OT: LOL BCS - McCovey Chronicles

/is indfferent

I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory

by Natto on Dec 6, 2009 9:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

When the BCS does extremely stupid stuff like this or this I get more vocal about my dislike for the system.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 6, 2009 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The only college football game I have watched in the last 25 years was Boise State beating Nevada on Nov 27 — I was visiting my sister and brother-in-law in Boise for Thanksgiving. So, go Broncos. Whatever.

by non sequitur on Dec 6, 2009 10:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Did you stick around? Veyr cold. Very late.

by FreshStart on Dec 8, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

From reading the BCS standings, had Texas lost vs. Nebraska, Cincinnati would have gone to the title game and not TCU.

"meh"

by SFGuy on Dec 7, 2009 12:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Dammit. If only Nebraska would’ve won…

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They did win. That last second call was bullshit to add that second back so Texas could win.

by Hobbes2d on Dec 7, 2009 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What’s the rule on when the clock stops on that play? When the ball crosses the out of bounds line? Or when it touches out of bounds?

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When it touches something.

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

doesn't matter

it hit the ground with 1s clearly on the clock.

I’m of the mind where I don’t really care if that’s supposed to be reviewable, in a game like that it’s more important to get the call right.

Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl

by Viliphied on Dec 7, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There was 1 second. Right call. Poor Bo Pelini.

Insanity is just a state of mind.

by giants9107 on Dec 7, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Suck it, Boise

Regards,

Fresno State

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 6:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wait, does that mean you aren’t exited to play Wyoming??

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Dec 7, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

seriously. I’m only 6 hours away from Albuquerque and you couldn’t pay me to go to that game. At least the Illinois game was entertaining and Ryan Matthews will get some good pub.

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Man I am glad I got to go see Ryan Matthews play in person before I left Fresno (his freshman year). The guy is amazing.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 7, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

<— Fresno State Alum, and I would rather see Boise knock off a BCS conference team. Even though they kick the living shit out of Fresno year in and year out, I was still rooting for them in 07 Fiesta Bowl.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 7, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Blasphemy

I hate everything Boise. I hate their blue turf. I hate how they get publicity for beating crap opponents and then being healthier than everyone in the WAC by the time they play them because they scheduled crap teams. What ’07 Fiesta Bowl are you referring to? I was told they took the year off that year…

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yerjelace.

Fresno State is able to schedule more difficult teams because they are the cupcakes.

by FreshStart on Dec 8, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t imagine a BCS bowl game that would interest me less than the Orange Bowl.

by KCE on Dec 7, 2009 7:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it sucks that TCU wasn’t able to get to the championship, but this should at least be a fun game to watch.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Dec 7, 2009 9:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

/cue crusty grognard rant

The bowls are stupid because it barely matters who plays where. Texas in the Rose Bowl? Sure. And who knows where half of the games are. Insight Bowl? Chick-fil-A Bowl? Outback Steakhouse Bowl? Capital One Bowl? Little Caesar’s Bowl? These things were once part of local festivals to promote tourism to warm-weather sites (cf. the Raisin Bowl, Salad Bowl, Pineapple Bowl, Poi Bowl (maybe not that one). Now? Let’s jet up to Boise for the Humanitarian Bowl. Or RFK in Washington? I don’t know that there IS a good time of year for an outdoor game in WDC, but I do suspect that December isn’t it.

This year, we’re even treated to two Rose Bowls, the “Rose Bowl Game presented by citi”, and the 2010 citi BCS National Championship live from the Rose Bowl". First, why is citi sponsoring anything except deposit insurance? Second, leave the damn Rose Bowl alone.

I’m not at all convinced that the vaunted playoff system is any better… won’t the same yahoos be seeding everyone? If Cal ever does go undefeated they’ll get a first round playoff game on the road in Maine. With no changes to scheduling, will teams just keep packing the marshmallows into the schedule to go undefeated so they can play at home in the playoff?

Let’s just go back to good old bowl game chaos, with conflicting polls and interesting debates about which undefeated team was better, or whether the undefeated WAC team is better than teams that play real schedules. As amply demonstrated, that’s never really going to go away, it will just change to whining about seeding.

I liked watching whatever Texas school was in the Cotton Bowl, whichever Big 8 team made the Orange Bowl, and obviously whichever Pac 10 and Big 10 schools made the Rose Bowl. It’s basically not possible to make me care which two teams of paroled “athletes” play in the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl presented by Guaranteed Failure Bank NTSA.

Now, I have to go start cranking my auto, as I must get over to the apothecary post-haste.

Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."

Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!

by natteringnabob on Dec 7, 2009 10:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good points. No, a 4 or even an 8 team playoff will not solve the issue of scheduling and BCS confernce biases entirely, but it will give a team with 1 or 2 losses a chance at earning their way back into the nat’l championship game. This would allow Texas to schedule a decent opponent without the fear of one loss knocking them out title hopes completely.

Also, a 4 team playoff paves the way to an 8 team playoff, which paves the way to a 16 team playoff, which I would prefer in order to give teams from smaller conferences a chance to make the playoffs and then prove themselves against the BCS teams.

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think a 16 team playoff is necessary. 8 team playoff addresses that problem – this year, you’d get 1 team from each BCS conference + TCU + Boise St (I hope, maybe Florida would kick one of them out). Either way, they still get a chance. As for natteringnabob, I think that’s unfair. Sure, the names are stupid, but most everything else is still the same. The Pac-10/Big 10 don’t play every single year in the Rose Bowl, but it’s pretty close. I just don’t see any meaningful difference between what it is now and what it used to be. I can tell you the Emerald Bowl is a ton of fun to go to.

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the names aren't JUST stupid

they’re supposed to help make an interesting site for a game, and better yet be part of something besides an advertisement for some second-rate company. As for the Emerald Bowl, wasn’t that formerly known as the “Emerald Nut Bowl”? I wonder why they dropped the nuts.

I think it would be more interesting, by definition, if it were, say, the Golden Gate Bowl. SF is a bit of a bad example since there’s no need for other festivities to attract tourists or locals, but still it used to be interesting to think that there were parades before each game, a harvest queen (again not quite the same as applied to SF), and so on. It makes the local community buy in more, and I think it makes a more exciting environment for the teams playing in the thing, alumni travelling in, etc. Now they’re just a football game on TV with a lot of commercials from one sponsor.

As for the Rose Bowl, it’s now guaranteed that the game will never be as exciting, since the best case scenario features a top-ranked Pac-10 team or Big-10 team going to the BCS title game. In particular, I secretly suspect that if Cal ever actually goes undefeated they will NOT go to the Rose Bowl. Or, they will finish 2nd in the Pac-10 because another team is going to the Elgin Toilet BCS Bowl, and breaking their streak of ineptitude will be cheapened because they will march backwards to Pasadena (which would have happened a few years ago). Growing up in CA, the Rose Bowl made the Big-10 more interesting, because the best team from there would be in Pasadena every year. So Michigan-Ohio State, or Northwestern’s run in 1996 were more interesting because they were queuing up the Rose Bowl.

And as for the 8 team playoff, what happens when there’s a season with no undefeated teams, and 10 with 10-1 records? Or one 10-1 team that lost to a 9-2 team, and 8 other 9-2 teams? Still whinging and whining from someone.

Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."

Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!

by natteringnabob on Dec 7, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There will always be whining from the team that doesn’t get in—see the 65 team NCAA basketball tourney. But at least the further you get from the top teams, the less gripe they have to be #1. Plus strength of schedule can separate teams. I would prefer that they reward teams who play a tough schedule and get better over the year, rather than teams who play weak schedules just to finish undefeated (Boise).

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And as for the 8 team playoff, what happens when there’s a season with no undefeated teams, and 10 with 10-1 records? Or one 10-1 team that lost to a 9-2 team, and 8 other 9-2 teams? Still whinging and whining from someone.

I agree, there’s always going to be whining. Personally, I set the bar at 8. The 9th team is when I stop caring. If every BCS conference gets a team in, I don’t think any BCS conference teams have a legitimate complaint….they had the chance to win their conference and didn’t. It’s on them. The only complaint I would take seriously from a 9th place team that got left out would be if Boise St or TCU got left out for Florida this year (or some similar situation). Bottom line – if you don’t win your conference, you don’t deserve a shot at the National Championship, because you’re not even the best team from your conference, much less the country. So that’s why 8 works best, in my opinion. I am worried if they do implment an 8 team playoff eventually there’d be enough pressure to change it to 16.

Honestly, for the Rose Bowl, the only thing, in my opinion, that cheapens it is the fact that the Big 10 is a joke. They’ve won 1 Rose Bowl this decade, if I’m not mistaken…

But yeah, the Emerald Bowl is just lucky that Emerald Nuts brand name was easily changed to something that sounded…less corporate. I guess maybe I don’t fully understand what the bowl experience used to be like, I enjoy the game of course, but you’re right, I’m not really aware of it being a bigger series of events/festivities. That does sound like a cool idea that would make it a more fun/popular time out (but probably less profitable)….

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, the advantage of the 6 conference winners and only 2 at large (one guaranteed from a non-BCS conference) is that it doesn’t have an effect on OOC scheduling. Conference games are set, and those are what matters.

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I still say down with playoffs

and up with anarchy, but if it restored importance to conference championships that would be great. I think a playoff is inevitable and would prefer this to having Roone Arledge or Rupert Murdoch or whoever deciding.

But then I still don’t see the point. If Boise and BYU are undefeated, one of them is hosed. All the teams that aren’t in the 6 top conferences are essentially SOL.

Maybe what you are saying is that the MAC and similar conferences should be called out as a different class of ball, but we know that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Maybe that means realigning things out so that there are 16 or 14 conferences or whatever, moving U of A and ASU back to the WAC, breaking up the gigantic conferences, etc.

I like your vision of 8-teams a lot better than having Texas and Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl.

Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."

Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!

by natteringnabob on Dec 7, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t be opposed to making both at-large teams guaranteed from non-BCS conferences. It does put them at a disadvantage, but they should be, they simply don’t have to play the same level of competition as the BCS teams do. If two of them got in guaranteed every year they’re doing pretty well for themselves – I doubt whoever the third one was would ever really have a legitimate complaint….

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you’re forgetting the Notre Dame clause that must be included apparently

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh. You’re right. God I hate ND. If it was up to me they’d be in the Big 11 (and then we’d have 2 Big 12’s?).

by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you except that I believe an 8 team playoff using these rankings would work just fine. Like Fresburg said, the Big teams could schedule games that they never would normally for fear of losing one game and being knocked out of title contention.

I remember how Fresno could not get a decent opponent to come play them let alone on the road or in Fresno after they almost took down USC in Reggie Bush’s last year.

Plus I do not buy the bull that BCS pundits put out that Playoffs would take away the excitement in that in our current system “is a playoff every week of the season”. I am tired of seeing schools destroy lower division schools in week one, and then only having like 2-3 games in the season that are actually watchable and those are most often flukes where a number 1 plays a number 7 or something. Funny thing, is those matchups would happen in a playoff system.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 7, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

scheduling is a problem

but I think that will just be made worse with playoffs, or at best remain the same as the marshmallow eaters will pile them on to make sure the “selection committee” picks them for the big dance. Even if you assume a 16 team playoff, I don’t see how the final 3 get picked. There are 5 undefeated teams; any system has to put them in I should think or why bother at all? Florida lost 1, that makes 6 teams. Then there’s Ga Tech, Oregon, BYU, Ohio St, Iowa, Penn St., and Cent Mich all with 2 losses. How do just two of those teams get in? If you want to go to 16, there are about 10 teams with 3 losses, so several of those get screwed, particularly if you try to include 4 loss teams that have more wins or some kind of weak-sister weedout (screening the MAC teams, for instance).

As for the BCS claiming that playoffs will take away the excitement… they should know as they’ve done plenty themselves. The first time Notre Dame or Navy shows up to the Rose Bowl we’ll get to see their genius in action. As for making regular-season games less important, they’re right about that too, except that also demonstrates the stupidity of their system. College football will be like college basketball and their postseason conference tournaments. This year I cared about the Oregon/Oregon State game. If they were both going to the Cheetos Bowl Playoff Megasuperfungame by Pennzoil… not so much.

I know that it will never happen, and I’m mostly devils-advocating, but all the uncertainty of no playoffs would make for interesting reading, writing, and remembering more than one or two teams, and make the lesser bowl games more interesting.

Fresno’s a good example; they’ve had a lot of good football teams go unnoticed over the years, and being left out of an 8 game playoff instead of the current mess isn’t going to do much for them. Just designate a bowl game for the WAC like the Holiday Bowl used to be. All the WAC teams can dream of going there, and it’s possible that someone could run the table and move into college football history like the infamous BYU team. Were they really better than Washington, or whoever else? It’s all just opinion anyway, and at least if there weren’t a BCS/playoff that would be made plain rather than settled by a bunch of TV execs and college presidents or the Gambletron-2000 or whatever calculates the BCS rankings.

Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."

Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!

by natteringnabob on Dec 7, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that there need to be less bowls.

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As for making regular-season games less important

My playoff wouldn’t make them less important at all. Gotta win your conference, and that’s something that makes every week important.

How do just two of those teams get in?

