While I am laughing at this "who had the better wins" debate, I did find it odd you referenced that particular article.
Happy that we could amuse you. Although debate doesn't have anything to do with who had better wins.
I didn't see a link to the article, but I believe topdeck that it's there. I almost posted one from bleacherreport saying Vandy is a good team but figured that one might rightfully fall under some scrutiny (biased and such)
Make up your mind ! You told him don't link stuff like i do LOL Why? because it's make you look mad???
Give it up MCC topdeck has made you look silly like always
9/10 8:14 AM | IP: Logged
Wow - 4for - I tried to understand but I have no clue what you are saying in your post...other than the last line of course
9/10 8:19 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by MotorCityChicken: Wow - 4for - I tried to understand but I have no clue what you are saying in your post...other than the last line of course
Personally I think as i've said all along that Auburn and Vandy are both solid teams. I stand by that. And let's not play the 4for game of "producing links" - not worth the time and not sure how you want me to produce clips from tv shows. Like I said you can choose to believe or not - doesn't matter to me. I know what i've read and heard and what people are saying - surprised even when we started this that someone was calling Vandy a "bad" team. Still have seen zero evidence that anyone has actually called them a bad team though - other than on Clemson boards. You now have two examples from me without even trying to support my side...just watching games and listening to announcers.
see you talk so much you forget what you have said
9/10 8:53 AM | IP: Logged
I didn't forget what I said - I just had no clue what you were trying to say
9/10 9:25 AM | IP: Logged
I can't say Vandy is a solid team. Just not seeing it. Can't give a game away like they did against Northwestern and be solid in any respect.
I can't say Auburn is either at this point. Maybe they will be but that wasn't solid what I saw Saturday against Miss State. Auburn's QB looked flat out awful and their defense well- it just wasn't there.
But us beating Vandy- and Clemson beating Auburn - still soild wins for reasons mentioned earlier.
9/10 9:33 AM | IP: Logged
Ok, here's the link again.
Originally posted by MotorCityChicken: Link still not working - maybe it's on my side.
I hope we can all agree that Kentucky is bad. No real conversation to be had there. I have also never seen anyone call Kentucky good or solid when speaking about them. Always blurbs like the one you posted. However everyone I have heard discuss Vandy has used the words good or solid...thus the difference. Like I said - you seem want to choose to ignore or not believe any of that, so nothing I can do about it...is what it is.
Yes, but the point wasn't to debate Kentucky. What I was pointing out is how you can take the context of a comment and understand its clear meaning, even though it doesn't use a specific word. Such as, just because the writer didn't specifically use the word "bad" to describe Kentucky, he clearly thinks they are bad. Same thing applies to Vanderbilt. (Specifically, the comments made on the Thursday night game.)
Once again, this is the difference between you and me. You base your arguments on minute points and if you find one single discrepancy, you try to refute the larger point based on that. I reject that line of reasoning, because it's nothing more than a debating trick. I'm more concerned with the big picture and the totalily of the evidence. What I object to is your claim that "everyone" says Vanderbilt is good or soild. I have come across one or two instances in researching this topic, where commentators did in fact say that. However, that was not the majority. The overwhelming majority did not share that opinion of Vanderbilt. For example, most of the predictions I came across picked Vanderbilt to go 5-7. I'm sorry, but that's just not solid. Now, one issue in this debate is that most commentators simply ignored Vanderbilt. They didn't make comments on them one way or the other. (That also goes for weekend reviews of the first two games.) This kind of artificially inflates the ratio of positive vs negative comments about Vanderbilt. The few that where high on Vanderbilt made a point to comment on them. The ones that were picking Vanderbilt to do poorly many times didn't even give them the time of day. You take the lack of comments to mean the consensus is Vanderbilt is good, or solid. When somebody picks a team to go 5-7, they obviously don't have a good opinion of them. This goes to the difference between the way we process information, and I believe your way is too narrow to yield an accurate analysis.
I think Vandy had some lofty goals this season - including being better than 6-7, with a win against USC. To say their expectations were 6-7 for this year is not correct - expectations were higher, and even a loss to USC would be 'disappointing'. Now whether those expectations were realistic is a different story, and they are off to a poor start. However, lots of football left to be played.
I have no doubt Vanderbilt had lofty goals. Most teams do, even ones that clearly suck. That's not the issue. The isssue is how the college football world at large saw Vanderbilt. As I said, the majority of commentators had Vanderbilt pegged for a losing record this year. That's the standard. You can't just go by what the fan base of a specific team thinks, because you would literally get 100 different opinions that would be completely opposite of one another. They only way to have a rational argument on this issue is to take the overall college football world's opinion.
LOL, You shouldn't find it surprising. If you believe the writer was accurate on that, was he also right in his other predictions? I will answer that for you, no, his opinion means squat. I do understand you only used it to prove a point though...good find.
The writer's accuracy has nothing to do with this. Both MCC and I had to correct you as to the basis of the argument. So it's pretty clear you don't understand what's being discussed. See, most of what I'm posting here has nothing to do with my actual agrument. I'm just refuting whatever point MCC brings up. He's the one driving the direction of the conversation, not me. I'm just going wherever he takes it. On this specific point, he is claimed that "everyone" though Vanderbilt was a good team this year. I disagreed with that. He said, "Give me even one example," so I did. The point is not whether this writer was correct about anything. The point was that the opinion simply existed. Aside from that, I could go back to these commentators that MCC is using, and highlight all their other incorrect predictions, same as you are trying to do with mine. But you conveniently ignore that. I think your problem is that you are assuming this discussion is just a proxy for the larger Clemson-Carolina argument. Clemson and Carolina have nothing to do with this particular discussion, other than the fact they happened to be the opponents for these two teams.
9/10 3:29 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by topdecktiger:
Originally posted by hubstar55:
LOL, You shouldn't find it surprising. If you believe the writer was accurate on that, was he also right in his other predictions? I will answer that for you, no, his opinion means squat. I do understand you only used it to prove a point though...good find.
The writer's accuracy has nothing to do with this. Both MCC and I had to correct you as to the basis of the argument. So it's pretty clear you don't understand what's being discussed. See, most of what I'm posting here has nothing to do with my actual agrument. I'm just refuting whatever point MCC brings up. He's the one driving the direction of the conversation, not me. I'm just going wherever he takes it. On this specific point, he is claimed that "everyone" though Vanderbilt was a good team this year. I disagreed with that. He said, "Give me even one example," so I did. The point is not whether this writer was correct about anything. The point was that the opinion simply existed. Aside from that, I could go back to these commentators that MCC is using, and highlight all their other incorrect predictions, same as you are trying to do with mine. But you conveniently ignore that. I think your problem is that you are assuming this discussion is just a proxy for the larger Clemson-Carolina argument. Clemson and Carolina have nothing to do with this particular discussion, other than the fact they happened to be the opponents for these two teams.
LOL...Slow down there guy before you bust a gasket! REREAD MY LAST SENTENCE.
If you just want to argue semantics though, I'm not sure (and don't care enough to go back and look) but I think MMC used the word "bad". Your quote said "disappointing"...there is a difference. If I am wrong (and could very well be), I am sorry for butting in.
9/10 4:52 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by hubstar55:
LOL...Slow down there guy before you bust a gasket! REREAD MY LAST SENTENCE.
If you just want to argue semantics though, I'm not sure (and don't care enough to go back and look) but I think MMC used the word "bad". Your quote said "disappointing"...there is a difference. If I am wrong (and could very well be), I am sorry for butting in.
I did read your last sentence. Your last sentence doesn't counteract the ones before it.
