Page 2 of 2

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:55 am
by M Club
Van wrote:That's not what I'm saying, B-t-H. I'm saying that while he may have said it, his intent probably wasn't to literally tell his team at halftime to not even bother playing the second half. It was probably more a case of him telling them that if they're going to continue with not bothering, fine, then don't bother.

"If you don't care, then neither do I. Do whatever the fuck you want," or something along those lines, was likely the message.

No, I don't believe he literally told his team to quit at halftime, and meant it. I don't care what your friend said, I don't believe that. People tell stories all the time, adding their own spin; embellishing things, leaving out other things, etc.
van=sociopath

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:21 am
by Van
"The game is over. Don't bother playing the second half."

A coach of a major college football program said that to his team, at halftime. So, what was he suggesting, that they just stay in the locker room and not come out for the second half?

Why not just forfeit the game then?

Right. That happened. No sarcasm, either. He meant it literally. He told them to not bother playing the second half, and he meant it.

Sure he did.

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:25 am
by TheJON
Screw_Michigan wrote:
Sirfindafold wrote:Maybe the UCLA administration will think twice about spending thousands on a full page ad in the LA Times claiming that SC's dominance of Los Angeles is over.
Thousands? Make that six-figures.
"I'll take Math Fails for $1,000, Trebek"

"Screw Michigan"

"Who needs to retake Math class?"

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:13 am
by M Club
Van wrote:"The game is over. Don't bother playing the second half."

A coach of a major college football program said that to his team, at halftime. So, what was he suggesting, that they just stay in the locker room and not come out for the second half?

Why not just forfeit the game then?

Right. That happened. No sarcasm, either. He meant it literally. He told them to not bother playing the second half, and he meant it.

Sure he did.
well, let's examine the evidence:

on one hand we a second-hand account given us by someone who not only has a pristine reputation here, but he's also in the midst of legal training and probably has a reasonable eye for what constitutes solid testimony. the first-hand account was gleaned by someone intimately familiar with the weasel and sort of might have had some context with which to interpret his comment.

on the other hand we have your incredulousness punctuated by some soliloquy you imagined to have taken place.

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:45 pm
by Van
B-t-H said the guy told the team in the locker room, "The game is over. Don't bother."

No soiliquy needed. He's saying a BTPCF told his team at halftime to not bother playing the second half. He also said the guy hates Neuheisel.

Gee, you don't think that maybe that ex-player is embellishing the story with a little creative license?

You really believe a head coach told his team to not bother playing the second half, or do you have some other explanation for what he may have meant by saying, "The game is over. Don't bother."

What else could that mean?

No, Neuheisel didn't say that, at least not in the manner B-t-H was told he said it by the ex-player. Coaches don't seriously suggest forfeits. Coaches can forfeit the game themselves, and they don't do it, and he didn't do it.

Hell, maybe Neuheisel said it to that one ex-player, not the whole team. That's plausible.

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:54 pm
by M Club
Van wrote:Gee, you don't think that maybe that ex-player is embellishing the story with a little creative license?
no.

You really believe a head coach told his team to not bother playing the second half, or do you have some other explanation for what he may have meant by saying, "The game is over. Don't bother."
yes.

What else could that mean?
it means he gave up on his team, you dumbfuck sociopath. it's not that hard to draw a line from a to b, but since you're a sociopath you're pretending frozen's friend had suggested neuheisal wanted to actually forfeit the game.


No, Neuheisel didn't say that...
how authoritative. :meds: you were there, i suppose? maybe we should ask someone who was...

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:27 pm
by Van
So, what does it mean to say "don't bother," other than telling his team they shouldn't bother.

He didn't say, "I'm not going to bother," which would be quitting on his own part. By saying, "Don't bother," he's telling his players not to bother.

What exactly does that mean? How is that not telling them not to play anymore, which is tantamount to forfeiting the game?

How can you be so fucking dense?

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:43 pm
by Dinsdale
IndyFrisco wrote: Then, as soon as he got to Washington, he violated recruiting rules in the first week he was there.

Let's not forget him getting on the phone with the NCAA and reporting false accusations about Bellotti... which in turn begat calls from all the other PAC coaches informing the NCAA that Weasel is a compulsive liar, and then reporting how Weasel had made calls to their recruits.

Fine case of the arsonist crying "fire" in a crowded theater.


So Van -- exactly how many programs does Weasel have to leave shattered in his wake before you'll recognize a pattern of behavior, and his complete apathy towards the Rules?

