CU Guru [1093]
TigerPulse: 46%
Posts: 1016
Joined: 9/5/20
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1093]
TigerPulse: 46%
Posts: 1016
Joined: 9/5/20
|
FYI This is also a perfect rebuttal...
[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2020, 11:35 AM
|
|
To those pushing the “Clemson plays a weak schedule” narrative!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1166]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 1376
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: FYI This is also a perfect rebuttal...
[1]
Posted: Dec 3, 2020, 11:43 AM
|
|
How does it push back against Clemson's schedule? It spells out what we all already knew...Clemson is an elite program and beats the best teams. That doesn't say anything the strenght of their schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [873]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 260
Joined: 5/22/15
|
Re: FYI This is also a perfect rebuttal...
Posted: Dec 3, 2020, 1:56 PM
|
|
How does it push back against Clemson's schedule? It spells out what we all already knew...Clemson is an elite program and beats the best teams. That doesn't say anything the strenght of their schedule.
Head to head, the ACC kicks the SEC's A$$ this year, Bama, great as usual, Gators pretty good against inferior SEC competition, UGA - overrated as usual, equivalent to Wake Forest or VA Tech, A&M, clearly overrated and then 10 Sunbelt like teams.
By the way, Sankey's a tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1093]
TigerPulse: 46%
Posts: 1016
Joined: 9/5/20
|
Re: FYI This is also a perfect rebuttal...
Posted: Dec 3, 2020, 4:53 PM
|
|
Clearly math isn’t your strong suit.
Clemson has beaten as many teams that finished in the top 25 During the playoff era as Georgia has played! We have played more teams that finished in the top 25 than Georgia during the playoff era. Ergo, Clemson has played a harder scheduled than Georgia during the playoffs era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [433]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 181
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: SEC overrated per Saturday’s Down South
Posted: Dec 3, 2020, 4:37 PM
|
|
That was a great read !
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1093]
TigerPulse: 46%
Posts: 1016
Joined: 9/5/20
|
Re: SEC overrated per Saturday’s Down South
Posted: Dec 3, 2020, 4:59 PM
|
|
I appreciated that they started out with a narrative and realized that narrative was incorrect and then did further research to explore what they were seeing in the numbers. I especially appreciate that they admitted their narrative was wrong.
Such objectivity today in science and journalism is very rare when those are the two occupations that are supposed to be built on skepticism & objectivity. It used to be scientists and journalists were skeptics and started out trying to prove their assumptions wrong. Today they start out with a false narrative they want to push and cherry pick the data to support that false narrative because they no longer care about truth. They are now activists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
