Check out these Oregon fans

#76
#76
SDV said:
Oregon Championship trophy case

null_zpsb5f9f41c.jpg
Click to expand...

This is the greatest comeback I have ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
DuckIt said:
Sigh. Who cares? These are the same type of idiots who will flame anything, anyone, in regards to any subject. Especially over the Internet.

And google search crazy Vol fans and you'll see the same two clowns wearing orange. Who cares what these idiots have to say?

I don't pay a premium on tradition. Especially in sports. It's a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately enterprise. The Dodgers are my baseball team, and they have one of the richest histories in all of American sports. It's cool; but right about now, I don't give a damn because they haven't won a title since 1988. Meanwhile, the Diamondbacks Marlins have won a few combine titles. Seriously?!

I love Dodger tradition, but man do I covet the World Series the Diamondbacks have. To say a bad modern team is great because they won championships 40 years ago is as dumb as saying a dominant team now is bad because they didn't win 40 years ago. I don't think there's anything wrong with the fans of the #2 team in the country feeling confident about beating an unranked team at home in a hostile environment, especially when said fans watched said current #2 team beat up said visitor in their stadium just a few years ago. That can only be expected. (Imagine Tennessee were ranked #2 and an unranked UCLA, Michigan, or Texas team came to YOUR house. I assume you'd be feeling pretty damn confident.)

But what should also be expected is for a fan base, on both sides of major football teams, to respect the fact that on any given day, any team can beat any team. I'll be the first to admit I expect the Ducks to beat Tennessee. But I'm also the first to admit that Tennessee could easily beat the Ducks if a full effort isn't given. You guys are down - you're not dead. You have players, you have a chip on your shoulders, and you have a solid coach. What about that doesn't say losable game for the Ducks? Nothing, I say.

Screw those guys. Best not to give them attention. This Duck respects your Vols and looks forward to a competitive game.

As far as the dirty Nike comments go: don't be ridiculous. The payment Oregon made wasn't a recruiting violation; it was a horribly worthless business transaction, operated under an undefined gray area of NCAA rules. Regardless of what you think of that, Nike wasn't writing the paychecks.

And also remember that Nike only gives Oregon what it gives a **** load of other programs nowadays: trendy uniforms. Phil Knight the alum - not Nike the company- is the man who gives us money. And most alums do it, whether making $50,000 a year or $50,000,000. And that's completely legal. He could offer Oregon a billion dollars tomorrow. And the university would take, as would any university. His connection to our school is legendary. It makes sense he donates a lot. And while he may give our football program prodigious sums of money, he also donates prodigious suns of money to academics - paying for our library, our law building, our study and resource center, as well as paying for professor tenures.

AND, what's the difference between one über wealthy booster and 10 really wealthy boosters? Nothing. Oregon takes Phil Knight's money without shame. Just as USC, Texas, Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc. etc. takes money from all their wealthy boosters. If you hate on Oregon for benefiting from Nike, you're crazy. Because your cannot convince me that your school wouldn't jump with joy if one of your alums created the largest sports apparel company in the world. And your president, athletic director, and everyone else involved in the school would line up outside of his front door with palms held out and an Oliver Twist "More, please..." look in their eyes.

Anyway, this website is great. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts and posts (even the slightly crazy ones!). I feel like I've learned a lot about your team and the state of your program. And for it's worth, this outsider sees good things on the horizon. To many years of us beating USC and you beating Florida!
Click to expand...

Good post. I hope you stick around here and post after the game this weekend. (Well, maybe not too soon after the game)
 
#79
#79
WTD said:
I first came here lurking to check out what you guys are saying about the game. I then made an account because a dude was seriously putting down the state of Oregon without knowing anything about it in one of the threads.

Also, I joined just to talk about the game/football in general and to help out visiting vol fans on what to do and where to go. A lot of duck fans already did a great job of that though.
Click to expand...

