I see it as the exact opposite.
No one cares how you see it. At what point does that sink in?
However, at this point, I have to be a little concerned about you.
Really? You've been trolling our message board for two months extolling the virtues of a mid-tier Pac-10 school with a losing record against any seasonal opponent of merit...but you're worried about
me? I'm worried about the availability of condoms in the greater Eugene area.
You seem to be making arguments for why Tennessee fans have more bragging rights than Oregon fans.
I didn't "make" any arguments (educated people say, "formulate", but I'll give you the Oregon pass) - I stated facts.
For all of your efforts with fancy font and coloring,
I write a thousand some odd word post that filets your beloved school with irrefutable facts, and you begin your counter-charge against my selection of font type and color. Well, I can see where this goes from here, I suppose.
you have failed to make any argument that is substantial toward why a recruit would pick either program for their current and relevant merits.
By which standard have I failed? Yours? Well, of course I have, mouth-breather. What if I pointed out that many (say 90%) of the facts that I pointed out came from the pages of an Oregon Media Guide.....which they routinely send to prospective recruits. Everyone is stupid but you, right?
.... (if you can think of any).
Where are
your facts, Wheaton? Your knowledge shouldn't be constrained by your ability to access the "Google" and "Wiki" domains, respectively. One of these days, you're going to need to know more than how to seduce your sister and light farts, and T-Mobile won't have service in that area - then you're screwed.
By "substantial" did you mean, large....or have you misused your limited vocabulary, again?
Are you proposing that each of the facts which I quoted suggested a conclusion which was based solely on the origin of either of our programs - you now, as the definition suggests? Quite to the contrary, I showed both the historical and modern context for each school, across broad categories, measured to equal standards to properly show the present situation. You may not like where that argument lead, but even you can't argue that I transferred positive or negative esteem from the earlier context - and if so, it was done in Oregon's favor! Such occurred when I compared the "best" 8 years of Oregon football to Tennessee's "worst" eight years, and continued to further restrict the data to the "modern" era criteria (i.e. limiting the information to 1975 and 1990 to present, etc.). If I were an Oregon fan, I would appreciate not mentioning anything before 1980, at the very earliest.
Brown can not play for the entire SEC. He must play for one team.
Can you further illuminate this idea, Mr. Madden?
However, if he plays at Tennessee, he will play against more teams from the SEC than any other conference, right? Do you get that? I typed it extra slow for you. So, given that - don't you think it quite pertinent to note that Oregon has a LOSING record against every major Pac-10 team, with the exception of Oregon State? Do you not think it equally important to note that Tennessee has a winning record against its major conference opponents? Finally, do you not then understand that a team who fares better against stronger competition might, in fact, be a better program than one which does not? I have a sneaking suspicion that Washington, UCLA, USC and Cal would all agree with me, and use this against Oregon, quite effectively.
Therefore, the record of current teams he is choosing is far more substantial than any cumulative conference records.
So....only the last season's record matters, right? You're saying that the previous years record should transfer some positive esteem. I understand. Scroll up and re-check the definition of "genetic fallacy" again. Careful, don't be sodomized by the irony along the way.
This is due to the simple fact that, within every conference, there often exist weaker teams.
Oregon has been properly identified as said weaker team.
Being on the weak team is not made any better for an individual player by the fact that the other teams are relatively stronger on average.
Being on a weak Oregon team and facing strong conference teams is not better for an individual player. You have perfectly stated why Brown should not choose Oregon. Great job - and I agree!
It also ignores the specific way in which they might be stronger. If a conference is strong due mostly to defensive play, those statistics become even more irrelevant. Since Brown is an offensive player, he is presumably looking to play in the most productive offense, right?
So, the more prevalent the characteristics of a conference, the more irrelevant their meaning? Does. Not. Compute. That's like eight illogical steps from being stupid. Do you want a do-over on this one?
....those players were coached by different people under different circumstances. That some lineman was drafted by the NFL from UT in the past will be of little consolation if Brown were to go as a lower pick than he hopes to.
Yeah, if it happened before last season, it doesn't exist, right? Of course, you're an Oregon fan, right? Say, Wheaton doesn't still play for the Ducks, but yet you've immortalized him in your screen name....isn't that the same thing you're suggesting as being one of your own previously mentioned fallacies?
Awards specific to other players, coached by different people are not relevant to determining what awards the current players might achieve while being coached by the new staff.
Yeah, again, if it didn't happen last season, it doesn't exist, right? So, nothing the former staff did matters, because they're not here - AND - nothing that was accomplished by the coaches with other players before they got here matters either, right? Hmmm....I seem to only be left with, "Only good stuff about Oregon matters (however little there is), and nothing else about Tennessee does or can matter. Or even exist." Nice argument, if you don't think about it....and neither does anyone else.
It's true that the seating capacity is higher at UT. However, for lack of seating capacity, Oregon fans makes up for with well-known intensity...
I'm confused. Are you now so crazed as to think that 54,000 people can come close to matching that of 108,000?!?
By "well-known intensity", do you mean the process of your collective fan base making death-threats and incessant chants of racial and sexual slurs toward opposing players - so much so, that you brand of "intensity" was featured in an SI article, showing your "fans" to be some of the worst in all of college sports? Or is this the one where your "intesnsity" causes you to throw urine and dog feces on opposing teams and their fans?
Additionally, there are plans in the works to expand Autzen stadium to a greater seating capacity.
Let's say that they do expand it, what would the new size be - 65K? 75K? 80K? Do you know what we'd call that kind of expansion here? "More Restrooms".
...a plus to have the opportunity to establish a legacy at a school that involved making it possible to expand the stadium.
If they're already planning it before he gets there....would he really be responsible for it....before he even signed? Oh, you're saying that this idea should appeal to him because he's probably stupid enough to believe it. Again, are you lying now, or will you be lying then?
Oregon is ...projected to be a top 25 (top 10 by some) team in all polls.
I have to admit - not too shabby for the 5th best team in the 4th best confernce.
... he could have entered the scene with a top team from year one.
Quick question: what's the "top team" you mention? I thought you were an Oregon fan? Didn't you read my first post on this, earlier today? Oregon is not a "top team" - even by your notably warped standards.
Why not just ask one of the several people on here who routinely talk to Bryce to pass this all along for you, then (and there are several, just as you rightfully fear). From what I understand, he is already very familiar with your "fans" and their "intensity", so it likely wouldn't surprise him.
I know you're type, Wheaton, I really, really do. You are the ultimate imposter, a poser, the proverbial wannabe on steroids. You seek out confrontation to example how smart and superior you want others to believe you to be, or are stupid enough to actually think you are. Usually, you dazzle everyone with your quick and sharp words, hoping that you scare off more opponents than you actually fight. When your words fail, you try to out-smart them. When your intelligence fails, you simply try to outlast them, hoping that they just go away exhausted with dealing with you - leaving it a draw. You're a mile-wide and 1/8th inch deep.
I am but one of many, many, many people on this site who you've have dreaded to meet for so long now - and who's patience with your nonsense has finally been exhausted. You're either too dumb to know it - or too stupid to remember it, but you are in over your head, drowing in a shark-infested ocean of your own ignorance, wearing a millstone of your own arrogance.
I stated simple and easily verifiable facts, and stand by each of them. I welcome you to refute a single one of them, and if you cannot, then at least be man enough to admit their truth, despite the consequences to your argument. It's called being a reasonable adult. Look into it.
And that's what's up.
P.S. - Would you care to make a wager on where Brown ends up? Are you man enough for that?
