favorite fcp posters.

[KowboyKoop 0]

This argument is mind-numbing.My two cents: I cannot acknowledge the opinion of anyone who honestly believes that the White Stripes are WAY better than the Beatles. I'm not a huge Beatles fan. I really like the White Stripes. But historically speaking, the Beatles have an edge...it's not even close.

noone is speaking historically. I like the White Stripes music WAY better. Thus, I think the White Stripes are way better. It is a simple opinion, but I see you too have fallen into the trap of MASSIVELY overanalyzing it.

[loogie 115]

I don't know anyone named Noone, so I guess I don't get the reference.And how could you of all people criticize someone for MASSIVELY overanalyzing anything?

[KowboyKoop 0]

KowboyKoop has a good arguement there...and he has some numbers to support his view....BUT...This ND team is infinitely more talented than the 02' team.....

Noone said that the '02 team was more talented. The 05 team IS much more talented. However, there is a difference between being "more talented" and a better football team. Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the year that Oklahoma beat FSU in the national title game in (2000)???? Florida St. was WAY more talented that Oklahoma that year, but Oklahoma was CLEARLY the better team. That is my point. Sure, this year's team is more explosive on offense. However, they have played weak defenses/teams all year and thus have been able to just run up some numbers. The '02 team played MUCH tougher teams, NEVER lost to a weak team at all, and had just as much success. Five quality wins is A LOT more than just a marginal one quality win (Michigan is only 7-4, probably the best 4 loss team in the country, but still not a real good team). My argument IS good, and the numbers ARE good and DO back up my point fully, so if you are tired of me "saying the same thing over and over," I suggest you find some way to explain how those numbers are "deceiving" or something else....even though I don't really think that is possible. The numbers don't lie.....

Numbers lie all the time. Thats the silliest thing you have said yet.Oh and I was at the FSU v. Oklahoma game in 2000. First off, Oklahoma was just about as talented as FSU that year. Two, the reason FSU got dominated is because Snoop Minnis was academically ineligible and he was the key to their entire passing game not that OU was clearly the better team. Weinke looked lost all night. No one who was at that game walked away thinking OU was clearly the better team....more that they were lucky that minnis was out (and more importantly that they lucked out and go to play FSU instead of the Canes....Miami would have wiped the floor with OU)I finally figured it out. I actually watch these games whereas you sit in front of a screen wacking off to schedule strength never thinking you might learn by actually watching these games. And thats why all your opinions are wrong. You are Jeff Sagarin should probably hang out.

A. No, Oklahoma was NOT as talented that year, everyone who was a so-called "expert" had FSU winning that game easily, everyone thought Oklahoma would be overmatched.B. Oh, yeah, I guess Oklahoma got LUCKY that Florida St. had a player who couldn't achieve the minimal standard of being academically eligible. Yeah, Oklahoma was just SOOOOOO lucky that ONE player for FSU missed the game. yeah, that's why Oklahoma's defense dominated FSU's offense all night, because if that ONE player had been in, FSU would have surely won the game by 24 points. Seriously, you need to start giving some of these teams who win big games some credit. First, the '02 ND team was just "lucky" to win all those games against pretty good opponents, while the '05 team is dominant in running up the score against softies. Yeah, good one. And now, it is Oklahoma that was "lucky" to pull off the big upset and beat FSU in their game. Yeah, okay...C. Yeah, Weinke looked lost all night. I guess it was pretty "lucky" that Weinke got stoned before that game....OH, WAIT A MINUTE, MAYBE HIM LOOKING LOST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH OKLAHOMA'S DEFENSE!?!??! WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!??!?! You apparently don't know your football very well if you just call every team that wins with good defense "lucky." There is more to football than just offense, one day you will learn.D. Yeah, you're right, I don't actually watch the games. They are....uh..too long for me, that's it..good one. I am a college football junkie, I watch as many games as I can possibly watch given my sometimes busy schedule. So, yeah...good point there, buddy boy. Seriously though, you know I am right about the ND argument.....you need to learn that there is a little more than "luck" involved in good defense..

so if I have this correctly.....you are sure that FSU was more talented and yet in point C you say that weinke's struggles were all due to OU's defense. That would be a contradiction. So OU had no talent on Defense but they were still so great they shut weinke down. right I got it now.and minnis being out was the key to the game.....he demanded a double team which freed up the other wideouts and the running game. losing one player can cripple an offense....see randy moss and the 2005 vikings.

WHAT!?!??!?!??! I said the OU defense wasn't talented???? No, I didn't say that. EVERYONE knows FSU had more talent. But more "talent" doesn't always equate to being a better team. OU was the better team, and their defense whipped the more "talented' FSU offense. You have a serious problem in the way you view football. To you, whichever team is more "talented" is the best team. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO FOOTBALL THAN WHICH TEAM HAS THE MOST TALENT. OU played better football then their more "talented" counterparts at FSU, and thus they won the game. That is not a contradiction, that is football. You accuse me on not knowing much about the actual game, but I think you should seriously look in the mirror on this one.....Also, yeah, okay, Minnis missed the game. He is one player. You said that OU is "lucky" that he didn't play. Bull$hit. It isn't OU's fault that that member of FSU couldn't handle some basic college courses. If he is academically ineligible, then he isn't a part of the team, and the team has to move on without him. He didn't suffer some freak injury a week before the game, something which he couldn't control, he wasn't academically ineligible, something he CAN control. It is his fault that he wasn't eligible, it wasn't "lucky" for OU. Oh, yeah, Randy Moss is the sole key to an offense. I guess that's why the Vikings were such a dominant dynasty when he was with them, and that's why the Raiders are so good right now. OOPS, he is only one player and it takes ALOT more than that to put together a good football team. OWNED again.

[kers2 0]

I don't know anyone named Noone, so I guess I don't get the reference.And how could you of all people criticize someone for MASSIVELY overanalyzing anything?

[KowboyKoop 0]

I don't know anyone named Noone, so I guess I don't get the reference.And how could you of all people criticize someone for MASSIVELY overanalyzing anything?

A. 'Noone' is the name of my left testicle.B. Alright, that is pretty fair. I won't criticize you for "massively" overanalyzing my musical opinion, but you are trying to criticize an opinion which cannot be proven wrong because of the topic at hand (music).

[CaneBrain 95]

KowboyKoop has a good arguement there...and he has some numbers to support his view....BUT...This ND team is infinitely more talented than the 02' team.....

