Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

OldDevilDawg said:
Oh, I understand the English language well enough. I'm pretty decent at spelling it, too. For the life of me, my 143 IQ sees a complete question mark every time you go on a scatterbrained posting binge with a wall of posts about belts, relative proficiency, and BYU. You do it in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with your obsession. All I did was ask you to explain yourself. Quite frankly, you failed.

You do know the definition of insanity, right?

"Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."
Click to expand...
Simply trying to streamline the process being initiated. 2017 was a cluster-fuck as well as a log jam. People who want to sing praises to CFP, in particular, need to take that year into consideration. It actually, to a degree, cemented valid SOP. And corsectly selected a deserving national champion. Alabama. But it took an entiRe year, actually two to rectify.Thank heavens, L.S.U recteified it!
 
LeroyOU12 said:
BYU
Click to expand...
Failed to unite the championship, meaning a CFP Championship or College Football Belt would have been proven elurive. U.C.L.A. Not only would have won it, outright (a consequence of having beaten USC, who, in turn, claimed it from Washington, whn claimed it from Michigan, who claimed it from Miami, Fl. Who secured it from Auburn. Who were the Selative Proficiency National Champions )(New York Times) proves how esrential a Belt is to a legitimate Championship. Any National Championship. Even if Brighanm young had beaten Oklahoma, or Washington, theyd have fallen short. Beating Michigan was a footnote, but the simple fact-of-the@-matter. And you can investigate it for yovrself, is they beat, admittedly in reverse order. The ONjLY twn teams (U.C.L.A., Michigan). In title pairings, no less. Belt Champions. Making BYU a Belt bAhampion by proxy. Meaning BYU. By proxy, claimed a Belt Championship in 1984. A title they fully surrendered to .U.C.L.A. in 1985.
 
DieSonneTeufeln said:
Family Man
Click to expand...
I liked it because of Cage. And Jeremy Piven, and Tea Leoni. It was a much better movie than advertised. A great supporting carpt. The message was, or at least appeared to ae. Be careful what you wish for. Similar I guess to Its a Wonderful Life. Only Better? Im actually surprised it wasnt nominated for any awards. A much better movie than I expected. Another one I really liked was Life or Something Like It. Angelina Jolie. What amazing talent!
 
Preacherman said:
This is gibberish to me and makes no sense. Can you explain this in layman terms
Click to expand...
In 1983 there was controversy surrounding the national championship. Nebraska was supposeed to win, but didnt. Lost to Miami, FL. One of several teams, that season to challenge. Brigham Young was another, but only managed, appropriately, to my way of thinking, a seventh place result. People have tried to trivialize Brigham Youngs position ever since. As if they were a One Trick Pony. Many things have come to light in the meantime. For brevitys sake Ill limit it to only one. The Belt. Like it or not whichever team makes a claim to the Belt, even in unusual circumstances like in 2017, Whem a 5>-70Pittsburgh team was the sole proprietor, altermative protocol justly recognized Alabama as a legitimate Belt representative and recipient. Along with Oklahomb, who Im assuming forfeitted whatever measure they claim by taking Georgia into O.T. Retroactively would give Iowa St., deservedly, their share. None of this is open to interpretation. Iowa St. lost to W. Virginia, who lost to Texas, who lost to Tfxas Tech who lost to USF, a particularly strong (Yes, Strong, as in Charlie Strong, team in 2017.) mebning USF was a Belt Champion, a consequence of Oklahoma losing to Georgia, in overtime! Otherwise it wovld have been simply passed forward. Overtime rules matter. Thats why instead of claiming the Belt (CFP in laymans terms, and directly relevant to the topic at hand) the Championship was quartered among four teams. Alabamas share was precisely 1\4, as was Oklahomas, as was Pittsburghs, as was Ohio St.s, after beting USaBac in the Cotton Bowl. Those four teams merited a Belt. But, obviously, only one team wars accredited, Alabana. Possibly because it was impossible to simultaneourly recognize all four. Pittsburgh officially claimed proprietary over it. Alabama isnt a Belt Champion. Its a problem of ppriority. Pittsburgh at 5-7 wasnt admitted to the ChampionshIp. Admittting them would have given the Belt the legitimacy it merited. Or substituting Pittsburgh for Clemson. Might have been a better metric to enploy. Particularly ggiven how it played out. We should never have to guess about who the national champion is. The Belt leaves little doubt. If any.
 
