For those always talking about recruiting rankings

#177
#177
ScornedPapaVol said:
Maybe you've not watched it, and/or you can't read or understand the rules. Or you can't admit you're wrong.
Click to expand...
None of the above.

And while those who wanted OSU to win and are looking for a point of blame are motivated to keep claiming it was targeting... it was reviewed by the "experts" using the very same video you and your youtuber had. It was not targeting.

The first contact was shoulder to shoulder. He pretty obviously did not go after the head or neck. He was "targeting" the ball which he was able to dislodge. Their heads came together incidentally in a glancing way but that was NOT the point of force. It was incidental to two guys coming together at a high rate of speed shoulder to shoulder.

Again, if that's targeting then just cancel football.



Actually I'm not the one with any type of motivation to be "right or wrong" about that hit. I wasn't pulling for either team and would have much rather both lost. I have no stake in judging that play except whether it was or was not a case of a defender targeting the head or neck of a defenseless player. It wasn't. The point of forceful contact was shoulder to shoulder. The defender was trying to knock the ball loose. I get that you wanted OSU to win or UGA to lose. Your bias doesn't make it targeting.
 
#180
#180
I don't care who won or lost. I just noticed the kid got hit when he was looking up at the ball, trying to catch it. That is the definition of defenseless. And then, the Georgia kid made no play on the ball. He lowered his head, and made forcible contact to the shoulder area and contacted the head of thr player as well. With his his head, shoulder and forearm. Nearly hit him with his fist too. All.components of targeting a defenseless player.



That was an obvious knock out blow, and the exact type of hit they are trying to remove.
 
#181
#181
sjt18 said:
None of the above.

And while those who wanted OSU to win and are looking for a point of blame are motivated to keep claiming it was targeting... it was reviewed by the "experts" using the very same video you and your youtuber had. It was not targeting.

The first contact was shoulder to shoulder. He pretty obviously did not go after the head or neck. He was "targeting" the ball which he was able to dislodge. Their heads came together incidentally in a glancing way but that was NOT the point of force. It was incidental to two guys coming together at a high rate of speed shoulder to shoulder.

Again, if that's targeting then just cancel football.



Actually I'm not the one with any type of motivation to be "right or wrong" about that hit. I wasn't pulling for either team and would have much rather both lost. I have no stake in judging that play except whether it was or was not a case of a defender targeting the head or neck of a defenseless player. It wasn't. The point of forceful contact was shoulder to shoulder. The defender was trying to knock the ball loose. I get that you wanted OSU to win or UGA to lose. Your bias doesn't make it targeting.
Click to expand...
Just a question to further the debate - Does it matter if the first contact was shoulder to shoulder? The rule says forcible contact to the head or neck. If the initial contact is shoulder to shoulder that doesn't mean the ONLY contact was shoulder to shoulder. It's not like the momentum stopped after the initial contact. I agree the initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, but there is also without a doubt forcible contact to the head or neck.
I hate the targeting rule and wish it didn't exist. But it does so...........
 
#182
#182
dbr25 said:
I hear that SEC schedule stuff every year, yet the SEC doesn't dominate the bowl games every year. Some years yes, but not every year. I believe the SEC is the toughest conference, but it's not by as much margin as many of you make it out to be. The bowl games prove that, yet the same old talking points keep getting repeated.
Click to expand...
Not so fast my friend. The SEC is considerably ahead in the P5 for Bowl performance and total OOC performance.
Winning % Stats since 1998: (All opponents non-conference P5 match-ups, no head to head conf. results included, non-P5 opponents excluded)
Bowl Only:
ACC .410
B12 .509
B1G .467
P12 .466
SEC .596 (2022 bowl season dropped this under .600)

Combined Bowl + Season OOC (P5 matchups)
ACC .448
B12 .504
B1G .498
P12 .523
SEC .564

So, over a 24 year span, the SEC has averaged winning roughly 60% of their bowl games against other P5 conference opponents, and 56% of all OOC games against P5 teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbr25 and LittleVol
#183
#183
dbr25 said:
I hear that SEC schedule stuff every year, yet the SEC doesn't dominate the bowl games every year. Some years yes, but not every year. I believe the SEC is the toughest conference, but it's not by as much margin as many of you make it out to be. The bowl games prove that, yet the same old talking points keep getting repeated.
Click to expand...
bowl games are a red herring. how many sec players opt out vs the other teams. The sec year on year out has more nfl players than other conferences impact players leaving teams means the same team isn’t playing in the bowls.
 
#184
#184
dbr25 said:
I hear that SEC schedule stuff every year, yet the SEC doesn't dominate the bowl games every year. Some years yes, but not every year. I believe the SEC is the toughest conference, but it's not by as much margin as many of you make it out to be. The bowl games prove that, yet the same old talking points keep getting repeated.
Click to expand...
In the recent years the trend of players forgoing the bowl games to get ready for the NFL means the win/loss in bowl games has all but lost it's significance. A top rated team is more apt to lose more players to the NFL than a 7-5 or 6-6 record team. If you look at this years results, the SEC teams that lost were the ones near the bottom of the conference while the top rated teams all won. Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Bama all won.
 
#186
#186
miket4god said:
Just a question to further the debate - Does it matter if the first contact was shoulder to shoulder? The rule says forcible contact to the head or neck. If the initial contact is shoulder to shoulder that doesn't mean the ONLY contact was shoulder to shoulder. It's not like the momentum stopped after the initial contact. I agree the initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, but there is also without a doubt forcible contact to the head or neck.
I hate the targeting rule and wish it didn't exist. But it does so...........
Click to expand...
The defenseless player rule is the key here. Harrison was looking up for the ball to catch it in bounds. By definition, he is defenseless at that point. """Rule most often applied to wide recievers""""""Screenshot_2023-01-10-09-48-42-180.jpg
 
#187
#187
I'll say this about Kirby he straight up had his team believing they were somehow dissed to start off the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PADAWG
#188
#188
Last night your saw the results of top 5 recruiting classes and 25+ 5 star rated players against top 30 rated classes and 1 5 star player on your team. Georgia beat the dog spit out of TCU with superior talent and I'll give the coaching advantage to Georgia also. But this does prove the star ratings and class ratings do matter.
 
#189
#189
sjt18 said:
None of the above.

And while those who wanted OSU to win and are looking for a point of blame are motivated to keep claiming it was targeting... it was reviewed by the "experts" using the very same video you and your youtuber had. It was not targeting.

The first contact was shoulder to shoulder. He pretty obviously did not go after the head or neck. He was "targeting" the ball which he was able to dislodge. Their heads came together incidentally in a glancing way but that was NOT the point of force. It was incidental to two guys coming together at a high rate of speed shoulder to shoulder.

Again, if that's targeting then just cancel football.



Actually I'm not the one with any type of motivation to be "right or wrong" about that hit. I wasn't pulling for either team and would have much rather both lost. I have no stake in judging that play except whether it was or was not a case of a defender targeting the head or neck of a defenseless player. It wasn't. The point of forceful contact was shoulder to shoulder. The defender was trying to knock the ball loose. I get that you wanted OSU to win or UGA to lose. Your bias doesn't make it targeting.
Click to expand...
What everyone is failing to grasp..... OSU still had a chance to win the game in the last 30 seconds and coaching by Day and his coordinators vompletely sh1t the bed. Targeting or not did not lose the game, play calling in the last minute defensively and play calling from the UGA 38 with 30 some odd seconds to go. They did nothing creative to advance the ball or work sidelines. This is completely on the staff at OSU. I think I quoted the wrong person.
 
#190
#190
ScornedPapaVol said:


Rules for defenseless player, AND targeting. Very clear, with several slow motion breakdown of the rules being violated.
Click to expand...

Dude. Posting biased commentary doesn't prove anything. The forceful contact was shoulder to shoulder. The officials looked at it and said it wasn't targeting. They saw the exact same video you keep posting... and RIGHTLY ruled that he did not target the head or neck or use his head. He did not launch or hit with an upward thrust either. It was a VERY hard, clean hit.

You wanted UGA to lose. I get it. That makes you biased. I get that too. I don't like either team. I was indifferent to which one won the game. Bias isn't clouding my opinion of that play like it is yours... and the guys you keep posting.
 
#191
#191
BigALWiLson said:
What everyone is failing to grasp..... OSU still had a chance to win the game in the last 30 seconds and coaching by Day and his coordinators vompletely sh1t the bed. Targeting or not did not lose the game, play calling in the last minute defensively and play calling from the UGA 38 with 30 some odd seconds to go. They did nothing creative to advance the ball or work sidelines. This is completely on the staff at OSU. I think I quoted the wrong person.
Click to expand...
I actually didn't care who won. I don't like Smart. I've grown to dislike UGA more. I've always disliked OSU going all the way back to Woody Hayes and him slugging that Clemson player. Day mismanaged the end. Smart's team wasn't prepared well and was overconfident. Someone somewhere said that Day outcoached Smart for most of that game. IMO that's true... which is probably the biggest reason it was close enough for anything at the end to matter.

TCU... paid the price for all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#192
#192
sjt18 said:
I actually didn't care who won. I don't like Smart. I've grown to dislike UGA more. I've always disliked OSU going all the way back to Woody Hayes and him slugging that Clemson player. Day mismanaged the end. Smart's team wasn't prepared well and was overconfident. Someone somewhere said that Day outcoached Smart for most of that game. IMO that's true... which is probably the biggest reason it was close enough for anything at the end to matter.

TCU... paid the price for all that.
Click to expand...
I think Day did good for 3 qtrs. Problem is its a 4 qtr game against one of the most talented teams. 3qtrs against a good football team usually gets you beat. In Day's case he lost the game in the last two minutes with coaching decisions and not sticking to what got you to that point. 38 yard line with 30 seconds left you leaving it to a kicker ? Not having Harrison hurt but other receivers were making plays. Gotta attack.
 
#193
#193
GVF said:
Not so fast my friend. The SEC is considerably ahead in the P5 for Bowl performance and total OOC performance.
Winning % Stats since 1998: (All opponents non-conference P5 match-ups, no head to head conf. results included, non-P5 opponents excluded)
Bowl Only:
ACC .410
B12 .509
B1G .467
P12 .466
SEC .596 (2022 bowl season dropped this under .600)

Combined Bowl + Season OOC (P5 matchups)
ACC .448
B12 .504
B1G .498
P12 .523
SEC .564

So, over a 24 year span, the SEC has averaged winning roughly 60% of their bowl games against other P5 conference opponents, and 56% of all OOC games against P5 teams.
Click to expand...
That's great info and if I was guessing, that's probably pretty close to what I would have guessed, just above 50 percent. See, folks are missing the part of my statement that I believe the SEC is the toughest conference, it's just not by as big of a margin as people let on. Interestingly, I personally would rank the Big12 as the next toughest conference, and that's pretty close to what your stats show. Thanks for sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF
#194
#194
GVF said:
Not so fast my friend. The SEC is considerably ahead in the P5 for Bowl performance and total OOC performance.
Winning % Stats since 1998: (All opponents non-conference P5 match-ups, no head to head conf. results included, non-P5 opponents excluded)
Bowl Only:
ACC .410
B12 .509
B1G .467
P12 .466
SEC .596 (2022 bowl season dropped this under .600)

Combined Bowl + Season OOC (P5 matchups)
ACC .448
B12 .504
B1G .498
P12 .523
SEC .564

So, over a 24 year span, the SEC has averaged winning roughly 60% of their bowl games against other P5 conference opponents, and 56% of all OOC games against P5 teams.
Click to expand...

Nice research đź‘Ť
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact, dbr25 and GVF
#195
#195
sjt18 said:
I actually didn't care who won. I don't like Smart. I've grown to dislike UGA more. I've always disliked OSU going all the way back to Woody Hayes and him slugging that Clemson player. Day mismanaged the end. Smart's team wasn't prepared well and was overconfident. Someone somewhere said that Day outcoached Smart for most of that game. IMO that's true... which is probably the biggest reason it was close enough for anything at the end to matter.

TCU... paid the price for all that.
Click to expand...

THe entire NC game in that one sentaence. They paid for Kirby having a fluff game mentally, and he refused to be outcoached two weeks running.

Back in the day, you stopped a team form winning a close game by taking out the player causing you all the grief....just sayin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbr25
#196
#196
GVF said:
Not so fast my friend. The SEC is considerably ahead in the P5 for Bowl performance and total OOC performance.
Winning % Stats since 1998: (All opponents non-conference P5 match-ups, no head to head conf. results included, non-P5 opponents excluded)
Bowl Only:
ACC .410
B12 .509
B1G .467
P12 .466
SEC .596 (2022 bowl season dropped this under .600)

Combined Bowl + Season OOC (P5 matchups)
ACC .448
B12 .504
B1G .498
P12 .523
SEC .564

So, over a 24 year span, the SEC has averaged winning roughly 60% of their bowl games against other P5 conference opponents, and 56% of all OOC games against P5 teams.
Click to expand...

SEC vs Other Conferences - topdan.com

Skewed a little with Bama, UGA, and LSU
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbr25
#197
#197
dbr25 said:
I hear that SEC schedule stuff every year, yet the SEC doesn't dominate the bowl games every year. Some years yes, but not every year. I believe the SEC is the toughest conference, but it's not by as much margin as many of you make it out to be. The bowl games prove that, yet the same old talking points keep getting repeated.
Click to expand...
Bowl games are a terrible data sample.
 
#198
#198
Stoerner Fumbles said:
Bowl games are a terrible data sample.
Click to expand...
Generally yes and especially with the SEC. In the "lower" bowl seeds, the SEC typically plays "up". The #8 SEC team might play the #4 ACC team or something like that. This year Oregon State was the #5 team in the Pac12. UF was the #5 team in the SEC East.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top