Noone said that the '02 team was more talented. The 05 team IS much more talented. However, there is a difference between being "more talented" and a better football team. Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the year that Oklahoma beat FSU in the national title game in (2000)???? Florida St. was WAY more talented that Oklahoma that year, but Oklahoma was CLEARLY the better team. That is my point. Sure, this year's team is more explosive on offense. However, they have played weak defenses/teams all year and thus have been able to just run up some numbers. The '02 team played MUCH tougher teams, NEVER lost to a weak team at all, and had just as much success. Five quality wins is A LOT more than just a marginal one quality win (Michigan is only 7-4, probably the best 4 loss team in the country, but still not a real good team). My argument IS good, and the numbers ARE good and DO back up my point fully, so if you are tired of me "saying the same thing over and over," I suggest you find some way to explain how those numbers are "deceiving" or something else....even though I don't really think that is possible. The numbers don't lie.....

Numbers lie all the time. Thats the silliest thing you have said yet.Oh and I was at the FSU v. Oklahoma game in 2000. First off, Oklahoma was just about as talented as FSU that year. Two, the reason FSU got dominated is because Snoop Minnis was academically ineligible and he was the key to their entire passing game not that OU was clearly the better team. Weinke looked lost all night. No one who was at that game walked away thinking OU was clearly the better team....more that they were lucky that minnis was out (and more importantly that they lucked out and go to play FSU instead of the Canes....Miami would have wiped the floor with OU)I finally figured it out. I actually watch these games whereas you sit in front of a screen wacking off to schedule strength never thinking you might learn by actually watching these games. And thats why all your opinions are wrong. You are Jeff Sagarin should probably hang out.

A. No, Oklahoma was NOT as talented that year, everyone who was a so-called "expert" had FSU winning that game easily, everyone thought Oklahoma would be overmatched.B. Oh, yeah, I guess Oklahoma got LUCKY that Florida St. had a player who couldn't achieve the minimal standard of being academically eligible. Yeah, Oklahoma was just SOOOOOO lucky that ONE player for FSU missed the game. yeah, that's why Oklahoma's defense dominated FSU's offense all night, because if that ONE player had been in, FSU would have surely won the game by 24 points. Seriously, you need to start giving some of these teams who win big games some credit. First, the '02 ND team was just "lucky" to win all those games against pretty good opponents, while the '05 team is dominant in running up the score against softies. Yeah, good one. And now, it is Oklahoma that was "lucky" to pull off the big upset and beat FSU in their game. Yeah, okay...C. Yeah, Weinke looked lost all night. I guess it was pretty "lucky" that Weinke got stoned before that game....OH, WAIT A MINUTE, MAYBE HIM LOOKING LOST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH OKLAHOMA'S DEFENSE!?!??! WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!??!?! You apparently don't know your football very well if you just call every team that wins with good defense "lucky." There is more to football than just offense, one day you will learn.D. Yeah, you're right, I don't actually watch the games. They are....uh..too long for me, that's it..good one. I am a college football junkie, I watch as many games as I can possibly watch given my sometimes busy schedule. So, yeah...good point there, buddy boy. Seriously though, you know I am right about the ND argument.....you need to learn that there is a little more than "luck" involved in good defense..

so if I have this correctly.....you are sure that FSU was more talented and yet in point C you say that weinke's struggles were all due to OU's defense. That would be a contradiction. So OU had no talent on Defense but they were still so great they shut weinke down. right I got it now.and minnis being out was the key to the game.....he demanded a double team which freed up the other wideouts and the running game. losing one player can cripple an offense....see randy moss and the 2005 vikings.

WHAT!?!??!?!??! I said the OU defense wasn't talented???? No, I didn't say that. EVERYONE knows FSU had more talent. But more "talent" doesn't always equate to being a better team. OU was the better team, and their defense whipped the more "talented' FSU offense. You have a serious problem in the way you view football. To you, whichever team is more "talented" is the best team. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO FOOTBALL THAN WHICH TEAM HAS THE MOST TALENT. OU played better football then their more "talented" counterparts at FSU, and thus they won the game. That is not a contradiction, that is football. You accuse me on not knowing much about the actual game, but I think you should seriously look in the mirror on this one.....Also, yeah, okay, Minnis missed the game. He is one player. You said that OU is "lucky" that he didn't play. Bull$hit. It isn't OU's fault that that member of FSU couldn't handle some basic college courses. If he is academically ineligible, then he isn't a part of the team, and the team has to move on without him. He didn't suffer some freak injury a week before the game, something which he couldn't control, he wasn't academically ineligible, something he CAN control. It is his fault that he wasn't eligible, it wasn't "lucky" for OU. Oh, yeah, Randy Moss is the sole key to an offense. I guess that's why the Vikings were such a dominant dynasty when he was with them, and that's why the Raiders are so good right now. OOPS, he is only one player and it takes ALOT more than that to put together a good football team. OWNED again.

oh yeah Culpepper didnt go completely in the tank after moss left after having an amazing season last year. oh yeah they didnt score over 500 pts in a season in 98. Oh yeah they werent a perennial playoff team with an explosive offense.oh wait all those things ARE true. shocker. OU didnt play better than talented counterparts. they were talented. you are the one who doesnt know how to watch a game...you are too focused on stats. I was AT THE GAME. OU had just as much talent....perhaps "experts" underrated that talent but FSU certainly didnt not have that much more of it than OU. That was my point. your reading comp skills stink.and yes OU was lucky that minnis missed the game. sure it is his responsibility to be eligible. but that doesnt change the fact they were lucky he screwed up. how you cant comprehend a simple fact like that proves how much everyone owns you on this site. I will admit that OU was even luckier to not have to play miami in the orange bowl. they only thing you OWN are bad opinions, poor analytical skills and an extremely annoying personality.

[KowboyKoop 0]

KowboyKoop has a good arguement there...and he has some numbers to support his view....BUT...This ND team is infinitely more talented than the 02' team.....

Noone said that the '02 team was more talented. The 05 team IS much more talented. However, there is a difference between being "more talented" and a better football team. Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the year that Oklahoma beat FSU in the national title game in (2000)???? Florida St. was WAY more talented that Oklahoma that year, but Oklahoma was CLEARLY the better team. That is my point. Sure, this year's team is more explosive on offense. However, they have played weak defenses/teams all year and thus have been able to just run up some numbers. The '02 team played MUCH tougher teams, NEVER lost to a weak team at all, and had just as much success. Five quality wins is A LOT more than just a marginal one quality win (Michigan is only 7-4, probably the best 4 loss team in the country, but still not a real good team). My argument IS good, and the numbers ARE good and DO back up my point fully, so if you are tired of me "saying the same thing over and over," I suggest you find some way to explain how those numbers are "deceiving" or something else....even though I don't really think that is possible. The numbers don't lie.....