Last edited:
miley-cyrus-crying-part-2(1).gif
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
In 1983 there was controversy surrounding the national championship. Nebraska was supposeed to win, but didnt. Lost to Miami, FL. One of several teams, that season to challenge. Brigham Young was another, but only managed, appropriately, to my way of thinking, a seventh place result. People have tried to trivialize Brigham Youngs position ever since. As if they were a One Trick Pony. Many things have come to light in the meantime. For brevitys sake Ill limit it to only one. The Belt. Like it or not whichever team makes a claim to the Belt, even in unusual circumstances like in 2017, Whem a 5>-70Pittsburgh team was the sole proprietor, altermative protocol justly recognized Alabama as a legitimate Belt representative and recipient. Along with Oklahomb, who Im assuming forfeitted whatever measure they claim by taking Georgia into O.T. Retroactively would give Iowa St., deservedly, their share. None of this is open to interpretation. Iowa St. lost to W. Virginia, who lost to Texas, who lost to Tfxas Tech who lost to USF, a particularly strong (Yes, Strong, as in Charlie Strong, team in 2017.) mebning USF was a Belt Champion, a consequence of Oklahoma losing to Georgia, in overtime! Otherwise it wovld have been simply passed forward. Overtime rules matter. Thats why instead of claiming the Belt (CFP in laymans terms, and directly relevant to the topic at hand) the Championship was quartered among four teams. Alabamas share was precisely 1\4, as was Oklahomas, as was Pittsburghs, as was Ohio St.s, after beting USaBac in the Cotton Bowl. Those four teams merited a Belt. But, obviously, only one team wars accredited, Alabana. Possibly because it was impossible to simultaneourly recognize all four. Pittsburgh officially claimed proprietary over it. Alabama isnt a Belt Champion. Its a problem of ppriority. Pittsburgh at 5-7 wasnt admitted to the ChampionshIp. Admittting them would have given the Belt the legitimacy it merited. Or substituting Pittsburgh for Clemson. Might have been a better metric to enploy. Particularly ggiven how it played out. We should never have to guess about who the national champion is. The Belt leaves little doubt. If any.
Click to expand...
I’m still not getting it.
 
Preacherman said:
I’m still not getting it.
Click to expand...
We are talking about criteria. I have dealing with opinion. I think most would agree opinion never settled anything of substance. If it has, I'm oblivious to what it might be. For example. You might like Tiger Woods. Nothing wrong with that. I'm more partial to Arnold Palmer. Neither is relevant about which player deserves the G.O.A.T. It ought to be a fairly simple matter. But it isn't because they never played against each other. Liking one isn't basis for superiority. Same with a championship. We can argue all day long (and we have). About whether or not Brigham Young was a national champion. It isn't about opinion. They either got it done or they didn't. I can say they failed to unite it. That's what the Belt is. A united National Championship. BYU lost to U.C.L.A. A title game with title consequences. And both understood that. Meaning the end result is indisputable. U.C.L.A. therefore (a consequence of winning) carried the championship into 1985. Ultimately Alabama lay claim to it. Simple Simon. USC lost to Alabama. In the Aloha Bowl. This isn't rocket science. This is as simple as simple gets. People can't justify Florida's claim in 1984 without ruining the championship for everyone else. U.C.L.A. won the Belt. Simple as that. BYU wasn't a Belt Champion. CFP makes it a lot simpler. If only people would listen! Pittsburgh won the Belt in 2017. They ought to have been positioned in the ACC or playoff game. I don't care if people think it's stupid. They earned it along with USC, Georgia and maybe Ohio St. If you think about it it would be a lot less confusion. Rose decides one participant and the Sugar the other. But regardless the Belt is the National Championship. As it has always been. As it always will be regardless of the protocol. No. Pittsburgh wasn't the CFP national champion. I'm not that stupid. They were however one of four remaining. It wasn't united. Now it's united. Alabama. In 2017 it was quartered. It want united until 2020. L.S.U. reunited it back together again. F.W.I.W. BYU won a Belt in 1996. F.W.I.W.
After besting Kansas St in the Cotton Bowl.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
We are talking about criteria. I have dealing with opinion. I think most would agree opinion never settled anything of substance. If it has, I'm oblivious to what it might be. For example. You might like Tiger Woods. Nothing wrong with that. I'm more partial to Arnold Palmer. Neither is relevant about which player deserves the G.O.A.T. It ought to be a fairly simple matter. But it isn't because they never played against each other. Liking one isn't basis for superiority. Same with a championship. We can argue all day long (and we have). About whether or not Brigham Young was a national champion. It isn't about opinion. They either got it done or they didn't. I can say they failed to unite it. That's what the Belt is. A united National Championship. BYU lost to U.C.L.A. A title game with title consequences. And both understood that. Meaning the end result is indisputable. U.C.L.A. therefore (a consequence of winning) carried the championship into 1985. Ultimately Alabama lay claim to it. Simple Simon. USC lost to Alabama. In the Aloha Bowl. This isn't rocket science. This is as simple as simple gets. People can't justify Florida's claim in 1984 without ruining the championship for everyone else. U.C.L.A. won the Belt. Simple as that. BYU wasn't a Belt Champion. CFP makes it a lot simpler. If only people would listen! Pittsburgh won the Belt in 2017. They ought to have been positioned in the ACC or playoff game. I don't care if people think it's stupid. They earned it along with USC, Georgia and maybe Ohio St. If you think about it it would be a lot less confusion. Rose decides one participant and the Sugar the other. But regardless the Belt is the National Championship. As it has always been. As it always will be regardless of the protocol. No. Pittsburgh wasn't the CFP national champion. I'm not that stupid. They were however one of four remaining. It wasn't united. Now it's united. Alabama. In 2017 it was quartered. It want united until 2020. L.S.U. reunited it back together again. F.W.I.W. BYU won a Belt in 1996. F.W.I.W.
After besting Kansas St in the Cotton Bowl.
Click to expand...
How many beers between the start of this post and the end op? I want to compare writing it vs reading it... ;)
 