In would of have loved to have made the trip up to watch the game. But I'm stuck watching it on abc
 
#80
#80
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
1951 and 1998 are the only ones awarded by the major polls. The others that we claim were awarded retroactive, and some of them are rather dubious. We claim a NC for 1967 when we went 9-2.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

LSU won a BCSCG and had 2 losses in 07


I understand ur point but its not like a 2 loss team has never won a NC

FWIW, everything ive seen says we have 4 NCs and claim 6.....idk what years the 4 come from
 
#85
#85
oregonblitzkrieg said:
Sure, a D- in analysis, but an A in the humor department. "We're bringing it to you brutherrrrr!"
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I couldn't get past the amazing logical inconsistency in points one and two.

1- Oregon has a new head coach (promoted from a long tenure as OC), and this is offered as a weakness

2- Tennessee has a new head coach (who came from a different team in a completely different conference), and this is offered as a strength.

I'm sure he'd still be fun to drink a beer with.
 
#86
#86
stephenk24 said:
I'm sorry, but why have we only supposedly won two titles?
Click to expand...

In the old days, there was no centralized group that designated a national champion. It was instead left to various media outlets, who often disagreed. In 1950, for example, 18 publications proclaimed Tennessee (11-1) the national champion, while 11 proclaimed Oklahoma (also 11-1) the champion. Thus, both schools claim national championships in 1950 (Tennessee has a more legitimate claim, since they defeated Kentucky, while Oklahoma lost to Kentucky).

Tennessee has one undisputed national championship (1998).

The 1938 team had a legitimate claim to a national championship (they were 11-0, but so was TCU).

The 1951 squad was a consensus national champion. However, this was in the days when media outlets declared the champion before the bowl season. The 1951 team finished the regular season undefeated, but lost its bowl game. The 1940 team, similarly, finished the regular season undefeated, but lost its bowl game.

The 1967 claim is the biggest stretch. We lost the opener to UCLA, won our final 9 regular season games, then lost in our bowl game to Oklahoma. Thus, we were 9-2. USCw finished 10-1, however, and had defeated UCLA.
 
#87
#87
TheGreenCloaca said:
No doubt. But conversely -- and also not trying to be a prick -- I think one must admit it's easy to heavily emphasize football tradition when your team hasn't done much lately.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Tradition is only brought up when the present situation stinks. Michigan fans were doing the same thing a few years ago when they sucked.

Pointing to success before color TV and integration is a pretty lame argument.
 
#88
#88
VolsFanRJ said:
I stopped watching when these clowns listed Florida and then USC as having one of the best O lines in the country and discounting the Vols O line. Blahahahahaha...... Yeah that USC line blew that Washington State defense off the ball last week to score 7 points and to lose. That Gator OL sure put a whipping on the hurricanes too. These guys haven't done their homework.
Click to expand...

Me,too. that's when I stopped watching. Blah, Blah...
 
#90
#90
DC_Vol said:
Yeah, but I couldn't get past the amazing logical inconsistency in points one and two.

1- Oregon has a new head coach (promoted from a long tenure as OC), and this is offered as a weakness

2- Tennessee has a new head coach (who came from a different team in a completely different conference), and this is offered as a strength.

I'm sure he'd still be fun to drink a beer with.
Click to expand...

Maybe because:

1 - Going from proven to success to untested; may be a step back.

2 - Going from proven incompetence to battle tested, proven HC with a history of winning.


Agree or disagree, but I'd say that was the logic.
 
#91
#91
Bms4880 said:
In the old days, there was no centralized group that designated a national champion. It was instead left to various media outlets, who often disagreed. In 1950, for example, 18 publications proclaimed Tennessee (11-1) the national champion, while 11 proclaimed Oklahoma (also 11-1) the champion. Thus, both schools claim national championships in 1950 (Tennessee has a more legitimate claim, since they defeated Kentucky, while Oklahoma lost to Kentucky).

Tennessee has one undisputed national championship (1998).

The 1938 team had a legitimate claim to a national championship (they were 11-0, but so was TCU).

The 1951 squad was a consensus national champion. However, this was in the days when media outlets declared the champion before the bowl season. The 1951 team finished the regular season undefeated, but lost its bowl game. The 1940 team, similarly, finished the regular season undefeated, but lost its bowl game.

The 1967 claim is the biggest stretch. We lost the opener to UCLA, won our final 9 regular season games, then lost in our bowl game to Oklahoma. Thus, we were 9-2. USCw finished 10-1, however, and had defeated UCLA.
Click to expand...

It may sound weird, but I am glad Oregon can't participate in leather helmet debates about MNCs. We are making our tradition right now.

We watched Washington claim a retroactive 1960 MNC while they were in the midst of an 0-12 season in 2008. It was, and remains, most comical.

"Tradition" you have to con yourself into having decades after the fact isn't worth a pile of steaming dog crap.
 
#92
#92
Canard said:
It may sound weird, but I am glad Oregon can't participate in leather helmet debates about MNCs. We are making our tradition right now.

We watched Washington claim a retroactive 1960 MNC while they were in the midst of an 0-12 season in 2008. It was, and remains, most comical.

"Tradition" you have to con yourself into having decades after the fact isn't worth a pile of steaming dog crap.
Click to expand...

801 wins. No con. Unimportant only to those who don't have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
Orange_Crush said:
801 wins. No con. Unimportant only to those who don't have it.
Click to expand...

The people that sh** on tradition are the ones that don't have it. Granted, it's over used by teams that don't have current success, but tradition represents a standard of excellence. Tennessee's been to the top of the mountain; the question is: can we regain our previous glory? UT will always be considered one of the elite programs in college football history.

Teams without tradition will always need to prove that they belong in the conversation about elite programs.
 
#95
#95
See this is the reason why we don't need to sit around and kiss their weed smoking ass in Oregon..What I really want to say, I'll get banned from here, but too many posts sit and talk about how wonderful ducks fans are and cry me a river of sappy joy..I'm tired of hearing it..its about time we put the nation on notice, TN is back!
 
#97
#97
Orange_Crush said:
Maybe because:

1 - Going from proven to success to untested; may be a step back.

2 - Going from proven incompetence to battle tested, proven HC with a history of winning.


Agree or disagree, but I'd say that was the logic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree. It's ridiculous logic and makes the person presenting it look like a moron.
 
#98
#98
1) it's never our best and brightest who are sitting around making these kind of videos. Nor is it oregon's
2)if you want to support your church, leave something in the basket. If you want to ACTUALLY support UT, attend games and give whatever you can to the program. Don't just Amen from the back row
3) if you are going to spit ridiculous hatred, focus it on Alabama and Florida.
4) yes, some of the Oregon uniforms are ridiculous. However, some of them are cool and they certainly started a trend in football that we can attribute our new uniforms to.
5)we do have one of the best traditions in college football. But most of us would trade results with Oregon in terms of the last few years.
6) for me there is only one team and they were orange and white on Saturdays. But someone has to support the other teams out there so we have someone to smack around! Go vols
 
#99
#99
Orange_Crush said:
801 wins. No con. Unimportant only to those who don't have it.
Click to expand...

That last line of mine was only referencing national championship claims made upon little or no actual basis.

We have a rival that claimed a 1960 MNC 48 years late. It doesn't smack of tradition, it reeks of current desperation.

I'm not accusing UT of that at all, though some of your own fans take issue with the 1967 MNC claim.

What I was saying is that tradition that has to be faked isn't worth respecting.
 
#100
#100
Canard said:
What I was saying is that tradition that has to be faked isn't worth respecting.
Click to expand...

One sketchy claim to a national title doesn't mean the program's tradition is "faked." Furthermore, the 1967 squad was named the national champion by at least one media outlet, so I wouldn't even call it "fake." "Controversial," but not fake.

We'll drop our claim to the 1967 title if Alabama drops their ridiculous claim to the 1941 title. They weren't SEC champions that year, but they were somehow national champions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top