Absolute joke. An Oklahoma team who LOST to Texas, ahead of an undefeated Iowa. Total joke. Oklahoma has no business ahead of an undefeated team. They lost to Texas.
Printable View
Absolute joke. An Oklahoma team who LOST to Texas, ahead of an undefeated Iowa. Total joke. Oklahoma has no business ahead of an undefeated team. They lost to Texas.
The only change I'd make is I'd switch Michigan St. and Iowa. Iowa is finally gonna play a good team this week.
Iowa is undefeated. Oklahoma lost to Texas. Oklahoma can suck a dick. I look forward to their horseraping at the hands of Alabama in a month.
Yeah, I think Mich St puts a beating on Iowa. Now it gets interesting if Clemson loses to North Carolina. North Carolina is way back at #10. So it would lead me to believe Ohio St or Stanford jumps in. Depending on how well Stanford does against USC.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia3sB4uEqH0Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Oklahoma football, good for nothing but making kids cry.
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12...52301eca93.jpg
I wonder if there has ever been a National Champion that lost to an 8-loss team? Or even 7, if you believe Texas will beat Baylor.
I know it's apples and oranges because of the playoff but I'd be interested to know what the record was of the worst team that ever beat an eventual National Champion.
Just last year Ohio State lost to a 6 loss Va Tech, at HOME and by 2td's. We do need to factor in the Texas game is a rivalry game played on a neutral site.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
LSU lost to two 5 loss teams and won the title in 2007. That is as far as I am going back, it's all a moot point.
It's a moot point talking about a loss in week 1 or 2 like North Carolina or Ohio State last year.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Yeah, but that was at the beginning of the season. And as you said, VT only lost 6 games. Oklahoma was already a couple games in before losing to Texas. A BAD at least 7 loss Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoughty
:nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
Rankings should be Clemson, Iowa, Alabama, MSU, Ohio State (only lost by 3 to a very good MSU), North Carolina (lost to a bad South Carolina, but it was at the start of the season), Oklahoma (lost to a terrible Texas).
Could even make the case for Stanford over Oklahoma. Stanford lost to a good Northwestern by 10, but it was at the start of the season and Stanford had to travel to Northwestern for what was for them a very early kickoff. And then only lost by two to a good Oregon.
Oklahoma lost to Texas.
More bowls set: Arkansas State to New Orleans, Georgia Southern to GoDaddy & Appalachian State to Camellia, sources told @ESPN
— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) December 2, 2015
Arkansas State will almost certainly be playing Louisiana Tech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-voting-page/
ESPN can officially suck my dick. I can't wait for the day to come that these cock gobbling fucktards go out of business. I will happily piss on the ashes of their company.
You'll be dead long before that happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Then I'll make sure it's in my will for any future relatives to piss on their ashes.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
Nothing but bullshit. ESPN can't even avoid manipulating a fucking Heisman fan vote.
I love how they claim they have no control over it, yet they admit that who their "Heisman experts" vote for each week on TV or online (wherever the hell they do it) directly affects who is listed on the fan vote.
If who your "Heisman experts" mock vote for who should win the Heisman each week is affecting who gets to be listed or not in the fan vote, then yes, you have TOTAL FUCKING CONTROL over the fucking fan vote, making it nothing but a fucking sham by trying to direct votes toward certain players based on who your "experts" think should win it.
Does Keenan Reynolds have a chance of winning the Heisman? No. But for the overwhelming leader in the Heisman fan vote to be completely removed from the list after having appeared on there for multiple weeks before, all because a couple of cock sucking fucktards who claim to be "experts" don't think he deserves a single mock vote amongst themselves, a mock vote that is being made for nothing more than to fill column space online or air time on TV with something other than ESPN's typical regurgitated bullshit, and then the company make the bullshit claim that they have no control whatsoever over who gets listed, despite who their fucktarded "experts" mock vote for affecting who gets listed, ESPN can go fuck themselves.
ESPN is nothing but a bunch of cock sucking cock gobbling fucktards who can all cumulatively go choke on a bag of fucking dicks.
So here's a question for you clw
Today Steve Sarkisian filed suit against USC, suing them for $30 million for lost wages. USC fired him a few months ago for showing up to work completely trashed after the loss to Washington.
In the lawsuit today, Sark cited that USC fired him for alcoholism, which in the state of California, constitutes as a disease and a disability. So Sark is claiming that USC fired him because of his disability.
There's a lot of smaller details but that is the main point to the lawsuit. What do you think?
Sark is trash & a joke.
California law is a joke. Alcoholism is a addiction, not a disease. I hope no other college football program attempts to hire his worthless ass.
I think Pat Haden has messed things up pretty good. I also think Sark will be lucky to coach at Idaho so he's desperate for any cash and will pray for a settlement consisting of a lifetime supply of beer.
Nah, even has standards man. I think this is the last we will hear from Sark in the FBS for a long time. He'll probably have to goto D2 or D3 after this if he wants a HC job again.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is you can't fire them fire being an alcoholic but you can fire them for showing up drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Ex. Johnny's employer finds out Johnny is an alcoholic. However, he never drinks on the job and it never affects his work, the employer cannot fire him. But, if Johnny shows up to work drunk, they can fire him with just cause.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk