Season proficiency ratings title contenders

CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Like I said, but for having lost to Navy you make an excellent point! The cold hard reality is they surrendered whatever claim they might otherwise have had to the Midshipmen. Who, in turn, surrendered it to Army. Who were, in fact quite credible a team. Both seasons. But, inferior, it would seem to anyone holding the Belt. Although admittedly it might have made a good pairing in retrospect against U.C.LA. But I'm mostly glad with how things went. U.C.L.A. secured the Belt and I believe Notre Dame secured whatever it was Army secured. Following season but it made S. Methodist's win against Notre Dame (Aloha Bowl) all the sweeter. Brigham Young required assistance. They hadn't beaten Notre Dame but had beaten S. Methodist. Aloha Bowl.
Actually a lot hinged on S. Methodist.
Lost to Houston and to Texas. Texas lost to Iowa. Houston lost to Boston College. Boston College (following year) lost to Brigham Young University. Opening game. 28-14. In YOUR twisted world it would appear to ME we gave a co- championship.
Brighton Young and Iowa. Your rules, obviously. Apparently they were wearing shoulder pads. Us that your metric? J/W.
Click to expand...

The only metric that truly matters:

Wristbands

South-Carolina-football-2010.jpg
 
Tenn"cock said:
The only metric that truly matters:

Wristbands

South-Carolina-football-2010.jpg
Click to expand...
Apparently those aren't surrendered when a team loses but whatever. If you want to coronate a champion based upon as mediocre a record (10-2) as S. Carolina, be my guest. I said Brigham Young needed assistance. Iowa helps close the gap but I'm a perfectionist. Should I recognize 96% if a NC? Even then I have a quandary. Brigham Young/Iowa aren't solitary proprietors. By that metric at best they simply share a Natty with tye the Florida Gators/Louisiana St. Tigers. That's the Gawd awful truth
So to get either team over the last hurdle tgey have to mend fences. Which I believe they can. Co-champions. Forever united together. Which I believe I said ought to be the modal, anyway. Earlier in this thread I falsely stated Brigham Young can claim it independently to Florida. That's incorrect..
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
I never attended Brigham Young University. My brother did but I never did. I'm really not very closely connected to their religious philosophy. I know something about it but not enough to position me very high among those who are engaged.
As far as Brigham Young football I've only seen them play a few times. One time I believe was in 1997 when they played New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Kevin Feterik was the quarterback. He was quite talented! That should bode well fir Alabama since they defeated Brigham Young in 1998. 38-31. It wasn't some run-of-the-mill football team is the point I'm making. But believe whatever you want.
You began by complaining it seems of the quality of competition you fade. Maybe if you quit ducking teams of the caliber of Brigham Young you will have less to complain about is the point I'm making. Quit making excuses when you lose. O.K?
Click to expand...
//You began by complaining it seems of the quality of competition you fade. Maybe if you quit ducking teams of the caliber of Brigham Young you will have less to complain about is the point I'm making. Quit making excuses when you lose. O.K?\\
WTF is this babble about. Complaining? Me? BAMA is on a historic run that has so many fans spinning in circles and hating on it as to make one wonder. And BAMA has been on the map since the 1920's. A genuine blue blood of the college football world if there ever is a definition, there it is.
BYU is nowhere near this category,
But you have this byu thing about you that makes it appear you worship at the shrine of whatever statue is on the campus.
 
Big 8 Rules said:
Is it at all possible these belts we speak of are garter belts?
Click to expand...
Quite possible. Although Ive never been in the company of a seamstress. Quite possible, nevertheless. The Belt in reality IS the CFP Championship. It might not make any sense. It's largely symbolic. The trophy seems to convey what I believe to be two sides woven together. For sake of unity. My thinking is there need to be two equally qualified participants within the mix. I tire of all the hullabaloo. It's not the greatest thing ever. I'm a little baffled about why people make so much if something that's largely symbolic in nature. It isn't the crux of all things sacred it's a championship game. 1985 had at least two of them. Possibly three. Whoop-ti-fucking-doo. It's still just a football game. I'm still confused as to why any of it matters. I met a classmate if my dad's. I'll even give his name. Wayne Wallendorf. Won a high school football game against Center, CO.. Center, CO is a rural farming community in central San Luis Valley. Not a metropolis. A tiny place. Alamosa is something like a metropolis in comparison. Anyway he thought he was king shit fir playing in a state championship. I obviously never did but we DID play Center and it wasn't anything to write home about, trust me. People need to lighten the FUCK up. At the end if tye say regardless of whose involved it's two amateur programs playing for ultimately what amounts to being a trophy of little relevance other than the reo participants. It isn't the be-all, end-all and most people probably couldn't care less. The people who think it's the greatest thing ever are shallow. I simply wanted to make it more transparent. Who gets there. And I've been fought at every turn as if I'm trying to undermine someone. It would be interesting to me to learn what people associated with it really think of it. I wouldn't know but I'm guessing if they were honest they might not say it was anything other than. O.k.
I'm guessing that because I remember my own experience. I wasn't any good but I gut little satisfaction trying to prove something to people I mostly couldn't stand. Championship or no wouldn't have changed my outlook much if at all. Let's pretend Alabama won EVERY national championship ever. 150-0. So FUCKING what? Who FUCK'ING cares? 150-0 and counting. I couldn't care LESS!
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Quite possible. Although Ive never been in the company of a seamstress. Quite possible, nevertheless. The Belt in reality IS the CFP Championship. It might not make any sense. It's largely symbolic. The trophy seems to convey what I believe to be two sides woven together. For sake of unity. My thinking is there need to be two equally qualified participants within the mix. I tire of all the hullabaloo. It's not the greatest thing ever. I'm a little baffled about why people make so much if something that's largely symbolic in nature. It isn't the crux of all things sacred it's a championship game. 1985 had at least two of them. Possibly three. Whoop-ti-fucking-doo. It's still just a football game. I'm still confused as to why any of it matters. I met a classmate if my dad's. I'll even give his name. Wayne Wallendorf. Won a high school football game against Center, CO.. Center, CO is a rural farming community in central San Luis Valley. Not a metropolis. A tiny place. Alamosa is something like a metropolis in comparison. Anyway he thought he was king shit fir playing in a state championship. I obviously never did but we DID play Center and it wasn't anything to write home about, trust me. People need to lighten the FUCK up. At the end if tye say regardless of whose involved it's two amateur programs playing for ultimately what amounts to being a trophy of little relevance other than the reo participants. It isn't the be-all, end-all and most people probably couldn't care less. The people who think it's the greatest thing ever are shallow. I simply wanted to make it more transparent. Who gets there. And I've been fought at every turn as if I'm trying to undermine someone. It would be interesting to me to learn what people associated with it really think of it. I wouldn't know but I'm guessing if they were honest they might not say it was anything other than. O.k.
I'm guessing that because I remember my own experience. I wasn't any good but I gut little satisfaction trying to prove something to people I mostly couldn't stand. Championship or no wouldn't have changed my outlook much if at all. Let's pretend Alabama won EVERY national championship ever. 150-0. So FUCKING what? Who FUCK'ING cares? 150-0 and counting. I couldn't care LESS!
Click to expand...

LOL... This. is. hilarious.

I am not even sure if I should bother pointing all that's wrong with this other than the obvious. I need to finish my coffee and think about it.
 
Tenn"cock said:
LOL... This. is. hilarious.

I am not even sure if I should bother pointing all that's wrong with this other than the obvious. I need to finish my coffee and think about it.
Click to expand...
The reality is S. Carolina whether or not you want to admit it, helped select the national championship. Which is actually a GOOD thing. I'm really not sure why this has to be a knock-down, drag-out. Teams rise and fall. S. Carolina, even if undefeated would have been an unusual choice. Do I really have to outline why?
I guess I can, why not? Texas lost to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl. 10-9.
These aren't difficult concepts to follow. Georgia, therefore assumes Texas's role, whatever claim they (Longhorns) might otherwise have had to a National Championship is now surrendered to Georgia. Appropriately so, as bowl games, indeed are title pairings. Texas lost (obviously) to Georgia. Georgia is therefore summarily given free reign over Texas's title claim otherwise bestowed upon them.
Cotton Bowl Champions, in other words! See how simple that becomes? If Michigan had beaten Brigham Young, obviously, the championship Brigham Young claims (a consequence of having beaten Michigan) falls upon the Wolverines.
Pretty cut and dried. Although it would be an unusual circumstance for that to convey a national championship. But Brigham Young would have surrendered it.
Making the pairing relevant. And essential to the condition of a title, all the same.
Anyway, S. Carolina assumed the role (essentially) of Texas, 1983 after beating Georgia. That should be fairly self evident. They (retroactively applied) effectively become what WAS the Cotton Bowl and what might BE significantly more. At least until they lost to Navy. At which time it became Navy's championship to lose.
Pretty cut and dried. Army beat Navy. Army therefore carried what WAS Georgia's claim to the national championship into 1985. Notre Dame I believe reclaims it.
Taking the line (reversing my method and taking it backwards to 1984). Obviously means the Aloha Bowl (like it did the following year as a Belt Championship) has meaning. S. Methodist defeated Notre Dame 27-20. S. Methodist was 10-2.
Same as S. Carolina. Clearly neither team was a national champion.
Houston was defeated by Boston College. In.........the Cotton Bowl. Boston College at 10-2 is an unlikely national champion. And whatever claim they had was surrendered (following year) to Brigham Young University. 28-14. Texas lost to Iowa 55-17. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude a national championship pertaining to the Cotton Bowl falls directly into Brigham Young's hands. Not coincidentally I'd say Brigham Young defeating Kansas State is evidence that the Cotton Bowl was Brigham Young's National Championship. 1997. Defeated 9-2 Kansas State, 19-15. A year they co-championed with Florida.
 
