The unfortunate peril of the Internet is the fact that any complete moron with an account can post - literally - anything he or she wishes. And nothing brings out the idiots like arguments over college football. A few nights ago, Ohio State ended their long drought of bowl losses to the SEC by beating Alabama, 42-35, in the Sugar Bowl and clinching a spot in the national championship game against Oregon. The Buckeyes were well-coached and played well. Unfortunately, this win has brought out some of the dumbest argumentation known to man courtesy of some members of Buckeye Nation. Last year - on December 2, 2013, to be precise - a poster put up a You Tube video talking about a debate between Paul Finebaum and Danny Kanell, with Colin Cowherd on background vocals. I posted awhile back regarding one of the dumbest arguments known to man: the complaint that the SEC's dominance is "overstated" and that "the SEC pads their record by playing a bunch of out of conference cupcakes" and is thus not all it's cracked up to be. I merely made the following observation:
The SEC plays one less division game every year. So what? What is your point?
It is funny how often this frivolous objection is raised. But enter Ted Nahas to make the mistake of picking a fight with someone far more intelligent than he. Apparently, the beatings his beloved Buckeyes have taken through the years from the SEC have left Ted with severe brain damage (or perhaps a severe case of PTSD). Thus, the moment the Buckeyes beat Alabama, Ted decided to vent his frustration at me. So let's see how Ted fares with FACTS in an argument. Let's just say that today's SAT question is:
Facts are to Ted Nahas like:
a) Fire to gasoline
b) Water to the Wicked Witch
c) The House to the Other Wicked Witch
d) All of the above
The correct answer, of course, is who really cares? But I then made the following comment, which brought up the ire of Ted Nahas, Clueless Buckeye:
The SEC also wipes the floor with the other conferences when they play them in bowl games, so this excuse simply doesn't wash. Granted, the PTB in the West went 0-5 this year but look over the last near decade while all this whining has been going on.
My point is VERY simple, so simple even someone as dumb as Ted ought to get it but doesn't: if the REAL reason for SEC dominance all these years was because they run up fantastic records against a bunch of scrub teams then the "better" teams in other conferences should be absolutely wiping the floor with the SEC in the bowl games. IF as Ted alleges the SEC owes its success to FEWER SEC games because of cupcakes then the SEC is NOT really very good and should easily be exposed as a fraud. My point goes back to the 2006 bowl season, the first year of the long SEC streak of championships (and appearances). Having felt he was not done showing us how stupid he was, Ted came back with the following stroke of genius:
Wipes the floor? Your SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6 every year. For the last ten years they have gone 500 or below. Also, did you not just see your precious SEC top west teams get stomped this year? Hmm? Don't make up fake stats to try and make it sound like you are right.
My response to Ted follows:
Now look, Jackweed:
I'm not sure if it is the ignorance of your statement or the arrogance that is the most mind-boggling. Let's take your statement apart one foolish comment at a time and demonstrate to the entire Internet that your only asset is good fiction writing. Here goes:
1) Your SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6 every year
Hmm, let's take a look:
2006 - 6-3 (oh and SLAUGHTERED Ohio State in the BCSNCG)
2007 - 7-2 (oh and SLAUGHTERED Ohio State in the BCSNCG)
2008 - 6-2 (and Ohio State lost to Texas)
2009 - 6-4
2010 - 5-5 (and Ohio State's win doesn't even count, ha ha)
2011 - 6-3 (and Ohio State lost to Florida AGAIN!)
2012 - 6-3 (and Ohio State watched at home due to sanctions)
2013 - 7-3 (and Ohio State LOST to Clemson)
2014 - 7-5
So you said the SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6. ACTUAL number of times the SEC went 500 in the time frame referenced? ONE! Number of times SEC won LESS than 6 games? ONE! But you're just warming up the stupid.
2) For the last ten years they have gone 500 or below.
ACTUAL record of SEC in bowl games the last ten years: 56-30 (.651)
Now that's just nine years, but we'll add 2005 just to make you feel better. The SEC went 3-3, so their overall record the past TEN YEARS - which YOU said was less than .500 - is ACTUALLY 59-33 (.641). Incidentally, your beloved Buckeyes in bowl games the last ten years? 4-5, aka, BELOW .500. Their record against the SEC? 1-3 with a vacated win.
Now as far as teams getting "stomped" this year, yeah, TCU stomped Ole Miss and Ga Tech pretty well handled MSU. Beyond that? Auburn lost in overtime, LSU lost on a last play field goal, and Alabama lost by seven points, hardly a "stomping." You did see that the conference overall - the SEC - went 7-5, right? (Not your made up 5-6). What was the Big Ten this year in bowl games, all ten of which saw them as underdogs? .500, which you just said about the SEC. Maybe before jumping onto the Internet and shooting your mouth off about subjects you obviously know nothing about, you should actually stop and LEARN THE FACTS before posting and making a complete idiot of yourself.
Ted then continues on his next post:
3) The past decade not one team in the SEC is tops in winning percentage don't be a fool making up false fact
It should be noted that I never said this, so perhaps Ted is erecting a straw man. Of course, we've seen here that Ted himself is sort of a straw man ("if he only had a brain"). But this hardly matters. The top winning percentage since 2000 belongs to Boise State. When you don't actually play anybody decent, it's easy to run up huge win totals. But what is Boise State's winning pct against the SEC? Well, they're not only bad, they're awful. They're 1-5 and have lost every single one of those by 19 points or more. So maybe Ted can explain this irrelevancy for the rest of us.
But Ted isn't done yet!!
4) Maybe you should stop talking, you don't know football at all
Apparently, Ted is looking in the mirror and having a screaming fit. Hey Ted, if I pulled for the Buckeyes and had to tolerate Tattoogate and watching Alabama win a title that should have been mine in 2012, I'd be upset, too. But don't take it out on me. I'll note that Ted Nahas is welcome to debate the FACTS of college football history anywhere at any time. Of course, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel (with Nahas in the barrel) but so what?
5) Way to prove your case wrong bud on EVERY fact you stated
It should be noted this began as a RESPONSE to the ridiculous charge that the SEC pads their winning percentage with cupcakes and doesn't play a tough schedule. I'm vindicated. Roll Tide.
The SEC plays one less division game every year. So what? What is your point?
It is funny how often this frivolous objection is raised. But enter Ted Nahas to make the mistake of picking a fight with someone far more intelligent than he. Apparently, the beatings his beloved Buckeyes have taken through the years from the SEC have left Ted with severe brain damage (or perhaps a severe case of PTSD). Thus, the moment the Buckeyes beat Alabama, Ted decided to vent his frustration at me. So let's see how Ted fares with FACTS in an argument. Let's just say that today's SAT question is:
Facts are to Ted Nahas like:
a) Fire to gasoline
b) Water to the Wicked Witch
c) The House to the Other Wicked Witch
d) All of the above
The correct answer, of course, is who really cares? But I then made the following comment, which brought up the ire of Ted Nahas, Clueless Buckeye:
The SEC also wipes the floor with the other conferences when they play them in bowl games, so this excuse simply doesn't wash. Granted, the PTB in the West went 0-5 this year but look over the last near decade while all this whining has been going on.
My point is VERY simple, so simple even someone as dumb as Ted ought to get it but doesn't: if the REAL reason for SEC dominance all these years was because they run up fantastic records against a bunch of scrub teams then the "better" teams in other conferences should be absolutely wiping the floor with the SEC in the bowl games. IF as Ted alleges the SEC owes its success to FEWER SEC games because of cupcakes then the SEC is NOT really very good and should easily be exposed as a fraud. My point goes back to the 2006 bowl season, the first year of the long SEC streak of championships (and appearances). Having felt he was not done showing us how stupid he was, Ted came back with the following stroke of genius:
Wipes the floor? Your SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6 every year. For the last ten years they have gone 500 or below. Also, did you not just see your precious SEC top west teams get stomped this year? Hmm? Don't make up fake stats to try and make it sound like you are right.
