Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
2016 - USC v Alabama @ Jerry World
Comments
-
I didn't say that. But I don't agree that they have 11 national championships.
-
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week. -
Yes.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Only by two >'s?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
SC as a premier program >> Oregonoregonblitzkrieg said:
Fuck SC. It isn't their god given right to be the premiere program on the west coast, but they act like it. The rest of the PAC 12 needs to continue pressing it's collective heel on their necks and keep them down in the mud for as long as possible.Dawgfan406 said:
I guarantee they will be looking for a high profile coach and willing to spend top dollar to be the premier program on the west coast once again.PostGameOrangeSlices said:Sark may not be coaching USC by then
I dislike $C but grudgingly accept they'll probably never fade away. They are what they are, similar to other regional powers.
Oregon are upstarts. I will never respect them until the day I die. Call me a fucking Doog, I couldn't care less.
I remember watching SC beat Oregon in 2002. It was huge, and I was excited to see Oregun lose (and lead to a five game Duck losing streak or something). This was a couple years before the Duckade (lok!!!1!!!) obviously.
I just stifle my feelings on here so aa not to rock the HHB apple cart, and yes, to fit in, but it's perplexing to see people shit on Coogs, then suck off Oregon. Yes, WIW, and Oregon has been great over the last five years, but people go overboard trying to distance themselves from Doogs b/c KRISVASHONFS hates Oregon and says simplistic homer shit. So what? Should we build a shrine to them insshit to spite them? -
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit. -
What the fuck happened to OBK? Either his true quook is coming out or he's a fucking idiot. Or it's abundance.
-
No.oregonblitzkrieg said:Try to get past the I'm a duck or husky fan bullshit, take your mouth off of USC's cock. This isn't a duck slant. Fucking championships need to be won, not merely voted on.
Fuck you. You are the most worthless piece of shit here.
And yes, this is Duck mentality. This is your retarded "1994 was the start of college football" mentality. Don't try to deny it because you're fucking retarded. Go ask college football fans from every school in the nation and you'll see that you guys are in the minority.
And if you're so certain on who's national champions and not, why not give us a list? -
No kidding. He was always out there but he was never a full blown Quook like this.RoadDawg55 said:What the fuck happened to OBK? Either his true quook is coming out or he's a fucking idiot. Or it's abundance.
Holy fuck this thread is something I expect from cheswick on eDuck. -
You guys are being doogs by turning this into an Oregon argument. I put Oregon aside and make this argument.
-
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
-
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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. -
No we are calling you out for saying Oregon is more of a premiere program than USC.oregonblitzkrieg said:You guys are being doogs by turning this into an Oregon argument. I put Oregon aside and make this argument.
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. -
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.oregonblitzkrieg said: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
-
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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. -
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.He_Needs_More_Time said:
No we are calling you out for saying Oregon is more of a premiere program than USC.oregonblitzkrieg said:You guys are being doogs by turning this into an Oregon argument. I put Oregon aside and make this argument.
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. -
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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.
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. -
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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.
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. -
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.
-
Good point.RoadDawg55 said: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.
-
It's already been won.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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.
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.
-
Before 1920 women couldn't vote, therefore Warren G Harding was the first American president. Only presidents voted on by the full populace count.
-
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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.
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.
-
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.haie said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.dnc said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Idnc said:
Never before have I been so honored to make a poast disappear.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.haie said:USC >>>>>>>>>>> Oregon (11 national championships)
but yes they are a pretty douchey school.
Not your best week.
Case closed. Just try to defend this shit.
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.
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. -
You realize in this wonderful BCS era we had a year like 2003 where USC and LSU SHARED a national title?
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. -
So in other words, OBK thinks college football started in 1998, not 1994.
-
WHY DOES OBK HATE KENNY WHEATON????GulagDawg said:So in other words, OBK thinks college football started in 1998, not 1994.
-
I agree with some of the points made here. My opinion is malleable on the subject. There are too many grey areas.He_Needs_More_Time said:You realize in this wonderful BCS era we had a year like 2003 where USC and LSU SHARED a national title?
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. -
Malleable! Just call it a night. Holy fuckall!oregonblitzkrieg said:
I agree with some of the points made here. My opinion is malleable on the subject. There are too many grey areas.He_Needs_More_Time said:You realize in this wonderful BCS era we had a year like 2003 where USC and LSU SHARED a national title?
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. -
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.haie said:So in conclusion, USC has 11 national championships, but that doesn't exclude them from getting beat by WSU at home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evuSpI2Genw -
Penalties are overratedHe_Needs_More_Time said:
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.haie said:So in conclusion, USC has 11 national championships, but that doesn't exclude them from getting beat by WSU at home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evuSpI2Genw
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
