Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

We're #23!!!!

1246

Comments

  • creepycoug
    creepycoug Member Posts: 24,281
    dflea said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    creepycoug said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    GTFO with this trash, Trojan bootlicker. 2010 Auburn at #41 and none of Chip's teams made the list. lol. What a dumb list.

    None of Chip's team should make the list my dude. He coached some good teams but w/o a title you don't get to play.

    Those are the rules. I didn't write them.
    Faulty logic, half the teams on that list have "NONE" next to the "Titles" section. In addition to that, teams that didn't actually play and win a championship game, on the field, or play in an actual championship game, belong on the bottom of the list, after the teams that have.
    2001 UM at #7 and UW 91 at #23?

    Complete piece of shit pole, totally laughable, fuck off and die to whomever was dumb enough to have their stupid name associated with it.

    That said, it's comical watching obk struggle and try to be one of the big kids.

    It's a USC / Bama /Oklahoma fuck fest. Give me a break.

    1988 Notre Dame? Sure they won the title but all fucking time? They needed a complete shit call that the whole world knows about to keep from losing at home. Fuck those guys.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • oregonblitzkrieg
    oregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    dflea said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    creepycoug said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    GTFO with this trash, Trojan bootlicker. 2010 Auburn at #41 and none of Chip's teams made the list. lol. What a dumb list.

    None of Chip's team should make the list my dude. He coached some good teams but w/o a title you don't get to play.

    Those are the rules. I didn't write them.
    Faulty logic, half the teams on that list have "NONE" next to the "Titles" section. In addition to that, teams that didn't actually play and win a championship game, on the field, or play in an actual championship game, belong on the bottom of the list, after the teams that have.


    That said, it's comical watching obk struggle and try to be one of the big kids.

    What's comical is a school that's never played in the big game once, thinking they can run with the big dogs. Thinking their program is more elite than a school that's played in 9% of the BCS/Playoff era championship games.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dflea
    dflea Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,287 Swaye's Wigwam
    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    dflea said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    creepycoug said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    GTFO with this trash, Trojan bootlicker. 2010 Auburn at #41 and none of Chip's teams made the list. lol. What a dumb list.

    None of Chip's team should make the list my dude. He coached some good teams but w/o a title you don't get to play.

    Those are the rules. I didn't write them.
    Faulty logic, half the teams on that list have "NONE" next to the "Titles" section. In addition to that, teams that didn't actually play and win a championship game, on the field, or play in an actual championship game, belong on the bottom of the list, after the teams that have.


    That said, it's comical watching obk struggle and try to be one of the big kids.

    What's comical is a school that's never played in the big game once, thinking they can run with the big dogs. Thinking their program is more elite than a school that's played in 9% of the BCS/Playoff era championship games.
    See what I mean?

    lol

    Everyone can see our? crystal football with their own eyes. They can also see your envy. So fuck off.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • oregonblitzkrieg
    oregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    Teams with voted 'natties' want them to still mean something today, but they lost value in the BCS era, and lost even more in the playoff era. A 12 game season (or less if you go back further in time) with no conference championship, no playoff semi-final, no championship game, is a joke compared to today's metrics. A voted half natty is worth a few Sven bucks, and that's about all.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • oregonblitzkrieg
    oregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    dnc said:

    oregonblitzkrieg said:

    Teams with voted 'natties' want them to still mean something today, but they lost value in the BCS era, and lost even more in the playoff era. A 12 game season (or less if you go back further in time) with no conference championship, no playoff semi-final, no championship game, is a joke compared to today's metrics. A voted half natty is worth a few Sven bucks, and that's about all.

    Please keep screaming this. So far your five year campaign has convinced you, only 50 million or so more CFB fans to go!
    Even doogs understand (but will never admit) that voted natties are not equal to those won on a field over the course of what is now a 15 game season for whoever wins the championship. You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror if you don't get it. I don't really care if that pisses off a bunch of troogs and doogs beating their chests over voted 'wins' from a bygone era when championship games never existed. 12-0 UW from 1991 = 12-0 Oregon from 2010. Had you played and lost to Miami, there would be no natty for you. But you never had to play the game. That's why the voted half natty is a joke.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter