*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (1 Viewer)

[gump]

I agree with Commish that culture plays a part....just like the BCS does. I've described before the way the '25 Alabama team was cheered across the southern part of the country as they returned from the first big southern football win over a northern or western team at the '25 Rose Bowl vs Washington.

Wow, you are old.

I was also there when Paul Bryant wrestled the bear.

 

[Christo]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.

I guess you didn't read the entire article.

 

[bentley]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

 

[prefontaine]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.

I guess you didn't read the entire article.

I actually did. Suppose I'm sure what your point is. Your only comment has been "fit into the SEC" when it's done by major colleges in every conference. There is quite literally no way to determine who the best team is. I guess a better question is, why shouldn't a school claim these titles?

 

[Moe.]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

Yeah those are really bad. Especially when you get your ### handed to you in the actual conference championship game. I would think that even the aTm fans wouldn't want that added to the stadium. That's embarrassing. I guess they figure the SEC people won't really know so they won't call them out on it.

 

[prefontaine]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

 

[Moe.]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.

I guess you didn't read the entire article.

I actually did. Suppose I'm sure what your point is. Your only comment has been "fit into the SEC" when it's done by major colleges in every conference. There is quite literally no way to determine who the best team is. I guess a better question is, why shouldn't a school claim these titles?

I think most people are taking issue with the "new" conference championships. I'm not aware of anyone else that has lost in the conference championship game claiming that they were actually the conference champs.

 

[prefontaine]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.

I guess you didn't read the entire article.

I actually did. Suppose I'm sure what your point is. Your only comment has been "fit into the SEC" when it's done by major colleges in every conference. There is quite literally no way to determine who the best team is. I guess a better question is, why shouldn't a school claim these titles?

I think most people are taking issue with the new conference championships.

hmmm....I guess I didn't understand that bc I don't really care about conference championships (I skimmed that bc, well, I don't care) and the article spends 90% talking MNCs. so apologies if you're talking conference titles as those have clear rules...please carry on.

 

[GDogg]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

I could care less what words are used...I don't take it personally at all. I think there we usually have really good college FB discussion in the FFA..but there are a few trolls that will go without being named. It's best to just ignore them and not reply at all...b/c that's all they're looking for.But what confuses me wrt "fanboys" is that I'm not sure if the rest of the college FB world understand that in the current system (and arguably in the future playoff system) you want your conference be the best conference. Clearly, the SEC has been the best conference for the BCS era, thus you hear it more from the SEC guys.I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

I guess my biggest issue with it is that when Alabama came to the Rose Bowl to play UCLA (and they were great fans, by the way), I heard Alabama fans say, "S-E-C!! S-E-C!!" while marching into the Rose Bowl before the game started about as much as I heard them yell, "Roll Tide!"Tennessee fans (who were also pretty great) were worse a few years ago. I don't think I heard them say much about Tennessee or the Vols, but they sure chanted in unison, "S-E-C!!" That's weird to me.I can understand to some degree sitting at home watching a non-conference game and internally hoping your SEC team does better. I don't do it with Pac-12 teams and don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it. I cannot understand why you would, in public and/or at an opposing school's stadium, openly chant for your conference rather than your school. It just seems bizarre.

 

[Brady Marino]

On a more positive note, I haven't looked forward to a college football game more in recent years than Mizzou/Georgia tomorrow night. This game will go a LONG way to determining Mizzou's ability to fit into the SEC. A good showing will open some eyes, but an asswhooping by Georgia AT Mizzou's home turf will take a lot of wind out of the sails.

 

[shader]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

I could care less what words are used...I don't take it personally at all. I think there we usually have really good college FB discussion in the FFA..but there are a few trolls that will go without being named. It's best to just ignore them and not reply at all...b/c that's all they're looking for.But what confuses me wrt "fanboys" is that I'm not sure if the rest of the college FB world understand that in the current system (and arguably in the future playoff system) you want your conference be the best conference. Clearly, the SEC has been the best conference for the BCS era, thus you hear it more from the SEC guys.I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

I guess my biggest issue with it is that when Alabama came to the Rose Bowl to play UCLA (and they were great fans, by the way), I heard Alabama fans say, "S-E-C!! S-E-C!!" while marching into the Rose Bowl before the game started about as much as I heard them yell, "Roll Tide!"Tennessee fans (who were also pretty great) were worse a few years ago. I don't think I heard them say much about Tennessee or the Vols, but they sure chanted in unison, "S-E-C!!" That's weird to me.I can understand to some degree sitting at home watching a non-conference game and internally hoping your SEC team does better. I don't do it with Pac-12 teams and don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it. I cannot understand why you would, in public and/or at an opposing school's stadium, openly chant for your conference rather than your school. It just seems bizarre.

