Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

Preacherman said:
Maybe I need to see a NCAAF championship belt. Post a pic of one and maybe I’ll get it then.
Click to expand...
Quite honestly and without making a joke the trophy CFP awards represents a Belt. I helped select it for that purpose. It has a football with four laces and two symmetric sides that represent the sides of a Belt. It's the same at least in construct. My fear 😨 is the organizers will abandon the Belt. It isn't a playoff. CFP is a championship. For a Belt.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
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.
Click to expand...
oh, i guess i had that backward -
go 'bows!
 
TechRaiderRider said:
oh, i guess i had that backward -
go 'bows!
Click to expand...
If you're asking me which team was the recipient to the Belt after Alabama won it in 1985 it's Penn St. Who went 12-0 in 1986. I mentioned Hawaii only because they were instrumental in assisting Brigham Young. That should be fairly evident. 7-4 would have been an unusual record for a Belt Champion. Ordinarily a team is clawing to get to the Belt. Hawaii wasn't in the chain. Brigham Young was, but were beaten by U.C.L.A. A Belt necessarily would have to follow from Penn State directly. Indirectly it does. Brigham Young beat Boston College prior to losing the Belt to U.C.L.A. in 1985. Boston College beat Syracuse, obviously, before taking on Houston in the Cotton. Syracuse beat Penn State. Penn St were beaten by Pittsburgh. Brigham Young tied Pittsburgh in the season opener. F.W.I.W.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
oh, i guess i had that backward -
go 'bows!
Click to expand...
Hawaii is among the more prominent programs within the Western Athletic Conference. In 1984 more especially, it would appear, but I'm not going to aggrandize them. You are free to firm your own opinion. But it would seem, at least to me, that season, more than another, demonstrated the Western Athletic Conference. Along with several other teams located West of the Mississippi. People will probably always through caution to the wind. Some people probably didn't want an outsider taking a title from a perennial champion like Oklahoma. It's worth noting that was the pairing everyone wanted. Washington elected to play Oklahoma in the Orange, a more prominent bowl, to their own detriment. Assuming Washington had beaten Brigham Young. There's a fair chance they claim a national title. Brigham Young tried to secure the best opponent possible.
Admittedly Michigan was disappointing. But in retrospect, they might have been the best team to test Brigham Young's strength. Passing the football. It seems unlikely to me Washington would have been able to contain Brigham Young. Washington maybe understood the problem and chose to pass on it. Obviously they were superior to Oklahoma. But given that USC beat Washington. A Belt NC actually was already lost by the Huskies. It's too bad Brigham Young and Oklahoma weren't paired together. But in retrospect the NC was between Brigham Young and Washington anyway. A game that never took place. Don't blame Brigham Young. They asked Washington and Washington said they weren't interested. Making it harder to secure a quality opponent. In all, I'd say things worked out for the best. Nobody's questioning whether or not Michigan was motivated. Those sorts of things weren't really applicable to games in 1984.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Hawaii is among the more prominent programs within the Western Athletic Conference. In 1984 more especially, it would appear, but I'm not going to aggrandize them. You are free to firm your own opinion. But it would seem, at least to me, that season, more than another, demonstrated the Western Athletic Conference. Along with several other teams located West of the Mississippi. People will probably always through caution to the wind. Some people probably didn't want an outsider taking a title from a perennial champion like Oklahoma. It's worth noting that was the pairing everyone wanted. Washington elected to play Oklahoma in the Orange, a more prominent bowl, to their own detriment. Assuming Washington had beaten Brigham Young. There's a fair chance they claim a national title. Brigham Young tried to secure the best opponent possible.
Admittedly Michigan was disappointing. But in retrospect, they might have been the best team to test Brigham Young's strength. Passing the football. It seems unlikely to me Washington would have been able to contain Brigham Young. Washington maybe understood the problem and chose to pass on it. Obviously they were superior to Oklahoma. But given that USC beat Washington. A Belt NC actually was already lost by the Huskies. It's too bad Brigham Young and Oklahoma weren't paired together. But in retrospect the NC was between Brigham Young and Washington anyway. A game that never took place. Don't blame Brigham Young. They asked Washington and Washington said they weren't interested. Making it harder to secure a quality opponent. In all, I'd say things worked out for the best. Nobody's questioning whether or not Michigan was motivated. Those sorts of things weren't really applicable to games in 1984.
Click to expand...
wow!
so if UW beats OU,
B.Y.U. doesnt have a claim
to a portion of the belt?
 
