Quality wins will become more important as the season goes on, but let's take a look at the best quality wins so far.
Oklahoma: This has to be #1 so far. Convincing win on the road against a team that has been in every edition of the CFP playoff.
Alabama: Dominating win against the preseason favorite to win the ACC.
USC: Beat Stanford convincingly.
Clemson: Very nice win over Auburn. This win and the USC win are a notch below the OU and Bama wins right now, because while we still think Auburn and Stanford will have very good seasons, we're not as sure about them as Ohio State and Florida State. Also, USC and Clemson were both playing at home.
Georgia: Solid win at Notre Dame. How good it looks in December depends on whether Notre Dame is a 9-3 team this year or a 5-7 team. Important thing for the Dawgs is that with the win at ND, they would have to mess up pretty badly to not be 7-0 going into the Cocktail Party.
Michigan: Looked really good beating Florida at JerryWorld, but as with the Georgia win over ND, this may or may not turn out to be a legit quality win depending on how many the Gators win the rest of the way. Also similar to Georgia is that the Wolverines have a nice run of extremely winnable games on tap, and should be 6-0 when their game at Penn State kicks off.
South Carolina deserves a shout for having two P5 wins so far (not many programs do thus far). They look like a 10 win team this year.
(09-10-2017 08:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina deserves a shout for having two P5 wins so far (not many programs do thus far). They look like a 10 win team this year.
Agreed. While South Carolina & Louisville wins aren't at the caliber as the ones mentioned in the OP, they are a pair of P5 wins. Shout out to both teams.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(09-10-2017 08:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina deserves a shout for having two P5 wins so far (not many programs do thus far). They look like a 10 win team this year.
Missouri was a conference game. And your pronouncement looks a little premature after Saturday.
(09-17-2017 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2017 08:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina deserves a shout for having two P5 wins so far (not many programs do thus far). They look like a 10 win team this year.
Missouri was a conference game. And your pronouncement looks a little premature after Saturday.
Yeah, against Missouri they were shaky. Against Kentucky, their stud returner / receiver / sometime running back, broke his leg. That said Kentucky played well, not flashy, but well. Missouri? Not really.
(09-17-2017 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2017 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2017 08:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina deserves a shout for having two P5 wins so far (not many programs do thus far). They look like a 10 win team this year.
Missouri was a conference game. And your pronouncement looks a little premature after Saturday.
Yeah, against Missouri they were shaky. Against Kentucky, their stud returner / receiver / sometime running back, broke his leg. That said Kentucky played well, not flashy, but well. Missouri? Not really.
I think he meant it was premature to call Missouri a "quality win" (title of thread).
(09-17-2017 08:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2017 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2017 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2017 08:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina deserves a shout for having two P5 wins so far (not many programs do thus far). They look like a 10 win team this year.
Missouri was a conference game. And your pronouncement looks a little premature after Saturday.
Yeah, against Missouri they were shaky. Against Kentucky, their stud returner / receiver / sometime running back, broke his leg. That said Kentucky played well, not flashy, but well. Missouri? Not really.
I think he meant it was premature to call Missouri a "quality win" (title of thread).
You guys have a real problem with reading comprehension. The thread is about "quality wins". Olive and Blue expanded that in his comments and all he said was that South Carolina deserved a shout out for having 2 P5 wins (which they did) in the first two weeks. He said nothing about the "quality" of the danged win!!!
I was referring to the fact that South Carolina didn't look as strong as they should have against Missouri, "shaky." And making the observation that they lost their top offensive player in the loss to Kentucky this week.
Where did I fail to understand the damned exchange of remarks or their context???
It was Bullet that subtly changed the focus by referring to Missouri as a "conference game" as if that somehow didn't mean that it was two P games in a row for South Carolina. And then he referred to Saturday (the Kentucky loss) and said Olive and Blue's remarks were premature. That is why I acknowledged the loss and made note that they lost their best offensive player in that game and it hurt them. That and their inability to kick a field goal.
But acknowledging that Bullet is also a Kentucky fan I made note that Kentucky is stronger than people believe, they just aren't flashy.
So "NO!" I didn't fail to understand the post, it's context, or the sequence of posts leading to my response!
And I interpreted the "shout out" as saying they deserved credit for scheduling 2 P5s, not just the 2 wins. Since it was a conference game vs. Missouri, they don't get any credit for scheduling.