I think to some fans, it's a matter of respect. When was that UCLA game? Wasn't that the year Bama came in ranked 2nd and finished the season 4-9?To some SEC fans back then, they felt that ESPN favored the Big Ten, the Pac-10, Florida St and Miami, and didn't give the SEC enough respect. I know because I heard the chant all the time.I don't think many SEC fans can make that claim anymore. If anything, the media falls all over themselves for the SEC now.I personally have never bought into the conference hype, but many around here do. During bowl season, the vast majority of SEC fans that I've come into contact with want to see the SEC dominate every game. I'm the rare fan that laughs and makes fun of Auburn, Tennessee and LSU when they get beat. If LSU makes it to the championship game this year, I'll be pulling for them to put up a huge goose-egg. Again.

 

[shader]

On a more positive note, I haven't looked forward to a college football game more in recent years than Mizzou/Georgia tomorrow night. This game will go a LONG way to determining Mizzou's ability to fit into the SEC. A good showing will open some eyes, but an asswhooping by Georgia AT Mizzou's home turf will take a lot of wind out of the sails.

I agree. Texas A&M/Florida and Georgia/Missouri should be fun games to watch.

 

[Christo]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

Perhaps you can point out when Texas claimed national championships 80 years after the fact and conference championships when they either lost the championship game or didn't even play in the championship game.

 

[shader]

Is there some rational reason any Texas A&M fan can give me for claiming 1997 as a CC?

 

[GDogg]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.

So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?

This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

I could care less what words are used...I don't take it personally at all. I think there we usually have really good college FB discussion in the FFA..but there are a few trolls that will go without being named. It's best to just ignore them and not reply at all...b/c that's all they're looking for.But what confuses me wrt "fanboys" is that I'm not sure if the rest of the college FB world understand that in the current system (and arguably in the future playoff system) you want your conference be the best conference. Clearly, the SEC has been the best conference for the BCS era, thus you hear it more from the SEC guys.

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

I guess my biggest issue with it is that when Alabama came to the Rose Bowl to play UCLA (and they were great fans, by the way), I heard Alabama fans say, "S-E-C!! S-E-C!!" while marching into the Rose Bowl before the game started about as much as I heard them yell, "Roll Tide!"Tennessee fans (who were also pretty great) were worse a few years ago. I don't think I heard them say much about Tennessee or the Vols, but they sure chanted in unison, "S-E-C!!" That's weird to me.

I can understand to some degree sitting at home watching a non-conference game and internally hoping your SEC team does better. I don't do it with Pac-12 teams and don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it. I cannot understand why you would, in public and/or at an opposing school's stadium, openly chant for your conference rather than your school. It just seems bizarre.

I think to some fans, it's a matter of respect. When was that UCLA game? Wasn't that the year Bama came in ranked 2nd and finished the season 4-9?To some SEC fans back then, they felt that ESPN favored the Big Ten, the Pac-10, Florida St and Miami, and didn't give the SEC enough respect. I know because I heard the chant all the time.

I don't think many SEC fans can make that claim anymore. If anything, the media falls all over themselves for the SEC now.

I personally have never bought into the conference hype, but many around here do. During bowl season, the vast majority of SEC fans that I've come into contact with want to see the SEC dominate every game.

I'm the rare fan that laughs and makes fun of Auburn, Tennessee and LSU when they get beat. If LSU makes it to the championship game this year, I'll be pulling for them to put up a huge goose-egg. Again.

Yup. That win looked so much better on the day of the game than it did in the ensuing weeks when Alabama just fell apart.The Bama fans were great. A bunch of them (many in their 50s) came over to our tailgate just to talk before the game. We commented on how there were soooo many fans decked out in red that were there as soon as the Rose Bowl lot opened. One of the older Alabama dudes looks at us and goes, "red? Little Bruin, that wasn't red. You saw a sea of crimson streaming into this bowl. Roll Tide!!!" (in a southern drawl). I laughed my ### off. They were fantastic fans.

 

[Christo]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.

I guess you didn't read the entire article.

I actually did. Suppose I'm sure what your point is. Your only comment has been "fit into the SEC" when it's done by major colleges in every conference. There is quite literally no way to determine who the best team is. I guess a better question is, why shouldn't a school claim these titles?

I think most people are taking issue with the new conference championships.

hmmm....I guess I didn't understand that bc I don't really care about conference championships (I skimmed that bc, well, I don't care) and the article spends 90% talking MNCs. so apologies if you're talking conference titles as those have clear rules...please carry on.

YOU DON'T CLAIM NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS 80 YEARS AFTER THE FACT!

 

[Moe.]

Is there some rational reason any Texas A&M fan can give me for claiming 1997 as a CC?

No.

 

[prefontaine]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

Perhaps you can point out when Texas claimed national championships 80 years after the fact and conference championships when they either lost the championship game or didn't even play in the championship game.

perhaps you should click the link

 

[Battles]

As an Aggie this championship bs is pure embarrassment and a huge mistake. Whoever decided to do that should be punted in the groin. Absolutely horrendous.

 

[prefontaine]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.

I guess you didn't read the entire article.

I actually did. Suppose I'm sure what your point is. Your only comment has been "fit into the SEC" when it's done by major colleges in every conference. There is quite literally no way to determine who the best team is. I guess a better question is, why shouldn't a school claim these titles?

I think most people are taking issue with the new conference championships.

hmmm....I guess I didn't understand that bc I don't really care about conference championships (I skimmed that bc, well, I don't care) and the article spends 90% talking MNCs. so apologies if you're talking conference titles as those have clear rules...please carry on.

YOU DON'T CLAIM NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS 80 YEARS AFTER THE FACT!

All titles prior to 1936 are retroactively recognized. None even today are real. It's all about marketing. I'm not sure why you are so bent out of shape about it honestly.

 

[Moe.]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

Perhaps you can point out when Texas claimed national championships 80 years after the fact and conference championships when they either lost the championship game or didn't even play in the championship game.

perhaps you should click the link

I can't pull that link up, I assume it has something to do with the 2008 season? Texas sucks too. This is news to nobody.

 

[prefontaine]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

Perhaps you can point out when Texas claimed national championships 80 years after the fact and conference championships when they either lost the championship game or didn't even play in the championship game.

perhaps you should click the link

Texas sucks too. This is news to nobody.

apparently it's news to Christo. But mostly he just likes the argument for arguments sake.

 

[Moe.]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

Perhaps you can point out when Texas claimed national championships 80 years after the fact and conference championships when they either lost the championship game or didn't even play in the championship game.

perhaps you should click the link

Texas sucks too. This is news to nobody.

apparently it's news to Christo. But mostly he just likes the argument for arguments sake.

This is news to nobody.

 

[bentley]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

I'm pretty sure that was on a wall inside the athletic building for about a week and then taken down. It was never listed among the titles on the rings in the stadium.

 

[bentley]

2008 does bring back some memories though. Contributing to the 45-35 banner flyover might not have been the best use of my resources. On the other hand, the Greg Davis is not our Standard banner was $$.

 

[prefontaine]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

I'm pretty sure that was on a wall inside the athletic building for about a week and then taken down. It was never listed among the titles on the rings in the stadium.

haha. Yeah, I remember they got made fun of and it came down almost immediately. I imagine the same thing happens to A&M. btw, wtf is Greg Davis these days? I forget. He's coaching somewhere though right?

 

[Christo]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

Perhaps you can point out when Texas claimed national championships 80 years after the fact and conference championships when they either lost the championship game or didn't even play in the championship game.

perhaps you should click the link

It doesn't work.

 

[fasteddie_21]

Add a space after the .jpg

 

[Christo]

Add a space after the .jpg

bentley, you guys are a bunch of douchebags, too.