I
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
We are talking about criteria. I have dealing with opinion. I think most would agree opinion never settled anything of substance. If it has, I'm oblivious to what it might be. For example. You might like Tiger Woods. Nothing wrong with that. I'm more partial to Arnold Palmer. Neither is relevant about which player deserves the G.O.A.T. It ought to be a fairly simple matter. But it isn't because they never played against each other. Liking one isn't basis for superiority. Same with a championship. We can argue all day long (and we have). About whether or not Brigham Young was a national champion. It isn't about opinion. They either got it done or they didn't. I can say they failed to unite it. That's what the Belt is. A united National Championship. BYU lost to U.C.L.A. A title game with title consequences. And both understood that. Meaning the end result is indisputable. U.C.L.A. therefore (a consequence of winning) carried the championship into 1985. Ultimately Alabama lay claim to it. Simple Simon. USC lost to Alabama. In the Aloha Bowl. This isn't rocket science. This is as simple as simple gets. People can't justify Florida's claim in 1984 without ruining the championship for everyone else. U.C.L.A. won the Belt. Simple as that. BYU wasn't a Belt Champion. CFP makes it a lot simpler. If only people would listen! Pittsburgh won the Belt in 2017. They ought to have been positioned in the ACC or playoff game. I don't care if people think it's stupid. They earned it along with USC, Georgia and maybe Ohio St. If you think about it it would be a lot less confusion. Rose decides one participant and the Sugar the other. But regardless the Belt is the National Championship. As it has always been. As it always will be regardless of the protocol. No. Pittsburgh wasn't the CFP national champion. I'm not that stupid. They were however one of four remaining. It wasn't united. Now it's united. Alabama. In 2017 it was quartered. It want united until 2020. L.S.U. reunited it back together again. F.W.I.W. BYU won a Belt in 1996. F.W.I.W.
After besting Kansas St in the Cotton Bowl.
Click to expand...
It’s still not making any dam sense to me. Do you speak English?
 
Preacherman said:
I

It’s still not making any dam sense to me. Do you speak English?
Click to expand...
Which part isn't making sense? I didn't invent it. If it's confusing maybe you should take responsibility for your own role. I said it was cut and dried. Winner take all, and it mostly is. In 2017 there was a separation. I think I outlined that fairly succinctly. I'm not sure what the problem is anyway. Is it because you have your own interpretation? I'm telling you the CFP and Belt are coincidental. Not too many ways to interpret. What it boils down to is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you don't like the way I do it, try your own way. But I didn't invent the protocol. I use it but it wasn't my idea. It never was either. So I shouldn't have to explain a single word of it. But if you want me to I can. Do you want me to or not? It's your call to make
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top