Big 8 Rules said:
Then I’m on board with the belt.
Click to expand...
The Belt is just another way of saying national championship. The problem is it's hardly ever united. It probably ought to be, and I can matriculate a way to make it so. But I'd rather it unify ITSELF. I keep mentioning 1984. Not because I'm enamored with 1984. It simply makes good fodder for discussion. I just stated how S. Methodist in a game traditionally not especially relevant to ANY national championship nevertheless had a bearing (a consequence of the fact S. Methodist successfully vanquished Notre Dame). Who ought to claim a share of the NC. In my opinion (based solely upon empirical evidence, and nothing else) a S. Methodist team whose two losses were to Houston and Texas, might otherwise claim a share! At 12-0 it would be hard to deny them. Similarly with S. Carolina. Whose two losses were to Navy (the Midshipmen were surprisingly decent at 4-7-1). And Oklahoma St. (Whose two losses were to Nebraska and Oklahoma). My thinking is even if it's circumstantial (and admittedly it IS). Nevertheless there's a trail, following Syracuse (defeated Army, Nebraska but lost to Boston College). Who beat Houston.
Houston lost to Louisville (2-9) , who lost to (at the time) 9-0: Indiana St. Who lost to Tulsa. Brigham Young defeated Tulsa (John Cooper, 5-0 in MVC, a conference Nebraska played in in 1915 and won a national title).
Circumstantial? You bet! Entirely circumstantial. But Tulsa is a damn fine football team notwithstanding!
Anyway Brigham Young's claim to the Belt it would seem hinges on Boston College.
Cotton Bowl Champions. BYU beat them, following year (Kickoff Classic) 28-14.
Lest you snipe at that, and you might, it was the same game Miami, FL won to secure the Belt. Against Auburn. But BYU failed to unite the Belt. U.C.L.A. succeeded. Won.
The Belt NC was between USC and Alabama.
The Aloha Bowl. Alabama won 24-3. A rout.
Penn St (retroactively) in 1985 beat Alabama 6-3. That's how Oklahoma (against 11-0 Penn State) secured the national championship. Air Force lost to BYU, otherwise they are represented to it.
These are facts. Oklahoma can't win a NC (1985) without Brigham Young's assistance.
Likewise, Brigham Young can't claim 1984 without assistance. Actually the national championship is shared between Brigham Young and Florida. United we stand.
None of this is open to interpretation. BYU and Florida share the championship. A simple pairing might have been sufficient
But Florida was ineligible. Making it universally (in my estimation) Brigham Young's. Likewise, a NC in 1996 removes Brigham Young and remits Florida. Fairly.
We should no longer have to debate this trifle. Brigham Young requires assistance.
Iowa is available. So BYU shares a NC. Iowa.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
My point is it was an incomplete pass attempt behind the line of scrimmage recovered by the defense. It wasn't called. I guess every play is open to interpretation. It's impossible at this point to reverse it. But if in FACT it can be proven that Gilbert intentionally threw it away, like I suspect he did, with no wide receiver in the vicinity, that ought to have been ruled intentional grounding. Simple as that. Thanks, friend! It would have resulted in loss of down and distance. I think that makes it second and long from the three yard line. F.W.I.W. Difficult, but not impossible. The kind of thing from which legends are made. Like Elway. Sad in a way we didn't get that ruling. It isn't exactly cheating. The official has the last say on what the correct call is. That's what upset me. The ruling on the play. I guess people would have been upset regardless. I think its second and 30 from the three. Another problem I had a player that recovered it impeded the intended receiver. I'm not sure how that works. But intentional grounding eliminates that problem, entirely. F.W.I.W. The better team likely won I just don't want people bragging about it after the fact Alabama won a national championship. Cool. Let's move on to something else.
Click to expand...
yep -
in this day of techknowlegy,
we aught to be able to
correctly spot the ball -
i've recommended a sensor
on each end (nose) of the ball -
therefour,
there's no dispute on the ball placement
and the line to gain -
 
