T1B

Game of the day! Here we go!

Glad to see Muffberger drew the Paws n' Hokes tonight. Providence.

Yup-yup. Seven-naught.

Woulda taken an LSU punt return by Dennis Rodman a quarter-and-a-half deep to equal that score.

Good effort on the Poke INT, but an LSU quarterback coulda never thrown a ball that deep....

LSU-Bama would play just fine. Trouble is... We've seen it before.

Truth told, I'm pulling for OU, 'cuz, well, I like OU. But if Oke State drops fiddy on 'em, then LSU-Poke State needs to happen.

Yeah, I know y'all have already done the best-offense-in-the-country stuff ('sup QQMF), but this is Late Season - and the match-up would be fascinating.

As well you should be. "Lucky" or not, LSU has played the toughest sched in the country, and whipped all comers. They ARE the team to beat for the crystal.

Okie St ain't leapfrogging Bama. This one is strictly about OSU ending the ignominy against OU, and earning their first Big XII title/BCS bowl bid.

Stanford (with Andrew Luck playing this time) against Okie St in the Fiesta Bowl will be a very cool game.

Then again, it's still early, and it's Bedlam. OU may yet come back.

Truman wrote:Game of the day! Here we go!

Van wrote:Then again, it's still early, and it's Bedlam. OU may yet come back.

Or not.

That one certainly hurt.

You're a good cat, Van, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Rest of the Country watches PAC football the same way we used to do as kids when the local slick down at the pool hall set the record high on the Evel Knievel pinball machine.

High entertainment, but completely meaningless in the scope of things. Stanford-Oke State? Meh.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Truman wrote:Game of the day! Here we go!

XII>1G. Do the math.

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:Okie St ain't leapfrogging Bama.

Not so fast, my friend.

OSU is playing like it wants to go to New Orleans.

They needed to play that way in Ames too.

The bottom line is their loss came against a bad team over which they were favored four hundred and seventeen while Bama's loss came against #1 in a game that was all even after regulation play, mainly due to Bama's kickers missing FGs.

Stanford, Va Tech and Okie St all had their chance to take advantage of Bama's loss, and they failed. It fell back into Bama's lap, and their destruction of Auburn ended any real debate in the human polls.

Truman wrote:You're a good cat, Van, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Rest of the Country watches PAC football the same way we used to do as kids when the local slick down at the pool hall set the record high on the Evel Knievel pinball machine.

High entertainment, but completely meaningless in the scope of things. Stanford-Oke State? Meh.

Too bad. Assuming Okie St finishes this thing tonight, that's what we're getting: Stanford vs Okie St in the Fiesta Bowl. Bama-LSU for all the marbles is a fait accompli.

Jsc, for all the reasons you're describing, Okie St will surpass Bama in the 'puter polls. Bama is going to get in via the human polls, and nothing that happens tonight will change that.

Van wrote: They needed to play that way in Ames too.

The bottom line is their loss came against a bad team over which they were favored four hundred and seventeen while Bama's loss came against #1 in a game that was all even after regulation play, mainly due to Bama's kickers missing FGs.

Stanford, Va Tech and Okie St all had their chance to take advantage of Bama's loss, and they failed. It fell back into Bama's lap, and their destruction of Auburn ended any real debate in the human polls.

OSU had a field goal that was good and called no good by the officials. OSU won that game in regulation if not for a shit call by the officials.

Alabama beating an absolutely horrible Allbarn team means nothing.

Jsc810 wrote:I think they have a legit argument even if they beat OU by one point.

this take, coming from you, really surprises me.

But Van already has his mind made up, so fugedaboutit.

Winning big tonight is the only way Okie State has a shot at the title game but,Van is right, they lost any claim to the title game when they lost to ISU. Bama loses in OT to LSU and Okie St. loses to Iowa State in OT.....there's no question which loss should knock a team out of the title hunt.

M2 wrote:[\OSU had a field goal that was good and called no good by the officials. OSU won that game in regulation if not for a shit call by the officials.

Bull fucking shit, you dumbass. Try reading a rule book when you take a break from making wind chimes.

Van wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:Okie St ain't leapfrogging Bama.

Not so fast, my friend.

OSU is playing like it wants to go to New Orleans.

They needed to play that way in Ames too.

