Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

0 (0%)

No

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: October 22, 2020, 02:05:59 PM

[whiskeypriest]

To give those Trump-loving southerners a peek at the real California, not that sit-com California to the south. (Sorry, Troj, but you know it is true.)

I actually have no idea what you are talking about here. 

It is djgrady. Red ipsa loquitor.

If you are talking about the difference between Northern and Southern California, I am well versed in the topic and could debate that easily.  I have lived in No Cal, So Cal and Central Cal.  I finally chose to live in So Orange County as I felt it had the best combination of opportunity and living conditions.   I may move to Napa Valley though in a few more years.

We love visiting Cali. Went five times last year, from Cabrillo Monument to Crescent City. If I could, I would try to retire to Carmel by the Sea. Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula are two of my favorite places in the world.

OK, I would probably most like to retire in Sedona. But after that.

Either would be better than retiring to a Turkish Prison.

The Silicon Valley is not any more the "real" California than Yosemite is or Los Angeles is for that matter.   They are all a part of it.   California is a living breathing thing, constantly changing and reinventing itself for better or for worse...lately more for worse.

What any of that has to do with Donald Trump is a mystery to me.

Well thanks to the Trump shut down Joshua Tree is literally full of shit, so there is that.

[CaptainCargo]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that. In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected. But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

[Espnthree]

Well, cap, for bowl eligibility the Big 10 would go 1 - 1 in each of those seven extra conference games. Barring a miracle along the order.of mlm loave and fishes the SEC won't lose any of those OOC games to FCS teams. One extra win for the weaker half of their teams makes it easier to get teams bowl eligible.

The Big Ten has more weak teams. SOS proves that out. [So the argument you're making has no teeth, I understand what you are saying. And it would make sense if the Big Ten were as strong(I mean really football strong) as the SEC. Currently they're just not. Not a dig, just reality.

Now your point has much more teeth if you make it with the ACC in mind. But model just doesn't work with the SEC. If you analyze the power rankings of lets say Massey would prove that out. Basically half of the teams in the Top 15 are SEC squads.

Well, no.  5 are SEC / 3 are Big Ten.

Dividing that up by the five Power Conferences they should only have three.

That, of course, makes no sense.

If Kentucky had to play PSU in the regular season they have a legit shot at winning it.

Kentucky would be dragged kicking and screaming to play Penn State.  Rest easy Wildcat fans, Central Michigan, Murray State, Middle Tennessee are our reliable patsies. Jesus, don’t bring up Tennessee, A and M, or please forget the Vanderbilt and Missouri games. Another SEC game and we could have beeen in the Belk Bowl

Now while I fully see your point that they might have one more loss(and they might not) that doesn't change the actual 'football' power of the team. Furthermore there would have been only one team affected by that one more loss in as much as they would have been knocked out of bowl contention. So I see Delaney's talk as more of the excuse type rather than a legitimate beef. Others might see it your way and that's cool too. Opinions vary.

Huh?

[Espnthree]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

[whiskeypriest]

If that kind or thing offends you perhaps next time do not claim posters have people's dicks in their mouths, hypocrite. I am not.afraid of you.

[CaptainCargo]

Well, cap, for bowl eligibility the Big 10 would go 1 - 1 in each of those seven extra conference games. Barring a miracle along the order.of mlm loave and fishes the SEC won't lose any of those OOC games to FCS teams. One extra win for the weaker half of their teams makes it easier to get teams bowl eligible.

The Big Ten has more weak teams. SOS proves that out. [So the argument you're making has no teeth, I understand what you are saying. And it would make sense if the Big Ten were as strong(I mean really football strong) as the SEC. Currently they're just not. Not a dig, just reality.

Now your point has much more teeth if you make it with the ACC in mind. But model just doesn't work with the SEC. If you analyze the power rankings of lets say Massey would prove that out. Basically half of the teams in the Top 15 are SEC squads.

Well, no.  5 are SEC / 3 are Big Ten.

Dividing that up by the five Power Conferences they should only have three.

That, of course, makes no sense.

If Kentucky had to play PSU in the regular season they have a legit shot at winning it.

Kentucky would be dragged kicking and screaming to play Penn State.  Rest easy Wildcat fans, Central Michigan, Murray State, Middle Tennessee are our reliable patsies. Jesus, don’t bring up Tennessee, A and M, or please forget the Vanderbilt and Missouri games. Another SEC game and we could have beeen in the Belk Bowl

Now while I fully see your point that they might have one more loss(and they might not) that doesn't change the actual 'football' power of the team. Furthermore there would have been only one team affected by that one more loss in as much as they would have been knocked out of bowl contention. So I see Delaney's talk as more of the excuse type rather than a legitimate beef. Others might see it your way and that's cool too. Opinions vary.

Huh?

From now on just stick with your last utterance on this post. It fits you.

[CaptainCargo]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

1) Who gets to play where and why.(To preclude your alarmist 'they sky is falling two 9-3 teams in the Rose Bowl' idiocy) AKA simple seeding by using all four major bowl games as playoff games. Please stop acting like a child. Or playing the fool. I'm not sure which.

2) Future James 'future', sheesh we've been over this. Not 'now', 'later' the future already. Again stop acting like a twit. It is annoying.

3a) To accommodate a change in the number of teams.

3b) I would be asking the same changes for all of them twit. Pay attention.



Question for you. After you answer the question, try and think outside the box to reason why it was asked.


How many of the Top 8 teams in the CFPR had 3 losses?

[Espnthree]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

1) Who gets to play where and why.(To preclude your alarmist 'they sky is falling two 9-3 teams in the Rose Bowl' idiocy) AKA simple seeding by using all four major bowl games as playoff games. Please stop acting like a child. Or playing the fool. I'm not sure which.

