Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

CollegeFBFan2021 said:
I don't drink beer.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
TechRaiderRider said:
meth?
Click to expand...
Yeah I drink meth. Amphetamine. What about what I've written is so hard to follow? Honestly. I mean if it's so hard to follow and it seems fairly simple to me, what exactly is the problem? In 2017 the championship was split among four teams. That isn't difficult to understand. I said admit Pittsburgh, who admittedly were only 5-7. I said admit them because they were the Belt Champion. Actually even if you don't admit them they retain the Belt. That's the problem. All they had to do was include them in some fashion in preliminary pairings. Maybe pair them against Clemson. That would have adequately addressed it. Instead they created a false ceiling. Teams almost credible enough, but not quite. Pittsburgh retained the Belt until the following year, surrendering it to Penn St. Who surrendered it to Ohio St. Who weren't represented to the championship. But instead delegated secondary status. You can't see the problem? If you can't see the problem how are we supposed to repair it?
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Yeah I drink meth. Amphetamine. What about what I've written is so hard to follow? Honestly. I mean if it's so hard to follow and it seems fairly simple to me, what exactly is the problem? In 2017 the championship was split among four teams. That isn't difficult to understand. I said admit Pittsburgh, who admittedly were only 5-7. I said admit them because they were the Belt Champion. Actually even if you don't admit them they retain the Belt. That's the problem. All they had to do was include them in some fashion in preliminary pairings. Maybe pair them against Clemson. That would have adequately addressed it. Instead they created a false ceiling. Teams almost credible enough, but not quite. Pittsburgh retained the Belt until the following year, surrendering it to Penn St. Who surrendered it to Ohio St. Who weren't represented to the championship. But instead delegated secondary status. You can't see the problem? If you can't see the problem how are we supposed to repair it?
Click to expand...
i'm not havin any difficulty followin -
i think its the preacherman
who's strugglin -
 
TechRaiderRider said:
i'm not havin any difficulty followin -
i think its the preacherman
who's strugglin -
Click to expand...
Anyway if we admitted Pittsburgh that addresses the problem much better. But I can see why people might not like it. What actually happened was Miami, FL was admitted (over Pittsburgh) to the ACC Championship Game. If Pittsburgh goes (reasonable since they defeated Miami, FL) then the problem isn't so unreasonable. Clemson would advance by beating Pittsburgh. As it was, Miami, FL, disappointingly was lambasted by Clemson. But that might be partly because Pittsburgh took the luster off the game by beating Miami, FL. 24-14. It would have been a little better for every one if Miami had beaten Pitt.
 
Tenn"cock said:
Think of it as more of a sash... does that help?

I didn't think so... welcome to our world.

GIF-oh-you-laugh-laughing-GIF.gif
Click to expand...
Go ahead and mock it. I think it's arguably the best way to select a championship. And it simplifies things, too. Instead of having to watch every team which is actually impossible we can focus on the champion. Alabama. I reference 1984 a lot. BYU didn't win any Belt in 1984. In 1996 they did. By beatng Tulsa. A credible opponent. But they also lost to Washington. It clarifies things. It would seem to claim a championship BYU needed to beat Washington doesn't it? I mean fair is fair. The problem is Washington said no dice to BYU. That's why BYU substituted Michigan. But who BYU really needed to play was Miami, FL. IMHO. That's how U.C.L.A. managed to win the Belt. BYU actually (admittedly preliminary to 1984) beat U.C.L.A. Beat them handily, too. U.C.L.A. converted a Hail Mary late. Otherwise BYU wins handily. As it was they survived. 39-37 I think it was. They played again in 1985. U.C.L.A. defeated BYU. That's why Alabama (yes, Alabama) won a Belt. They defeated USC, 24-3. In the Aloha Bowl.
 
