T1B

"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the national championship game."

This was preceding the 2004 Sugar Bowl when USC (kills me to say) deserved a shot over OU. This is relevant also, in that many think LSU should roll into the MNC game even if they lose to uga. It paints Saban as a total hypocrite....but who didn't know that?

There is no scenario in which two teams from the same conference should meet in the MNC game...that is, barring a playoff. I guess for us who hope for playoff, this is the dream scenario....the one that leads to a playoff by sheer outcry!

I don't expect cfb to do the honest and/or right thing, but we, the fans, must be heard.

We need to occupy whatever street cfb offices reside on. I have a job, screwie you're a jobless douche-fuck, it's on you! America needs you! College football needs you, hell, directional universities everywhere need you. Will you answer the call?

Jsc810 wrote:Link to where he said that?

Try google.

Looks like "Nicky" and "the truth" have something in common...

M2 wrote:A simple BCS rule change....

...no two teams from the same conference are allowed to play for the National Championship. If two teams from the same conference are ranked #1 and #2 at the end of the season ... #1 shall play the highest ranked team from another conference.

Only conference champions can play for the National Championship game.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... =5&t=39956

M2 wrote:Looks like "Nicky" and "the truth" have something in common...

Battered prostates?

Well, his is just from being old.

Van wrote:

M2 wrote:Looks like "Nicky" and "the truth" have something in common...

Battered prostates?

Well, his is just from being old.

You sound jealous...


I simply know way more about College Football... than you will ever know.


"Nicky" is on the same page as "the truth"... and Vannie simply thinks that Stanfurd was going to play in Oregon this year...

Only a tard wouldn't know that the Oregon and Stanfurd game was going to be played in the Bay Area this year.

How convenient of you to 'forget' that I beat you in positing that same argument by a good eight years, or back when USC got jobbed in favor of an OU team that didn't win their conference.

But then why would anyone expect anything more from a transient little rollergirl who can't stay focused on anything but a bong and a mirror for more than four seconds?

Van wrote:How convenient of you to 'forget' that I beat you in positing that same argument by a good eight years, or back when USC got jobbed in favor of an OU team that didn't win their conference.

You expect me to remember a post of yours 8 years ago.... that you "allegedly" made ???

You're a fucking " nut-job" !!!

Yeah, cunt syrup, it's not as if I haven't made the same argument 4,000 times since then...pretty much any time the subject of LSU-USC in '03 has come up.

Face it, little girl, you're a simple clown who couldn't debate his way out of AP's moist panties. Knowing you, christ, you wouldn't even try.

Van wrote:Yeah, cunt syrup, it's not as if I haven't made the same argument 4,000 times since then...

Link ???

I'm pretty sure I can find a post of yours that says just the opposite in the last few days... you want to try me ???


It's no wonder you're the "only" one on this board that finds shutyomouth even the least bit humorous.

Being that you both live in shitholes and are both unemployed.

M2, you will never find any link which contradicts my long-stated belief that—barring a real playoffs—only conference champs should play in the title game. What you will easily find are posts wherein I say that under the given rules which allow teams to play for the title even though they didn't win their conference, sure, since Bama and LSU are clearly the two best teams out there, let 'em play a rematch.

Just because I think it's what will happen, and I would rather see LSU-Bama than LSU-Okie St anyway, it doesn't mean I agree with the rule that would allow it to happen.

You may return to your coloring books.

Van wrote:M2, you will never find any link which contradicts my long-stated belief that—barring a real playoffs—only conference champs should play in the title game. What you will easily find are posts wherein I say that under the given rules which allow teams to play for the title even though they didn't win their conference, sure, since Bama and LSU are clearly the two best teams out there, let 'em play a rematch.

Shit for brains.... which one is it ???

You either agree with Nicky and the truth... or you don't. It's really that simple.

Nicky said, you need to win your conference to play in the MNC game and you said...

Van wrote:The one thing I don't want is for OSU to leapfrog Bama and get in. LSU would steamroll them, and I am so sick of seeing SEC teams getting off easy with their matchups in the title game. Other than for trolls like M2 I think we all know believe Bama and LSU remain the two best teams, so they may as well play for the title. At least it'd very likely be a close game.

You're constantly caught in lies.... and try to spin your way out of them.

It's comical.

God, you're dense.

Okay, try to follow along here...

While I don't agree with it, I accept the reality of the current situation. In this instance, I agree with you that only conference champions should be allowed to play in the title game. The problem is, that isn't the world we live in right now, is it?

That being the case, I'd just as soon see the two best teams play for the title.

Bama has only beaten 3 teams with winning records, Penn State (soft) Arkansas (soft) and Auburn (7-5soft)
They can take their SOS argument and shove it in their ass

Van wrote:That being the case, I'd just as soon see the two best teams play for the title.

So, you're basically lying again... and don't agree with Nicky and the truth ???


ONLY a conference Champion... can play for the MNC.


And who in the HELL made you "the judge" on who the best two teams in the country are if they only play each other ???

Logic isn't your friend.

I've long been a proponent of a team having to win their league in order to play for the National Championship.

Sudden Sam wrote:
Louisiana-Lafayette
Arizona
Tulsa
Texas A&M
Kansas
Texas
Missouri
Baylor
Kansas State
Texas Tech

Hell, Mississippi State could be 10-1 this year with that bunch.

And SoCalTrojan "COULD" be a good dad and coach too, but we all know it won't happen.

Miss State has a winning record against that schedule but not even close to 10-1.

So we still have no link to Saban actually saying this. It never happened.

WolverineSteve wrote:"Anyone who doesn't win their conference has no business playing in the national championship game."

This was preceding the 2004 Sugar Bowl when USC (kills me to say) deserved a shot over OU. This is relevant also, in that many think LSU should roll into the MNC game even if they lose to uga. It paints Saban as a total hypocrite....but who didn't know that?

There is no scenario in which two teams from the same conference should meet in the MNC game...that is, barring a playoff. I guess for us who hope for playoff, this is the dream scenario....the one that leads to a playoff by sheer outcry!

I don't expect cfb to do the honest and/or right thing, but we, the fans, must be heard.

We need to occupy whatever street cfb offices reside on. I have a job, screwie you're a jobless douche-fuck, it's on you! America needs you! College football needs you, hell, directional universities everywhere need you. Will you answer the call?

Why does it kill you to say that, Michigan may have won the Rose Bowl that year if they didn't have to play USC.

Left Seater wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:
Louisiana-Lafayette
Arizona
Tulsa
Texas A&M
Kansas
Texas
Missouri
Baylor
Kansas State
Texas Tech

Hell, Mississippi State could be 10-1 this year with that bunch.

And SoCalTrojan "COULD" be a good dad and coach too, but we all know it won't happen.

Miss State has a winning record against that schedule but not even close to 10-1.

My kids are straight A students in all Gate/AP classes, they are also both excellent athletes and neither have lost a football game in 5+ years. I coached my final football game on Sunday, a 48-0 win in the title game and capped my 4th undefeated year in a row as DC. I went 3 years of Pony Baseball and lost 2 games compiling a 81-2 record.
Judging on my kids' success, my wife and I are great parents, spend any time with our sons and you will see that.

SoCalTrjn wrote:My kids are straight A students in all Gate/AP classes, they are also both excellent athletes and neither have lost a football game in 5+ years. I coached my final football game on Sunday, a 48-0 win in the title game and capped my 4th undefeated year in a row as DC. I went 3 years of Pony Baseball and lost 2 games compiling a 81-2 record.
Judging on my kids' success, my wife and I are great parents, spend any time with our sons and you will see that.

Reminds me of a quote I heard at a Hayden Fry coaching clinic about 25 years ago....."show me a lower level coach who knows his won-loss record and I'll show you a lower level coach who isn't worth a shit."

SoCalTrjn wrote:Judging on my kids' success, my wife and I are great parents, spend any time with our sons and you will see that.

If we were fortunate enough to spend merely five minutes with them, would our lives be better for it?

Just curious.

