Chip B. (correct to Skip!)
- Thread starter Opintel
- Start date
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(Opintel @ Aug 10 2010, 10:36 AM) [snapback]610262[/snapback]
Said that he did not agree that "Bama should be #1. They asked who it should be, he said he wouldn't say yet...but said you might look at #7.
Who is that? :biggrin:
Chip B., as in the guy from OrangeBloods? Or Do you mean Skip B.?
Said that he did not agree that "Bama should be #1. They asked who it should be, he said he wouldn't say yet...but said you might look at #7.
Who is that? :biggrin:
Chip B., as in the guy from OrangeBloods? Or Do you mean Skip B.?
D
Daniel Plainview
Guest
Skip sucks monkey cojones
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Aug 10 2010, 10:42 AM) [snapback]610273[/snapback]
He acted like he didn't want to reveal it, then at the end said Oklahoma.
He said OU should be #1?? I wish these guys would just grow some stones and admit that BSU should #2 at worst. Hard to root against Bama after the MNC, but didn't they lose alot on defense???
He acted like he didn't want to reveal it, then at the end said Oklahoma.
He said OU should be #1?? I wish these guys would just grow some stones and admit that BSU should #2 at worst. Hard to root against Bama after the MNC, but didn't they lose alot on defense???
Get Your Frogs Up
Full Member
QUOTE(SnoSkiDrew @ Aug 10 2010, 10:47 AM) [snapback]610280[/snapback]
He said OU should be #1?? I wish these guys would just grow some stones and admit that BSU should #2 at worst. Hard to root against Bama after the MNC, but didn't they lose alot on defense???
All the season previews covering Alabama list only 2 returning starters on defense.
He said OU should be #1?? I wish these guys would just grow some stones and admit that BSU should #2 at worst. Hard to root against Bama after the MNC, but didn't they lose alot on defense???
All the season previews covering Alabama list only 2 returning starters on defense.
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(Get Your Frogs Up @ Aug 10 2010, 10:51 AM) [snapback]610285[/snapback]
All the season previews covering Alabama list only 2 returning starters on defense.
I can understand giving Bama the benefit of the doubt, but I'd be surprised if they stay at 1 all season.
The thing that gets me is like the rivals thing this morning, when they have Nebraska, Iowa, Florida, UT ahead of the Frogs.. absolutely nutty rankings when Florida is a big ?? with no Tebow, UT has a RSFish at QB and no running game, and Nebraska has absolutely no offense, and no Suh.
All the season previews covering Alabama list only 2 returning starters on defense.
I can understand giving Bama the benefit of the doubt, but I'd be surprised if they stay at 1 all season.
The thing that gets me is like the rivals thing this morning, when they have Nebraska, Iowa, Florida, UT ahead of the Frogs.. absolutely nutty rankings when Florida is a big ?? with no Tebow, UT has a RSFish at QB and no running game, and Nebraska has absolutely no offense, and no Suh.
Dogfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(Opintel @ Aug 10 2010, 10:48 AM) [snapback]610282[/snapback]
I didn't see that. Froggies at #7, OU at #8, Coaches/USAToday poll.
Yea, it was kind of weird. He referred to #7 then he acted like he didn't want to say it. Then somebody said "Oklahoma?" and Skp made a comment that sounded like that was his pick. The other guys called it a "homer" pick because he's from Oklahoma.
I didn't see that. Froggies at #7, OU at #8, Coaches/USAToday poll.
Yea, it was kind of weird. He referred to #7 then he acted like he didn't want to say it. Then somebody said "Oklahoma?" and Skp made a comment that sounded like that was his pick. The other guys called it a "homer" pick because he's from Oklahoma.
Opintel
Moderators
QUOTE(SnoSkiDrew @ Aug 10 2010, 10:55 AM) [snapback]610289[/snapback]
I can understand giving Bama the benefit of the doubt, but I'd be surprised if they stay at 1 all season.
The thing that gets me is like the rivals thing this morning, when they have Nebraska, Iowa, Florida, UT ahead of the Frogs.. absolutely nutty rankings when Florida is a big ?? with no Tebow, UT has a RSFish at QB and no running game, and Nebraska has absolutely no offense, and no Suh.
Yeah...it sells advertising on these shows, and passes the time. Really, I think it's silly to assign any number, so specifically, until there is a track record. Like four or so games, to establish a baseline that has at least some credibility.
Good PR for TCU, nonetheless... :tongue:
I can understand giving Bama the benefit of the doubt, but I'd be surprised if they stay at 1 all season.
The thing that gets me is like the rivals thing this morning, when they have Nebraska, Iowa, Florida, UT ahead of the Frogs.. absolutely nutty rankings when Florida is a big ?? with no Tebow, UT has a RSFish at QB and no running game, and Nebraska has absolutely no offense, and no Suh.
Yeah...it sells advertising on these shows, and passes the time. Really, I think it's silly to assign any number, so specifically, until there is a track record. Like four or so games, to establish a baseline that has at least some credibility.
Good PR for TCU, nonetheless... :tongue:
Opintel
Moderators
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Aug 10 2010, 10:58 AM) [snapback]610294[/snapback]
Yea, it was kind of weird. He referred to #7 then he acted like he didn't want to say it. Then somebody said "Oklahoma?" and Skp made a comment that sounded like that was his pick. The other guys called it a "homer" pick because he's from Oklahoma.
Well, I missed that - so he is nuts, then. :tongue:
Yea, it was kind of weird. He referred to #7 then he acted like he didn't want to say it. Then somebody said "Oklahoma?" and Skp made a comment that sounded like that was his pick. The other guys called it a "homer" pick because he's from Oklahoma.
Well, I missed that - so he is nuts, then. :tongue:
57Frog
New Member
QUOTE
I can understand giving Bama the benefit of the doubt, but I'd be surprised if they stay at 1 all season.
The thing that gets me is like the rivals thing this morning, when they have Nebraska, Iowa, Florida, UT ahead of the Frogs.. absolutely nutty rankings when Florida is a big ?? with no Tebow, UT has a RSFish at QB and no running game, and Nebraska has absolutely no offense, and no Suh.
Help me here .
It seems to me if we have these "question marks" rated ahead of TCU it could easily be a benefit .
If they are rated ahead of us and stumble it would make it easier for us to gain ground in the rankings . Right ?
Now if the preseason rankings are more accurate it would be harder for us to gain ground on the teams ahead of us .
If we don't stumble it will be nore difficult for teams behind us in the rankings to pass us . Right ?
Go Frogs .
I can understand giving Bama the benefit of the doubt, but I'd be surprised if they stay at 1 all season.
The thing that gets me is like the rivals thing this morning, when they have Nebraska, Iowa, Florida, UT ahead of the Frogs.. absolutely nutty rankings when Florida is a big ?? with no Tebow, UT has a RSFish at QB and no running game, and Nebraska has absolutely no offense, and no Suh.
Help me here .
It seems to me if we have these "question marks" rated ahead of TCU it could easily be a benefit .
If they are rated ahead of us and stumble it would make it easier for us to gain ground in the rankings . Right ?
Now if the preseason rankings are more accurate it would be harder for us to gain ground on the teams ahead of us .
If we don't stumble it will be nore difficult for teams behind us in the rankings to pass us . Right ?
Go Frogs .
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(57Frog @ Aug 10 2010, 11:08 AM) [snapback]610306[/snapback]
Help me here .
It seems to me if we have these "question marks" rated ahead of TCU it could easily be a benefit .
If they are rated ahead of us and stumble it would make it easier for us to gain ground in the rankings . Right ?
Now if the preseason rankings are more accurate it would be harder for us to gain ground on the teams ahead of us .
If we don't stumble it will be nore difficult for teams behind us in the rankings to pass us . Right ?
Go Frogs .
Being behind overrated teams, yes it is easier to move up b/c in theory they should lose and we should win, however.. it's not about who moves up the most spots, it's about who ends up where in December. Now, because we're ranked behind inferior teams, we have to hope they lose.
Help me here .
It seems to me if we have these "question marks" rated ahead of TCU it could easily be a benefit .
If they are rated ahead of us and stumble it would make it easier for us to gain ground in the rankings . Right ?
Now if the preseason rankings are more accurate it would be harder for us to gain ground on the teams ahead of us .
If we don't stumble it will be nore difficult for teams behind us in the rankings to pass us . Right ?
Go Frogs .
Being behind overrated teams, yes it is easier to move up b/c in theory they should lose and we should win, however.. it's not about who moves up the most spots, it's about who ends up where in December. Now, because we're ranked behind inferior teams, we have to hope they lose.
Houston Frog
New Member
QUOTE(57Frog @ Aug 10 2010, 11:08 AM) [snapback]610306[/snapback]
Help me here .
It seems to me if we have these "question marks" rated ahead of TCU it could easily be a benefit .
If they are rated ahead of us and stumble it would make it easier for us to gain ground in the rankings . Right ?
Now if the preseason rankings are more accurate it would be harder for us to gain ground on the teams ahead of us .
If we don't stumble it will be nore difficult for teams behind us in the rankings to pass us . Right ?
Go Frogs .
Well, that theory is correct assuming we have to be ranked behind someone. Sure, we would rather have inferior teams ahead of us than superior teams, but I think what people are complaining about is the fact that any of these teams are ahead of us.
Help me here .
It seems to me if we have these "question marks" rated ahead of TCU it could easily be a benefit .
If they are rated ahead of us and stumble it would make it easier for us to gain ground in the rankings . Right ?
Now if the preseason rankings are more accurate it would be harder for us to gain ground on the teams ahead of us .
If we don't stumble it will be nore difficult for teams behind us in the rankings to pass us . Right ?
Go Frogs .
Well, that theory is correct assuming we have to be ranked behind someone. Sure, we would rather have inferior teams ahead of us than superior teams, but I think what people are complaining about is the fact that any of these teams are ahead of us.
Dogfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(Houston Frog @ Aug 10 2010, 11:43 AM) [snapback]610332[/snapback]
Well, that theory is correct assuming we have to be ranked behind someone. Sure, we would rather have inferior teams ahead of us than superior teams, but I think what people are complaining about is the fact that any of these teams are ahead of us.
The problem we have is the human vote and SOS perception. If a school ahead of us loses, that's great, but odds are they will lose to a school just behind us. It will be an interesting year. Just have to beat OSU obviously.
Well, that theory is correct assuming we have to be ranked behind someone. Sure, we would rather have inferior teams ahead of us than superior teams, but I think what people are complaining about is the fact that any of these teams are ahead of us.
The problem we have is the human vote and SOS perception. If a school ahead of us loses, that's great, but odds are they will lose to a school just behind us. It will be an interesting year. Just have to beat OSU obviously.
