Monday morning buffet

A light nosh before SEC Media Days kicks off.

About these ads

41 Comments

Filed under Big Ten Football, Look For The Union Label, Recruiting, Science Marches Onward, SEC Football, Stats Geek!, The Blogosphere

41 responses to “Monday morning buffet

  1. Carolinadawg

    Yeah, because everyone who disagrees with you is a “troll”.

    • uglydawg

      I wanted to vote in the little poll at the end of the Troll Page, but the lowest choice was, “very poor” and that was just way over the top. It’s a pretty pitifully laid out site…loolks like it probably originates at NATS.

    • KingCantona

      It’s not the disagreement that makes it a troll site. It’s the manner in how it’s presented. Looks like either a 14 year old or tekkie got involved. Criticism is a good thing, but it can be done in much better ways.

      • Carolinadawg

        “Criticism us a good thing.”

        Ha, ha, ha, ha…that’s a good one! It certainly isn’t a good thing on this site, especially if St. Mark is being criticized.

        • Rocket Dawg

          With some of your comments you should be Thomas Brown’s co-author.

          Birds of a feather and all…

        • Hackerdog

          I agree. If a 4,000 word comment comparing the percentage of fumbles lost near the right sideline in games after 4pm can’t convince people of the ineptitude of “St. Mark”, then those folks are just Disney Dawgs who refuse to see the light.

    • DawgFaithful

      No but Thomas Brown is the king of all trolls.

  2. uglydawg

    The Rutgers piece is pretty good until the pot of snobbery begins to boil in the late paragraphs. Pretty childish. I hope this isn’t the typical Rutgers attittude.
    It does, however, shine a light on the myth of football excellence in the Big.
    A worthy read if you can get past the anger and jealousy.

    • BMan

      The Rutgers piece takes on the B1G’s holier-and-better-than-thou attitude with a good helping of northeastern assholishness. Sounds like a match made in heaven.

    • Bulldog Joe

      “a gigantic, wailing vortex of an inferiority complex and faux-earnestness situated right about over the Great Lakes.”

      As opposed to the tiny vortex of an inferiority complex and faux-earnestness situated right over the Raritan River?

      The Big Ten will learn quickly that not even a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the NYC metro cares about Rutgers athletics. The inferiority complex is there for a reason.

  3. uglydawg

    (I’m on a roll here, forgive me)
    Concernng the SEC Media Poll ….if it’s that difficult for a pretty large group of knoweldgeable football followers to get it right with a total of 10 or 12 teams, how can we expect a very small “committee” of a few folks (picked by who?) to get it right considering one hundred teams?
    The pitiful performance of the SECMP does attest to the balance and quality of the SEC in general.

    • The Committee does have the unfair advantage of picking teams once the games have been played as opposed to a preseason poll.

        • uglydawg

          True, that. Also, the pre-season poll can be ho-hummed away and means nothing…but the “committee” is going to find out what high pressure is when that fateful day comes to reveal to a world of college football fanatics which teams they’ve come up with for the final and only four. Oh, it’s going to get real ugly real fast… I wonder if they will be compelled (or maybe prohibited) from going public with their thought processes and selection criteria. Either way, there will be four fanbases elated and probably four or five ready for armed rebellion.
          And while we’re off the subject…the Rutgers paper pretty much lays to waste the Big’s argument about strength of schedule. So conference champions (in that instance) should not be automaticallly qualified.

  4. DawgPhan

    I love that Thomas Brown blog. Talk about an echo chamber.

    • He likes all of his own posts, which each have one like.

      • Dog in Fla

        He quotes himself more than I do

        • Will

          You really could have sold this comment with a well placed citation.

          • Dog in Fla
            • 1

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus_One

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2B#Plus_sign

            “Mathematically, 1 is:
            • in arithmetic (algebra) and calculus, the natural number that follows 0 and precedes 2 and the multiplicative identity of the integers, real numbers and complex numbers;
            • more generally, in abstract algebra, the multiplicative identity (“unity”), usually of a ring….