2) Future James 'future', sheesh we've been over this. Not 'now', 'later' the future already. Again stop acting like a twit. It is annoying.

3a) To accommodate a change in the number of teams.

3b) I would be asking the same changes for all of them twit. Pay attention.



Question for you. After you answer the question, try and think outside the box to reason why it was asked.


How many of the Top 8 teams in the CFPR had 3 losses?

None.
Why do you ask?

[CaptainCargo]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

1) Who gets to play where and why.(To preclude your alarmist 'they sky is falling two 9-3 teams in the Rose Bowl' idiocy) AKA simple seeding by using all four major bowl games as playoff games. Please stop acting like a child. Or playing the fool. I'm not sure which.

2) Future James 'future', sheesh we've been over this. Not 'now', 'later' the future already. Again stop acting like a twit. It is annoying.

3a) To accommodate a change in the number of teams.

3b) I would be asking the same changes for all of them twit. Pay attention.



Question for you. After you answer the question, try and think outside the box to reason why it was asked.


How many of the Top 8 teams in the CFPR had 3 losses?

None.
Why do you ask?

So you don't know. I'm not surprised.

Okay I'm wasting my time, we're done here.

[whiskeypriest]

Cap,  Thanks for confirming Steve's location.
I will just teach him a little lesson about what can happen
When you call someone's Father a Village Idiot and his Mother a whore.

I gave him a chance to retract.

Too late now.

Your father was a village idiot and your mother was a whore.

And of course if you try anything, I will now hold cap equally culpable. Thanks for the heads up!

[Espnthree]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

1) Who gets to play where and why.(To preclude your alarmist 'they sky is falling two 9-3 teams in the Rose Bowl' idiocy) AKA simple seeding by using all four major bowl games as playoff games. Please stop acting like a child. Or playing the fool. I'm not sure which.

2) Future James 'future', sheesh we've been over this. Not 'now', 'later' the future already. Again stop acting like a twit. It is annoying.

3a) To accommodate a change in the number of teams.

3b) I would be asking the same changes for all of them twit. Pay attention.



Question for you. After you answer the question, try and think outside the box to reason why it was asked.


How many of the Top 8 teams in the CFPR had 3 losses?

None.
Why do you ask?

So you don't know. I'm not surprised.

Okay I'm wasting my time, we're done here.

Ah. Didn’t think that one through did you? 

[CaptainCargo]

Cap,  Thanks for confirming Steve's location.
I will just teach him a little lesson about what can happen
When you call someone's Father a Village Idiot and his Mother a whore.

I gave him a chance to retract.

Too late now.

Your father was a village idiot and your mother was a whore.

And of course if you try anything, I will now hold cap equally culpable. Thanks for the heads up!

Don't get me involved I didn't confirm anything.

[whiskeypriest]

Cap,  Thanks for confirming Steve's location.
I will just teach him a little lesson about what can happen
When you call someone's Father a Village Idiot and his Mother a whore.

I gave him a chance to retract.

Too late now.

Your father was a village idiot and your mother was a whore.

And of course if you try anything, I will now hold cap equally culpable. Thanks for the heads up!

Don't get me involved I didn't confirm anything.

I never thought you did.

[CaptainCargo]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

1) Who gets to play where and why.(To preclude your alarmist 'they sky is falling two 9-3 teams in the Rose Bowl' idiocy) AKA simple seeding by using all four major bowl games as playoff games. Please stop acting like a child. Or playing the fool. I'm not sure which.

2) Future James 'future', sheesh we've been over this. Not 'now', 'later' the future already. Again stop acting like a twit. It is annoying.

3a) To accommodate a change in the number of teams.

3b) I would be asking the same changes for all of them twit. Pay attention.



Question for you. After you answer the question, try and think outside the box to reason why it was asked.


How many of the Top 8 teams in the CFPR had 3 losses?

None.
Why do you ask?

So you don't know. I'm not surprised.

Okay I'm wasting my time, we're done here.

Ah. Didn’t think that one through did you?

No, I thought it through. I assumed you were smart enough to connect the dots I gave you.

Once again I was counting on you to show some intelligence. Although I've gotten enough examples from you showing it is not going to happen that I should really stop trying. But I'm a hopeful sort of person so...

[Espnthree]

the Rose Bowl... game has NEVER featured two 3 loss teams’ but that becomes more than just possible under an 8 team playoff system.

That would suck

Alarmist talk. Part of the negotiated agreements could simply preclude that.

. Really? Negotiated agreements of what?

In fact all of the Big Name bowls could be protected.

They already are.

But the PAC and Big would have to be reasonable as to who gets to play in it.

Why would either agree to change anything? And why do you not ask the same questions of the Sugar Bowl?

1) Who gets to play where and why.(To preclude your alarmist 'they sky is falling two 9-3 teams in the Rose Bowl' idiocy) AKA simple seeding by using all four major bowl games as playoff games. Please stop acting like a child. Or playing the fool. I'm not sure which.

2) Future James 'future', sheesh we've been over this. Not 'now', 'later' the future already. Again stop acting like a twit. It is annoying.

3a) To accommodate a change in the number of teams.

3b) I would be asking the same changes for all of them twit. Pay attention.



Question for you. After you answer the question, try and think outside the box to reason why it was asked.


How many of the Top 8 teams in the CFPR had 3 losses?

None.
Why do you ask?

So you don't know. I'm not surprised.

Okay I'm wasting my time, we're done here.

Ah. Didn’t think that one through did you?

No, I thought it through. I assumed you were smart enough to connect the dots I gave you.

Once again I was counting on you to show some intelligence. Although I've gotten enough examples from you showing it is not going to happen that I should really stop trying. But I'm a hopeful sort of person so...

Looks like those dots blocked your vision thingy.