Gator Country

Gator4Christ · 01-03-2013, 03:44 PM

Muschamp : 4-7 against ranked teams

Gatorphenom · 01-03-2013, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gator4Christ

Muschamp : 4-7 against ranked teams

Still better than Richt.

GatorSean · 01-03-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gator4Christ

Muschamp : 4-7 against ranked teams

Muschamp: 4-1 against top 10 teams this year.

orangeblueorangeblue · 01-03-2013, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorSean

Muschamp: 4-1 against top 10 teams this year.

Even 4-2 against ranked teams is damned impressive.

Gator4Christ · 01-03-2013, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorphenom

Still better than Richt.

Better than Derek Dooley too...and yet to beat Richt

nawlinsgator · 01-03-2013, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gator4Christ

Muschamp : 4-7 against ranked teams

These kind of stats are so dumb. Just about every new coach, coming into a situation where the previous regime bailed or was fired, is going to have a crap record against ranked teams in their first year.

You could have said:
0-5 his first year
4-2 his second year

Of course you can't get the same negative spin when you break it down like that.

orangeblueorangeblue · 01-03-2013, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gator4Christ

Better than Derek Dooley too...and yet to beat Richt

Sounds like this 11-2 season was real rough on you, dude.

nawlinsgator · 01-03-2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gator4Christ

Better than Derek Dooley too...and yet to beat Richt

Come on, Gator4Christ. That's not very Christian of you. What would Jesus do?

Jesus: Hey Peter, I don't care if you built the first church for me. Remember that one time when the cock crowed three times, and you were like "Oh...uh....I don't know that guy." Yep, I still haven't forgotten that.

DuPontGator · 01-03-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nawlinsgator

Come on, Gator4Christ. That's not very Christian of you. What would Jesus do?

Jesus: Hey Peter, I don't care if you built the first church for me. Remember that one time when the cock crowed three times, and you were like "Oh...uh....I don't know that guy." Yep, I still haven't forgotten that.

Smack a fool?

**oragator1** · 01-03-2013, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorchamp27

Shut up

I can't stop laughing when I read this and I am not sure why. I mean, it was directed at me, I should be insulted or bothered, but it just makes me chuckle.
I guess because I'm not sure how angry someone has to be to have that response to the post that inspired it.

Dreamliner · 01-03-2013, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Sounds like this 11-2 season was real rough on you, dude.

Well, you have to admit it ended in a real rough way. Do you view the 1995 season with fondness ? I still skip right over it and go to 1996.

MastaG8r · 01-03-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorpa

It hadly will go down in the annuals as a huge upset, it's not even in the same category as the BS-OU game or even the Utah-Bama Sugar Bowl.
Regardless of the view of vegas. This was the SEC #3 vs The Big East Champ, not that we think very much of the Big East they are still a major conference. Boise was a mid major at best when they beat OU.

People are acting like last night was Ap State @ Michigan.......it was not.....

gatorpa, reading between the lines I get the impression you are not a gambling fan. But the truth of the matter is, the term "upset" obviously means a win over a favored opponent, and the generally-accepted basis for identifying which team is favored and by how much is the Vegas betting line. In other words it's not a debatable question of opinion. It's a fact. Sorry to say it but last night's loss was the biggest upset in BCS bowl history.

gator34654 · 01-03-2013, 05:53 PM

Bottom line and it's really easy fellows, coaching stunk, Offense stunk and defense stunk. Only good part was special teams. This was one of the most public embarrasing loses period. We own now the dubious record of the worst BCS loss as a favored team. Now isn't that peachy?

**OaktownGator** · 01-03-2013, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

gatorpa, reading between the lines I get the impression you are not a gambling fan. But the truth of the matter is, the term "upset" obviously means a win over a favored opponent, and the generally-accepted basis for identifying which team is favored and by how much is the Vegas betting line. In other words it's not a debatable question of opinion. It's a fact. Sorry to say it but last night's loss was the biggest upset in BCS bowl history.

A big upset no doubt, but us destroying the Bucknuts and Boise ovr Oklahoma were probably both bigger.

**Minister_of_Information** · 01-03-2013, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

A big upset no doubt, but us destroying the Bucknuts and Boise ovr Oklahoma were probably both bigger.

Yep. Louisville was the champion of an AQ conference, and it isn't like we've set the world on fire with our dominance this season. It was predictable on a lot of levels although I missed it myself. Although I did feel some vague misgivings about this game. I'm learning as a fan just how important motivation is.

geauxgator1 · 01-03-2013, 06:13 PM

Total a$$ whipping by a better team and coaches. At least on that night. Coaches looked lost out there too. Louisville is a better team both sides of the ball. Hard to say that, but I can't come up with any other conclusions, they would be just excuses.

**jareduf** · 01-03-2013, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuPontGator

Hit Champ with 2 points. That was a infraction.

Lol!

MastaG8r · 01-03-2013, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

A big upset no doubt, but us destroying the Bucknuts and Boise ovr Oklahoma were probably both bigger.

Well you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion. But as a matter of objective fact, #1-ranked Ohio State was favored over #2 UF by 7 points. #8 Oklahoma was favored by 7.5 over #9 Boise State. Meanwhile the #3 Gators were favored by 14 over #21 Louisville. So that's the biggest upset, strictly in terms of the numbers.

**OaktownGator** · 01-03-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Well you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion. But as a matter of objective fact, #1-ranked Ohio State was favored over #2 UF by 7 points. #8 Oklahoma was favored by 7.5 over #9 Boise State. Meanwhile the #3 Gators were favored by 14 over #21 Louisville. So that's the biggest upset, strictly in terms of the numbers.

Fair enough, and good research.

But that would still put our beatdwn of the Bucknuts on top, looking at the delta between the line and the result. Our loss last night would slide into number two, assuming we're not missing other big upsets.

Matthanuf06 · 01-03-2013, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorSean

No... they scored a TON of points relative to how often they had the ball.

Look, not counting when they took a knee to end the half or game, Louisville only had 9 offensive possessions. They scored on FIVE of them. They scored 55% of the time they had the ball. That is crazy bad for a ANY defense, much less our defense. And one of the four times they didn't score, they marched down the field and were in scoring position only to have a blocked FG.

The whole point is to win the game. When you have a lackluster offense that relies on a grind it out, running style, then the defense has to get a lot of 3 and outs and has to prevent scores so the offense will have field position and can continue to run the ball. If the defense can't get off the field and is giving up scores 55% of the time, then the offense can't do what it does best. So no, 'holding' them to 336 yards and 23 first downs isn't the 'whole point' of the defense.

And is it really unrealistic to say the defense shouldn't allow the offense to score more than half of the time they have the ball? I really don't think my expectations are out of whack here.

I don't know what these things have to do with us? Because some offenses are better than Louisville and because some defenses are worst than us, somehow our defense really didn't play poorly last night?? That makes no sense at all.

Because its relative and it's in the sample. I don't know how you define poor, bottom 5%, bottom 10%, bottom 25%?

I think the data shows that our performance was in the 40th percentile but I'm not naive and I realize there are legit arguments for worse than that. But beyond 75th is just ridiculous.

So how do you define poor? You can't look at a performance in a vacuum, to evaluate it you have to compare it to something.