Numbers lie all the time. Thats the silliest thing you have said yet.Oh and I was at the FSU v. Oklahoma game in 2000. First off, Oklahoma was just about as talented as FSU that year. Two, the reason FSU got dominated is because Snoop Minnis was academically ineligible and he was the key to their entire passing game not that OU was clearly the better team. Weinke looked lost all night. No one who was at that game walked away thinking OU was clearly the better team....more that they were lucky that minnis was out (and more importantly that they lucked out and go to play FSU instead of the Canes....Miami would have wiped the floor with OU)I finally figured it out. I actually watch these games whereas you sit in front of a screen wacking off to schedule strength never thinking you might learn by actually watching these games. And thats why all your opinions are wrong. You are Jeff Sagarin should probably hang out.

A. No, Oklahoma was NOT as talented that year, everyone who was a so-called "expert" had FSU winning that game easily, everyone thought Oklahoma would be overmatched.B. Oh, yeah, I guess Oklahoma got LUCKY that Florida St. had a player who couldn't achieve the minimal standard of being academically eligible. Yeah, Oklahoma was just SOOOOOO lucky that ONE player for FSU missed the game. yeah, that's why Oklahoma's defense dominated FSU's offense all night, because if that ONE player had been in, FSU would have surely won the game by 24 points. Seriously, you need to start giving some of these teams who win big games some credit. First, the '02 ND team was just "lucky" to win all those games against pretty good opponents, while the '05 team is dominant in running up the score against softies. Yeah, good one. And now, it is Oklahoma that was "lucky" to pull off the big upset and beat FSU in their game. Yeah, okay...C. Yeah, Weinke looked lost all night. I guess it was pretty "lucky" that Weinke got stoned before that game....OH, WAIT A MINUTE, MAYBE HIM LOOKING LOST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH OKLAHOMA'S DEFENSE!?!??! WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!??!?! You apparently don't know your football very well if you just call every team that wins with good defense "lucky." There is more to football than just offense, one day you will learn.D. Yeah, you're right, I don't actually watch the games. They are....uh..too long for me, that's it..good one. I am a college football junkie, I watch as many games as I can possibly watch given my sometimes busy schedule. So, yeah...good point there, buddy boy. Seriously though, you know I am right about the ND argument.....you need to learn that there is a little more than "luck" involved in good defense..

so if I have this correctly.....you are sure that FSU was more talented and yet in point C you say that weinke's struggles were all due to OU's defense. That would be a contradiction. So OU had no talent on Defense but they were still so great they shut weinke down. right I got it now.and minnis being out was the key to the game.....he demanded a double team which freed up the other wideouts and the running game. losing one player can cripple an offense....see randy moss and the 2005 vikings.

WHAT!?!??!?!??! I said the OU defense wasn't talented???? No, I didn't say that. EVERYONE knows FSU had more talent. But more "talent" doesn't always equate to being a better team. OU was the better team, and their defense whipped the more "talented' FSU offense. You have a serious problem in the way you view football. To you, whichever team is more "talented" is the best team. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO FOOTBALL THAN WHICH TEAM HAS THE MOST TALENT. OU played better football then their more "talented" counterparts at FSU, and thus they won the game. That is not a contradiction, that is football. You accuse me on not knowing much about the actual game, but I think you should seriously look in the mirror on this one.....Also, yeah, okay, Minnis missed the game. He is one player. You said that OU is "lucky" that he didn't play. Bull$hit. It isn't OU's fault that that member of FSU couldn't handle some basic college courses. If he is academically ineligible, then he isn't a part of the team, and the team has to move on without him. He didn't suffer some freak injury a week before the game, something which he couldn't control, he wasn't academically ineligible, something he CAN control. It is his fault that he wasn't eligible, it wasn't "lucky" for OU. Oh, yeah, Randy Moss is the sole key to an offense. I guess that's why the Vikings were such a dominant dynasty when he was with them, and that's why the Raiders are so good right now. OOPS, he is only one player and it takes ALOT more than that to put together a good football team. OWNED again.

oh yeah Culpepper didnt go completely in the tank after moss left after having an amazing season last year. oh yeah they didnt score over 500 pts in a season in 98. Oh yeah they werent a perennial playoff team with an explosive offense.How many Super Bowls did they win?? Hell, how many playoff games did they win??? They were good for a season or two, but they were never a great team. OH, they scored over 500 pts. 7 years ago, okay, you win that one..........oh wait all those things ARE true. shocker. OU didnt play better than talented counterparts. they were talented. you are the one who doesnt know how to watch a game...you are too focused on stats. I was AT THE GAME. OU had just as much talent....perhaps "experts" underrated that talent but FSU certainly didnt not have that much more of it than OU. That was my point. your reading comp skills stink. FSU had more talent. Everyone knows it. They were supposed to win. Oh, you were "at" the game. Okay, that means...nothing. OU won. They played better. I didn't even bring up ANY stats in that point, so I don't know how I am too focused on stats..I haven't said one "stat" about that game...If OU had "just as much talent" then it wouldnt' have been such an upset when they won. NOONE expected them to win. They won against a more talented team. Everyone knows it. and yes OU was lucky that minnis missed the game. sure it is his responsibility to be eligible. but that doesnt change the fact they were lucky he screwed up. how you cant comprehend a simple fact like that proves how much everyone owns you on this site. I will admit that OU was even luckier to not have to play miami in the orange bowl. OU wasn't "extremely lucky" at all. He was one player, they shut down every single other part of the offense, who is to say they wouldn't have shut him down too?? We'll never know, but he was INELIGIBLE to play, menaing he wasn't a part of the team. He wasn't a football player for FSU at that point. He wasn't on the team. That'd be like saying a team is "lucky" if their opponent had a player that transferred from their school to another school. Stupid. He was ineligible to play, it was his fault, OU won the game, no "luck" involved.Miami wouldn't have done any better than FSU that year either, and I ain't gonna back that up with "stats." I am going to go your route and just say that "I watched the games and I know." they only thing you OWN are bad opinions, poor analytical skills and an extremely annoying personality.

[mrdannyg 274]

KowboyKoop has a good arguement there...and he has some numbers to support his view....BUT...This ND team is infinitely more talented than the 02' team.....

