Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Not exactly. But in a way that's nearly impossible to explain, yes, it did! It's based upon the presumption Arizona in 1984 was a legitimate title contender. 7-4 is what they were. Unable to advance and pedestrian in most respects except for one. L.S.U. A game they probably ought to have won but didn't.
Actually the basis for selection, ultimately is Hawaii. But Hawaii also was 7-4. Unremarkable. But relevant. Fresno is the pin linking 1984 to 1985, and Arizona is the glue. No, it wasn't for a Belt. But a variation.
The basis would have been Fresno (6-6) having beaten Arizona. Which in fact they did. Hawaii would be the beneficiary. But if you look at where that puts Hawaii. Between Brigham Young and Iowa. Both having won. Makes the championship more universal. Fresno gave assistance by beating Arizona.
Click to expand...
wow!
so fresno prevented the rainbow warriors
from takin their share
of the belt -
 
TechRaiderRider said:
wow!
so fresno prevented the rainbow warriors
from takin their share
of the belt -
Click to expand...
No. Hawaii beat Fresno. I said there is a strong connection, year-to-year to the national championship and the Belt. I said Hawaii prevented Fresno St to any claim on it. I said Hawaii as a result was pivotal in the selection of a deserving national champion the preceding year when Hawaii went 7-4.
Fresno St was 6-6. You tell me who the better team is. Obviously it's Hawaii. Although admittedly, in 1985 they simply tied. Arizona played into it because they lost to Fresno St but lost to L.S.U. F.W.I.W. But at 7-4 they were roughly comparable to HI.
I know what you are doing. You are mocking me. Its been tried before. I told you about Switzer. He mocked Jim Sweeney. Fresno St. The sad reality is without Brigham Young's assistance in 1985 (Brigham Young defeated Air Force) no it wasn't a Belt title.
I outlined that, too, sufficiently well. Alabama won the Belt National Title in 1985. Vs. USC.
24-3 in the Aloha Bowl. In 1984 a similar situation arose when Notre Dame played S. Methodist and lost. 27-20. Not a Belt NC. The Belt was played in the Fiesta Bowl. O.k.?
 
Copejunkie said:
Just no man. They beat a middle of the road texas team. Iowa was 8-4-1 that year. Iowa football and national championship were not mentioned in the same sentence that year ever. BYU was awarded the trophy, that's what matters. They earned it, by beating a not so good Michigan team to go undefeated.
Click to expand...
It will eventually be proven valid. I'm confident of that being the case. I never suggested independently Iowa was a nation champion. I said they measured favorably against it. Which they do. Ask anyone. At some point all of you people will have to admit I'm right about practically everything pertaining to the title. Plus, you can't have it both ways. You just admitted to me that Brigham Young's title lacks pizazz. It does!
To a fairly significant level. 1/3 in fact deficient. Made evident by research I've done. Honestly at some point it will do you well to simply join me on my crusade through Nottingham to Windsor Castle. You don't have to believe it. I KNOW what I'm doing. Yes, Iowa at 8-4-1 in 1984 were co-champions with Brigham Young. Not some b.s. I'm making up to fudge the numbers. Look at Michigan the following year. You will see precisely how it becomes evident to almost anyone why it is. Iowa beat Michigan. Honestly, if that isn't registering then I pity you. Iowa prevented a Michigan NC. I'm guessing Iowa was pretty good. Both seasons. Because this isn't the NFL. Teams don't turn on a dime, ever. It's actually quite pitiful I have to outline it, but I will. Yes, Texas played a pivotal role. So did Hawaii.
Iowa defeated both. Hawaii beat Fresno St.
Fresno St beat a talented Arizona team that nearly upset L.S.U. in Baton Rouge. L.S.U. was 8-3-1. Were beaten in the Sugar Bowl. Nebraska defeated them. Nebraska was 10-2. I shouldn't have to go into detail why a team as talented as Nebraska at 10-2 isn't considered a legitimate title contender. Two losses eliminates. Simple as that. When Georgia lost to Alabama in 2017 they were 13-2. Close, but no cigar. Nobody wants a two loss national champion. Simple as that.
 
Preacherman said:
This whole belt thing only makes sense in wrestling to me.
Click to expand...
It's a spin on the same principle. It isn't my idea. I simply strongly agree with it. In FCS right now there's been a changing of the guard (long overdue if you ask me). It probably demonstrates the principle better, given it's what supposedly everyone thinks is the superior method (24 single elimination tournament). I can now blast it out of the water without much difficulty. Playoffs are stupid, are cost-ineffective and mostly, simply vacuous in their intensity.
I try to be fair. I always am. I mentioned the year a 9-2 team (two losses ought to eliminate) made it to the Championship. There's a marker commemorating it! Where I live they dedicated part of a grizzly bear statue in behalf of a team that advanced to the national championship. Great!
Helluva accomplishment regardless.
But at 9-2 in my book they were undeserving.
Others will disagree. Let them disagree.
My point is, and will remain that a championship is less about the post-season. Where this particular team shone, and much more about the regular season. Where Adams St College struggled. 71-21 was the result of one game played in Grand Junction.
To me that's a disqualifier. Ipso facto.
Sayonara sucker!
But the other side of the argument would be that very team had the stones to rise above it. To getting to the championship. Quite remarkable. Almost like a Hollywood production except for the end result. Ultimately they fell short. To Carson Newman. It wasn't exactly Hoosiers. But similar, as far as the method to which it fell.
Anyway, my point is we don't need 'also-rans' contending for the Championship.
People might not like it. But you can see the result. Massive confusion about what admits, for one thing. Adams State was good. Not suggesting otherwise. We still celebrate in memorial that season. It nearly resulted in a national championship. It would have been a coup-de-gras if it had. I'm a personal friend of the coach who lead the charge. Jeff Geiser. Was instrumental.
My point is 9-2 teams aren't deserving.
They !shouldn't advance unless circumstances necessitate it. That season they were actually seventeenth. Admitted on a technicality that disqualified another team, deemed better suited to the format. (If that doesn't prove my point, nothing will). They weren't even invited! Barely got in, I'm guessing because of their record. Nobody expected them to last beyond one game, maybe two if they were lucky!
That they did was a testament to that teams tenacity. Bob Saiz set multiple school passing records. As a quarterback.
The following season they played Emporia St. Leon Lett. Was a player for Emporia St.
Anyway,in FCS right now North Dakota would be the frontrunner for a championship. It's what I like to see happen. And no it ISN'T a Belt. But it addresses what I consider relevant. Winning football games.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
yes handi,
i have been mocking you this whole thread -.

bwahahaha -
Click to expand...
But why? You don't think a championship is sequential? Teams don't rise to the occasion? Why is everyone so conditioned to thinking in only one way? Tampa lost five games. That means (how else can you explain it?) Five other teams were superior to Tampa Bay. The NFL is seriously jacked up! Twelve games IS a SEASON in the NCAA. That's not my interpretation. Actually there probably ought not to be ANY post-season pairings apart from bowl pairings.
What are people trying to do? It isn't complicated. To circumvent issues with post-season scheduling they are trying to take conference championships out. Actually all I have to do is point to the FCS.
That's what people are trying to do. Tell me how many people follow FCS football.
I don't care which games include them all.
If playoffs were do much better why is EVERY FCS team hoping they'll be admitted to FBS? Seriously. FCS football so much better? Get real. Actually the Belt would serve them better, too. N. Dakota. Better I think than a protracted regular season. Followed by a lame post-season. Watch FCS Tell me afterwards hiw much more entertaining because I think you're FOFS!
 
Preacherman said:
I’m having a mental block with this whole concept
Click to expand...
I'll be the first to admit it might pose a challenge. I'm trying to simplify it. It really isn't too difficult to follow once you get the hang of it. Like a lot of things it's something you have to warm up to. But a proper selection should make it simpler as far as a title pairing goes. 1990 might be a good example. Even though Colorado didn't secure the Belt until AFTER beating Notre Dame, it was apparent to many they were going to challenge. A smarter pairing might have given Georgia Tech fair opportunity. Of course, that's more easily seen in retrospect. But the Belt nevertheless fell to Colorado Which might explain why some consider them better suited to the Championship. What I'm trying to do is secure both sides of a Belt without taking any shine off the trophy. It could make life a lot easier if people simply admitted there might be an easier way. I know it's confusing. Hopefully that will fade
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Headband, fool!
Click to expand...

See if you can spot the common element is all of these -

giphy.gif
giphy.gif
giphy.gif
giphy.gif
d5a667e4b90d78e2ae8f63cccd81ff10.gif
tumblr_mme9ilZn7P1rbma2ko1_500.gif
Burrow-and-LSU-win.gif
 
Tenn"cock said:
Oh I see the disconnect. You don't know the meaning of "Headband" .... no those are called "Hats". Now that is your word of the day... go out and use it in a sentence.
Click to expand...
Get real. You've never seen pro-wrestlers wear headbands? It's part of their get-up.
 
Preacherman said:
This whole belt thing only makes sense in wrestling to me.
Click to expand...
It's the same idea. It wasn't my idea.I simply tend to agree with the method. If you want a better example look to the FCS. They utilize a championship. I'm saying it's unnecessary. N. Dakota is the Belt Champion. Well, front-runner anyway. S. Illinois has the Belt, but they previously lost to N. Dakota. S. Illinois recently beat N. Dakota St. That's why they carry a mesure of the Belt forward. N. Dakota has a measure since they previously beat S. Illinois. Simple enough, isn't it?
 
TechRaiderRider said:
yes handi,
i have been mocking you this whole thread -.

bwahahaha -
Click to expand...
But you can't believe a championship is sequential? That's the last I can't Belt people aren't getting. Yeah Fresno St was instrumental to the national championship. That wasn't some line of b.s. and it's easily demonstrated. Hawaii was the ONLY team standing in their way. Otherwise it's conceivable they might have challenged Oklahoma for one in 1985. Go ahead and laugh. Doesn't bother me any. Fresno St. nearly advanced. Barry Switzer tried to use it as a punchline I'm guessing to diminish Brigham Young's title claim. Hawaii stood in Brigham Young's way. Look at Oklahoma at Hawaii. Same season, 1983. Nearly lost!
It's sad in a way. People want to diminish Brigham Young's claim. Whatever.
I've demonstrated it's a legitimate national championship. Baylor was a major reason. Brigham Young lost to Baylor in 1983. In 1984 beat them convincingly.
Baylor was 9-3 in 1985 and beat L.S.U. in the Liberty Bowl. Grant Teaff congratulated LaVell Edwards on the 1984 national championship. Barry Switzer admitted Brigham Young was a better team than Oklahoma. That season.
Fresno St. managed to go 11-0-1. Hawaii tied Fresno St. Hawaii obviously was decent. Fresno St beat Arizona. Who nearly beat L.S.U. Didn't. But nearly did. I'm guessing even a 6-6 Fresno St football team is probably pretty respectable. F.W.I.W.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
wow!
so fresno prevented the rainbow warriors
from takin their share
of the belt -
Click to expand...
If you really want to follow the protocol, and I'm guessing maybe in spite of your sarcasm you might, it actually has more to do with Arizona than it does to Hawaii. Arizona was 7-4. Respectable. Hawaii was 7-4. Fresno St. was 6-6. Obviously that's not Belt material. But because Fresno went 11-0-1 in 1985, it adds emphasis to the championship. I can outline it better, but as far as the Belt goes, it's irrelevant. Alabama won the Belt.
The Championship was won by Oklahoma. They are two separate things. Brigham Young won (together with Iowa) the Championship. A consequence of having previously beaten U.C.L.A. in a title game. I.C.L.A. were a Belt Champion. 1974. Follow? Hawaii was bookended by Brigham Young and Iowa. No Belt required. Fresno St were beaten initially after beating Arizona. Arizona were 7-4 just like Hawaii. An interesting bowl pairing might have included both of those teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top