You guys are being doogs by turning this into an Oregon argument. I put Oregon aside and make this argument.
No we are calling you out for saying Oregon is more of a premiere program than USC.
Even in UW's best days and USC was down the Trojans were always the premiere program.
They have advantages that nobody else has. Tradition, HUGE Market, great local talent, great weather, no NFL team so they are the big fish in a big town, etc.
You really honestly believe championships shouldn't be won on the field. Maybe the SuperBowl should have been voted on and the Seahawks and Broncos could share the trophy and everyone could claim they have a kajillion national championships. Real abundance, yeah
No one's saying they SHOULDN'T be won on the field. We're saying that you don't get to invalidate 100 years of championships because the selection process wasn't the best. The BCS selection process sucked too, btw.
USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Pre BCS 'championships' don't count. Don't tell Alabama that though. They think they have 15. Legitimate championships are when #1 plays #2 and one of them wins.
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.
Not your best week.
I
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
I like to argue that poles are incapable of selecting champions while supporting a system where poles select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either poles have value or they don't. I say they don't, so BCS championships are just as worthless as pole titles. But I'm not fucktarded enough to think just because I don't like the system means college football's championships don't count.
And yes, this is absolutely quook shit. If Oregon won the 1894 Helms championship by one vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And if the Huskies couldn't lay claim to a national title you would not so passionately defend the hard fought, battle won 15 national championships of Alabama and 11 of USC.
You guys are being doogs by turning this into an Oregon argument. I put Oregon aside and make this argument.
No we are calling you out for saying Oregon is more of a premiere program than USC.
Even in UW's best days and USC was down the Trojans were always the premiere program.
They have advantages that nobody else has. Tradition, HUGE Market, great local talent, great weather, no NFL team so they are the big fish in a big town, etc.
You're being a twister. I never said Oregon was more premiere. This isn't about Oregon. Fuck dude, I guess I should just agree that USC is the blessed child of Odin and they have the eternal right to be the premier program on the west coast.
USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Pre BCS 'championships' don't count. Don't tell Alabama that though. They think they have 15. Legitimate championships are when #1 plays #2 and one of them wins.
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.
Not your best week.
I
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
I like to argue that poles are incapable of selecting champions while supporting a system where poles select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either poles have value or they don't. I say they don't, so BCS championships are just as worthless as pole titles. But I'm not fucktarded enough to think just because I don't like the system means college football's championships don't count.
And yes, this is absolutely quook shit. If Oregon won the 1894 Helms championship by one vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And if the Huskies couldn't lay claim to a national title you would not so passionately defend the hard fought, battle won 15 national championships of Alabama and 11 of USC.
Disagree. This has to do with your fucktarded belief that the BCS was somehow enough of an upgrade on the poles that BCS titles should count and pole titles don't.
Again, you are arguing that the poles are not good enough to select a champion but are good enough to select the two teams to play for a championship.
USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Pre BCS 'championships' don't count. Don't tell Alabama that though. They think they have 15. Legitimate championships are when #1 plays #2 and one of them wins.
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.
Not your best week.
I
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
I like to argue that poles are incapable of selecting champions while supporting a system where poles select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either poles have value or they don't. I say they don't, so BCS championships are just as worthless as pole titles. But I'm not fucktarded enough to think just because I don't like the system means college football's championships don't count.
And yes, this is absolutely quook shit. If Oregon won the 1894 Helms championship by one vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And if the Huskies couldn't lay claim to a national title you would not so passionately defend the hard fought, battle won 15 national championships of Alabama and 11 of USC.
Disagree. This has to do with your fucktarded believe that the BCS was somehow enough of an upgrade on the poles that BCS titles should count and pole titles don't.
Again, you are arguing that the poles are not good enough to select a champion but are good enough to select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either you think they all count or none of them.
Hope them helps.
This argument can't really be won or lost. Polls are imperfect. But polls alone can't produce a legitimate national championship. Combined with a game between one and two, we get a little closer to reality.
OBK, the BCS has had plenty of controversies and have put the wrong team into championship games before. Why do those championships count more than the ones pre BCS? Like DNC said, you can't punish every team because of a bad system.
OBK, the BCS has had plenty of controversies and have put the wrong team into championship games before. Why do those championships count more than the ones pre BCS? Like DNC said, you can't punish every team because of a bad system.
USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Pre BCS 'championships' don't count. Don't tell Alabama that though. They think they have 15. Legitimate championships are when #1 plays #2 and one of them wins.
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.
Not your best week.
I
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
I like to argue that poles are incapable of selecting champions while supporting a system where poles select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either poles have value or they don't. I say they don't, so BCS championships are just as worthless as pole titles. But I'm not fucktarded enough to think just because I don't like the system means college football's championships don't count.
And yes, this is absolutely quook shit. If Oregon won the 1894 Helms championship by one vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And if the Huskies couldn't lay claim to a national title you would not so passionately defend the hard fought, battle won 15 national championships of Alabama and 11 of USC.
Disagree. This has to do with your fucktarded believe that the BCS was somehow enough of an upgrade on the poles that BCS titles should count and pole titles don't.
Again, you are arguing that the poles are not good enough to select a champion but are good enough to select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either you think they all count or none of them.
Hope them helps.
This argument can't really be won or lost. Polls are imperfect. But polls alone can't produce a legitimate national championship. Combined with a game between one and two, we get a little closer to reality.
USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Pre BCS 'championships' don't count. Don't tell Alabama that though. They think they have 15. Legitimate championships are when #1 plays #2 and one of them wins.
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.
Not your best week.
I
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
I like to argue that poles are incapable of selecting champions while supporting a system where poles select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either poles have value or they don't. I say they don't, so BCS championships are just as worthless as pole titles. But I'm not fucktarded enough to think just because I don't like the system means college football's championships don't count.
And yes, this is absolutely quook shit. If Oregon won the 1894 Helms championship by one vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And if the Huskies couldn't lay claim to a national title you would not so passionately defend the hard fought, battle won 15 national championships of Alabama and 11 of USC.
Disagree. This has to do with your fucktarded believe that the BCS was somehow enough of an upgrade on the poles that BCS titles should count and pole titles don't.
Again, you are arguing that the poles are not good enough to select a champion but are good enough to select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either you think they all count or none of them.
Hope them helps.
This argument can't really be won or lost. Polls are imperfect. But polls alone can't produce a legitimate national championship. Combined with a game between one and two, we get a little closer to reality.
Claiming pre-BCS doesnt count is dumb quook shit that freshman UO students write on their blogs. College football is imperfect but it's still fucking imperfect post BCS so no one really gives a fuck. When an expanded playoff starts it won't invalidate the 4 team playoff or any other format.
USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Pre BCS 'championships' don't count. Don't tell Alabama that though. They think they have 15. Legitimate championships are when #1 plays #2 and one of them wins.
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.
Not your best week.
I
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
I like to argue that poles are incapable of selecting champions while supporting a system where poles select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either poles have value or they don't. I say they don't, so BCS championships are just as worthless as pole titles. But I'm not fucktarded enough to think just because I don't like the system means college football's championships don't count.
And yes, this is absolutely quook shit. If Oregon won the 1894 Helms championship by one vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And if the Huskies couldn't lay claim to a national title you would not so passionately defend the hard fought, battle won 15 national championships of Alabama and 11 of USC.
Disagree. This has to do with your fucktarded believe that the BCS was somehow enough of an upgrade on the poles that BCS titles should count and pole titles don't.
Again, you are arguing that the poles are not good enough to select a champion but are good enough to select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either you think they all count or none of them.
Hope them helps.
This argument can't really be won or lost. Polls are imperfect. But polls alone can't produce a legitimate national championship. Combined with a game between one and two, we get a little closer to reality.
Claiming pre-BCS doesnt count is dumb quook shit that freshman UO students write on their blogs. College football is imperfect but it's still fucking imperfect post BCS so no one really gives a fuck. When an expanded playoff starts it won't invalidate the 4 team playoff or any other format.
I'm just a little skeptical of some of those championships won back when people rode horses to games, when there were less teams in existence than fingers on your hands and the top two teams didn't play each other in a final game, that's all.
So in conclusion, USC has 11 national championships, but that doesn't exclude them from getting beat by WSU at home.
Just picture Sark in an USC outfit and this is what the post game presser will look like. BTW in this vid Sark is full on excuse mode. Love how we have 18 penalties and he is blaming the refs instead of being accountable.
So in conclusion, USC has 11 national championships, but that doesn't exclude them from getting beat by WSU at home.
Just picture Sark in an USC outfit and this is what the post game presser will look like. BTW in this vid Sark is full on excuse mode. Love how we have 18 penalties and he is blaming the refs instead of being accountable.
Comments
Even in UW's best days and USC was down the Trojans were always the premiere program.
They have advantages that nobody else has. Tradition, HUGE Market, great local talent, great weather, no NFL team so they are the big fish in a big town, etc.
Again, you are arguing that the poles are not good enough to select a champion but are good enough to select the two teams to play for a championship.
Either you think they all count or none of them.
Hope that helps.
You also realize in this wonderful BCS in 2004 USC won a national title while Auburn also went undefeated and got jack fucking shit?
You also realize in this wonderful BCS world in 2007 that a TWO LOSS LSU won a national title.
I can play this game all night long. Fuck it's easier to list the years where there was no controversy in the BCS than years that they were.