Noone said that the '02 team was more talented. The 05 team IS much more talented. However, there is a difference between being "more talented" and a better football team. Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the year that Oklahoma beat FSU in the national title game in (2000)???? Florida St. was WAY more talented that Oklahoma that year, but Oklahoma was CLEARLY the better team. That is my point. Sure, this year's team is more explosive on offense. However, they have played weak defenses/teams all year and thus have been able to just run up some numbers. The '02 team played MUCH tougher teams, NEVER lost to a weak team at all, and had just as much success. Five quality wins is A LOT more than just a marginal one quality win (Michigan is only 7-4, probably the best 4 loss team in the country, but still not a real good team). My argument IS good, and the numbers ARE good and DO back up my point fully, so if you are tired of me "saying the same thing over and over," I suggest you find some way to explain how those numbers are "deceiving" or something else....even though I don't really think that is possible. The numbers don't lie.....

Numbers lie all the time. Thats the silliest thing you have said yet.Oh and I was at the FSU v. Oklahoma game in 2000. First off, Oklahoma was just about as talented as FSU that year. Two, the reason FSU got dominated is because Snoop Minnis was academically ineligible and he was the key to their entire passing game not that OU was clearly the better team. Weinke looked lost all night. No one who was at that game walked away thinking OU was clearly the better team....more that they were lucky that minnis was out (and more importantly that they lucked out and go to play FSU instead of the Canes....Miami would have wiped the floor with OU)I finally figured it out. I actually watch these games whereas you sit in front of a screen wacking off to schedule strength never thinking you might learn by actually watching these games. And thats why all your opinions are wrong. You are Jeff Sagarin should probably hang out.

A. No, Oklahoma was NOT as talented that year, everyone who was a so-called "expert" had FSU winning that game easily, everyone thought Oklahoma would be overmatched.B. Oh, yeah, I guess Oklahoma got LUCKY that Florida St. had a player who couldn't achieve the minimal standard of being academically eligible. Yeah, Oklahoma was just SOOOOOO lucky that ONE player for FSU missed the game. yeah, that's why Oklahoma's defense dominated FSU's offense all night, because if that ONE player had been in, FSU would have surely won the game by 24 points. Seriously, you need to start giving some of these teams who win big games some credit. First, the '02 ND team was just "lucky" to win all those games against pretty good opponents, while the '05 team is dominant in running up the score against softies. Yeah, good one. And now, it is Oklahoma that was "lucky" to pull off the big upset and beat FSU in their game. Yeah, okay...C. Yeah, Weinke looked lost all night. I guess it was pretty "lucky" that Weinke got stoned before that game....OH, WAIT A MINUTE, MAYBE HIM LOOKING LOST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH OKLAHOMA'S DEFENSE!?!??! WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!??!?! You apparently don't know your football very well if you just call every team that wins with good defense "lucky." There is more to football than just offense, one day you will learn.D. Yeah, you're right, I don't actually watch the games. They are....uh..too long for me, that's it..good one. I am a college football junkie, I watch as many games as I can possibly watch given my sometimes busy schedule. So, yeah...good point there, buddy boy. Seriously though, you know I am right about the ND argument.....you need to learn that there is a little more than "luck" involved in good defense..

so if I have this correctly.....you are sure that FSU was more talented and yet in point C you say that weinke's struggles were all due to OU's defense. That would be a contradiction. So OU had no talent on Defense but they were still so great they shut weinke down. right I got it now.and minnis being out was the key to the game.....he demanded a double team which freed up the other wideouts and the running game. losing one player can cripple an offense....see randy moss and the 2005 vikings.

WHAT!?!??!?!??! I said the OU defense wasn't talented???? No, I didn't say that. EVERYONE knows FSU had more talent. But more "talent" doesn't always equate to being a better team. OU was the better team, and their defense whipped the more "talented' FSU offense. You have a serious problem in the way you view football. To you, whichever team is more "talented" is the best team. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO FOOTBALL THAN WHICH TEAM HAS THE MOST TALENT. OU played better football then their more "talented" counterparts at FSU, and thus they won the game. That is not a contradiction, that is football. You accuse me on not knowing much about the actual game, but I think you should seriously look in the mirror on this one.....Also, yeah, okay, Minnis missed the game. He is one player. You said that OU is "lucky" that he didn't play. Bull$hit. It isn't OU's fault that that member of FSU couldn't handle some basic college courses. If he is academically ineligible, then he isn't a part of the team, and the team has to move on without him. He didn't suffer some freak injury a week before the game, something which he couldn't control, he wasn't academically ineligible, something he CAN control. It is his fault that he wasn't eligible, it wasn't "lucky" for OU. Oh, yeah, Randy Moss is the sole key to an offense. I guess that's why the Vikings were such a dominant dynasty when he was with them, and that's why the Raiders are so good right now. OOPS, he is only one player and it takes ALOT more than that to put together a good football team. OWNED again.

oh yeah Culpepper didnt go completely in the tank after moss left after having an amazing season last year. oh yeah they didnt score over 500 pts in a season in 98. Oh yeah they werent a perennial playoff team with an explosive offense.How many Super Bowls did they win?? Hell, how many playoff games did they win??? They were good for a season or two, but they were never a great team. OH, they scored over 500 pts. 7 years ago, okay, you win that one..........oh wait all those things ARE true. shocker. OU didnt play better than talented counterparts. they were talented. you are the one who doesnt know how to watch a game...you are too focused on stats. I was AT THE GAME. OU had just as much talent....perhaps "experts" underrated that talent but FSU certainly didnt not have that much more of it than OU. That was my point. your reading comp skills stink. FSU had more talent. Everyone knows it. They were supposed to win. Oh, you were "at" the game. Okay, that means...nothing. OU won. They played better. I didn't even bring up ANY stats in that point, so I don't know how I am too focused on stats..I haven't said one "stat" about that game...If OU had "just as much talent" then it wouldnt' have been such an upset when they won. NOONE expected them to win. They won against a more talented team. Everyone knows it. and yes OU was lucky that minnis missed the game. sure it is his responsibility to be eligible. but that doesnt change the fact they were lucky he screwed up. how you cant comprehend a simple fact like that proves how much everyone owns you on this site. I will admit that OU was even luckier to not have to play miami in the orange bowl. OU wasn't "extremely lucky" at all. He was one player, they shut down every single other part of the offense, who is to say they wouldn't have shut him down too?? We'll never know, but he was INELIGIBLE to play, menaing he wasn't a part of the team. He wasn't a football player for FSU at that point. He wasn't on the team. That'd be like saying a team is "lucky" if their opponent had a player that transferred from their school to another school. Stupid. He was ineligible to play, it was his fault, OU won the game, no "luck" involved.Miami wouldn't have done any better than FSU that year either, and I ain't gonna back that up with "stats." I am going to go your route and just say that "I watched the games and I know." they only thing you OWN are bad opinions, poor analytical skills and an extremely annoying personality.

This has got to be one of the bigger quotes of all time

[beans-n-icewater 18]

KowboyKoop has a good arguement there...and he has some numbers to support his view....BUT...This ND team is infinitely more talented than the 02' team.....

Noone said that the '02 team was more talented. The 05 team IS much more talented. However, there is a difference between being "more talented" and a better football team. Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the year that Oklahoma beat FSU in the national title game in (2000)???? Florida St. was WAY more talented that Oklahoma that year, but Oklahoma was CLEARLY the better team. That is my point. Sure, this year's team is more explosive on offense. However, they have played weak defenses/teams all year and thus have been able to just run up some numbers. The '02 team played MUCH tougher teams, NEVER lost to a weak team at all, and had just as much success. Five quality wins is A LOT more than just a marginal one quality win (Michigan is only 7-4, probably the best 4 loss team in the country, but still not a real good team). My argument IS good, and the numbers ARE good and DO back up my point fully, so if you are tired of me "saying the same thing over and over," I suggest you find some way to explain how those numbers are "deceiving" or something else....even though I don't really think that is possible. The numbers don't lie.....

Numbers lie all the time. Thats the silliest thing you have said yet.Oh and I was at the FSU v. Oklahoma game in 2000. First off, Oklahoma was just about as talented as FSU that year. Two, the reason FSU got dominated is because Snoop Minnis was academically ineligible and he was the key to their entire passing game not that OU was clearly the better team. Weinke looked lost all night. No one who was at that game walked away thinking OU was clearly the better team....more that they were lucky that minnis was out (and more importantly that they lucked out and go to play FSU instead of the Canes....Miami would have wiped the floor with OU)I finally figured it out. I actually watch these games whereas you sit in front of a screen wacking off to schedule strength never thinking you might learn by actually watching these games. And thats why all your opinions are wrong. You are Jeff Sagarin should probably hang out.

A. No, Oklahoma was NOT as talented that year, everyone who was a so-called "expert" had FSU winning that game easily, everyone thought Oklahoma would be overmatched.B. Oh, yeah, I guess Oklahoma got LUCKY that Florida St. had a player who couldn't achieve the minimal standard of being academically eligible. Yeah, Oklahoma was just SOOOOOO lucky that ONE player for FSU missed the game. yeah, that's why Oklahoma's defense dominated FSU's offense all night, because if that ONE player had been in, FSU would have surely won the game by 24 points. Seriously, you need to start giving some of these teams who win big games some credit. First, the '02 ND team was just "lucky" to win all those games against pretty good opponents, while the '05 team is dominant in running up the score against softies. Yeah, good one. And now, it is Oklahoma that was "lucky" to pull off the big upset and beat FSU in their game. Yeah, okay...C. Yeah, Weinke looked lost all night. I guess it was pretty "lucky" that Weinke got stoned before that game....OH, WAIT A MINUTE, MAYBE HIM LOOKING LOST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH OKLAHOMA'S DEFENSE!?!??! WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!??!?! You apparently don't know your football very well if you just call every team that wins with good defense "lucky." There is more to football than just offense, one day you will learn.D. Yeah, you're right, I don't actually watch the games. They are....uh..too long for me, that's it..good one. I am a college football junkie, I watch as many games as I can possibly watch given my sometimes busy schedule. So, yeah...good point there, buddy boy. Seriously though, you know I am right about the ND argument.....you need to learn that there is a little more than "luck" involved in good defense..

so if I have this correctly.....you are sure that FSU was more talented and yet in point C you say that weinke's struggles were all due to OU's defense. That would be a contradiction. So OU had no talent on Defense but they were still so great they shut weinke down. right I got it now.and minnis being out was the key to the game.....he demanded a double team which freed up the other wideouts and the running game. losing one player can cripple an offense....see randy moss and the 2005 vikings.

WHAT!?!??!?!??! I said the OU defense wasn't talented???? No, I didn't say that. EVERYONE knows FSU had more talent. But more "talent" doesn't always equate to being a better team. OU was the better team, and their defense whipped the more "talented' FSU offense. You have a serious problem in the way you view football. To you, whichever team is more "talented" is the best team. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO FOOTBALL THAN WHICH TEAM HAS THE MOST TALENT. OU played better football then their more "talented" counterparts at FSU, and thus they won the game. That is not a contradiction, that is football. You accuse me on not knowing much about the actual game, but I think you should seriously look in the mirror on this one.....Also, yeah, okay, Minnis missed the game. He is one player. You said that OU is "lucky" that he didn't play. Bull$hit. It isn't OU's fault that that member of FSU couldn't handle some basic college courses. If he is academically ineligible, then he isn't a part of the team, and the team has to move on without him. He didn't suffer some freak injury a week before the game, something which he couldn't control, he wasn't academically ineligible, something he CAN control. It is his fault that he wasn't eligible, it wasn't "lucky" for OU. Oh, yeah, Randy Moss is the sole key to an offense. I guess that's why the Vikings were such a dominant dynasty when he was with them, and that's why the Raiders are so good right now. OOPS, he is only one player and it takes ALOT more than that to put together a good football team. OWNED again.

oh yeah Culpepper didnt go completely in the tank after moss left after having an amazing season last year. oh yeah they didnt score over 500 pts in a season in 98. Oh yeah they werent a perennial playoff team with an explosive offense.How many Super Bowls did they win?? Hell, how many playoff games did they win??? They were good for a season or two, but they were never a great team. OH, they scored over 500 pts. 7 years ago, okay, you win that one..........oh wait all those things ARE true. shocker. OU didnt play better than talented counterparts. they were talented. you are the one who doesnt know how to watch a game...you are too focused on stats. I was AT THE GAME. OU had just as much talent....perhaps "experts" underrated that talent but FSU certainly didnt not have that much more of it than OU. That was my point. your reading comp skills stink. FSU had more talent. Everyone knows it. They were supposed to win. Oh, you were "at" the game. Okay, that means...nothing. OU won. They played better. I didn't even bring up ANY stats in that point, so I don't know how I am too focused on stats..I haven't said one "stat" about that game...If OU had "just as much talent" then it wouldnt' have been such an upset when they won. NOONE expected them to win. They won against a more talented team. Everyone knows it. and yes OU was lucky that minnis missed the game. sure it is his responsibility to be eligible. but that doesnt change the fact they were lucky he screwed up. how you cant comprehend a simple fact like that proves how much everyone owns you on this site. I will admit that OU was even luckier to not have to play miami in the orange bowl. OU wasn't "extremely lucky" at all. He was one player, they shut down every single other part of the offense, who is to say they wouldn't have shut him down too?? We'll never know, but he was INELIGIBLE to play, menaing he wasn't a part of the team. He wasn't a football player for FSU at that point. He wasn't on the team. That'd be like saying a team is "lucky" if their opponent had a player that transferred from their school to another school. Stupid. He was ineligible to play, it was his fault, OU won the game, no "luck" involved.Miami wouldn't have done any better than FSU that year either, and I ain't gonna back that up with "stats." I am going to go your route and just say that "I watched the games and I know." they only thing you OWN are bad opinions, poor analytical skills and an extremely annoying personality.

This has got to be one of the bigger quotes of all time

I say we see how big it can get (also said by a lady charging me $100 an hour once)

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

I didn't really want to jump back into this, but I felt the urge to add this. When you say we are wrong b/c all we do is watch the games, what do you think your analysists and coaches are doing? Pouring over strength of schedule and rushing stats? No, the watch defense and exploit weaknesses. This is why teams watch hours and hours of tape. I've never heard Peyton Manning talk about how he read hours and hours of articles and watched coach's shows to prepare for a game and access his opponent.As far as your other comment KK, you stated you don't listen to the media, your expert sources are college coaches. I'm not sure what you meant by that, but if the coach is unemployed and has a show, he is a media member, if you are watching a weekly coach's show, they usually don't say anything controversial about other teams, only about their own so as to not give teams bulletin board material. Coaches always pour mouth their own teams and boost up the opponent. I'd love for you to share with me your great sources. Just for my info.You are right, I'm sure you watch a ton more college football than I do. I'm sure you know more stats and figures than I do. I don't dispute this. But I do know what I see, and I have watched enough games to form a solid opinion on the ND thing. As I stated, I have watched probably every ND game from those two season in discussion. My ex was a huge ND fan, thus I watched every game. It carried over to this year. I am very sure about my opinion. I don't need stats to explain it. It is my feeling from watching tape.Also, you keep stating the comment about the white stripes is your opinion, yet in your sig, it claims it to be fact. Maybe you're just being ironic. I'd bet it's more like annoying.I think my boy Cane wrote it best when he put the only thing you OWN is a bad personality and bad opinions.The debate about ND will never be resolved, but hopefully, the one on USC vs. TX will be figured out early Jan.Good day.

[KowboyKoop 0]

I didn't really want to jump back into this, but I felt the urge to add this. When you say we are wrong b/c all we do is watch the games, what do you think your analysists and coaches are doing? Pouring over strength of schedule and rushing stats? No, the watch defense and exploit weaknesses. This is why teams watch hours and hours of tape. I am not saying you are wrong because all you do is watch the games. Never said that. I'm saying you are wrong b/c you don't give enough credit to the '02 team and are overrating this year's team. Learn to read.I've never heard Peyton Manning talk about how he read hours and hours of articles and watched coach's shows to prepare for a game and access his opponent.Are either of us preparing to PLAY against the '05 ND team.....No. WTF!?!??!As far as your other comment KK, you stated you don't listen to the media, your expert sources are college coaches. I'm not sure what you meant by that, but if the coach is unemployed and has a show, he is a media member, if you are watching a weekly coach's show, they usually don't say anything controversial about other teams, only about their own so as to not give teams bulletin board material. Coaches always pour mouth their own teams and boost up the opponent. I'd love for you to share with me your great sources. Just for my info.You are right, I'm sure you watch a ton more college football than I do. I'm sure you know more stats and figures than I do. I don't dispute this. But I do know what I see, and I have watched enough games to form a solid opinion on the ND thing. As I stated, I have watched probably every ND game from those two season in discussion. My ex was a huge ND fan, thus I watched every game. It carried over to this year. I am very sure about my opinion. I don't need stats to explain it. It is my feeling from watching tape.No, I didn't say MY expert sources are college coaches. YOU said something about all experts being in the media, and I just used college coaches AS AN EXAMPLE of other experts who AREN'T in the media. Again, learn to read. My sources are me watching the games, me looking up the schedules and how good their opponents are, and other relevant stats. I am not just looking up something someone else is saying and repeating it. I am forming my own opinion....apparently you aren't?????? Interesting.... Also, yes, I am sure I watch more college football and know more stats than you. I watch A TON of games and like stats alot. This isn't s dis on you, it is just how it is. Also, the most telling line is that your opinion is what it is just because "it is my feeling from watching tape." Well, of courese you are going to think the '05 team which runs up the score against softies is better than the '02 team that wins "uglier" against much much better teams, if all don't look deeper into who they are actually playing and other relevant stats. Basically, what is happening is this: I am making a logical argument based on BOTH watching most of the games and presenting a bunch of relevant stats to support my argument, and you are countering with, "well I watched the games and I have a feeling." Please....Also, you keep stating the comment about the white stripes is your opinion, yet in your sig, it claims it to be fact. Maybe you're just being ironic. I'd bet it's more like annoying.My sig. says they are facts in KOWBOYKOOP'S WORLD. Deal with it. I know they are just opinions, duh.I think my boy Cane wrote it best when he put the only thing you OWN is a bad personality and bad opinions.I also own a '98 Oldsmobile Alero. FACE!!!!!!!!!!The debate about ND will never be resolved, but hopefully, the one on USC vs. TX will be figured out early Jan.Good day.

The ND pretty much is resovled. It is clear that you just don't want to admit that I am right. Don't worry Ron, there's no shame in it. I have made very good arguments with very good stats to back it up. Any logical person can see that I am right, but you are just going to stick with your "I get the feeling" argument. Hey, Doug Lee says that he "has feelings" that he should chase a slim number of outs sometimes...despite all the facts and stats proving him wrong, he still has those feelings. Does that make him right?? No. He is wrong, and so are you. Just admit it. If you do, I am not going to rub it in your fact....maybe that is what you are scared of.

[keith crime 8]

Koop end this end it now - you care way too much and Ron is clearly more sane drunk than you on your best dayyou're quickly approaching Rocky 6 territory - for the sake of us all and most of all yourself - pull out before you become muhammad ali after the holmes fight

[KowboyKoop 0]

Koop end this end it now - you care way too much and Ron is clearly more sane drunk than you on your best dayyou're quickly approaching Rocky 6 territory - for the sake of us all and most of all yourself - pull out before you become muhammad ali after the holmes fight

I'll stop when someone counters my arguments. Counter my arguments and show me why I am wrong and I will stop. Don't worry though, noone will try and refute my facts, it would only lead to proving me right.'02 ND team > '05 ND team.

[keith crime 8]

wall meet head head mett wallrepeatrepeatrepeatrepeatrepeatRon et al had a better chance of getting hitler to seder than convincing you that you are wrong about anything

[CaneBrain 95]

Koop end this end it now - you care way too much and Ron is clearly more sane drunk than you on your best dayyou're quickly approaching Rocky 6 territory - for the sake of us all and most of all yourself - pull out before you become muhammad ali after the holmes fight

I'll stop when someone counters my arguments. Counter my arguments and show me why I am wrong and I will stop. Don't worry though, noone will try and refute my facts, it would only lead to proving me right.'02 ND team > '05 ND team.

Ok fine. The best way to measure a team is how it does against its stiffest competition.05 ND....lost to the 2 time defending champions and owners of a 30+ game winning on a fluky last second sequence that further confirms my fear that Pete Carroll made a deal with Satan.02 ND....lost to the Carson Palmer led USC team badly and looked like they didnt belong on the same field.I am sure though that because 02 played a harder schedule...blah blah blah. You can tell the most about a team when they face their toughest test. 02 USC wasnt even as good as this years USC team. You are a moron wrapped in a schmuck.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Koop end this end it now - you care way too much and Ron is clearly more sane drunk than you on your best dayyou're quickly approaching Rocky 6 territory - for the sake of us all and most of all yourself - pull out before you become muhammad ali after the holmes fight

I'll stop when someone counters my arguments. Counter my arguments and show me why I am wrong and I will stop. Don't worry though, noone will try and refute my facts, it would only lead to proving me right.'02 ND team > '05 ND team.

Ok fine. The best way to measure a team is how it does against its stiffest competition.05 ND....lost to the 2 time defending champions and owners of a 30+ game winning on a fluky last second sequence that further confirms my fear that Pete Carroll made a deal with Satan.02 ND....lost to the Carson Palmer led USC team badly and looked like they didnt belong on the same field.I am sure though that because 02 played a harder schedule...blah blah blah. You can tell the most about a team when they face their toughest test. 02 USC wasnt even as good as this years USC team. You are a moron wrapped in a schmuck.

so, you are basing your opinion off of one game from both years. That's good to know, ignore all the other games and just pick the WORST game from '02 and the BEST game from '05, compare the two, and you have a perfectly biased conclusion. That's a pretty good formula which might work on some, but, don't worry, it ain't gonna work against me. If we were playing that game, then I would say..."Well, here is why the '02 team is better than the '05 team. The '05 team lost at home ot 5-6 Mighigan State. Pretty bad loss. The '02 ND team beat 11-3 Maryland, AT Maryland, by 22 points. GUESS THAT MEANS THE '02 TEAM IS BETTER WITHOUT A DOUBT BECAUSE OF THE ONE GAME THAT I PICKED OUT FROM BOTH YEARS!?!??!?!.Yeah, the '02 ND team played a pretty bad game against USC, and the '05 team played a pretty good game against USC. That is true, but it doesn't mean the '05 team is better b/c they played better in their best game than the '02 team played in their worst game. That is INCREDIBLY faulty logic, and you know it. You are REALLY trying to stretch some things out in order to prove me wrong, but it just ain't working boys. I have presented all my stats objectively, I hate both teams, but I am realistic about it and know that this year's team is MASSIVELY overrated. Hey, guess what, Fresno St. played a great game and almost beat USC AT USC!!!!!!!! Miami, on the other hand, lost to Georgia Tech. By your logic, I guess that means that Fresno St. is WAY better than Miami. You know, b/c I picked out Fresno's best game and compared it to Miami's worst game, and you know, JUST LIKE YOU DID!Also, the SEC is without a doubt better than the ACC b/c Florida crushed Florida ST. and, well, I guess one game just proves it all, doesn't it!

[keith crime 8]

you know what i like ... mashed potatoes

[CaneBrain 95]

No I said when the best way to measure a team is how they do against their stiffest competition. Notre Dame didnt play a bad game in 02 aqgainst USC. They were outclassed....they didnt have a prayer. It had nothing to do with an off night. I am sure you didnt watch that game though and are just pulling out of your butt that it was some off night.whereas ND of 05 looked like they belonged on the field with the best college football had to offer.a bad way to measure things is to merely look at their schedules and say ND played a harder schedule in 02 so they were obviously better. that would be a bad way. looking at how well they competed with the best team on their schedule....that would be a good way.everything else you said about the SEC and the ACC and miami and ga tech didnt relate to my point at all. a good way to compare teams from different seasons is to see how they did against the best team on their schedule. very easy to understand if you arent a mental midget.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

ummm, the SEC is better than the ACC

[PAYforUSC 0]

Koop end this end it now - you care way too much and Ron is clearly more sane drunk than you on your best dayyou're quickly approaching Rocky 6 territory - for the sake of us all and most of all yourself - pull out before you become muhammad ali after the holmes fight

I'll stop when someone counters my arguments. Counter my arguments and show me why I am wrong and I will stop. Don't worry though, noone will try and refute my facts, it would only lead to proving me right.'02 ND team > '05 ND team.

Ok fine. The best way to measure a team is how it does against its stiffest competition.05 ND....lost to the 2 time defending champions and owners of a 30+ game winning on a fluky last second sequence that further confirms my fear that Pete Carroll made a deal with Satan.02 ND....lost to the Carson Palmer led USC team badly and looked like they didnt belong on the same field.I am sure though that because 02 played a harder schedule...blah blah blah. You can tell the most about a team when they face their toughest test. 02 USC wasnt even as good as this years USC team. You are a moron wrapped in a schmuck.

so, you are basing your opinion off of one game from both years. That's good to know, ignore all the other games and just pick the WORST game from '02 and the BEST game from '05, compare the two, and you have a perfectly biased conclusion. That's a pretty good formula which might work on some, but, don't worry, it ain't gonna work against me. If we were playing that game, then I would say..."Well, here is why the '02 team is better than the '05 team. The '05 team lost at home ot 5-6 Mighigan State. Pretty bad loss. The '02 ND team beat 11-3 Maryland, AT Maryland, by 22 points. GUESS THAT MEANS THE '02 TEAM IS BETTER WITHOUT A DOUBT BECAUSE OF THE ONE GAME THAT I PICKED OUT FROM BOTH YEARS!?!??!?!.Yeah, the '02 ND team played a pretty bad game against USC, and the '05 team played a pretty good game against USC. That is true, but it doesn't mean the '05 team is better b/c they played better in their best game than the '02 team played in their worst game. That is INCREDIBLY faulty logic, and you know it. You are REALLY trying to stretch some things out in order to prove me wrong, but it just ain't working boys. I have presented all my stats objectively, I hate both teams, but I am realistic about it and know that this year's team is MASSIVELY overrated. Hey, guess what, Fresno St. played a great game and almost beat USC AT USC!!!!!!!! Miami, on the other hand, lost to Georgia Tech. By your logic, I guess that means that Fresno St. is WAY better than Miami. You know, b/c I picked out Fresno's best game and compared it to Miami's worst game, and you know, JUST LIKE YOU DID!Also, the SEC is without a doubt better than the ACC b/c Florida crushed Florida ST. and, well, I guess one game just proves it all, doesn't it!

