T1B

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:50 am**

Maybe the defense should just let VT score so they won't feel so bad.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:50 am**

I just tuned in 20 min ago, noticed nobody was at the game. Was it like that all night?

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:52 am**

I've got to admit, though, VT is a classy team. No cheap bullshit. Taylor seems like a really good, very talented guy.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:53 am**

I'd say throwing down field with 5 mins left, up 21 pts is within the bounds of sportsmanship. Up 40 pts or so is a different story. I've seen some crazy shit happen in 5 minutes. Last year's MSU debacle vs CMU comes to mind.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:56 am**

Gotta cut 'spray some slack. He has a compulsion to find at least something negative to say about any PAC10 team.

Not his fault, it's inbred.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:03 am**

21 points is 3 TDs. I though you all could at least multiply.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:12 am**

Papa Willie wrote:, but how 'bout Cal? :D

You mean the team that has BLASTED the same furd team 8 out the last 10 years ?

Allbarn is going to get killed in a week.

We can talk about keeping the Oregon team on the field with 5 minutes to go and sportsmanship in a week.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:12 am**

Papa Willie wrote: It's just shitty sportsmanship, but that's how the Pac10 rolls, so....

You must have missed all those early season blowouts, when Oregon was running it straight into the DTs, including on 4th and long.

Pray Auburn gets the same courtesy.

Now Boise, on the other hand -- they never saw a hail mary they didn't want to throw when up 40.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:20 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
Mikey wrote:21 points is 3 TDs. I though you all could at least multiply.
40-12 = 28 points or 4 TD's.

Jesus you really are a bitter old fuck.

Papa Willie wrote:Question, though. You're up 21 with 5 minutes left and still throwing long passes? The fuck?

They weren't passing the ball after the last score, otherwise they undoubtedly would have scored again.

Before you cry any more about running up the score, what were the Bama-Sparty and MSU-Michigan scores again?

Why don't you just give credit where credit's due and STFU.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:24 am**

Jesus, dude. quit being the bitter old bitch. Save it for your game.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:25 am**

And here I thought VT was the hottest god damn team in the country...

I seem to recall that you were pretty confident in their greatness.

Guess I had it all wrong.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:32 am**

Mikey wrote:Holtz, May and all the other PAC10 doubters can now officially suck my dick.

Go Ducks.

Spray, quit while you're behind.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:32 am**

Bama didn't run the score up. Their 18th stringers were in the game mid way in the 3rd quarter. I know they got a td in 4th quarter garbage time, but shit happens. Saban was outwardly displeased when he scored.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:48 am**

I just want to be clear.

Where exactly to you draw the line?

21 points? 28 points?

5 minutes, 7 1/2 minutes, 3 minutes?

Teams have been known to score 3 TDs or more in a matter of 5 minutes or less, and VT is not exactly horseshit.

Let me know what the SEC rules are about pulling your starters and shutting it down. If I knew exactly what's OK and what isn't then maybe I'd agree with you.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:54 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
No - you don't understand, Cal lost 7 games this year and really sucked. No bowl games. No respect.

Really ?

All those loses came against the PAC.

The same Cal team that held Oregon to 15 points in the game and 7 points of those came off of special teams.

Or, the Cal team that beat ASU by 32 points which should have beaten Wisky on the road... and lost by one point.

Maybe, it was the Cal team that beat Colorado by 42 points.... which powerhouse Georgia from the SEC.... lost too ???

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:55 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
It's just shitty sportsmanship, but that's how the Pac10 rolls, so....

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:06 am**

MONEY wrote:Really ?

Yeah, pretty much. Takes of "quality losses" and transitive property wins reek of sadness, and show how far your program has fallen. Hey, at least they weren't high enough to fall too hard.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:07 am**

Cal was about 20 plays from playing for the MNC.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:12 am**

Mikey wrote:Cal was about 20 plays from playing for the MNC.

Actually, it was 5 plays from the 17th straight MNC.

Fuckin' weenies.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:24 pm**

Mikey wrote:Cal was about 20 plays from playing for the MNC.

That's all?

Cal being Cal, and whatnot, I figured the number was significantly higher than that.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:33 pm**

Props to Stanford for kicking VT's ass in the second half. It was certainly surprising to see the Hokies choke in a big game.

VT should have been matched up with UConn for their bowl game. They have no business playing real teams in bowl games. I was hoping Luck would keep passing until the final whistle. I wish the Skins had sucked more this year so they could have a chance to draft him

Offensive playcalling as usual was a joke for Tech. "Let's hope Tyrod can bail us out" is not a great strategy. This team is going to be in a world of hurt next year without Tyrod.

Oh well, at least I do not have to be disappointed until next season.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:49 pm**

Stanford's O is fun to watch compared to the 4 hour game, commercial breaks out the wazoo enabled spread stuff.

only a matter of time until the option is back. :wink:

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:34 pm**

Sudden Sam wrote:Stanford was damned impressive. I enjoyed the shit outta that ass-whuppin'.

Some beautifully designed pass plays all night long. And running to the left side...jesus! How many huge runs did Stewart and his cohorts rip off over that side?!

How did the Stanford fans feel about Elway being there? Tough situation.

Finally...I'm a Duck fan thru next Monday night. But I don't see Oregon staying within 2 TDs of Auburn.

You really think Auburn's defense will be able to slow Oregon down, much less stop them?

You my friend, along with the rest of the SEC faithful, are due for a large dose of reality. My prediction is that they will be completely overmatched, and Oregon's speed on defense will at least be able to slow the Cam show down. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a result similar to last night. One man shows just don't cut it in big bowl games.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:41 pm**

Auburn is a good team, but it's not like they've blown people away 95 Huskers style. No reason to think Oregon can't hang. Tough game to get a read on. I picked Auburn but if I could get a re-do I'd probably go with Oregon. There is still uncertainty over suspended players, yes? Dunno, just seems like Oregon's time.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:52 pm**

MONEY wrote: All those loses came against the PAC.

Silly me -- I'd totally forgotten that Nevada joined the PAC a few years ago.

But I see ya working -- when Oregon beats Auburn by more than 2 points... the MTransitive Property kicks in, giving Kal their 18th straight.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:54 pm**

stuckinia wrote:Props to Stanford for kicking VT's ass in the second half.

PAC10 Track Meet, baby!

And what Stanford did to VT in the 2nd half, is exactly what Oregon did to Stanford in the 2nd half -- passed the baton in the 800 meter relay, and left the opponent in the dust.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:55 pm**

King Crimson wrote:only a matter of time until the option is back.

About 6 days.

But it ain't your daddy's option.

Posted: **Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:56 pm**

USC should have hired David Shaw last year, hopefully they fix that problem this year and hire him

T1B

Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT

Re: Stanford-VT