Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
In the last ten years Oregon and Alabama are tied for the most wins.
Do you have a better definition of winning fuck-O? Is it your half trophy and made up banner from the olden days?
LOL
Like I said, winners win the games that matter. Alabama has done that. Ohio State has done that. Oregon? Not so much.
And, I'm sorry- Did I bring Washington into the discussion? No. They're not winners either, and I was a grunting, shitting, combative "fuck-O" (!!!!!!) of an infant when the Huskies won their Natty (or half a natty- whatever makes you feel better). I don't cling to that raft. You clearly do though.
But you go ahead and hang your hat on the fact that Oregon has won the same amount of games as Alabama in a decade. I guess Oregon is a winner like Alabama by that logic. Or are we breaking it down into tiers? Participation trophies?
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
Do Rose Bowls no longer count now that Oregon wins them for fun?
I Remember when they used to Really, really, really count around here.
Larry Coker, 1, UW 1/2
I don't seem to recall saying they don't "count," but feel free to say more stupid shit.
Speaking of saying stupid shit, the fake Duck didn't say winning Alamo Bowls make Oregon "winners" either.
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
But keep up the cringe inducing dooging.
Fucking Allah.
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?
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
Do Rose Bowls no longer count now that Oregon wins them for fun?
I Remember when they used to Really, really, really count around here.
Larry Coker, 1, UW 1/2
I don't seem to recall saying they don't "count," but feel free to say more stupid shit.
Speaking of saying stupid shit, the fake Duck didn't say winning Alamo Bowls make Oregon "winners" either.
There's those 3 BCS wins too you know.
But keep up the cringe inducing dooging.
Fucking Allah.
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.
"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
"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.
You were being intellectually dishonest and still are.
Comments
Winners win the games that matter.
Runner-ups and Alamo Bowls don't make Oregon a winner.
Of course they will lose 3 or 4 games and by November that dream will be distant mammory,
But still.
Do you have a better definition of winning fuck-O? Is it your half trophy and made up banner from the olden days?
Like I said, winners win the games that matter. Alabama has done that. Ohio State has done that. Oregon? Not so much.
And, I'm sorry- Did I bring Washington into the discussion? No. They're not winners either, and I was a grunting, shitting, combative "fuck-O" (!!!!!!) of an infant when the Huskies won their Natty (or half a natty- whatever makes you feel better). I don't cling to that raft. You clearly do though.
But you go ahead and hang your hat on the fact that Oregon has won the same amount of games as Alabama in a decade. I guess Oregon is a winner like Alabama by that logic. Or are we breaking it down into tiers? Participation trophies?
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?
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...
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.
Larry Coker has one of those too.
Don James 1, Larry Coker 1.
Looks like a tie from here.
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