Re: First good sign (Oregon/U$C)

Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [Charles Beauchamp C.E.Beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> [Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:00:03 -0700]
>
>> Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>>> [Charles Beauchamp C.E.Beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> [Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:30:31 -0700]
>>>
>>>> Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>>>>> [C The Shocker chrispdx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> [Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:07:23 -0700]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oregon is NOT RANKED this week by USA Today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WOOPTH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lowered expectations are wonderful things.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're ranked in the AP Pole, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you Wac-Tenners generally go for the AP Pole over the
>>>>> coaches'?
>>>>
>>>> It is always funny when a BigEast/ACC weanie starts ragging on the
>>>> conference of Champions.
>>>>
>>>> You would be more seriously considered if the Hokies had ever
>>>> actually won something anyone gave a *** about.
>>>
>>> The conference of Champions? I wasn't aware that only the Wac-Ten
>>> has had a team that won it all.
>>>
>>> What's more funny is a Washington fan knocking the ACC while he
>>> basks in the reflected glory of a team in his conference. Funny in
>>> a pathetic sort of way, anyway.
>>
>> Hey we have a past. You do not. You winner come lately types are
>> always amusing...especially the clueless ones like yourself Bryan
>> who seem to think that all of history began sometime in the last
>> decade when your favorite program became sorta kind relevant in some
>> regional sense of the term.
>>
>> That said...I addressed what you stated. What you stated was kind
>> of silly. Short sighted.
>>
>> Pac Ten conference of champions is not just a comment by me...it is
>> a damned demonstratable absolutely irrefutable fact proven year in
>> year out. But...you would not know much about that..because facts
>> have nothing to do with much of anything you say. Now go back and
>> do what you do best..namely football fashion reviews.
>
> Charles.. grow up. I posted about football, you responded with ad
> hominem nonsense.

Wow speaking of pot kettle black moments...you responded with editorial
opinions having little to do with football. I responded with actual
football and you came at me with ad hominem. Kindly keep things in order
kay?!!

In 2003, the Pac-10 did in fact point to the AP as
> more valid, as it supported one of their teams' claim to a title.
>

You would be aided if you knew what in blue heck Conference of Champions is
even referring to....

> I wrote a statement reflecting that, and you made some retarded
> comment about the ACC, as if the success of a Pac-10 team is any sort
> of great and wonderful thing for the Puppies of Washington when
> considering a comparison between them and the actual ACC Champion
> last year.
>

Let me see...I made a comment about the two actual teams playing in the game
that you were talking about (they are listed in the subject line in case you
have lost target of what is actually being talked about). You keep making
this stupid commentary about the Washington football team (which notably I
was not talking about at all since it has zilch to do at all with anything I
was saying) as if that invalidates the fact that the #1 team in the nation
is taking on a 3-0 opponent on the road in a very tough to win environment
against a ranked team.

> Your further nonsense about how I believe football started in 1993,
> because that's when the Hokies started their current extremely
> successful run, is just more immaturity and attempted deflection from
> you.

Hmmm...this from YOU who never has an observation of anything football
related that either is not Hokicentric/insulting regionally or busting on
West Virginia...ok ya I forgot..fashion comments about football uniforms are
a staple as well. Bryan it is what you do. Frankly nothing you are saying
about what I said makes any sense. Who brought Washington into this? And
for what? What does Washington being lousy have to do at all in anyway with
what I said about Oregon and USC regarding Gameday? I spoke up about your
silly comments and you have no real reply because you were exposed.

To attempt to take the fact that the Hokies have had a lot of
> success in the last 12 years and use that as some sort of weapon
> against me in a debate, particularly based on the fact that your team
> now sucks.. is really ridiculous.
>

The Hokies recent run of success is not a weapon against you Bryan. Your
idiotic homerism is easily used against you since it reflects in pretty much
anything you say about anything west of your present time zone. You are
consistent in one area...disregard of the Pac Ten which in fact is the
strongest BCS conference since the BCS came into being in terms of the only
thing that really can be used for comparison...records vs. BCS conference
competition. (Note: has not been updated with 2005 results yet).

So yes, the weapon you offer anytime you fire in is the obvious homerism you
display...clearly something that cannot be stated regarding me because
you/not I brought up anything about Washington. Washington is irrelevant to
anything said about Oregon and USC. Washington having a lousy record does
not add or detract from the validity of anything I said. You bring that up
approximately 100% of the time yet your ignorance of such matters is pretty
transparent.

