Rivals.com predicts Baylor...

[ballsybear]

To start the season 3-0. with a possible bowl berth pending a win in the last game v. okie st. I want to send my appreciation to SMU for allowing Baylor its first road win in a long time.

git-a-long-lil-ponies

[PK]

To start the season 3-0. with a possible bowl berth pending a win in the last game v. okie st. I want to send my appreciation to SMU for allowing Baylor its first road win in a long time.

git-a-long-lil-ponies

Perhaps you should keep your wet dreams to yourself...I hate seeing people embarrass themselves in public.

[DallasDiehard]

Slow down there, BlueBB. You're banking on a prediction from a website that suggests Baylor will beat:

1. SMU, which has won three games in two years, yet still scared the hell out of BU on its home field two years ago when we had zero offense.

2. A Samford team that's what .... District 12-3A?

3. An Army team that showed some improvement last year, but also has among the most losses of any team in the country in recent years. Didn't they have a two- or three-year losing streak recently?

Not coincidentally, the two Div. I teams sandwiched around the JV team you're supposed to pummel don't have a page on rivals.com. Rivals doesn't know jack about current teams, and has no more validity as a gambling advisor than those morons on the commercials each fall who scream something about "a network of insiders" so you'll drop $50 on a 900 number. Rivals is in the business of selling subscriptions -- that's it. They collect their recruiting information from coaches and players. They spew their "predictions" based on what will sell subscriptions.

For instance, just say for the sake of argument that:
• SMU blows Baylor away. Everything goes SMU's way -- fumbles, refs' calls, rain on one side of the line of scrimmage -- everything. SMU wins .... 47-10.
• TCU comes into Ford Stadium a week after getting pulverized by Oklahoma. A few key Frogs are injured and miss the game, and Coach Patterson is forced to alter his gameplan because of personnel deficiencies. Their pregame meal from the Roadkill Café gives half the team food poisoning. Whatever the reason, SMU wins, and while the win might be based on luck, the Ponies win convincingly.
• Meanwhile, A&M implodes at Clemson. Reggie McNeal has his contacts in the wrong eyes. Coach Franochio decides to "send a discipline message" by benching his entire starting lineup. A handful of Aggies pull an earlobe and are out for a couple of weeks. So they're shorthanded when we cruise down to College Station.

Now with that scenario in mind, what do you think the chances are that rivals would predict SMU would wander into Kyle Field and walk out with win #3?

Zero. Zip. None. Nada. Absolutely no chance. SMU could beat Baylor and TCU by 80 points each, and A&M could lose its entire starting lineup in a beat-down at Clemson, and rivals still would predict that the Aggies would win by three touchdowns. Why? Because the Aggies' rivals page is a big money maker. Predicting doom and gloom deflates sales. For a school with a huge rivals site like A&M has, they might predict an Aggie win over the Patriots. The only time they'd predict a loss for a school like A&M is when they're playing another school with a huge site. Playing against Oklahoma or Texas or Nebraska or USC or Florida, etc., would get an honest prediction. Otherwise, disregard any rivals predictions.

(When the hell did they get into the prediction business, anyway? That's like a company that offers financial advice suddenly trying to help develop fiscal policy. They're almost related, but .... not really.)

[Sam I Am]

Like M.C. Hammer, Baylor can't touch this. But it's like old times to get some trash from an old rival holding on by the skin of their teeth in the Big 12. At least Waco has one significant win in the last few years (poor Aggies). We're still waiting for ours on Sept. 3rd.

[DallasDiehard]

Not to pay Baylor on the back, but I'd rather have their win over A&M than a win over Baylor.
Wait a minute, I'd rather have both.

[Mustangs35SMU]

Not to pay Baylor on the back, but I'd rather have their win over A&M than a win over Baylor.
Wait a minute, I'd rather have both.

Good thing we get the chance to get both

[Stallion]

DallasDiehard-do you really believe that Rivals picks Big 12 Teams over SMU just because they have a subscription. What a bunch of crap. They pick those teams because in every game since 1989 those teams have had superior talent. Do you really understand how stupid your opinion is. Do you realize thar SMU is 0-30-1 against UT, A&M, Tech and Baylor over that time period. In fact we don't even have a winning percentage point in 31 games against those teams. We make the 1962 Mets look like the Monsters of the Midway.

[KnuckleStang]

Ah, blow it out your @ss Stallion.

[robo98564BU]

Ah, blow it out your @ss Stallion.

HAHA stallion is the only smu fan on this board with any common sense... does that [deleted] you off?

[KnuckleStang]

Nope. I just enjoy saying "blow it out our @ss." You got a problem with that?

[oakley]

[deleted]

[Dark Horse]

DallasDiehard-do you really believe that Rivals picks Big 12 Teams over SMU just because they have a subscription. What a bunch of crap. They pick those teams because in every game since 1989 those teams have had superior talent. Do you really understand how stupid your opinion is. Do you realize thar SMU is 0-30-1 against UT, A&M, Tech and Baylor over that time period. In fact we don't even have a winning percentage point in 31 games against those teams. We make the 1962 Mets look like the Monsters of the Midway.

Maybe I read the original message differently than you did. In fact, DD sort of separated those with a rivals page from those without. Of course they'd pick UT and all of its HS all-Americas to win. But with a pair of teams with similar talent levels (an assessment based solely on the three-point game two years ago), yes, rivals is going to go with the team that has a page on which it can sell a subscription. That's common business sense, and to dismiss DD's opinion on this is as stupid as you claim DD's opinion. Frankly, I agree with DD. Your ranting doesn't make you any more right than anyone else.
Which, I might add, is just your opinion.