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Originally Posted By The-Bald-Monk: Originally Posted By Hunter-Killer: Imagine running a business and keeping an annoying employee making $800,000 a year when you know you could EASILY replace them with someone who would be happy with $100,000 AND they’d do a better job. Sadly, his wife, Lindsey is battling brain cancer. Monk As much as Pollack being fired sucks, I can at least understand the logic of giving loud, obnoxious attention-whores like Stephen Smith and Pat McAfee massive contracts while firing guys who make less than 10% of their salaries because they are good for ratings (though I’m definitely not a fan of either). However, with Holly Rowe, it makes ZERO sense. Outside of her friends and family, there might be 10 people on planet earth who will watch a game or a show because she is in it. If anything, she drives people away compared to what a hot 20-something would do. Sorry to hear about Mrs Pollack. Also, after Ole Miss beat LSU, I was watching the postgame on the field. I watched the blond woman’s interview with Pete Golding. Then they cut to $800k a year Holly Rowe interviewing Trinidad Chambliss and I changed the channel. If they had some non-repugnant 20-40 year old woman interviewing him instead, I’d probably keep watching. Of course that’s just me, but I doubt I’m the only one. Its like watching the Muppet Show |
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
