forums

UGA is fed up with Kirby.

OriginalGatorHater said:
I was watching college football back then. That is why I am bringing it up. That is not true. Pretty much any SEC team that ran the table this year would have ended up being the number 1 or 2 seed at worst because they had to run the SEC gauntlet. In the early 2000s that didn't hold as much weight because the conf was weaker. We were talking about undefeated teams. Not 1 loss teams. 1 loss teams are hard to discuss in this debate because when you lose plays a large part in seeding. That said the SEC was so good last year they ended up with 2 SEC teams in the NC.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. Kentucky would not have been #1 if undefeated. They would not have jumped an undefeated Clemson team. No way. And that's the point you're trying to make, although you're backing away now saying #1 or #2. That wasn't your original statement.

The "when they lose" argument is stupid also because Alabama lost their last game and still got in. The rankings are heavily based on the overall strength of the program over time.
 
Advertisement
hughhoney said:
UF was NOT better in 2018 than they were in 2001. That's why this whole argument is stupid. Florida sucked balls for two of the three seasons for both, and this 2018 team was a flash in the pan that caught some breaks. The 2001 team was a 2point conversion away from playing for a NC. Don't bring up South Carolina at all then, they are a terrible program now, just lost to UVa 28-0 and they weren't any better the previous 2 years.
Click to expand...

The 2018 team was certainly better than the 2001 team and the 2016 team was better than either of Zooks teams. Only the 2017 team was worse than Zooks other team. That 2001 also lost to that Auburn team that you talked about sucking before.

I will bring up the USCe team because it shows the trend of every single SECe team being better now than they were in the early 00s.
 
hughhoney said:
That's just not true. Kentucky would not have been #1 if undefeated. They would not have jumped an undefeated Clemson team. No way. And that's the point you're trying to make, although you're backing away now saying #1 or #2. That wasn't your original statement.

The "when they lose" argument is stupid also because Alabama lost their last game and still got in. The rankings are heavily based on the overall strength of the program over time.
Click to expand...

That is why I said "pretty much" not every single one. No I am not backing away from it. If a big name SEC team was to go undefeated in this modern day football era they are the number one seed hands down as we saw with Bama. No chance they are getting left out like they were with Auburn.

No it is not. I am saying had UGA had its loss early in the season like Clemson they likely would have been the number 1 seed.

Finally you say something that makes sense. Rankings are based on the strength of team over time. That is why Auburn was left out. Neither they, nor the teams they beat, had the built up strength over numerous seasons. Which proves my point of how weak the SEC was at that time.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
The 2018 team was certainly better than the 2001 team and the 2016 team was better than either of Zooks teams. Only the 2017 team was worse than Zooks other team. That 2001 also lost to that Auburn team that you talked about sucking before.

I will bring up the USCe team because it shows the trend of every single SECe team being better now than they were in the early 00s.
Click to expand...

You're really saying the 2018 Florida team was better than the 2001 Florida team? And you want to be taken seriously, or is this just a troll job?
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
That is why I said "pretty much" not every single one. No I am not backing away from it. If a big name SEC team was to go undefeated in this modern day football era they are the number one seed hands down as we saw with Bama. No chance they are getting left out like they were with Auburn.

No it is not. I am saying had UGA had its loss early in the season like Clemson they likely would have been the number 1 seed.

Finally you say something that makes sense. Rankings are based on the strength of team over time. That is why Auburn was left out. Neither they, nor the teams they beat, had the built up strength over numerous seasons. Which proves my point of how weak the SEC was at that time.
Click to expand...

Lol, now it's if a "big name" SEC team, they're #1. There's only 1 and it's Bama. Has nothing to do with them being in the SEC. If Georgia and Clemson are tied, Clemson would be the #1. If Bama and Clemson are both undefeated, Bama is the #1 because they are the powerhouse of college football. Thank you for acknowledging that rankings are based on strength over time. That's why Oklahoma and USC were selected moreso than why a preseason #17 team was left out. Not because they're in a terrible conference as you so claim.
 
hughhoney said:
You're really saying the 2018 Florida team was better than the 2001 Florida team? And you want to be taken seriously, or is this just a troll job?
Click to expand...

The team may have been more talented, but I would take Mullet over an over the hill Spurrier. I have never heard anyone, but you, claim that the SEC has gotten worse since the early 00s. Everyone says the SEC is the best it has ever been. That is a fact.
 
hughhoney said:
Lol, now it's if a "big name" SEC team, they're #1. There's only 1 and it's Bama. Has nothing to do with them being in the SEC. If Georgia and Clemson are tied, Clemson would be the #1. If Bama and Clemson are both undefeated, Bama is the #1 because they are the powerhouse of college football. Thank you for acknowledging that rankings are based on strength over time. That's why Oklahoma and USC were selected moreso than why a preseason #17 team was left out. Not because they're in a terrible conference as you so claim.
Click to expand...

It always was. What do you think "pretty much any SEC team" means. No, it would be UGA, Auburn, UF, etc. If they ran the table and beat Bama they are going to be the number 1 seed. It has EVERYTHING to do with them being in the SEC. The committee cares about the teams they play. Knocking off UF, USCe, Bama, LSU, etc. would be more impressive than knocking off pit and Syracuse. Not to mention Clemsons near loss to TAMU.

You are proving my point again. They were pre season number 17 because they are in a weak conference and were a weak team, yet they still were able to run through the trash SEC that year.
 
This whole "SEC! SEC!" BS is our fault anyways.

Because we hired Coker, we opened the door for the 2006-2008 (UF, LSU, UF) run.

By 2009, Alabama started their run. If it wasn't for the 06-08 run, it'd be Bama. But now the whole conference seems to share each of Bama's titles.

In 2004, Auburn went undefeated but was left out of the title game. That would NOT have happened just a few years later.

Now that I think about it. It may just be Tebow's fault.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
The team may have been more talented, but I would take Mullet over an over the hill Spurrier. I have never heard anyone, but you, claim that the SEC has gotten worse since the early 00s. Everyone says the SEC is the best it has ever been. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

"Over the hill"? Jesus, you really are trolling. The dude was in his absolute prime, just got the biggest contract in NFL history after that season from the Redskins. Every one of our debates ends the same way man.
 
Advertisement
hughhoney said:
"Over the hill"? Jesus, you really are trolling. The dude was in his absolute prime, just got the biggest contract in NFL history after that season from the Redskins. Every one of our debates ends the same way man.
Click to expand...
He's high. He's always high.
 
hughhoney said:
"Over the hill"? Jesus, you really are trolling. The dude was in his absolute prime, just got the biggest contract in NFL history after that season from the Redskins. Every one of our debates ends the same way man.
Click to expand...

Ya bro!!! He killed it in the NFL!!! 2 Losing seasons. What an elite corch he was. Spurriers prime was in the 80s and 90s.
 
giphy (4).gif
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
I am surprised by this response. Usually the slurpers respond with a meme after being thoroughly whooped.
Click to expand...

You think you whooped me huh? Lol. You can't logically follow any argument and say some of the dumbest **** and then you go ahead and pat yourself on the back, it's sad if not hilarious.
 
hughhoney said:
You think you whooped me huh? Lol. You can't logically follow any argument and say some of the dumbest **** and then you go ahead and pat yourself on the back, it's sad if not hilarious.
Click to expand...

Everything I stated was straight facts and all you did was call me names. No one would EVER say the SEC is weaker now than it was in the early 2000s. Go talk to your UGA buddys. None of them are wishing they never fired Mork. I am sure you cried yourself to sleep after Mork "retired".
 
Back
Top