No, there isn't a difference. If you were already 6-7 last year, and you are picked to be "disappointing" this year, where does that leave you? If somebody picks you to have a losing season, that's saying you are bad. Only someone living in an alternate universe would try to argue that it isn't. As I also pointed out to MCC, Kentucky (who is universally considered bad this year) was never described with the specific word "bad" either. But if you read the quote, it's beyond 100% clear they were considered bad by the writer. So yes, you are wrong.
9/11 1:05 PM | IP: Logged
If my boss had given out 10% Christmas bonuses for 3 years prior (and I counted on it), but this year he only gives me 5%, that would be disappointing. If he gave me a turkey...that would be BAD.
9/11 2:04 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by hubstar55: If my boss had given out 10% Christmas bonuses for 3 years prior (and I counted on it), but this year he only gives me 5%, that would be disappointing. If he gave me a turkey...that would be BAD.
That's just a version of MCC's argument, and it's still wrong. As I said, if Alabama goes 9-3 this year, that's disappointing by their standards, but 9-3 is still a good year in an of itself. The problem is that Vanderbilt was only picked to be around .500 to start with. So a disappointing season for them is going to be a losing season. A losing season is bad, no matter how you try to slice it. If you pick somebody to have a losing season, that's bad. No other way around it.
9/11 2:50 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by topdecktiger:
Originally posted by hubstar55: If my boss had given out 10% Christmas bonuses for 3 years prior (and I counted on it), but this year he only gives me 5%, that would be disappointing. If he gave me a turkey...that would be BAD.
That's just a version of MCC's argument, and it's still wrong. As I said, if Alabama goes 9-3 this year, that's disappointing by their standards, but 9-3 is still a good year in an of itself. The problem is that Vanderbilt was only picked to be around .500 to start with. So a disappointing season for them is going to be a losing season. A losing season is bad, no matter how you try to slice it. If you pick somebody to have a losing season, that's bad. No other way around it.
Thank you for proving my point. The consensus opinion of Vanderbilt ranged from 7-5 to 5-7. So "disappointment" from that level would have to be a losing record, which is bad. Thank you again for proving my point.
9/12 12:26 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by topdecktiger:
Originally posted by hubstar55:
Thank you for proving my point. The consensus opinion of Vanderbilt ranged from 7-5 to 5-7. So "disappointment" from that level would have to be a losing record, which is bad. Thank you again for proving my point.
While I kinda, sorta agree with your opinion of what the consensus might be, unless you have polled the Vandy fan base, not sure you are qualified to gauge their expectations for the year and/or what they would consider disappointing. Having had 1 season equal to or above .500 in 30 years, they might welcome a .500 season as it would show a marked improvement for a two year span.They have not had back to back .500 (or better) seasons since '74 '75. Before that it was '58 '59. Are you sure they would be disappointed in a .500 season?
So, where are we now? We know they were predicted to make a bowl game by several publications so that is at worst a 6-7 team but a .500 regular season record, making back to back bowl appearances for the first time ever. Would that disappoint? I don't think so.
FYI, I think they will be lucky to win 4 games this year, but you guys are discussing how they were percieved proir to the season.
9/12 2:52 AM | IP: Logged
I was wrong - Vandy has an outside shot at 6-6...Auburn is a dumpster fire
10/21 2:09 AM | IP: Logged
You worried about the fire in your back yard?
10/21 12:16 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by 4forcu: You worried about the fire in your back yard?
Not really. Stinks that we are out of the East race and that we lost the UF game the way that we did. Very disappointing for sure with all of the turnovers, especially since the defense played so well. However we are now thru the 3-game gauntlet, and we should be favored and have the LOS advantage in all of the rest of our games. Would have liked to gone 2-1 over the 3 games rather than 1-2, but it is what it is. Still have a very realistic shot to finish 10-2 with a very good bowl. Lots left to play for - but disappointing for sure.
Wouldn't call it a fire...sure have come a long way though if 6-2 with road losses at LSU and UF have people thinking there's a "fire". Not meeting our goals - sure - but things certainly have been worse.