> So you have a history.. so what? Is your opponent in your next game
> playing against your history or against your team?
>

Nope. And my favorite program has nothing to do with the game in
question...yet you brought it up as if it should be relevant. See
Bryan...you try this quite often with several folks. This thing that in
your mind apparently equates who someone roots for with their personal
understanding of things. Well...having a past means something in this
vein....I have seen where your program is before. I have seen what it is
like to be where you hope to be. You have nothing to tell me that I do not
already know about from the past. And I have forgotten more football
memories then your favorite program has ever had. SO!! I can see the
potential significance of a game this next Saturday being played in Eugene.
I can also recognize the difficulty of doing a program like Gameday in Baton
Rouge...so..yep...I definitely could understand the program being held in
Oregon this next week. Those Duckfans are rabid. I bet it would make for
great television...and the game may even be a shootout.

> As for the conference of champions bit.. uhh.. yes, there is a
> conference champion in the Pac-Ten each year.. but that has very
> little to do with whether the conference is considered by anyone
> (outside of the Pacific Time Zone) as standing head and shoulders
> above the rest of college football.
>

Conference of Champions you ignoramous refers to the fact that the Pacific
Ten wins more NCAA championships year in year out then any other major
college conference in the NCAA. It is not a football specific nickname.
Your regional bias has nothing to do with it.

> Let's look at the national champions since 1980:
>
> 2004: Southern California (Pac-10)
> 2003: Louisiana State (SEC) / Southern California (Pac-10)
> 2002: Ohio State (Big Ten)
> 2001: Miami (ACC*)
> 2000: Oklahoma (Big 12)
> 1999: Florida State (ACC)
> 1998: Tennessee (SEC)
> 1997: Michigan (Big Ten)
> 1996: Florida (SEC)
> 1995: Nebraska (Big 12)
> 1994: Nebraska (Big 12)
> 1993: Florida State (ACC)
> 1992: Alabama (SEC)
> 1991: Washington (Pac-10) / Miami (ACC*)
> 1990: Georgia Tech (ACC)
> 1989: Miami (ACC*)
> 1988: Notre Dame (Independent)
> 1987: Miami (ACC*)
> 1986: Penn State (Big Ten*)
> 1985: Oklahoma (Big 12*)
> 1984: Brigham Young (MWC*)
> 1983: Miami (ACC*)
> 1982: Penn State (Big Ten*)
> 1981: Clemson (ACC)
> 1980: Georgia (SEC) (* denotes current affiliation)
>
> Totals by conference:
>
> Pac-10: 2.0 (1 plus 2 halves)
> SEC: 4.5
> Big Ten: 4.0
> ACC: 8.5
> Big XII: 4.0
> MWC: 1.0
> Independent: 1.0
>
> Uhh.. yeah.. conference of champions, indeed. The last two years make
> the previous 23 irrelevant. And you think *I'm* the one with history
> issues.
>

Yes since everything you posted demonstrated your total ignorance yet again
of what you are presuming is being discussed. idiot. Further..current
affiliation is a method that only an idiot homer would pretend to use.
Miami has not won an MNC in the ACC yet. None of those would be counted by
rational folks trying to make an honest argument. The ACC has always been a
poor sister wannabe conference more known for basketball then football. In
the 90s FSU was a big fish in an empty pond. Now Miami is there and has not
won a title yet. Hell Va Tech was not even wanted there but barged in
through lawsuits.

> Not that I expect you'll respond to a majority of this post. It's
> much more likely that you'll pick one snippet and reply to that with
> some non-sensical "yeah you don't know what you're talking about",
> blah blah blah, etc.

I have responded to everything you have said in this thread. That you have
essentially done nothing more then 1. make a regionally biased ass of
yourself in your first post and 2. proven total ignorance about what
Conference of Champions refers to 3. made stupid comments about Washington
as if it has anything to do with Oregon vs. USC and Gameday and then 4.
posted an utterly rediculous revisionist history of college football going
back to 1980 does nothing to support anything you are saying since a
reasonable minded person reading your prattle simply discards it.

Wooyah..ACC 8 MNCs. Ya. We lost the 2nd World War too Bryan. Try again.
Check your work next time.
--
v/r Beau



.

Loading