well spoken kid
no bulletin board material
lots of "happy to be there" but no rat poison, either
no comments about connor
real value was in 1 of the comments and it's replies:
+++
@GeraldMothershed
3 days ago
According to the Sagarin data, Texas played the 20th toughest schedule in the nation (harder than five other SEC programs). Texas was 4-2 against top 30 teams.
Clemson played the 51st toughest schedule and finished 1-3 against top 30 teams.
I only mention any of this because the two of you used the same argument against Texas, that they haven't played anyone. The data analysis has been done and that narrative is a total myth. Besides, that they didn't play somebody isn't evidence that they are not a great team.
Let's give Clemson a fighting chance because Texas does have flaws and Clemson is a talented team. No need to carry forward an untrue narrative.
4
Reply
@dallasmustang11
3 days ago
Not sure what Sagarin is looking at but Texas got 6 of the bottom 8 sec teams this year. Two of which (Kentucky and Mississippi state) are just horrible football teams.
2
Reply
@GeraldMothershed
3 days ago
@dallasmustang11 Texas played two losing SEC teams, two winning SEC teams and three teams at .500...... Georgia played three losing SEC teams and no teams at .500 ..... It's a curve, Georgia and others have higher ceilings and lower floors. Texas has less variance. The opponents Texas faced are typically between 6 and 8 win teams.
Besides, there are other metrics you'd want to look at, performance against common opponents for example. Texas and Georgia played three of the same teams, Texas outperformed Georgia in all three cases. None of these are definitive by themselves, but together they can serve as useful indicators.
Instead repeating that Texas isn't a good team because of who they haven't played you should look at these performance models. Again, there isn't all that much you attack Texas for, so this narrative was born.
1
Reply
@dallasmustang11
3 days ago
@ nobody is saying Texas is bad because of their weak schedule. But it is a weak sec schedule. To somehow twist getting to play 6 of the bottom 8 sec teams as some incredibly difficult test is just not based in fact.
1
Reply
@GeraldMothershed
3 days ago
@dallasmustang11
You're not entirely wrong, they did face a slightly below average SEC schedule. The gap isn't nearly as wide as some believe, but there is a gap.
The issue really isn't the schedule, it's whether Texas is a good or bad team. People are using the schedule to diminish the great season Texas had, this is what I'm addressing now.
There are many accepted metrics you can use to determine if Texas performed well enough against average opponents to warrant calling them a top level team. Texas played consistent ball all season, outscoring their SEC opponents by around 14 points, while also posting nation leading defensive numbers. There are multiple respected data models that gauge performance against competition and they all agree that Texas is performing like a top team should perform. To that end, I believe that the schedule narrative is just something people who want to go after Texas have seized upon, but it isn't reality. The data is pretty clear that Texas is performing very well this season and their schedule isn't nearly as bad as some want to believe.
I think it's perfectly ok to just dislike Texas, that's everyone's right. But if you're trying (not you personally) to say they aren't a good team because they didn't play Bama or Ole Miss then A, you're likely holding those schools in too high of regard, and B, you're basing this opinion on something Texas hasn't done instead of looking at what they have done.
This is just my view, nothing personal. Whatever we say today doesn't mean nearly as much as the game itself. If Texas is as good as I believe they are, then they'll win. Otherwise, they won't.