Preacherman said:
The belt thing, that’s what’s screwing with me.
Click to expand...
I didn't invent it. It wasn't my idea. I am using it because I feel it has a measure of legitimacy within it's construct. Actually it might be the best way to select a deserving national championship. Year to year. In 1984, as I've frequently mentioned, there was some controversy surrounding which team made claim to the title. Florida was exempted, but also failed to claim any measure of the Belt (a consequence of having lost to Miami, FL). Making it easier to eliminate teams like Florida. Very hard to claim a championship if you lose the title game. Was my point all along. And a valid obe, besides. An interesting fact is U.C.L.A. initially lost I think it was 42-3 to UNL. Nebraska, Lincoln. Obviously making U.C.L.A. questionable as a consequence. Along with losses to Oregon and Stanford. People who follow college football recognize that those teams are all pretty good. Then and now. So a deserving champion therefore necessarily has to prove Superior to all three. It's worth noting Washington St defeated both Stanford and Oregon. Making it easier to ascertsin whether BYU measures up. BYU (preliminary to 1984) beat U C.L.A. But they haven't beaten Oregon or Stanford. And I believe had beaten Washington St. What it boils down to is Utah. Utah played a comparable schedule to Wazzou. Lost to Wazzou, barely, in Pullman. And Tennessee. Call me crazy I'm saying BYU's win over Utah is comparable to playing Washington St. And winning. Making BYU superior to U.C.L.A. but not Nebraska. If BYU plays Nebraska, defeats them. I see no problem giving BYU the Belt. That didn't happen but probably should have. Since Washington said no. BYU isn't to blame for Washington's decision. It might even be fair to say Washington ducked BYU. As for Nebraska I really wish BYU had played them. Instead it was L.S.U. Still it's a fair bet had BYU been represented yo the Sugar Bowl, they might have won. BYU did eventually play Nebraska. 2016 I think it was. BYU managed to win. But it's clear there will always be controversy surrounding 1984. But BYU didn't get a free pass with Michigan. The toughest team as far as pass defense. And actually possibly the toughest opponent BYU could have scheduled on the fly as well. Given the predicament BYU was in.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
I didn't invent it. It wasn't my idea. I am using it because I feel it has a measure of legitimacy within it's construct. Actually it might be the best way to select a deserving national championship. Year to year. In 1984, as I've frequently mentioned, there was some controversy surrounding which team made claim to the title. Florida was exempted, but also failed to claim any measure of the Belt (a consequence of having lost to Miami, FL). Making it easier to eliminate teams like Florida. Very hard to claim a championship if you lose the title game. Was my point all along. And a valid obe, besides. An interesting fact is U.C.L.A. initially lost I think it was 42-3 to UNL. Nebraska, Lincoln. Obviously making U.C.L.A. questionable as a consequence. Along with losses to Oregon and Stanford. People who follow college football recognize that those teams are all pretty good. Then and now. So a deserving champion therefore necessarily has to prove Superior to all three. It's worth noting Washington St defeated both Stanford and Oregon. Making it easier to ascertsin whether BYU measures up. BYU (preliminary to 1984) beat U C.L.A. But they haven't beaten Oregon or Stanford. And I believe had beaten Washington St. What it boils down to is Utah. Utah played a comparable schedule to Wazzou. Lost to Wazzou, barely, in Pullman. And Tennessee. Call me crazy I'm saying BYU's win over Utah is comparable to playing Washington St. And winning. Making BYU superior to U.C.L.A. but not Nebraska. If BYU plays Nebraska, defeats them. I see no problem giving BYU the Belt. That didn't happen but probably should have. Since Washington said no. BYU isn't to blame for Washington's decision. It might even be fair to say Washington ducked BYU. As for Nebraska I really wish BYU had played them. Instead it was L.S.U. Still it's a fair bet had BYU been represented yo the Sugar Bowl, they might have won. BYU did eventually play Nebraska. 2016 I think it was. BYU managed to win. But it's clear there will always be controversy surrounding 1984. But BYU didn't get a free pass with Michigan. The toughest team as far as pass defense. And actually possibly the toughest opponent BYU could have scheduled on the fly as well. Given the predicament BYU was in.
Click to expand...
No, I don't follow this little description of belt/championship. But one thing I have noticed.
It seems like a pimping for byu for some reason.
 
LyquidMetal said:
No, I don't follow this little description of belt/championship. But one thing I have noticed.
It seems like a pimping for byu for some reason.
Click to expand...
My brother and sister both attended Brigham Young University. I have no affiliation with it. I attended Colorado University. And Colorado St. University. Never graduated. Not pimping BYU. I am trying to establish a protocol. Big difference. 1984 has been a problem because several teams feel slighted. Washington tried to appeal to Mark Emmert. To repeal BYU's claim. Florida was ineligible. But were recognized by the New York Times. Not Relative Proficiency, they aren't affiliated with me, either. But for all intents and purposes the same metric. It no longer exists, but Alabama likely would have been recognized as a national champion. Within that method of use. I don't have a metric. People who continually critique me are bashing their own head against a wall. I'm not a selector. Never said I was and never pretended to be. Kind of funny if you think about it. By belittling me, anyone who has a problem is being rather hypocritical. As far as Brigham Young I simply feel they were 2/3 qualified in 1984. Based upon empirical evidence. And Iowa was 1/3 qualified, by the same token. Making for a symbiotic title claim. Neither, independently, can claim it. Together, either has an equal claim upon it. Weird but fair and true to the metric I employ. But only to 96% proficiency. Meaning they fall short. By 4%. I'm awarding Florida the 4%. F.W.I.W. It should end the argument. But it probably won't. I don't have a boner for Brigham Young. I simply feel their record warrants a claim. I saw a retrospective on 1984 and while some claimed it was a fraudulent N C others sided with Brigham Young including Holly Rowe. Make of it whatever you want. Washington was second to USC. Pac-Ten. Air Force defeated Notre Dame. AFA was especially good. Even better in 1985. Nearly qualified for the national championship. A game they might have won if represented, given how well they played against Brigham Young. Who won. 28-21. Selected Brigham Young to play Ohio St. Florida Citrus Bowl. BYU lost. 1985. I'm not gilding the lily for Brigham Y.
 
Last edited:
OldDevilDawg said:
I been doing that for 54 years with limited success. Never give up.
Click to expand...
It hasn't worked for me either. I generally can't pretend to be anything other then what it is I am. Fake it until you make it isn't a good way to approach anything substantial. At least not in my life experience. It might work for another. It hadn't worked for me at all. F.W.I.W.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
My brother and sister both attended Brigham Young University. I have no affiliation with it. I attended Colorado University. And Colorado St. University. Never graduated. Not pimping BYU. I am trying to establish a protocol. Big difference. 1984 has been a problem because several teams feel slighted. Washington tried to appeal to Mark Emmert. To repeal BYU's claim. Florida was ineligible. But were recognized by the New York Times. Not Relative Proficiency, they aren't affiliated with me, either. But for all intents and purposes the same metric. It no longer exists, but Alabama likely would have been recognized as a national champion. Within that method of use. I don't have a metric. People who continually critique me are bashing their own head against a wall. I'm not a selector. Never said I was and never pretended to be. Kind of funny if you think about it. By belittling me, anyone who has a problem is being rather hypocritical. As far as Brigham Young I simply feel they were 2/3 qualified in 1984. Based upon empirical evidence. And Iowa was 1/3 qualified, by the same token. Making for a symbiotic title claim. Neither, independently, can claim it. Together, either has an equal claim upon it. Weird but fair and true to the metric I employ. But only to 96% proficiency. Meaning they fall short. By 4%. I'm awarding Florida the 4%. F.W.I.W. It should end the argument. But it probably won't. I don't have a boner for Brigham Young. I simply feel their record warrants a claim. I saw a retrospective on 1984 and while some claimed it was a fraudulent N C others sided with Brigham Young including Holly Rowe. Make of it whatever you want. Washington was second to USC. Pac-Ten. Air Force defeated Notre Dame. AFA was especially good. Even better in 1985. Nearly qualified for the national championship. A game they might have won if represented, given how well they played against Brigham Young. Who won. 28-21. Selected Brigham Young to play Ohio St. Florida Citrus Bowl. BYU lost. 1985. I'm not gilding the lily for Brigham Y.
Click to expand...
No, not calling you out on this personally. Just reading thru the mumbo jumbo of all this belt/proficiency babble, byu is mentioned so much it seems this is just a prop up byu thesis for some reason.
 
LyquidMetal said:
No, not calling you out on this personally. Just reading thru the mumbo jumbo of all this belt/proficiency babble, byu is mentioned so much it seems this is just a prop up byu thesis for some reason.
Click to expand...
I never attended Brigham Young University. I mention them because they were as school people I associate with were interested in. In 1984 Brigham Young mounted a charge. People can dispute the legitimacy if they want. But it has nothing to do with me. I never attended Brigham Young University. I have visited. Twice. I was present in the twentieth anniversary of their national championship. Against Notre Dame. Brigham Young defeated Notre Dame 20-17. Notre Dame finished 6-6 on the year. Trivialise it if you want. Brigham Young was 5-7 but still defeated Notre Dame. I think that's relevant info. Tyrone Williingham. Matt Berry was BYU's quarterback. A top recruit as I recall, Paul Shoemaker of Longmont didn't quite make the grade. These are memories of mine. I witnessed it. It's relevant. Do I have a hard on for Brigham Young athletcs? Not any bigger a boner than I do for colleges closer to home. The simple fact is BYU bucked a trend. It took decades. It wasn't like they appeared out of nowhere. Decades of years preceded it in which they were competitive. I believe one year included a win over Washington St. It's relevant because Washington St was a Belt Champion. Not that year, but approaching it. It is the Belt that selects a championship. Then and now. U.C.L.A. was a Belt Champion. In 1984. We can compare schedules. U.C.L.A. was lambasted by Nebraska, and lost to Oregon and Stanford. Ask anyone about the legitimacy of either. And Nebraska lost to Syracuse and Oklahoma. Brigham Young tied Pittsburgh. I saw a retrospective on that season and they admitted (believe it or not) Pittsburgh was unfairly denied a touchdown. That means instead of beating Pitt they tie. By the way if you want to argue this stuff, I'm willing to listen. But they said it was a tie so I'm calling it a tie. BYU therefore tied. And we're a co-champion. Iowa failed to win a championship. But together they rock! It's quite amazing really. But it makes BYU's claim all the sweeter since after including Iowa, all the bologna about failing to meet ye standard vanishes completely. Together they claim 96%. Four percent remains unclaimed. I'm o.k. with that rate of return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top