 

[bentley]

Lol @ aggies. Hard to believe anything can be worse than the fake national titles but the fake conference titles take the cake.

my notebook may be wrong but aren't you a UT alum?Btw, not defending it. I think it's fairly ######ed. But I just found the irony a bit rich.

I'm pretty sure that was on a wall inside the athletic building for about a week and then taken down. It was never listed among the titles on the rings in the stadium.

haha. Yeah, I remember they got made fun of and it came down almost immediately. I imagine the same thing happens to A&M. btw, wtf is Greg Davis these days? I forget. He's coaching somewhere though right?

I'd be willing to bet money that those stay up. Its a tradition now.

 

[bentley]

Add a space after the .jpg

bentley, you guys are a bunch of douchebags, too.

At least we can handle our firewater and are smart enough to pay our players without getting caught. Ya sister-####### mongoloids.Good luck against whoever you're playing this week.BIG 12 BIG 12 BIG 12

 

[Christo]

Florida A&M. So popular its only available on PPV even in Oklahoma.

 

[Moe.]

Hey my sister is really good looking

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Florida A&M. So popular its only available on PPV even in Oklahoma.

Without the band the Rattlers just don't have the same pull.

 

[bentley]

Florida A&M. So popular its only available on PPV even in Oklahoma.

Wouldn't be a problem if you had your own network.

 

[Christo]

Florida A&M. So popular its only available on PPV even in Oklahoma.

Wouldn't be a problem if you had your own network.

It may surprise you but I don't get the shorthorn network in Chicago.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Utah State looking to end Utah's 12-year win streak.

 

[bentley]

Florida A&M. So popular its only available on PPV even in Oklahoma.

Wouldn't be a problem if you had your own network.

It may surprise you but I don't get the shorthorn network in Chicago.

TEXAS FIGHTS! Call your cable provider and demand LHN today!

 

[Raider Nation]

Michigan gonna hang 70 on Air Force or what?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

This Utah/Utah State game is actually very entertaining. Tied up with 3:19 left.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Are we going to see another coach get burned for icing the kicker?

eta - nope, OT

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

U-St breaks their losing streak to Utah.

You guys can badmouth rooting for a conference all you want, but don't we all love seeing PAC-12 teams lose?

 

[Tiger Fan]

no top 25 matchups tomorrow

I can't remember a worse opening 2 weeks of College FB lineups than this year

 

[Raider Nation]

no top 25 matchups tomorrowI can't remember a worse opening 2 weeks of College FB lineups than this year

Imma sleep in until the USC/Cuse game. That one interests me a little bit. I want to see if USC's first string is ever forced to punt.Nebraska/UCLA should be a good game too.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Gameday! Columbia here we come, Go Cocks!!!

 

[Christo]

no top 25 matchups tomorrowI can't remember a worse opening 2 weeks of College FB lineups than this year

Who cares about an artificial number in front of the teams' names? I'm really looking forward to several games, two of which are the SEC match-ups with the newbies: UF v A&M and UGA v Mizzou. I hope the old guard kicks the snot out of the traitors!

 

[gump]

U-St breaks their losing streak to Utah.You guys can badmouth rooting for a conference all you want, but don't we all love seeing PAC-12 teams lose?

Tough week for the PAC. Nevada over Cal, CSU over CU, and Utah St over Utah.Although I wouldn't be surprised to see UCLA beat Nebraska.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Game Day! First-ever FBS home game for the Minutemen.

 

[boubucarow]

U-St breaks their losing streak to Utah.You guys can badmouth rooting for a conference all you want, but don't we all love seeing PAC-12 teams lose?

Recorded and watched this morning. Good game. Keaton played really well and Utah needs a lot of work on their pass protection. Their tackles were abused. And Star was neutralized for much of the game.

 

[Premier]

no top 25 matchups tomorrowI can't remember a worse opening 2 weeks of College FB lineups than this year

Who cares about an artificial number in front of the teams' names? I'm really looking forward to several games, two of which are the SEC match-ups with the newbies: UF v A&M and UGA v Mizzou. I hope the old guard kicks the snot out of the traitors!

These are both good games. UCF-OSU could be a froggy matchup as well.