Skip to main content

Craig James still has Arkansas at #3? Eh, what?

I watched the BCS Countdown show on ESPN this past Sunday night, where college football "analysts" Craig James and Rod Gilmore laid out their top ten rankings. Following their 41-17 loss to top-ranked LSU, James kept 10-2 Arkansas at #3 in the country, as their only two losses were to the before-mentioned LSU Tigers and #2 Alabama. Eh, what?

Arkansas is a good team. They've had a very solid year under head coach Bobby Petrino, but at this point in the season, they have not proven themselves of being #3-worthy. Let's look at their resume, shall we?

Arkansas' non-conference schedule consisted of I-AA Missouri State, 1-10 New Mexico, 3-8 Troy (whom they beat by a mere 10 points) and 6-6 Texas A&M (whom they beat by 4 points). I won't even include Missouri State in this equation, as they're not of the same division as Arkansas, but the other three non-conference opponents are a combined 10-24 (.294) and the Razorbacks beat two of them by 10 points or fewer.

Now onto conference play in the tough SEC, where Arkansas finished 6-2. Their wins came against: 7-5 Auburn, 2-10 Mississippi (by 5 points), 6-6 Vanderbilt (by 3 points), 10-2 South Carolina, 5-7 Tennessee and 6-6 Mississippi State. For the season, Arkansas has defeated two teams whom hold an above-.500 record in their wins over the Gamecocks of South Carolina and the Auburn Tigers. They've defeated four teams whom hold a .500 record or greater (the before-mentioned two to go along with Mississippi State and Vanderbilt). So, their wins in the all-mighty SEC have come against teams with a combined record of 36-36 (.500) and their wins overall (excluding I-AA Missouri State) have come against teams with a record of 46-60 (.434). The only two guaranteed wins they'll have against above-.500 teams at season's end will be Auburn and South Carolina. They also won four games against teams with a combined record of 17-30 (.362) by a combined 22 points (5.5 avg.), these games coming against: 3-8 Troy, 6-6 Texas A&M, 2-10 Mississippi and 6-6 Vanderbilt.

When it comes to their losses, while it may be true that Arkansas lost to the top two teams in the country to account for their only losses thus far in the season, they lost by a combined score of 79-31 (39.5 - 15.5 avg.). They averaged to lose the two games by 24 points. It's not like they played LSU and Alabama to the end or that they were even competitive. They got stomped by both teams.

Given their resume, I think it's preposterous to lay claim that Arkansas is the third best team in the country, as Craig James claimed on Sunday night. Oklahoma State, Stanford, Virginia Tech and Boise State all have just one loss. Houston is undefeated. To go along with Arkansas, the following teams have two losses: Oregon, USC, Michigan State, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas State, Michigan and Southern Mississippi. Those are sixteen teams whom have two losses or fewer (excluding LSU and Alabama). While Arkansas has defeated only two above-.500 teams, Oklahoma State has defeated five such teams (Tulsa, Texas, Missouri, Baylor and Kansas State). Stanford has defeated four such clubs (Washington, USC, California and Notre Dame). Virginia Tech has defeated four such teams (Arkansas State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Virginia) and has a chance at defeating #5 this coming weekend in the ACC Championship game versus Clemson. Oregon has defeated four such clubs as well (Nevada, California, Washington and Stanford) and was actually competitive in their loss to LSU. USC has defeated five teams with an above-.500 record (Utah, California, Notre Dame, Washington and Oregon). Get the picture? Arkansas may have a very good team, but their resume is not nearly as impressive as some other one- and two-loss teams.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"