Another perk of my system, most of the slots are out of the voters hands. 6 of the slots are decided by conference championships. 1 of the slots is decided by voters but since it’s guaranteed to a non-BCS conference team, a lot of years there won’t be any controversy. That doesn’t leave a whole lot for them to mess up.

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I went to that Fresno/USC game. Best college football game I’ve ever witnessed—despite the Colleseum being a complete dump.

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fucking Pinegar.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 7, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That was my first reaction. Close second was “Reggie Bush—Wow”.

by Fresburg on Dec 7, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, 6TDs that game, and just some of the most back breaking moves ever put on defenders.

But still, fucking Pinegar, interception at the worst possible time.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 7, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The best nickname I’ve heard for the Fiesta Bowl: The Separate But Equal Bowl

Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl

by Viliphied on Dec 7, 2009 11:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

LOL Circular Logic

http://playoffproblem.com/

Welcome This site is for the millions of us who love college football, but may have differing views on how a team earns a national title. Many of us remember the pre-BCS era, where No. 1 played No. 2 in a bowl game only eight times in 56 seasons. Few want to return to those days. By contrast, during the 11 years since the BCS was created, #1 has played #2 every year by BCS measurements (and in 8 of 11 years according to the AP poll). Despite this, some have advocated for a hypothetical playoff system, which would be more controversial and contentious than the BCS. Let the debate continue.

This website was created by the BCS group in an effort to join the conversation about the football post-season.

"Being a McCoven is like being a member of the Green party. It’s powerlessness is part of the appeal." - oldjacket

by scout6 on Dec 7, 2009 1:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

#1 vs #2 every year!

glabin!

Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."

Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!

by natteringnabob on Dec 7, 2009 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The one bullshit I don’t want to hear is the reason why there isn’t a playoff system is because they want the players in school, in class forgetting that the other levels ALL have playoff systems.

"meh"

by SFGuy on Dec 7, 2009 11:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

not to mention the NCAA basketball tournament that has an even greater affect on class time

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I can't care about college football

Ohio State plays non conference games against Northwestern Middle Tennessee State at Alberta every year, but no one from a major conference will take on Boise St. At the end of the year, Boise St gets ripped for playing a weak schedule, when no on from the Big 12, Pac 10, SEC, or Big 10 will play them. It’s all bullshit. And the Big East, whose football teams aren’t exactly the SEC, gets an automatic bid to the BCS, while the MAC, Mountain West, and WAC will forever be on the outside because of the rigged system. Fuck them, and their bullshit.

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 8:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is the biggest BS that Boise can’t schedule BCS teams. For years their strategy was to play crap teams and intentionally did not sign contracts with BCS teams so that they could have a chance to finish undefeated. Now that their strategy is backfiring, they’re crying that they can’t find any BCS schools to fill their last second openings. Then they have the WAC commissioner lobbying for them and hiring them a PR firm to spin all these BS scheduling myths to the media to gain some sympathy for their crappy scheduling strategy.

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They’re trying to schedule anyone for 2011! I’m sorry but that your argument doesn’t hold water for me. Your argument that B.S. plays only powder puffs in non league play makes them exactly the same as Ohio Sate, Michigan, FSU, etc. I don’t really care about Boise State per say, I just hate this system that promotes this behavior. I fail to see how it’s Boise State (or Fresno State, when they were playing at a high level) fault because the NCAA ensures an oligarchy for the huge ($ making) conferences.

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

While I have plenty of issues with college football along scheduling lines, you do have to recognize how far in advance schedules are made. Most teams have had their big OOC opponents for 2011 scheduled for years now…

by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True, they are scheduled out in advance, but I do find it exceptionally hard to believe not a single school in any of the BCS conferences had an open date anywhere in 2011. I’m not blaming those schools, per say, because the shitty system in use punishes them for taking big games. If, say, USC and Florida had a home and home series, it would be brilliant but it’s against the interests of those AD’s to schedule such a great match up. It just sucks, and Boise is just another ember in my inferno of rage at the stupidity that is college football

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s even worse for Boise, because at least if Florida/USC (or similar big time schools) play, they get credit for the win. Boise is a no-win scenario for BCS schools. It looks terrible if they lose, and if they win, they really don’t get a whole lot of credit.

I personally blame the voters. Just like the HoF, Cy Young Award, and MVP….they screw it up constantly.

by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Additionally, the report was that Boise contacted 10 schools for an opening in 2011. Only 10! There are over 60 BCS conference schools and they think they can get it done by calling only 10 of them and praying that they have an opening on the same week they want to play them on.