10/21 8:44 PM | IP: Logged
Auburn is not a dumpster fire. They play vandy within a TD just like socar did. It certainly has been worse, and could continue to spiral down now with spurrier jerking the qb's around. TN and Ark are both getting close to putting things together. 10-2 maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. It could just as easily end up 7-5. I think more like 8-4 right now. One thing is for certain, the dream season has ended.
10/21 10:04 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: Auburn is not a dumpster fire. They play vandy within a TD just like socar did. It certainly has been worse, and could continue to spiral down now with spurrier jerking the qb's around. TN and Ark are both getting close to putting things together. 10-2 maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. It could just as easily end up 7-5. I think more like 8-4 right now. One thing is for certain, the dream season has ended.
Yes - Auburn is a dumpster fire. Not much for moral victories against Vandy. They are battling Kentucky or Mizzou as the worst team in the SEC - not sure how else you can view Auburn at this point. An 0-8 SEC season is extremely likely at this point.
Dream season is over - certainly - will see how we finish. Aside from crazy stupid turnovers they don't control, I would expect the D to have us in every game. They played well enough to beat UF. It will be an interesting ride on offense, that is for sure.
10/21 11:47 PM | IP: Logged
Baloney. Your spin here is the worst on the board.
Auburn is 1-6 after losing to Vanderbilt and is likely to fire their coach and football staff.
That's a dumptster fire for a team and program like Auburn and you know that full well- and so does everyone else in the universe.
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: Auburn is not a dumpster fire.
10/22 8:31 AM | IP: Logged
Hahahahahahaha. You even mentioning spin about someone else is hillarious. The truth is AU is 1-6, yet they played the very vandy team in Nashville and had results within 1 TD(7 points of socar). They also played Clemson within 1 TD in Atlanta. They are 2 years away from a national champion ship, that is hardly a dumpster fire. Now I agree Gene will probably be fired, but he will just be the 3rd coach AU has fired with undefeated seasons. AU is suffering from bad QB play just like uga, lsu, and mizzu has this year. AU has also turned over their coaching staff twice in 2 years. Many of their losses have came away from home, just like yours and Clemson's losses. AU's cupboard is hardly bare. Bad qb play, coaching turn over, unluckily with scheduling all have contributed to the 1-6. Bottom line is there are only 1-2 elite teams in the county, and everyone else is subject to being beaten by anyone on any given week. That includes Clemson and socar. Clemson could end up 11-1 or 8-4. The same can be said for socar ending up 10-2 or 7-5. So you spin that
10/22 3:30 PM | IP: Logged
That reasoning is totally ludicrous
If I was only 2 inches taller and could run a little faster, I'd be trying out for the Olympic team. But - I'm not.
Why you've disolved into this "if" logic is hard to understand.
"The truth is AU is 1-6, yet they played the very vandy team in Nashville and had results within 1 TD(7 points of socar). "
The truth is - they lost to Vandy. South Carolina won. That may not be a big difference to you- but to everyone else in the football world- that's a big difference.
"AU's cupboard is hardly bare"
No one said Auburn didn't have any decent players. So why you are bringing up a red herring?
"Many of their losses have came away from home"
They got whipped by Arkansas at home- in a game that was never a game. They also got mashed by Ole Miss on the road- and they lost to Vandy on the road.
"Bottom line is there are only 1-2 elite teams in the county, and everyone else is subject to being beaten by anyone on any given week"
That's another red herring. Auburn can win. They give out scholarships too - but they aren't doing that. That's why they are 1-6. Auburn is a mess right now.