TechRaiderRider said:
yep -
in this day of techknowlegy,
we aught to be able to
correctly spot the ball -
i've recommended a sensor
on each end (nose) of the ball -
therefour,
there's no dispute on the ball placement
and the line to gain -
Click to expand...
He threw the football into the ground. I don't see any other explanation. He obviously was attempting to avoid being sacked. That's intentional grounding. Loss of down AND distance. I don't know whether or not a pass intentionally grounded can be recovered. My best guess is it probably can't. But even if it CAN seems pretty unlikely to me it's a change of possession. Therefore the correct ruling is loss of down. Second and forever from the three yard line. That shouldn't upset anyone with a conscience. F.W.I.W.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
He threw the football into the ground. I don't see any other explanation. He obviously was attempting to avoid being sacked. That's intentional grounding. Loss of down AND distance. I don't know whether or not a pass intentionally grounded can be recovered. My best guess is it probably can't. But even if it CAN seems pretty unlikely to me it's a change of possession. Therefore the correct ruling is loss of down. Second and forever from the three yard line. That shouldn't upset anyone with a conscience. F.W.I.W.
Click to expand...

And this is why we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that RP boy here, has never been, nor will ever be, a ref. That is the thing with "crazy currency" as soon as they spend a bunch of it, they still have an unlimited supply ready to throw at the next crazy ass statement they make.
 
Tenn"cock said:
And this is why we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that RP boy here, has never been, nor will ever be, a ref. That is the thing with "crazy currency" as soon as they spend a bunch of it, they still have an unlimited supply ready to throw at the next crazy ass statement they make.
Click to expand...
Referee. That's the guy who calls it square. Oh, I didn't call him by his proper title. W/e. You're just as pathetic as everyone else I know. Get a life! I do call it square. You can't handle reality it would seem. So you blame me and anyone else who disagrees with whatever verdict you've rendered. Guess what? I like to live in a place I call, REALITY. You might like it here. It's fun. I'm the crazy one? I'm not the one trying to justify a win against an inferior team. That's REALITY. Alabama couldn't beat a Texas team with a wounded quarterback. Well, I guess they COULD, but not easily.
Yeah they really proved something didn't they? Kind of like Rock'em, Sock'em robots.
 
LyquidMetal said:
It's just fantasy.
And a glitch in the matrix.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's a little ironic isn't it? When one person tries to prove another wrong and gets caught in his own web of lies? S. Carolina can't claim any part of 1984. They actually make a textbook example of why a team (10-2) isn't deserving. By any measure. But I bet nobody thought the same method I think ought to be used to select a deserving national champion would also hang the Game Cocks.
I win this battle. Easily. I admitted BYU's claim was insufficient in it's own merits. But I bet nobody guessed I'd find an ally. Iowa.
Together (and it's important they remain together) they accomplish much more than either can apart from each other.
And I don't have to bullshit my way through life. If you guys don't want to admit you're wrong that's not my problem, anyway.
Florida wasn't removed. I included them. But their being ineligible sure makes it hard to give them the trophy now doesn't it? But the reality (and I like living in reality) is Brigham Young was a better team than UF in 1984.
Just like UF was a better team in 1996.
I could cry, piss and moan all day long.
Truth speaks volumes. Brigham Young merited a Championship in 1984. Florida merited one in 1996. That isn't being partisan. That's called playing fair within the rules. Honestly it's disgusting. We should be grateful there was an alternative to a cheater. A fair and reasonable and DESERVING team. Not a replacement. A DESERVING national champion! Ask Holly Rowe. I'm sick of this horseshit quite frankly.
No a lackadaisical S. Carolina wasn't more deserving than a team (Brigham Young). Iowa. Co-champions. A great combination. A deserving NC. To 96%. Same as what Florida claimed in 1996. 96%. I guess that's the baseline for relevancy. But what do I know about it?
 
Big 8 Rules said:
View attachment 5571
Click to expand...
Yes in fact it IS! It's sad in a way but like I predicted I am right in my methodology. It's funny because people want to blame me as if I've done something bad. The national championship is a conflux of methods I espouse. Whether or not people like it is completely immaterial. Look at the ratings. They speak volumes. Why is it nobody can point to any one (go ahead, make my day) and show me how mistakenly wrong I am? It's because intelligent people cover their ass is my guess. I've covered my ass. Try to disprove any part of it. You will lose! Just as I predicted. People want to prove me wrong.
Guess what? I win, you lose, deal with it!
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
He threw the football into the ground. I don't see any other explanation. He obviously was attempting to avoid being sacked. That's intentional grounding. Loss of down AND distance. I don't know whether or not a pass intentionally grounded can be recovered. My best guess is it probably can't. But even if it CAN seems pretty unlikely to me it's a change of possession. Therefore the correct ruling is loss of down. Second and forever from the three yard line. That shouldn't upset anyone with a conscience. F.W.I.W.
Click to expand...
that seems very reasonable -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top