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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Apparently fireball was his drink of choice.
Haden is the worst AD in the country. Nikias, the school president is not a football fan, and it shows. Helton was Nikias' choice cuz he was tired of the university getting embarrassed in the media. He also did not want the football coach to be the face of the university. Haden has never done anything good for the football program. He has no sack and is spineless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
Right. And since Sark showed up absolutely trashed, he was fired for just cause, IMO. But there's always that one judge who doesn't see things straight.
Hell in the past Arkansas fired Houston Nutt for his off the field antics. So USC could claim to have fired Sark as a way of USC trying to regain integrity.
Where is G, to present the holiday happenings at Arkansas St?
http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2015/...716.1450121206
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWJuWSxU4AAPfE3.jpg:large
David Brandon was likely worse......Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Gigem on suicide watch. Top 2 QB's have now transferred.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...sfer/77442862/
Former Aggie, now a Sooner. This kid must really hate the Longhorns. See you in 2017 Kyler.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...lahoma-sooners
Barry Sanders, Jr. transferring from Stanford. Saw some speculation he may be looking at Oklahoma State.
The SunBelt Conference is holding a teleconference today at 2pm CT. Rumors are saying that both Idaho & NMSU will have their renewal declined meaning they would be gone from the conference after the 2017 season.
Unless we already have two other schools ready to move to FBS, it doesn't make a lot of sense. That will put our conference at 10 teams likely creating a 9 game conference schedule. As G5 schools, you almost have to have a minimum of 4 OOC games in order to survive (1-2 body bag games, 0-1 FCS games, 1-2 G5 Home & Home series).
Guess that FCS game is gone unless it's an in-state game where you'll get a good gate.
Progressives being progressive.
http://news.yahoo.com/ivy-league-mul...-nfl.html?nf=1
Which will lead to poor tackling due to lack of repetition and probably lead to even more injuries. If you do not want to get hurt, don't play.Quote:
Football practices at the United States' elite Ivy League universities may be a little bit quieter next year as coaches consider banning tackling outside of actual games, a spokesman for the league said on Tuesday.
Nice mug, North Texas. :fp: :D
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...14c68ebd25.jpg
Now that is an awesome mug! I want one, that way when someone is being a cunt, I can just have it set on my desk and drink from it with the logo facing them. :)
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
That's hilarious. :)
I am embarrassed it took me a few minutes to see what was so funny.
Preliminary discussions have begun within two influential college football bodies into possibly removing kickoffs from the game, CBS Sports has learned.
Both the American Football Coaches Association's board of trustees and the NCAA Division I Football Oversight Committee have at least had informal talks about the possibility.
The reason: player safety.
"I don't think there is any doubt it is the most dangerous play in the game," said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, chairman of that oversight committee. "How much that's the case and how we can fix it is unknown."
Both entities are reviewing injury data to gauge the impact of kickoffs. Preliminary indications are that injuries occur at a higher rate on kickoffs, according to sources.
Any rules change probably won't come until after the 2017 season. Eliminating kickoffs has not yet been a discussion for the NCAA rules committee, according to its secretary-rules editor Rogers Redding.
However, rules changes typically bubble up to the committee from coaches and administrators. The AFCA acts in an advisory role to the NCAA rules committee. The oversight committee vets any changes by the rules committee before approving them.
Link: CBS Sports
I know a lot of people like the kickoffs but I really don't care. Just line up on the 20 or 25 and start the game and I'd be fine with it.
First kickoffs, then punts, then tackling... Probably 5 years away from.
http://i.imgur.com/t7LbO6M.jpg
Yes, and doing so we eliminate the excitement of onside kicks at the end of games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Forgot about the onside kick. Maybe you choose onside kick or not (starts on 25).
Why don't they start by not allowing the kickoff team to run forward prior to kickoff? That would slow down some of the player momentum and be a better starting point than just banning it, IMO.