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: Hahahahahahaha. You even mentioning spin about someone else is hillarious. The truth is AU is 1-6, yet they played the very vandy team in Nashville and had results within 1 TD(7 points of socar). They also played Clemson within 1 TD in Atlanta. They are 2 years away from a national champion ship, that is hardly a dumpster fire. Now I agree Gene will probably be fired, but he will just be the 3rd coach AU has fired with undefeated seasons. AU is suffering from bad QB play just like uga, lsu, and mizzu has this year. AU has also turned over their coaching staff twice in 2 years. Many of their losses have came away from home, just like yours and Clemson's losses. AU's cupboard is hardly bare. Bad qb play, coaching turn over, unluckily with scheduling all have contributed to the 1-6. Bottom line is there are only 1-2 elite teams in the county, and everyone else is subject to being beaten by anyone on any given week. That includes Clemson and socar. Clemson could end up 11-1 or 8-4. The same can be said for socar ending up 10-2 or 7-5. So you spin that
10/22 4:14 PM | IP: Logged
You give me an undefeated season and a national championship in 2013 for Clemson, an 8-4 season after losing the number 1 draft pick, a first round pick from defense, and coordinators moving on to head coaching jobs, and a 1-11 season in 2015 after more coaching changes and a few misses on a couple of key recruits. I'll take that " mess" and I'll fight that dumpster fire. Gladly.
This post was edited on 10/22 6:30 PM by tigeronthelake
10/22 4:29 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: Hahahahahahaha. You even mentioning spin about someone else is hillarious. The truth is AU is 1-6, yet they played the very vandy team in Nashville and had results within 1 TD(7 points of socar). They also played Clemson within 1 TD in Atlanta. They are 2 years away from a national champion ship, that is hardly a dumpster fire. Now I agree Gene will probably be fired, but he will just be the 3rd coach AU has fired with undefeated seasons. AU is suffering from bad QB play just like uga, lsu, and mizzu has this year. AU has also turned over their coaching staff twice in 2 years. Many of their losses have came away from home, just like yours and Clemson's losses. AU's cupboard is hardly bare. Bad qb play, coaching turn over, unluckily with scheduling all have contributed to the 1-6. Bottom line is there are only 1-2 elite teams in the county, and everyone else is subject to being beaten by anyone on any given week. That includes Clemson and socar. Clemson could end up 11-1 or 8-4. The same can be said for socar ending up 10-2 or 7-5. So you spin that
Coach being fired 2 years removed from an MNC after a winless season in conference? I'm not entirely sure how you can categorize that other than dumpster fire. If everything was so rosy then why would they be firing the head coach? Malzahn also left for a worse job - for various reasons. Now does Auburn have the resources and ability to get better...and potentially get better somewhat quickly? Sure. But this season is a total disaster. Just the fact that you are trying to rationalize a loss to Vandy makes that point. Not to mention they were boat-raced by Ole Miss, which I think was their first SEC win in 2 or 3 years. I am sort of shocked we are even having this discussion - I mean Vandy's season is sort of playing out like I thought, but Auburn is a train wreck. I assumed we'd be discussing points other than Auburn being a train wreck, which seems like a pretty obvious thing.
10/22 10:43 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: You give me an undefeated season and a national championship in 2013 for Clemson, an 8-4 season after losing the number 1 draft pick, a first round pick from defense, and coordinators moving on to head coaching jobs, and a 1-11 season in 2015 after more coaching changes and a few misses on a couple of key recruits. I'll take that " mess" and I'll fight that dumpster fire. Gladly.
This post was edited on 10/22 6:30 PM by tigeronthelake
Every good team loses coordinators - Bama loses them like clockwork every year. Heck even USC has turned a bunch over. Yet Bama continues to be awesome every year. So that is not an excuse. A good HC overcomes that by hiring other good coaches and recruiters.
I would take the MNC as well - but it depends on whether you are speaking from a fan or a coach perspective. As a coach the above is nutty and will get you fired. As a fan at this point you'll just be done with the season and ready for the next coach and ready to get excited about next year.
However none of that takes away from the fact that Auburn this season is a total disaster.