The bottom line is their loss came against a bad team over which they were favored four hundred and seventeen while Bama's loss came against #1 in a game that was all even after regulation play, mainly due to Bama's kickers missing FGs.

True. A Great Team woud've set aside the second devastating plane-crash tragedy in 10 years to strike their university and nutted out an overtime win on the road against a rising program that would've easily finished in the middle of the suck PAC. Nice to see you're on top of things, Van.

It's all perception. It's a beauty contest. Bama's razor-thin loss against LSU did not significantly alter the national media's perception that the Tide is one of the two best teams in the country. What their loss did accomplish was to open the door for Boise St, Stanford, Ou, Okie St and Va Tech, all of which dropped the ball, bringing it back to an argument between one-loss teams.

The majority of the media still feels that Bama is basically LSU's equal while Okie St isn't, and that's that.

War Wagon wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I think they have a legit argument even if they beat OU by one point.

this take, coming from you, really surprises me.

But Van already has his mind made up, so fugedaboutit.

My opinion doesn't matter. I'm merely telling you what is, according to everyone in-the-know who already knows how this is going to shake out.

Van wrote:The bottom line is their loss came against a bad team

a bad team?

That team gave KSU a run for their money today in Manhattan... you know, the same KSU team you think was the only legit team OSU faced all year.

Tru, not to go all mvscal on you, but no, the women's basketball team's plane crashing combined with another tragedy ten years ago has zero bearing on this season's BCS human vote. It was a horrible thing, yet it terms of the Big Picture in football it simply doesn't matter. Nearly every team has some sort of Jim Nance 'sympathy' story.

The botton line is Bama is considered one of the two best teams in the country by the people who will decide the BCS title game participants, and nothing Okie St does tonight will change that.

You're getting Stanford in Arizona, not LSU in New Orleans. Deal with it.

Van wrote:
The majority of the media still feels that Bama is basically LSU's equal while Okie St isn't, and that's that.

And more's the pity. There isn't a team in the country outside Oregon that can trade scores with the Pokes (now there's a match up - SOMEBODY make THIS happen...).

We'll see what your "majority of media" sez when the poll breaks tomorrow. I think you're high, bro. Outside the SEC, there is NO passion for an LSU-Alabama rematch.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:The bottom line is their loss came against a bad team

a bad team?

Yes, a bad team...especially when compared to the only team that beat Bama.

That team gave KSU a run for their money today in Manhattan... you know, the same KSU team you think was the only legit team OSU faced all year.

BFD. They went 6-6, including 3-6 in the Big XII. They suck. Okie St was supposed to and needed to kill them.

Tru, Jsc, Wags...any of you up for a sig bet about how this turns out? I say it's Bama-LSU, you say it's Okie St-LSU. Loser carries the sig through the end of the title game.

If Okie St leapfrogs Bama, I'll carry sigs from all three of you.

a sig bet over a beauty contest?

No thanks.

Why not? Who cares?

Van wrote:Tru, not to go all mvscal on you, but no, the women's basketball team's plane crashing combined with another tragedy ten years ago has zero bearing on this season's BCS human vote. It was a horrible thing, yet it terms of the Big Picture in football it simply doesn't matter.

Of course not. The ground would have to open beneath your feet before you'd acknowledge a legitimate loss. You west-coast types chortle at the mention of the word "Iowa" while half the "scholar athletes" enrolled in your conference's member schools struggle to even find it on a map, but I assure you that Iowa State would kick the cat-piss out of of half the teams in your League.

Van wrote: BFD. They went 6-6, including 3-6 in the Big XII. They suck. Okie St was supposed to and needed to kill them.

Same way Oregon was supposed to kill scholly-depleted USC. At HOME.

3-6 in the XII = 6-3 in the PAC. Your league sucks out loud, Van.

Tru, you can assure me of it all you want, just as I can assure that they'd get stomped in the Pac 12 the same as they always get stomped in the Big XII. I'll just look at the fact that they're Iowa St: perennial doormats. Even when they're supposedly good, like this year, they go 3-6 in-conference.

They simply don't matter except as a schedule-feeder, and Okie St losing to them put paid to any chance they had of playing in the national title game.

Truman wrote:
3-6 in the XII = 6-3 in the PAC. Your league sucks out loud, Van.

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

Missouri lost to a complete shit team in Arizona State.

Iowa State would be lucky to win a game in the PAC.

Van wrote:Tru, you can assure me of it all you want, just as I can assure that they'd get stomped in the Pac...

By whom? SC? Stanford? Oregon? Outside those three, I like their chances against anybody you people field. Your league blows.

Truman wrote:

Van wrote: BFD. They went 6-6, including 3-6 in the Big XII. They suck. Okie St was supposed to and needed to kill them.

Same way Oregon was supposed to kill scholly-depleted USC. At HOME.

USC hasn't even begun losing their scholarships. The only players they lost were those few who elected to transfer when the NCAA gave them the window last season to do so without having to wait to play elsewhere. Because USC appealed the NCAA sanctions, the ten-schollies-per-year-for-three-years penalty doesn't begin until sext season.

The USC team that faced Oregon in Autzen was a Top 10 team...a far cry from anything Iowa St ever assembled on a football field.

3-6 in the XII = 6-3 in the PAC. Your league sucks out loud, Van.

Don't troll. Leave that crap for Sam or Dins. I don't wanna hear it.

Oklahoma State beat the worst team in the PAC 12 (Arizona) ... 37-14 in "Stillwater"!!!

Hell, Arizona made a better showing agaisnt Okie State than Oklahoma is... and Oklahoma is "allegedly" the # 10 team in the country.

Iowa State would NEVER win a single game in the PAC.

Jsc810 wrote:Please answer why you are just looking at that one loss.

Why won't you look at wins as well?

That would involve work, as in comparing the quality of wins, and Van can't be bothered with such minutia.

for his edification, let me note that nobody but nobody rolls into Faurot field and rolls the Tigers... this is where undefeated top ranked teams need 5th downs and kicked balls to eke out a win.

OSU rolled Mizzou 45-24 this year in Columbia, it pains me to type that.

Van wrote:
The USC team that faced Oregen in Autzen was a Top 10 team...a far cry from anything Iowa St ever assembled on a football field.

Still. Oregon lost at home. Oklahoma State lost on the road on a nationally televised Friday night game after a tragedy that impacted their entire school. Big difference.

Don't troll. Leave that crap for Sam or Dins. I don't wanna hear it.

Not trolling, Van. Your league is the old WAC I grew up with as a kid. Late night starts, lot's of points - high entertainment on a Saturday night. To be taken seriously compared to other leagues? No so much.

Jsc810 wrote:Please answer why you are just looking at that one loss.
Why won't you look at wins as well?

Name me these great Okie St wins.

Louisiana Tech at home?
Awful Arizona at home?
Awful Tulsa?
Barely squeaking by awful ATM?
Dogshit Kansas at home?
WILDLY overrated Texas?
Defenseless Mizzou?
Even more defenseless Baylor at home?
OT at home against a decent but not exactly scary K St?
Utterly defenseless Taco Tach?

Then we have a loss at unranked Iowa St. Now we have an asskicking of an OU team that hasn't done shit since their best player, Ryan Broyles, went down.

That is simply not any sort of overwhelming resume. In any one-loss 'beauty contest' matchup against Bama when Bama's only loss was basically a draw against #1 LSU, Okie St will inevitably lose. Okie St had the chance to get there. It was the same chance USC had all those years: Win out, or get fucked. Didn't matter that they should've gotten in at least a couple of those years where they stubbed their toe along the way to a lesser team. Those losses were considered inexcusable, as was this Iowa St loss.

Truman wrote:
Not trolling, Van. Your league is the old WAC I grew up with as a kid.

You purposely missed my last two posts... that make you out to be a complete idiot.

Van wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Please answer why you are just looking at that one loss.
Why won't you look at wins as well?

Name me these great Okie St wins.

Louisiana Tech at home?
Awful Arizona at home?
Awful Tulsa?
Barely squeaking by awful ATM?
Dogshit Kansas at home?
WILDLY overrated Texas?
Defenseless Mizzou?
Even more defenseless Baylor at home?
OT at home against a decent but not exactly scary K St?
Utterly defenseless Taco Tach?

Then we have a loss at unranked Iowa St. Now we have an asskicking of an OU team that hasn't done shit since their best player, Ryan Broyles, went down.

Your schools would appear defenseless too if they went up against the likes of XII offenses week-in, week-out. Still does nothing to refute the fact that you people aren't very good. What's your point, Van?