-Tom Brennaman

Mace wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:My kids are straight A students in all Gate/AP classes, they are also both excellent athletes and neither have lost a football game in 5+ years. I coached my final football game on Sunday, a 48-0 win in the title game and capped my 4th undefeated year in a row as DC. I went 3 years of Pony Baseball and lost 2 games compiling a 81-2 record.
Judging on my kids' success, my wife and I are great parents, spend any time with our sons and you will see that.

Reminds me of a quote I heard at a Hayden Fry coaching clinic about 25 years ago....."show me a lower level coach who knows his won-loss record and I'll show you a lower level coach who isn't worth a shit."

The only thing that fucker was known for is painting the opposing locker room pink, how many Super Bowls did he win? ZERO? College football is lower level, does he know his won-loss record?

Hayden probably knows his record because he has people telling him what it was in addition to running a sucessful program being his paid occupation at one time. You take it upon yourself to obsess over your win/loss record in instructional leagues you stupid sack of shit. Sorry you can't see the difference.

I don't obsess with it but it is the highest level for players of this age and if you're going to play the games, you may as will win all of them. I'm an architect not a coach but when asked to coach my sons teams I did the best job I could and my won/loss record shows that I was much more successful at it than my opponents were.

That's all well and good if any of it is supposed to be about you. It's not you ignorant fuck.

SoCalTrjn wrote: The only thing that fucker was known for is painting the opposing locker room pink, how many Super Bowls did he win? ZERO? College football is lower level, does he know his won-loss record?

I didn't say that was a quote from Fry, you stupid piece of shit, I said that I heard it at a Hayden Fry clinic. Too bad you weren't in attendance so you could learn that your job as a lower level coach is to teach fundies and that your won-loss record doesn't mean jack fuckin' shit.

How many NFL players have you produced with your exceptional coaching prowess, dumbfuck? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Jsc810 wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:I coached my final football game on Sunday

Thank God. Never get near children again.

With Toejam and Sandusky no longer members of the coaching ranks, will the kids now have to shower alone?

The oldest kids I coached may be 16 by now so none are in the NFL as of yet.

All we stressed were fundamentals and no mental mistakes, thats why the teams we coached won so much, they were fundamentally sound.

SoCalTrjn wrote:All we stressed were fundamentals and no mental mistakes, thats why the teams we coached won so much, they were fundamentally sound.

That, and you threatened them with deprivations Oliver Twist would've paled at if they didn't win 48-0.

Every football game you've ever coached, they won 48-0. I can't believe you admitted to having lost 2 baseball games. The kids must have had to walk home on those occasions... barefoot, in the snow.

SoCalTrjn wrote:The oldest kids I coached may be 16 by now so none are in the NFL as of yet.

How many of them are in therapy?

SoCalTrjn wrote: The only thing that fucker was known for is painting the opposing locker room pink...

well, that and the whole hall-of-fame bit. probably known for getting through a single sentence without nine comma splices, too.

War Wagon wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:All we stressed were fundamentals and no mental mistakes, thats why the teams we coached won so much, they were fundamentally sound.

That, and you threatened them with deprivations Oliver Twist would've paled at if they didn't win 48-0.

Every football game you've ever coached, they won 48-0. I can't believe you admitted to having lost 2 baseball games. The kids must have had to walk home on those occasions... barefoot, in the snow.

My Defense gave up 12 total points in 10 games this year. We even had a formation called "batman" where all the kids will yell "Batman!" when the offense broke the huddle and the Defense lined up single file straight in front of the center. Usually resulted in a loss by the offense as they were clueless on what to do or who to block.
we stressed gang tackling every year, by the 3rd quarter of most game the opponents were beat up and hit shy

The 2 baseball losses were the first 2 years. Once I got the program going and with the legacy rules, they were a machine. I recruited players from the club teams instead of drafted players based on the leagues silly little combine. Generally I had the 4 or 5 best pitchers in the league every year on one team

They might want to look at me because of what? because my defense played well? The only thing they might even frown on was that I would make my players run laps if they ever helped an opponent up off the ground.