I realize your beef isn’t against Boise, but since you brought it up I thought I’d share…

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right, but if they played…say…South Carolina that wouldn’t help their BCS numbers anyway. I just hate the inequity built into the system that won’t allow anyone, no matter how good, into their little tea party.

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

sure it would help them if they played South Carolina. Voters would be able to compare their game against SC with other undefeated teams who also played SC. Which would give them a better idea of how they all stack up.

by Fresburg on Dec 9, 2009 6:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

who told you they are trying to schedule anyone for 2011? A boise newspaper? The WAC commissioner who is paid to make his teams look better? A PR firm paid for by the WAC to put Boise State in the spotlight? Come on… don’t be so naive.

If scheduling BCS schools is so tough, then why do teams all over the country get it done? BYU played Florida State and Oklahoma this year. Fresno State and Nevada’s schedules were filled with BCS teams.

I agree with your sentiments that the system is awards teams for playing easy schedules and going undefeated. That is why Boise State is just as much to blame as Texas, Florida, and Alabama for the way the system is.

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it was on that bastion of Sports Journalism, The Sports Center.

Look, I’m not even a Boise State fan, and their field makes me want to vomit like a Elton John on a binge, but I just hate the system and they happen to be a perfect proxy, because they’re a good team who isn’t on the invite list.

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel ya. I can’t really fault Texas for scheduling crap schools in non-conference because they’re just playing the game. Plus their conference schedule is tough enough to strengthen their strength of schedule.

The reason why I can’t include Boise in the argument against the system is because Boise only has themselves to blame for not playing a tougher schedule.

by Fresburg on Dec 9, 2009 6:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

By your logic, why doesn’t Texas deserve to be ripped? This makes no sense. Get over it. Fresno State might be good again.

by FreshStart on Dec 9, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Texas plays in a conference with better opponents. Their schedule out of conference schedule lacks integrity, but at least they play real teams in conference.

You’re obviously too ignorant to have a real debate.

by Fresburg on Dec 12, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy to be a rude shit when it’s all anonymous. You’re totally transparent — BSU, BCS, none of it would be an issue if Fresno State didn’t suck. They get that tough non-conference schedule because they are the cupcakes. It is that simple.

by FreshStart on Dec 13, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

FSU was able to play a tough schedule

because they were the cupcakes. How many times do I have to say it?

by FreshStart on Dec 15, 2009 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You are wrong.

It’s ok, I understand that you are jealous. But you are wrong about the scheduling. You are just parroting convenient rumors.

by FreshStart on Dec 8, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was talking to Fresburg.

by FreshStart on Dec 8, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, got confused.

by tyrannoman on Dec 8, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“you are wrong” and “you are jealous” is your argument? Are you 12?

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I’m not twelve. I just didn’t think that your Fresno homer argument deserved any more attention. The “you are wrong” is factual. You are wrong about the way BSU schedules, or tries to schedule. Do you want chapter and verse? Would you believe it if I gave it to you? Thought not. You’re still wrong.

by FreshStart on Dec 9, 2009 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thirteen then? Because obviously you have no defense other than basic rhetoric. If you feel I’m wrong, prove it—or at least back it up with an opinion.

My opinion is very homer based, and therefore full of bias. Feel free to try to prove me wrong. You don’t need to write a chapter, but a simple explanation would be more help to a debate than responding like a 12 yr old.

by Fresburg on Dec 12, 2009 8:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you really think the shit you offer is better than that of a twelve year old? You aren’t offering anything concrete yourself — just the crap you get off some Fresno State blog. Do you know who BSU has tried to schedule? No. But you are sure they haven’t tried to schedule anyone strong. Whatever. You haven’t dealt with anything greater than basic rhetoric either.

Your opinion is very homer based. Thus…it’s meaningless?

by FreshStart on Dec 13, 2009 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, I’m shocked, you really can’t defend it. You really are ignorant. I feel sorry for you.

Let me know when you want to have a big boy conversation.

by Fresburg on Dec 14, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It won’t be with you. Fresno State are BSU’s bitches, and it pisses you off. That’s all I can tell from your high-falutin’ analysis.

by FreshStart on Dec 15, 2009 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe instead of the Big East, you should be complaining about the Big 10. They really suck this year. Some would even say the Big East is better than the Big 12 this season. Regardless, there is a substantial gap between the Big East and best non-BCS conference….

by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Really the only conferences you can count on being good year-in year out are the SEC and PAC 10. I think the BIG 12 should be in that group too, but this year really isn’t helping them. Generally speaking though, the BIG 10 and the Big East shouldn’t have automatic BCS tie-ins.

by Fresburg on Dec 8, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs