UT Football.Is it plausible to believe we can win it all?

based on what!!!!!!!!!!!!?????? you still have not answered this question..

I answered the question probably 30 times. Better regular season records is one reason. Now I am officially through arguing this particular topic.
 
I'm through arguing with you. You draw too many insane conclusions. It's like arguing with a drunk.

I've stated my case. Everyone here is free to agree or disagree.

There are worthy contenders other than conference champions.
it would be nice if you'd just answer the questions asked, insted of going off on some other tangent every other page.

and believe me, i wish i was drunk...........
 
it would be nice if you'd just answer the questions asked, insted of going off on some other tangent every other page.

and believe me, i wish i was drunk...........

I do find it funny that you act like I have something to prove when the system already supports my line of thinking. Obviously someone agrees with me.
 
I'm through arguing with you. You draw too many insane conclusions. It's like arguing with a drunk.

I've stated my case. Everyone here is free to agree or disagree.

There are worthy contenders other than conference champions.

I agree completely, but who gets to say who's more desevrving? The media who rank teams who lose to others teams higher than the team that beat them? The coaches, who have very vested interest and bias with power in their votes (vote a team that you beat higher than a team with the same record that you don't play makes your schedule look better), computers? flawed as the people who program them. Thus my argument for an inclusion of all teams in conferences and only path to playoff is through a conference championship.:hi:
 
I do find it funny that you act like I have something to prove when the system already supports my line of thinking. Obviously someone agrees with me.

...and the system sux at determining a champion more often than not, but it does do a great job of creating multiple hr long debates on message boards!!
 
Based on the fact that one game is one game. It doesn't make a season.
of course not, give teams as many chances as possible...that TN/FL game, or FL/GA game or OU/TX game, ah, just one game, no big deal if you win or lose, you'll all get another shot in the end....no worries.
I do find it funny that you act like I have something to prove when the system already supports my line of thinking. Obviously someone agrees with me.
:thumbsup:
 
[/b]
...and the system sux at determining a champion more often than not, but it does do a great job of creating multiple hr long debates on message boards!!

I can't think of a champion in the BCS era that I haven't agreed with.
 
[/b]
...and the system sux at determining a champion more often than not, but it does do a great job of creating multiple hr long debates on message boards!!
Agreed, using the current system as validation of your ideas is like pointing to the Berlin Wall as support for Communism.
 
[/b]
I agree completely, but who gets to say who's more desevrving? The media who rank teams who lose to others teams higher than the team that beat them? The coaches, who have very vested interest and bias with power in their votes (vote a team that you beat higher than a team with the same record that you don't play makes your schedule look better), computers? flawed as the people who program them. Thus my argument for an inclusion of all teams in conferences and only path to playoff is through a conference championship.:hi:
:salute:
 
[/b]
Thus my argument for an inclusion of all teams in conferences and only path to playoff is through a conference championship.:hi:

The only way I could agree with that, (and I'm sure you don't care if I agree or not, but just putting my opinion out there,) is if they determined conference champs by record, and not one game at the end of the season, especially because it could be a rematch. Also, in no way should a CUSA champ get a spot over the 2nd best SEC team, so you would have to exclude mid majors with that idea, or force them to join a conference that people care about.
 
of course not, give teams as many chances as possible...that TN/FL game, or FL/GA game or OU/TX game, ah, just one game, no big deal if you win or lose, you'll all get another shot in the end....no worries.
:thumbsup:



So what did that UT LSU game in the regular season in 2001 mean?
 
You agreed with both teams that got to play for it , everytime?

I thought that there might be serious debate for including USC in 2003, but I agreed with the OU-LSU matchup.

Even so, I feel that one year out of 10 is good. Also, almost all the bowl matchups in this era have been phenomenal.
 
The only way I could agree with that, (and I'm sure you don't care if I agree or not, but just putting my opinion out there,) is if they determined conference champs by record, and not one game at the end of the season, especially because it could be a rematch. Also, in no way should a CUSA champ get a spot over the 2nd best SEC team, so you would have to exclude mid majors with that idea, or force them to join a conference that people care about.
:banghead2: and we're back to the popularity contest.
 
I have a hard time agreeing OU should have gotten in when they just lost by 4 touchdowns the previous game to Kansas State.
 
Again, what National Champion do you have a problem with?
I don't have a problem today, because UT hasn't been in the running since inception of the BCS, but I certainly would if I were at LSU, Auburn, Michigan etc.
 

VN Store



Back
Top