Kowboypoop runs track....what does he know about football?

[KowboyKoop 0]

No I said when the best way to measure a team is how they do against their stiffest competition.  Notre Dame didnt play a bad game in 02 aqgainst USC.  They were outclassed....they didnt have a prayer.  It had nothing to do with an off night.  I am sure you didnt watch that game though and are just pulling out of your butt that it was some off night.whereas ND of 05 looked like they belonged on the field with the best college football had to offer.a bad way to measure things is to merely look at their schedules and say ND played a harder schedule in 02 so they were obviously better.  that would be a bad way.  looking at how well they competed with the best team on their schedule....that would be a good way.everything else you said about the SEC and the ACC and miami and ga tech didnt relate to my point at all.  a good way to compare teams from different seasons is to see how they did against the best team on their schedule.  very easy to understand if you arent a mental midget.

You are wrong, the best way to measure a team is NOT how they play one game against stiffest competition, it is to view their entire season, which in this case, CLEARLY shows the '02 team to be stronger. Here is why.Team A goes 0-10 in their season, playing just a decent schedule. However, in their final game and play the #1 team in the country and beat them by 3 points. They are 1-11 with one win, against the #1 team in the country.Team B plays a tough schedule, goes 11-1, and loses by three points to the #1 team in the nation. They beat the #2 team, the #6 team, and the #19 team in the nation, all convincingly. By your logic, you are saying that Team A (1-11) is better than Team B (11-1). Do you REALLY think this would be true, or are you just trying to twist the facts to your advantage in your argument??? I'd vote for the latter. You are clearly wrong, just admit it. Of course my points about the SEC and ACC and Miami and Fresno St are relevant. THE POINTS I MADE ARE THE EXACT SAME POINTS THAT YOU MADE, JUST WITH DIFFERENT TEAMS!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT WORKS WITH TEAMS YOU WANT IT TO WORK WITH, BUT DOESN'T WORK WITH OTHER TEAMS!!!!!!!! HOW HYPOCRITICAL CAN YOU GET!!!!!! Just quit responding, I am presenting all the facts objectively and using them to support a very reasonable argument, you are just picking out one game and basing an entire argument off of that one game......not hard to see which method is better. (Hint: it is mine.)

[KowboyKoop 0]

ummm, the SEC is better than the ACC

yes, the SEC is better than the ACC this year, in my opinion, but it isn't JUST because of Florida beating FSU in ONE game, is it!??!?!?! No, if I were to make that argument, I would use A LOT more stats and facts to back it up, instead of pulling a CaneBrain and just picking out one game to base my argument off of.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Koop end this end it now - you care way too much and Ron is clearly more sane drunk than you on your best dayyou're quickly approaching Rocky 6 territory - for the sake of us all and most of all yourself - pull out before you become muhammad ali after the holmes fight

I'll stop when someone counters my arguments. Counter my arguments and show me why I am wrong and I will stop. Don't worry though, noone will try and refute my facts, it would only lead to proving me right.'02 ND team > '05 ND team.

Ok fine. The best way to measure a team is how it does against its stiffest competition.05 ND....lost to the 2 time defending champions and owners of a 30+ game winning on a fluky last second sequence that further confirms my fear that Pete Carroll made a deal with Satan.02 ND....lost to the Carson Palmer led USC team badly and looked like they didnt belong on the same field.I am sure though that because 02 played a harder schedule...blah blah blah. You can tell the most about a team when they face their toughest test. 02 USC wasnt even as good as this years USC team. You are a moron wrapped in a schmuck.

so, you are basing your opinion off of one game from both years. That's good to know, ignore all the other games and just pick the WORST game from '02 and the BEST game from '05, compare the two, and you have a perfectly biased conclusion. That's a pretty good formula which might work on some, but, don't worry, it ain't gonna work against me. If we were playing that game, then I would say..."Well, here is why the '02 team is better than the '05 team. The '05 team lost at home ot 5-6 Mighigan State. Pretty bad loss. The '02 ND team beat 11-3 Maryland, AT Maryland, by 22 points. GUESS THAT MEANS THE '02 TEAM IS BETTER WITHOUT A DOUBT BECAUSE OF THE ONE GAME THAT I PICKED OUT FROM BOTH YEARS!?!??!?!.Yeah, the '02 ND team played a pretty bad game against USC, and the '05 team played a pretty good game against USC. That is true, but it doesn't mean the '05 team is better b/c they played better in their best game than the '02 team played in their worst game. That is INCREDIBLY faulty logic, and you know it. You are REALLY trying to stretch some things out in order to prove me wrong, but it just ain't working boys. I have presented all my stats objectively, I hate both teams, but I am realistic about it and know that this year's team is MASSIVELY overrated. Hey, guess what, Fresno St. played a great game and almost beat USC AT USC!!!!!!!! Miami, on the other hand, lost to Georgia Tech. By your logic, I guess that means that Fresno St. is WAY better than Miami. You know, b/c I picked out Fresno's best game and compared it to Miami's worst game, and you know, JUST LIKE YOU DID!Also, the SEC is without a doubt better than the ACC b/c Florida crushed Florida ST. and, well, I guess one game just proves it all, doesn't it!

Kowboypoop runs track....what does he know about football?

It is obvious from reading my posts that I know a lot.Also, I don't run track. I USED to run track in high school, but I don't anymore...GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT MOFO!!!!!!!!!!Oh...Kowboypoop.....you changed the second 'K' to a 'P'....changing koop to poop.......I've never heard that one before.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

I like how you changed your sig to not contradict yourself. It said Facts before.I'm done for good. You're the best Kowboy. You own every argument. You know football. I wish I could tackle you, really hard.Again, you're the best.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

ummm, the SEC is better than the ACC

yes, the SEC is better than the ACC this year, in my opinion, but it isn't JUST because of Florida beating FSU in ONE game, is it!??!?!?! No, if I were to make that argument, I would use A LOT more stats and facts to back it up, instead of pulling a CaneBrain and just picking out one game to base my argument off of.

FACTCane is smarter than you can ever hope to be.Ran track? Why not football? You seem to know so much? I'm sure you woulda been great.Did you sit in the stands and hope to smell the locker room after everyone left?Go run cross country.