TechRaiderRider said:
wow!
so if UW beats OU,
B.Y.U. doesnt have a claim
to a portion of the belt?
Click to expand...
No. But thank you for being attentive. Oklahoma was more directly involved. And they were (at the time) ranked higher, and would have been a stand-in for Florida. Brigham Young needed to beat Florida. Florida carried a measure of the Belt into 1985. That's the game we needed to see.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
wow!
so if UW beats OU,
B.Y.U. doesnt have a claim
to a portion of the belt?
Click to expand...
Washington defeated Oklahoma. The Belt actually was lost by Washington to USC. A title pairing in the truest sense. Florida actually were defeated by Miami, FL. Miami, FL claimed the Belt from Auburn. If you are asking me which two teams ought to have been admitted to the National Championship I'm going to say Brigham Young and Florida. But the Belt Championship was in the Fiesta. Brigham Young deserved better. Is the point I'm making. Than what they got. By beating Oklahoma, effectively it became a two dog fight. But prior to that happening it was between Brigham Young and Oklahoma. A game that never happened. Washington beat Oklahoma. They were a NC contender.
 
Tenn"cock said:
Ok, it's a Saturday, nothing planned other than I need to do some laundry so....

Time to play some Madden!
Click to expand...

Had a great day playing Madden yesterday. Won so many wristbands.

giphy.gif
 
Tenn"cock said:
Had a great day playing Madden yesterday. Won so many wristbands.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Get back to me when a headband is on the chopping block. Wristbands are basketball. But I guess you can celebrate basketball games. I mostly don't. Wristbands are a little old school.
 
Last edited:
TechRaiderRider said:
wow!
so if UW beats OU,
B.Y.U. doesnt have a claim
to a portion of the belt?
Click to expand...
What it meant at the time was pairing be the two most deserving teams in a title game. Which, obviously might have been Brigham Young against Oklahoma. Except that there were tie-ins that prohibited it. One might argue 1984 was the synthesis from which the BCS (Bowl Coalition) was initiated.
People wanted to see it settled on the field.
Fast-forward to today's CFP. It's becoming, it would seem, more difficult to ascertain which two teams merit selection.
I will be the first to admit I struggle in my own characterization of what the championship is. Evidenced by my inability to give a simple rendering of it.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think the more teams represented, the greater the challenge to select a single championship.
I don't want to belabor the point. I think it's fairly evident, in hindsight, that Washington did everyone a disservice by not simply accepting the Holiday Bowl invitation.
I think it would have been more apparent to everyone which team merited a championship, if they had. It might have even been done maliciously. Hard to say, but it might have been done to undermine BYU's claim. At the time they were a controversial national champion contender. It's impossible to know (obviously) which team might have won, but Brigham Young was loaded for bear the following year. Although they failed to secure the Belt (U.C.L.A. defeated Brigham Young in dramatic fashion) they earned some legitimacy by taking U.C.L.A. to the wire. It wasn't advertised as a Belt Championship. I don't think people were cognizant of that being one of the titles up for grabs, but Belt title pairings are implicitly meaningful. People were interested and cared about the result.
Maybe there is something intuitive about it.
Regardless, Brigham Young qualified by beating Boston College in the Kickoff Classic. A highly touted pairing of teams.
Not a Belt title pairing but close. B.C. were the previous year's Cotton Bowl Champions.
A championship BYU won in 1997. Vs. K.S.U.
 
RazzlDazzl said:
He created a thread/poll about whether or not he was completely full of shit after I suggested it with my handle in the title.

He didn't fare well and said something to the effect that the voting was rigged.

After that, I pretty much stuck to only reading responses to his posts. No need to re-read the Illiad and Odyssey of 1984 BYU and a horribly contrived college football ranking method.
Click to expand...
In fairness to what you are referencing, I suggested 1984 be addressed in a poll I said I wouldn't participate in, letting people choose a champion which I said I'd honor. Someone attempted to sabotage it be creating an identity magic_underwear. Effectively undermining the legitimacy of it.
(Unless you really expect me to believe that individual voted fairly). What I did to legitimize it was remove his poll I assume went (unfairly) against BYU, cast my own to retrofit it. And it resulted in a tie. I was lambasted for it. But I believe my actions were warranted. I can't vote? Why not? I can't remove an illegal vote to the contrary?
Tye poll was trending toward BYU until the final stretch when it took an unexpected (and possibly illegal turn) against BYU.
I didn't stuff any ballot box. My vote was legal. It didn't turn it toward Brigham Young.
It resulted in a tie. Probably a fair result.
One I didn't campaign for. I went back on my promise to capitulate. But in Congress tye Vice President casts tye deciding vote in a tie. It was my poll and I cast the deciding vote. Which only left it in cahoots. Brigham Young didn't clear the final hurdle. Just like in real life they were left holding the bag .
That's called karna by the way. A Florida fan tried to cheat to a championship. Just like in real life. An honest person (me) took the place of the dishonest person. And made it fair, just like in real life it resulted in a tie.
Call me a cheater. Good luck with that! I never cheat but I will rectify an injustice. No I will not let Florida cheat themselves a NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top