10/22 10:46 PM | IP: Logged
I'll still take AU's last 3 years cycle, and I'll take it every 3 years. BTW, AL has not always been good, and neither has FL, LSU, or any one else. I also do not know that Chizek will be fired, I think he will only because the old timers didn't want him to be hired to start with. Then who do they hire? Not a lot of sure things out there. And make no mistake, a head coach job is better at any level vs a coordinator.
10/23 7:28 AM | IP: Logged
Sure - but we're not talking about 3 years - we are talking about this year. You're creating a new argument to try to avoid saying you're wrong about the obvious - which is that this year Auburn is horrible. I was wrong and I said so.
As for HC vs coordinator - typically yes - in Malzahn's case however no. It is a very rare case though - but matters in this convo since we are talking Auburn. A year after turning down Vandy he took tons less money to go to Arky State. And Ted Roof was basically fired - so not much to discuss there.
10/23 9:12 AM | IP: Logged
That's because I'm not wrong about au. I never said au was having a great or successful season. I said they are not a dumpster fire or a mess. They have had some bad luck and gotten terrible qb play. Much like socar is not 28 points better than uga or 30+ worse than FL. AU has talent and resources. Au may very well lose out, and may make no changes and can come back with good qb play and contend for the west next year. Maybe they pull another juco like cam newton. So yes au is having a bad season, and I believe they will throw the towel in here on out, but the ship and program as a whole is not sinking
10/23 1:51 PM | IP: Logged
Give it up TOL you're talking to the 2 biggest spinners in the world.
10/23 1:56 PM | IP: Logged
Auburn is a mess this year.
No one said Auburn's program overall (history, tradition, last 5 years, last 10 years) is a mess.
you are arguing something that was never said in the first place.
Auburn is a mess this year. they are 1-6 and are headed for a losing season and very likely getting rid of their coaches. That's a mess by anyone's definition.
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: That's because I'm not wrong about au. I never said au was having a great or successful season. I said they are not a dumpster fire or a mess. They have had some bad luck and gotten terrible qb play. Much like socar is not 28 points better than uga or 30+ worse than FL. AU has talent and resources. Au may very well lose out, and may make no changes and can come back with good qb play and contend for the west next year. Maybe they pull another juco like cam newton. So yes au is having a bad season, and I believe they will throw the towel in here on out, but the ship and program as a whole is not sinking
10/23 9:21 PM | IP: Logged
yes- that's good advice to tell him to give it up.
if you want to claim Auburn isn't a mess this year at 1-6 on the season, you and TOL can be the only two people in the country making that argument. have fun.
Originally posted by cuinnov:
Give it up TOL you're talking to the 2 biggest spinners in the world.
10/23 9:22 PM | IP: Logged
DD we could say the sky was blue and you and your butt buddy MCC would post 10,000 times saying it wasn't
10/24 8:18 AM | IP: Logged
if the sky was blue that day, I'd agree. if it wasn't I certainly wouldn't say it was just because 2 weeks ago the sky was blue.
if you want to pretend Auburn isn't a mess- a dumptser fire this year, feel free.
I will assume that you agree that Auburn is a mess this year.
I'll quote from the Birmingham news
"Auburn has scored only one touchdown - one - in five of its seven games this season"
"Auburn's loss to Vanderbilt gave the Tigers their worst start since 1952"
Arguably Auburn's most impactful player on offense - Philip Lutzenkirchen, will miss the rest of the season because of a hip injury
Originally posted by 4forcu:
DD we could say the sky was blue and you and your butt buddy MCC would post 10,000 times saying it wasn't
This post was edited on 10/24 10:56 AM by SGamecock3
10/24 9:18 AM | IP: Logged
Ok. I'll throw in the towel. Auburn is a mess. 2010 AU won the sec west, the sec, and the national championship. Also produced the overall #1 draft pick and another first round pick. 2011 they went to a nice bowl game, ended socar's east championship hopes. 2012 1-6 with coordinator turn over, new offense, bad qb play, and loss of all American on offense.
So what does that make socar? 2010 socar won sec east, and lost to the mess. Then lost bowl game. QB coach also arrested for peeing on the streets while on offical business. 2011, Lost to the mess again in a home game that would have one the sec east championship. Did go to a nice bowl. 2012 will not have to play the mess, but did struggle with vandy the same way the mess did. Also by mid season blown all hope of winning the division despite being the preseason pick.
Man. I wish Clemson was a mess
10/24 11:22 AM | IP: Logged
What about THIS YEAR is so difficult for your to grasp in this discussion?
If South Carolina was 1-6 right now, you wouldn't be talking about how we won 11 games LAST year. You'd be - rightfully so- describing that we are a mess RIGHT NOW.
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: Ok. I'll throw in the towel. Auburn is a mess. 2010 AU won the sec west, the sec, and the national championship. Also produced the overall #1 draft pick and another first round pick. 2011 they went to a nice bowl game, ended socar's east championship hopes. 2012 1-6 with coordinator turn over, new offense, bad qb play, and loss of all American on offense.
So what does that make socar? 2010 socar won sec east, and lost to the mess. Then lost bowl game. QB coach also arrested for peeing on the streets while on offical business. 2011, Lost to the mess again in a home game that would have one the sec east championship. Did go to a nice bowl. 2012 will not have to play the mess, but did struggle with vandy the same way the mess did. Also by mid season blown all hope of winning the division despite being the preseason pick.
Man. I wish Clemson was a mess
10/24 2:12 PM | IP: Logged
the sky is blue
10/24 2:53 PM | IP: Logged
agree. today was a nice day.
Originally posted by 4forcu:
the sky is blue
10/24 8:28 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SGamecock3:
What about THIS YEAR is so difficult for your to grasp in this discussion?
If South Carolina was 1-6 right now, you wouldn't be talking about how we won 11 games LAST year. You'd be - rightfully so- describing that we are a mess RIGHT NOW.
Originally posted by tigeronthelake: Ok. I'll throw in the towel. Auburn is a mess. 2010 AU won the sec west, the sec, and the national championship. Also produced the overall #1 draft pick and another first round pick. 2011 they went to a nice bowl game, ended socar's east championship hopes. 2012 1-6 with coordinator turn over, new offense, bad qb play, and loss of all American on offense.
So what does that make socar? 2010 socar won sec east, and lost to the mess. Then lost bowl game. QB coach also arrested for peeing on the streets while on offical business. 2011, Lost to the mess again in a home game that would have one the sec east championship. Did go to a nice bowl. 2012 will not have to play the mess, but did struggle with vandy the same way the mess did. Also by mid season blown all hope of winning the division despite being the preseason pick.
Man. I wish Clemson was a mess
This thread has taken an interesting turn - also an extremely ironic one. I actually thought I was agreeing in saying I was wrong about Auburn (calling the sky blue), and in folks apparent need to never, ever agree with a Gamecock fan - it appears the sky is now purple. Yet I am the one who will always find a way to disagree?
Anyway - much irony in TOL's posts above trying to equate relative performance against Vandy this season, even though one team won and the other team lost. A page back I was making a very similar argument based on performance last year and was laughed out of the building. Was told it's about Ws and Ls. But now it's a valid argument? Hard to keep up. However I will say that I chose to compare over an entire season, and that has more weight than trying to compare a single game...as we all know you can't apply the transitive property to college football using individual games. If I did that then UT would be the best team in the ACC this year.
Bottom line it feels like everyone is violently agreeing that this year Auburn is terrible. And that as a program Auburn is just fine. At this point it seems as if folks are just bringing up new angles or red herrings just for the sake of arguing - or an insistence on not agreeing.
Here's a C&P of my post on the prior page.......