My response to Ted follows:
Now look, Jackweed:
I'm not sure if it is the ignorance of your statement or the arrogance that is the most mind-boggling. Let's take your statement apart one foolish comment at a time and demonstrate to the entire Internet that your only asset is good fiction writing. Here goes:
1) Your SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6 every year
Hmm, let's take a look:
2006 - 6-3 (oh and SLAUGHTERED Ohio State in the BCSNCG)
2007 - 7-2 (oh and SLAUGHTERED Ohio State in the BCSNCG)
2008 - 6-2 (and Ohio State lost to Texas)
2009 - 6-4
2010 - 5-5 (and Ohio State's win doesn't even count, ha ha)
2011 - 6-3 (and Ohio State lost to Florida AGAIN!)
2012 - 6-3 (and Ohio State watched at home due to sanctions)
2013 - 7-3 (and Ohio State LOST to Clemson)
2014 - 7-5
So you said the SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6. ACTUAL number of times the SEC went 500 in the time frame referenced? ONE! Number of times SEC won LESS than 6 games? ONE! But you're just warming up the stupid.
2) For the last ten years they have gone 500 or below.
ACTUAL record of SEC in bowl games the last ten years: 56-30 (.651)
Now that's just nine years, but we'll add 2005 just to make you feel better. The SEC went 3-3, so their overall record the past TEN YEARS - which YOU said was less than .500 - is ACTUALLY 59-33 (.641). Incidentally, your beloved Buckeyes in bowl games the last ten years? 4-5, aka, BELOW .500. Their record against the SEC? 1-3 with a vacated win.
Now as far as teams getting "stomped" this year, yeah, TCU stomped Ole Miss and Ga Tech pretty well handled MSU. Beyond that? Auburn lost in overtime, LSU lost on a last play field goal, and Alabama lost by seven points, hardly a "stomping." You did see that the conference overall - the SEC - went 7-5, right? (Not your made up 5-6). What was the Big Ten this year in bowl games, all ten of which saw them as underdogs? .500, which you just said about the SEC. Maybe before jumping onto the Internet and shooting your mouth off about subjects you obviously know nothing about, you should actually stop and LEARN THE FACTS before posting and making a complete idiot of yourself.
Ted then continues on his next post:
3) The past decade not one team in the SEC is tops in winning percentage don't be a fool making up false fact
It should be noted that I never said this, so perhaps Ted is erecting a straw man. Of course, we've seen here that Ted himself is sort of a straw man ("if he only had a brain"). But this hardly matters. The top winning percentage since 2000 belongs to Boise State. When you don't actually play anybody decent, it's easy to run up huge win totals. But what is Boise State's winning pct against the SEC? Well, they're not only bad, they're awful. They're 1-5 and have lost every single one of those by 19 points or more. So maybe Ted can explain this irrelevancy for the rest of us.
But Ted isn't done yet!!
4) Maybe you should stop talking, you don't know football at all
Apparently, Ted is looking in the mirror and having a screaming fit. Hey Ted, if I pulled for the Buckeyes and had to tolerate Tattoogate and watching Alabama win a title that should have been mine in 2012, I'd be upset, too. But don't take it out on me. I'll note that Ted Nahas is welcome to debate the FACTS of college football history anywhere at any time. Of course, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel (with Nahas in the barrel) but so what?
5) Way to prove your case wrong bud on EVERY fact you stated
It should be noted this began as a RESPONSE to the ridiculous charge that the SEC pads their winning percentage with cupcakes and doesn't play a tough schedule. I'm vindicated. Roll Tide.
No comments:
Post a Comment