            Formalizations of the natural numbers have their own representations of 1:
            • in the Peano axioms, 1 is the successor of 0;
            • in Principia Mathematica, 1 is defined as the set of all singletons (sets with one element);
            • in the Von Neumann cardinal assignment of natural numbers, 1 is defined as the set {0}….

            One is the first figurate number of every kind, such as triangular number, pentagonal number and centered hexagonal number, to name just a few….

            It is also the first and second numbers in the Fibonacci sequence (0 is the zeroth) and is the first number in many other mathematical sequences….

            One is neither a prime number nor a composite number, but a unit, like −1 and, in the Gaussian integers, i and −i….

            One is the only odd number in the range of Euler’s totient function φ(x), in the cases x = 1 and x = 2.

            One is the only 1-perfect number (see multiply perfect number)….

            By definition, 1 is the probability of an event that is almost certain to occur….

            1 is the atomic number of hydrogen*

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One

  5. sir, if you consider 67 percent win percentage after 2007 an elite team and great when Mark Richt once was 81 percent win percentage going into the 2005 season, you are a DISNEYdawgs.com fan and part of the problem – not demanding we do better.
    Does Thomas Brown have more than one blog and name? I’ve read this rhetoric before.

  6. Mayor

    About the QB list, note that they left Matthew Stafford off the list and he was the #1 pick of the draft and still the starter in Detroit after 7 years. I know politically they put Tebow and Wuerffel on the list because those guys won the Heisman but we all know they really weren’t shit talent-wise because of their complete failure in the NFL. I’ll give that Manning ought to be #1, but Staff is #2, Murray #3 and Greene #4 if you ask me.

    • Hackerdog

      The listings were based on college careers. Both Tebow and Wuerffel had fantastic college careers.

    • hailtogeorgia

      As hacker says, it’s based on their college careers, not what they’ve done in the pros. Saying that Stafford is the number two college quarterback during that timeframe simply because he was a number one overall pick is pretty weak.

  7. JRW7

    Like TB or not, all of the stats about AM don’t lie! Just look at them, Am was a DGD but he was not a winning QB for UGA. He started 52 games just like David Green, but came up 7 wins short, AM’s stats in the BIG games is what killed UGA in the last 4 years.

    • Hackerdog

      I think you can add defensive special teams struggles to your list of what killed UGA over the last four years. Unless you’re one of those folks who doesn’t think football is a team sport.

    • hailtogeorgia

      Give Aaron the defenses that David Greene had and see how it turns out.

  8. Mike Cooley

    Oh for heavan’s sake. What is with you people? You were quiet as church mice after the Sc and LSU games last year. Now you are returning to this epic waste of time? Murray is no longer at UGA! You shit touchers can relax. Why are you so consumed with the fool’s errand that is trying t prove your points about Murray to the rest of us. Jeez. Shut up!

    Thomas Brown’s site was funny. Funny in a pitiful way. I can’t imagine that place having much traffic, most of it will be generated by your post Senator. The dude is a special kind of stupid.

    • Hackerdog

      Sadly, I don’t think he’s stupid. My unprofessional diagnosis based on his posts is that he has Aspergers. He is intelligent, but can’t relate to others. He can’t see an “it” factor when evaluating players, so he crunches numbers until he “proves” that Gurley is a worse than average back and Richt is an ineffective coach. As you said, pitiful.

      • I Wanna Red Cup

        He might be the same guy who tried to use stats, from HS and some from college to prove that Washun Ealy was better than H. Walker. and Mr. Cooley I agree with you 100%. AM was a damn good dawg who played a team game with horrible special teams and below average defenses and kept us in games time and again. See Auburn last year for ultimate example.

  9. Will

    “They’re all one big cargo cult worshiping the god of small sample sizes.”

    Wooooooow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s