College Football 2011-2012 Bowls: Every Week is the Playoffs
- Thread starter bluemax
- Start date
- Status
perfectchaos007
Member
Meals Ready to Eat
M-R-E
The only accronym I sound out is SCUBA....and FEMA....and others...but not mre!
How about LASER?
perfectchaos007
Member
Thats what my sister thought after watching the FOX college football season recap montage thing after the Arky/kstate game lol!
goldenticket
Member
For me it is
Too bad K-State couldn't get it done. They didn't have their A game but it was a much better year then i thought after their first game. I expect them to be better next year.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
So yeah, I kind of feel dumb expecting KSU to blow out Arkansas, but whatever. Maybe I shouldn't have picked against so many SEC teams.
so SMU-Pitt is the battle between a coach that has already left his team against a coach that wants to leave really badly.
We'll probably just use this one.
Boss Man
Member
They canceled the game this year, but no, we've never had a separate thread. No real justification for it.
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
Its the motherfucking Admiral!
That second Louisville kid is probably a born loser if he wanted to play for Zook that badly.
Pimpkins baby!
That second Louisville kid is probably a born loser if he wanted to play for Zook that badly.
Pimpkins baby!
Boss Man
Member
Oh, you're one of those lol. Oklahoma State or PAC-12?
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
Good job Jordan. Way not to become a Notre Dame POS.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think I picked a Pitt game right all year. Damn cats, two days in a row.
Coming from someone who thinks a pathetic non-game should get it's own thread. lol indeed.
Anyone who's actually posted in this thread before could tell you I'm a Tigers fan.
GoldenEye 007
Member
LOL Pitt. INT at the goal line.
timetokill
Banned
Look at his icon, clearly a Tigers fan
Boss Man
Member
There are lots of Tigers.
I really, really disagree with labeling the Nov. 5th game as boring. That was one of the most intense games I've ever watched; it felt like every snap could determine the outcome of the game. I'd much rather watch a game like that than the Baylor vs. Washington or WVU vs. Clemson types.
I mean, I guess I understand it. I don't like watching 'soccer' because I find it boring, not enough scoring, etc...but that's because I don't know soccer well enough to appreciate it, and I recognize that.
I really, really disagree with labeling the Nov. 5th game as boring. That was one of the most intense games I've ever watched; it felt like every snap could determine the outcome of the game. I'd much rather watch a game like that than the Baylor vs. Washington or WVU vs. Clemson types.
I mean, I guess I understand it. I don't like watching 'soccer' because I find it boring, not enough scoring, etc...but that's because I don't know soccer well enough to appreciate it, and I recognize that.
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
I hear your second favorite thing to do is watch paint dry.
Boss Man
Member
I just like watching football games with actual football teams that make the game more interesting than taking turns walking up the field.
http://www.arenafootball.com/
:jnc
Love the oh-so-subtle implication that we found the Turd boring because we don't understand football. Newsflash: you found it exciting and intense because you were a fan of one of the teams playing. A strong rooting interest makes almost anything exciting. I'm sure Miami and FSU fans found their 2006 game equally intense.
In anticipation of your next question: yes, I personally dislike both you and your Oregon Ducks.
Boss Man
Member
It wasn't meant to be subtle. It wasn't meant to be mean or anything either. People found the game boring because there weren't a lot of points scored, and can't see it as anything other than poor talent. That's completely baseless, as both of these teams (when they're not playing each other's super-talented defenses) actually have very successful offenses. To me, it felt like watching good offenses facing spectacular defenses...which was very enjoyable.
wut
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
Oh and don't forget that if we don't like games with 0 offense it automatically means we LOVE games with 0 defense.
Boss Man
Member
I guess the difference lies in what you call 0 offense. To me, 0 offense means that the teams just suck on offense. I could understand not enjoying that.
That's not the case here, though. On a scale of 1-10, these teams are sitting at around 7 or 8 on offense and 35 on defense.
What you're saying is that dominating defenses are not fun to watch, and I disagree. For instance, Stanford vs. Oklahoma State was more fun for me to watch than Baylor vs. Washington. Both games were pretty much non-stop scoring, but the former game was poor defense against great offense instead of good offense against absolutely no defense.
So you'd rather watch it than 2 other terrible games? OK.
Yes, games with no defense also become boring. So do huge blow-outs.
Boss Man
Member
Alright, well I'd also prefer it over the Stanford vs. Oklahoma State game. Those teams were weaker on defense than they were strong on offense and it felt that way watching it.
Explosive offense is exciting, but not when 'explosive' means the other team can't tackle. Basically, complete teams are more fun to watch because they are the better teams.
I am an LSU fan, but what am I wrong about? Are LSU and Alabama's offenses bad?
I just don't think it's correct to rate a football game based on how many total points are scored. To me, a good game is one where the two best teams in the country go into overtime. I don't care if it's 3-0, so long as it's 3-0 because of suffocating defense and not simply poor offensive play.
Boss Man
Member
First of all, they are competent. To answer your question, it's not required inasmuch as a competent LOLB is required. As long as the team is competent on all sides of the ball as a whole it's a complete team.
NFL examples to avoid butthurt:
The Broncos are not a complete team. Great defense, incompetent offense.
The Patriots are not a complete team. Great offense, incompetent defense.
It does work both ways.
They played each other, and I remember watching the Broncos run all over the Patriots when the game started. It was not good to watch, because it was obvious that their defense was just shit and that the Broncos weren't doing anything special. Then they stopped moving the ball, and it was equally not enjoyable. Points or not, it was bad offense vs. bad defense.
On the other hand, watching the Patriots offense against the Broncos defense was something that you could stomach. Again, whether the Patriots scored or went three-and-out, you were still watching talent on both sides of the ball. Points irrelevant.
Shaq and Payton were already known about. Have there been more commits at the game?
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I'm an Alabama fan, and I don't think Alabama has a particularly good offense (nor does LSU). Even if some stats say otherwise, I just haven't been too impressed.
Cornballer
Member
A third player, a d lineman.
As if Barry not coming to OSU weren't enough, Kendall Sanders (who decommitted from us to Texas) has 2 INTs.
He decommitted on the same day we won the Big 12 and UT got smoked by Baylor. The reason why is worse: he wants to play WR instead of CB. At Texas, which is so well-known for producing WRs.
FUUUUUU
He decommitted on the same day we won the Big 12 and UT got smoked by Baylor. The reason why is worse: he wants to play WR instead of CB. At Texas, which is so well-known for producing WRs.
FUUUUUU
Ninja Scooter
Member
Barry Jr looks just like Smash Williams.
- Status