Let's look at common opponents from 2011:
USC: Auburn W (16-13), Vandy L (21-3)...adv Auburn
UGA: Auburn L (45-7) , Vandy L (33-28)...adv Vandy
Arky: Auburn L (38-14), Vandy L (31-28)...adv Vandy
Bama: Auburn L (42-14), Vandy L (34-0)...push
Ole Miss: Auburn W (41-23), Vandy W (30-7)...push
UF: Auburn W (17-6), Vandy L (26-21)...adv Auburn
So if you take out wins and losses and just look at performance, it's a push. Wins and losses - Auburn went 3-3 and Vandy went 1-5. But Vandy 'looked better' in 2 of their losses. I think I said before that Vandy was 'more' consistent, so I take that back as it was wrong. It was a relative push.
Now look at the 2 games that weren't common opponents...Auburn got drilled by LSU 45-10 and beat MSU 41-34. Vandy drilled Kentucky 38-8 and lost to UT 27-21. Again pretty close.
So contrary to popular opinion in this thread - I am not trying to say that Vandy and Auburn are equal. What I am trying to say is i'm not really sure how you look at all of that and form the conclusion that Auburn is good and Vandy sucks. My very simple and humble opinion all along has been that both USC and Clemson should be happy to be 1-0 with two solid wins. The disagreement comes where people think Vandy is not a solid win, and there is a gaping hole between Auburn and Vandy. I don't see it
10/24 8:44 PM | IP: Logged
Cam Newton = Hershel Walker?
10/26 5:22 PM | IP: Logged
History shows that it takes some time to be able to tell what a team is made of and how good or bad they might be.
Auburn just completed a miserable, miserable 2012 season that will get their coach fired either today or tomorrow and could potentially hurt their recruiting. They looked so clueless Saturday that even one of the writers covering the game said he didn't think Auburn even wanted to be at the game. The 49-0 beat down to their rival could have been a lot worse had Saban decided to not run the clock as much as is possible.
and contrary to one poster on here that swears otherwise- Auburn's program is IN FACT a mess with the NCAA doing more sniffing around the program. see link -
Vandy, while no powerhouse, finishes the season with 8 wins and has a shot at 9 in a bowl game. They mashed Wake Forest into the ground Saturday preventing Wake from becoming bowl eligible. Vandy's USA Today coach poll ranking puts them at 28.
So it's clear for this year- Auburn never really looked good and had a miserable season and Vandy - after struggling plenty- had a very nice season overall.
Originally posted by WallOfOrange:
I dont know how good Auburn is.......however, I do know they are ALOT better than Vandy. If Clemson catches half the passes they dropped, game would have been a 3 TD game. Not to mention we had no Sammy. SC fans are pissed cause they were counting on this game to go in the L column for Clemson. If Auburn had won, we would be hearing SEC SEC!!! When Clemson beats an SEC team , they just say that team sucks.
This post was edited on 11/25 2:15 PM by SGamecock3
11/25 2:13 PM | IP: Logged
dang you can't give anything a rest can you TS
11/26 7:49 AM | IP: Logged
Vandy is 8-4 and we played them in our first game of the year unlike your usual cupcake opener. It's easy to judge things now that we know the outcome. You finally scheduled what you thought would be a tough opener that would give you credibility, but in the end, Auburn sucked and if anything, damaged your strength of schedule. Vandy appeared to be a win before we played, but they turned out to be a good team and helped our strength of schedule. It's also a little different having to play a conference game as your opener. An Auburn loss does you no harm except in the case of a perfect record.
This post was edited on 11/29 12:22 PM by CoachT13
11/29 12:17 PM | IP: Logged
Auburn stinks. If you try to argue this it proves you don't know squat about football.
12/2 8:52 PM | IP: Logged
Do you really wantb to compare OOC's? We can't help that Auburn turn in to a dumpster fire but what does playing a conf. foe have to do with anything?
Yahoo! Sports
If I am wrong (and could very well be), I am sorry for butting in.