Tubs to Cincy...
 

David Ubben ‏@davidubben
Filed to ESPN: Tommy Tuberville has accepted the head coaching job at Cincinnati. Tech officials "completely blindsided" by the decision.

lolwut

That was dumb on his part unless he has family in the area

He must have hated working at Tech...

Either that or he wants a big time job in 3 yrs...

um

What is a southern bumpkin doing up in Cinci?

Heh

Dude shoulda just waited for the Moo job to open up after next year, so he could get back to the SEC

Why would he leave the SEC and a hot QB to go to Cincy?

Big East football is absolute crap.

Maybe he thinks he can win easier there than in the Big12.

Wut?

Says about everything you need to know about Lubbock.

Stepping stone?

The last two HC's at Cincy are now HC's at Notre Dame & Tennessee.

Plus, Lubbock is a trash heap.

Michigan State too.

Lol, that's tech not a and m
Posted via Mobile Device

Suprised that Chris Pedersen guy from Boise St doesn't get more looks.

Wut?

That is a strange move.

Ever been to Lubbock? Good move Tommy.

:clap:

That bowl game victory against OU in Pedersen's first year really showed who was the real genius behind Boise State's national rise to prominence, because it sure wasn't Hawkins.

The big 12 is just a stepping stone conference

Cinci's practically Kentucky.

Huh? Just about every program with an opening begs for his services every year, and he turns them down to stay in Boise.

No doubt. As sagarins top rates conf, it's too tough to win in.

Nobody cheers for having the most mediocre teams like Big 12 homers.

Well, everyone has to play each other in the Big 12 which costs the conference 5 wins right off the bat. The 8-game SEC schedule leads to better records (but not better Sagarins - see if you can figure out why that is)


Alabama missed the 3 top teams in the East, and Georgia missed the top 3 teams in the West. Pretty lame. That's why there are 6 SEC teams in the top-20 of Sagarin vs 5 Big 12 teams:
usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt12.htm

Yeah, it has nothing to do with those 6 SEC teams being BETTER than those 5 Big 12 teams. ROFL

Also nice of you to compare 5 big 12 teams in the top 20 vs 6 SEC teams in the top 20 when all six of those SEC teams are in the TOP 11.

:rolleyes:

Nobody cheers for his conference because his team is mediocre like Saul.

The Big 12 is ranked as the #1 conference as a whole. This is a fact, not an opinion and is not "skewed" - it's simple data:
usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc12.htm



10-2 LSU is better than 7-5 Okie State right? Well not really. LSU is rated 13th in the "predictor" while Okie is #11. That's because LSU only played four top-30 teams while Okie played eight. I can explain this further if needed.

Nice try, but if you go by the Sagarin ratings that actually matter you have the following:

2. Florida
3. Alabama
7. LSU
8. South Carolina
9. Georgia
12. TAMU

4. K-State
11. Oklahoma
14. Texas
19. Oklahoma State
23. Baylor

And here's another conference ranking list that has the SEC as #1. This is a fact, not an opinion.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/po...-atop-rankings

fyp

Comical people on here actually think the Big 12 is better than the SEC.

Good thing Kansas picked Gill over this guy. They may be better but they would be looking for a coach again.

That isn't really a ranking. It shows the polls, whereas the computer portion even says Big 12 was tops. It's easy to have fewer losses when you don't have to play 9 conf games. Unbiased computers agree.

Computers think it. Email Sagarin and tell him he's wrong

Perhaps Tuberville prefers Cincinnatti style chili.

ROFL You're really arguing over 9 conf games instead of 8? That 1 game against a KU team that can't win a single conference game really made a huge difference in the Big 12's inability to avoid losses. :rolleyes:

What's your explanation for the computer rankings then?

The computer rankings that have:

2. Florida
3. Alabama
7. LSU
9. South Carolina
10. TAMU
11. Georgia


Looks about right to me - 6 SEC teams in the top 11.

Well this thread turned into a pissing match pretty quick.

Not really, the SEC homers and I agree the SEC had six of the top eleven, and that overall the Big 12 was better.

LMAO

This is trolling hall of fame.

So OK State is better than LSU? This season?

10-2 is an inferior record to 7-5?

If the Big 12 was the "top" conference they would have more than one team in a BCS bowl. Hell, ****ing Northern Illinois got in over OU.

Wrong. As usual.

Four of the computers used in the BCS rankings rate the SEC as the #1 conference:

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootbal...htm#Conference
http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html
http://www.cfrc.com/Ratings_2012/CC_14.htm
http://andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html


Now STFU

I've seen some awesome logic on this thread. This was particularly good.

The SEC is better because they are more top heavy. Their top teams are better than the Big 12's.


The Big 12 gets its numbers based on the fact that it's bottom teams were decent. Which could mean a couple things.

1: the top teams weren't really that much better which meant more wins for the bottom teams
2: the bottom teams were actually good but got beat by better teams.

To argue that the Big 12 was better than the SEC is asinine. And I'm partial to the Big 12.

Dear fool:

The espn link above already showed the Big 12 won the overall computer rankings as a composite. So picking out those parts that didn't is really pathetic and desperate. But not surprising

Do you really think the Big 12 was a better conference than the SEC?

Email Sagarin and tell him he's asinine.

LMAO

I'm not going to waste anymore time on your idiocy or your perverse relish of being a dunce.

The Big 12 has about 7 of "good" teams. The SEC has about 4 "great" teams, 4 "good" teams then a big drop off.


Thats where the sagarin shit is coming from. The Big 12 has more parity and the lower teams won more games because the top was weaker.


But stick to "Sagarin says so".

Sure. The Big 12 has one dog, the SEC has 3-4. Further, the SEC has 40 percent more teams so saying they have more top ten teams is lame. Shouldn't they have more good teams when they have several more teams to begin with?



Looking at records to determine quality is almost as dumb as looking at batting average to determine hitter quality. I thought math has disproven these things but it seems we have a ways to go to shirk old school, opinion based thinking

Then throw math out.


Look at just football. If you took the Big 12's best and put them in the SEC west, playing Georgia, and say South Carolina plus the other few east teams they would play, they'd be hard pressed to win 9 games.

Very hard pressed.

Agreed. Now you are making an argument I agree with and is in fact supported by computer data. The SEC's best teams are better than the Big 12s best (although I reiterate they have 4 more teams to use here). They are better at the top.


Their bottom sucks balls tho and that's why they finished below the Big 12. I see no reason to think TCU, Tech, Baylor or WVU wouldn't have pulverized the SEC dogs