Oregon Ducks 2016 Football Schedule At A Glance
Comments
-
Cri!!!!ngeHFNY said:Oregon is going all the way and winning a natty!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!11@!!!!!
-
I don't seem to recall saying they don't "count," but feel free to say more stupid shit.MikeSeaver said:
Do Rose Bowls no longer count now that Oregon wins them for fun?MakaDawg said:LOL
Winners win the games that matter.
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
I Remember when they used to Really, really, really count around here.
Larry Coker, 1, UW 1/2
-
Speaking of saying stupid shit, the fake Duck didn't say winning Alamo Bowls make Oregon "winners" either.MakaDawg said:
I don't seem to recall saying they don't "count," but feel free to say more stupid shit.MikeSeaver said:
Do Rose Bowls no longer count now that Oregon wins them for fun?MakaDawg said:LOL
Winners win the games that matter.
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
I Remember when they used to Really, really, really count around here.
Larry Coker, 1, UW 1/2
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
But keep up the cringe inducing dooging.
-
Fucking Allah.MikeSeaver said:
Speaking of saying stupid shit, the fake Duck didn't say winning Alamo Bowls make Oregon "winners" either.MakaDawg said:
I don't seem to recall saying they don't "count," but feel free to say more stupid shit.MikeSeaver said:
Do Rose Bowls no longer count now that Oregon wins them for fun?MakaDawg said:LOL
Winners win the games that matter.
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
I Remember when they used to Really, really, really count around here.
Larry Coker, 1, UW 1/2
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
But keep up the cringe inducing dooging.
What's cringe inducing is that you clearly don't understand my argument, so I'll make it really simple.
The national championship game is the most important game. Not debatable. Now, in my opinion, if you don't win the national championship (World Series, Super Bowl, whatever) you failed to win the game that mattered. In affect, no other games matter.
BCS wins are nice. They can be representative of a great season/team. However, they don't matter if you have the highest of expectations.
That's why a team like Alabama is a winner. They not only win consistently but they win the games that matter (or the game/NC) at a rate.
Oregon hasnt won the games that mattered when they've had the chance. Not a "winner" in my book. Sorry quook. That's the term right?
-
Be easy on @MikeSeaver.
Cumulative two-bit BCS victories by Oregon > Living in the Passed 1/2 natties.
But still, keep on poasting on the fringe doog as a quook boared feigning objectivity.
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
If we add them up, with the big game losses, does that supplant a real natty?
Asking for a fren...
-
MakaDawg said:
Fucking Allah.MikeSeaver said:
Speaking of saying stupid shit, the fake Duck didn't say winning Alamo Bowls make Oregon "winners" either.MakaDawg said:
I don't seem to recall saying they don't "count," but feel free to say more stupid shit.MikeSeaver said:
Do Rose Bowls no longer count now that Oregon wins them for fun?MakaDawg said:LOL
Winners win the games that matter.
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
I Remember when they used to Really, really, really count around here.
Larry Coker, 1, UW 1/2
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
But keep up the cringe inducing dooging.
What's cringe inducing is that you clearly don't understand my argument, so I'll make it really simple.
The national championship game is the most important game. Not debatable. Now, in my opinion, if you don't win the national championship (World Series, Super Bowl, whatever) you failed to win the game that mattered. In affect, no other games matter.
BCS wins are nice. They can be representative of a great season/team. However, they don't matter if you have the highest of expectations.
That's why a team like Alabama is a winner. They not only win consistently but they win the games that matter (or the game/NC) at a rate.
Oregon hasnt won the games that mattered when they've had the chance. Not a "winner" in my book. Sorry quook. That's the term right?
So in "the big ones" it's UW 1, UO 0?
As I said, you all used to run Rose Bowel!!!!11!! as your bread and butter until Oregon started winning them.
Nose, face and all that.
-
MisterEm said:
Be easy on @MikeSeaver.
Cumulative two-bit BCS victories by Oregon > Living in the Passed 1/2 natties.
But still, keep on poasting on the fringe doog as a quook boared feigning objectivity.
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
If we add them up, with the big game losses, does that supplant a real natty?
Asking for a fren...
Larry Coker has one of those too.
Don James 1, Larry Coker 1.
Looks like a tie from here.
-
A+ trolling effort by DJ
-
"As I said, you all used to run Rose Bowel!!!!11!! as your bread and butter until Oregon started winning them."
We all did?
(That's Raycist! .gif)
I've always thought Rose Bowls were nice consolation prizes for teams that failed to win it all. apparently not.
But since you're trying so hard to bring UW into this discussion, I'll indulge you with the inner doog you seem so certain is just itching to come out...
1/2 NATTY > ZERO!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!' Take that Oregon!!!!!!!!! Whoregon!!!!!!!!111111
Oh gosh, that feels so much better. Thank you.
-
You still listed Alamo Bowl and Runners up medals when those are clearly not Oregons highest achievments. Nor would any Duck use those as evidence of them being "winners" as it was being used.MakaDawg said:"As I said, you all used to run Rose Bowel!!!!11!! as your bread and butter until Oregon started winning them."
We all did?
(That's Raycist! .gif)
I've always thought Rose Bowls were nice consolation prizes for teams that failed to win it all. apparently not.
But since you're trying so hard to bring UW into this discussion, I'll indulge you with the inner doog you seem so certain is just itching to come out...
1/2 NATTY > ZERO!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!' Take that Oregon!!!!!!!!! Whoregon!!!!!!!!111111
Oh gosh, that feels so much better. Thank you.
You were being intellectually dishonest and still are.
Very strange
-
I'm sorry my sarcasm tainted your noble intellectual integrity. The Rose Bowl wins don't make Oregon a winner either, in my opinion, which can clearly be discerned from my frivolous argument.
You disagree, aand that's great.
-
There's nothing intellectual about it. At least to me anyway. You left out their highest accomplishments wether you see them fit to be celebrated or not.MakaDawg said:I'm sorry my sarcasm tainted your noble intellectual integrity. The Rose Bowl wins don't make Oregon a winner either, in my opinion, which can clearly be discerned from my frivolous argument.
You disagree, aand that's great.
Considering you don't have any affinity for BCS wins, (most notably, Rose Bowl wins) it seems like you would have listed those in the first place to make your point even more devastating to Duck readers.
I just think you're just being deliberately dishonest. Or maybe you're just not very good at this and I'm giving you too much credit.
-
MikeSeaver said:
There's nothing intellectual about it. At least to me anyway. You left out their highest accomplishments wether you see them fit to be celebrated or not.MakaDawg said:I'm sorry my sarcasm tainted your noble intellectual integrity. The Rose Bowl wins don't make Oregon a winner either, in my opinion, which can clearly be discerned from my frivolous argument.
You disagree, aand that's great.
Considering you don't have any affinity for BCS wins, (most notably, Rose Bowl wins) it seems like you would have listed those in the first place to make your point even more devastating to Duck readers.
I just think you're just being deliberately dishonest. Or maybe you're just not very good at this and I'm giving you too much credit.
Abundance. -
As always...MakaDawg said:MikeSeaver said:
There's nothing intellectual about it. At least to me anyway. You left out their highest accomplishments wether you see them fit to be celebrated or not.MakaDawg said:I'm sorry my sarcasm tainted your noble intellectual integrity. The Rose Bowl wins don't make Oregon a winner either, in my opinion, which can clearly be discerned from my frivolous argument.
You disagree, aand that's great.
Considering you don't have any affinity for BCS wins, (most notably, Rose Bowl wins) it seems like you would have listed those in the first place to make your point even more devastating to Duck readers.
I just think you're just being deliberately dishonest. Or maybe you're just not very good at this and I'm giving you too much credit.
Abundance.