I mean, we're up to two -- is three the magic number for you? Four? What's your threshold for POS's? Hell, CU and UDub were in great shape when he showed up -- one can only imagine what a down program like UCLA will look like after he's done -- although I'm sure Wazzu is looking forward to finding out, since UCLA will surely jepordize their monopoly on conference ineptness sooner, rather than later.

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:25 pm
by SoCalTrjn
Papa Willie wrote:
Van wrote:'Spray, you keep saying that, and you keep being a thousand percent wrong about it. A coach would walk out of any SEC stadium just fine after doing it, same as he would anywhere else. Or, have you forgotten Steve Spurrier, who is a sainted coach in your league, despite the fact that he practically invented the concept of running it up on his opponent.
Had Spurrier ever kneeled and then thrown a bomb, he'd be a dead man now. No - you just don't do shit like that here, or you either get shot or fucking knifed....

Call it redneck fans, or just simply doing the gentleman's thing, but nobody pulls shit like Petey did last night and gets out alive.

Let's put it this way - had Saban done that to Auburn the other night - the death toll would have probably been pushing the four digit mark. And yes - that is how it is around here.

Gets out alive of his own stadium?

UCLAbia wanted to keep playing so USC stepped on their heads as they should have. I have no issue with USC going for the TD after Neuheisal opted out of bowing out gracefully. Run it up in conference games and OOC games vs BCS conf schools, thats the way the teams are judged until there is a playoff in place.
There is a huge difference between getting a pad TD vs the trash talking assholes from 11 miles across town and running up the score on an out of conference patsie that your school is paying a few hundred grand to come to your stadium and be slaughtered for the pollsters enjoyment

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:06 pm
by M Club
Van wrote:So, what does it mean to say "don't bother," other than telling his team they shouldn't bother.

He didn't say, "I'm not going to bother," which would be quitting on his own part. By saying, "Don't bother," he's telling his players not to bother.

What exactly does that mean? How is that not telling them not to play anymore, which is tantamount to forfeiting the game?

How can you be so fucking dense?
are you a sociopath in real life too?

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:57 pm
by SoCalTrjn
Mace wrote:As much as I hate to admit it, I've been on the receiving end of teams running the score up on my team...albeit high school baseball and not football. In my first year as head coach, we were bad, very bad, and we played a couple of teams who stole bases and were squeezing runs across the plate with large late inning leads. I said some uncomplimentary things to the opposing coach from the dugout while he was in the 3rd base coach's box, because it pissed me off....as it did my players. My players said that "someday we're going to do this to those guys", to which I responded, "no, we'll have more class than these guys". In the following years, we were in a position to run up the score on those teams and to pad our stats....but we didn't. Some of the kids thought we should have done it but understood that we were being the better men for not doing it. Apparently Petey never learned that lesson.
A few high tight fast balls would have put that to a stop.

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:06 am
by Dinsdale
SoCalTrjn wrote:
Mace wrote:As much as I hate to admit it, I've been on the receiving end of teams running the score up on my team...albeit high school baseball and not football. In my first year as head coach, we were bad, very bad, and we played a couple of teams who stole bases and were squeezing runs across the plate with large late inning leads. I said some uncomplimentary things to the opposing coach from the dugout while he was in the 3rd base coach's box, because it pissed me off....as it did my players. My players said that "someday we're going to do this to those guys", to which I responded, "no, we'll have more class than these guys". In the following years, we were in a position to run up the score on those teams and to pad our stats....but we didn't. Some of the kids thought we should have done it but understood that we were being the better men for not doing it. Apparently Petey never learned that lesson.
A few high tight fast balls would have put that to a stop.

Does it make a me a bad BTPCFB Poster if I laughed?

Re: UCLA VS. USC

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:51 am
by Degenerate
Van wrote:So, what does it mean to say "don't bother," other than telling his team they shouldn't bother.

He didn't say, "I'm not going to bother," which would be quitting on his own part. By saying, "Don't bother," he's telling his players not to bother.

What exactly does that mean? How is that not telling them not to play anymore, which is tantamount to forfeiting the game?
It means, "Guys, we're getting our ass kicked. Instead of going over second-half adjustments or giving you some meaningless rah-rah speech, let's just get this last thirty minutes over with without anyone dying on me. Cool?"

All of which was painfully evident from reading BtH's post the first time.

I'm pretty sure the game BtH is referring to is the 2001 game, where Miami destroyed UW 65-7 en route to the title. So it's pretty obvious whatever Neuweasel meant to say, no one in the locker room mistook it for the Gipper speech.
Someone in this thread wrote:How can you be so fucking dense?
What he said.