Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

FSU_Ben — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:32:48 -0000

Now it looks like two sentances are a freakin book with all this identation!

I'm replying on a higher post to get some space to reply without adding 2 feet of scrolldown to the thread.

I do not mind giving up the topic of USC not winning or winning a NC in 2003 but I want to make sure both sides do so.

The fact is the AP pulled out of the BCS in some attempt, I guess, to be above it or look better than it just 1 or 2 seasons before. They claimed the reason they had done so was so that thier votes would not influence who played in the national championship game. To then claim a national championship, because you got robbed, from someone who claimed they wanted no part in selecting who got to play in the game in the first place shortly beforehand makes no sense to me.

It also is quite perturbing because it detracts from LSU who did all the right things to earn thier crystal ball. I was oversees in the Army at the time and got to watch one football game that year (a florida loss) so all I have to look at are records. I got back into college football when I got out of the Army the next year and all I heard was 2003 USC national championship blah blah 2004 repeat. (I had limited news!) I was watching a LSU game and it had a flagpole on the camera with pennants representing the national championships LSU had won and at the top was a one that read 2003.... I said to brother "I thought USC won in 2003" the next two years that is all the media ever said or talked about. People barely remember LSU won the actual national championship game that year! To take away from such a great achievement from a group of fans and the kids that played in the game is unfair to say the least. That isn't USC's fault but a lot of USC fans I chatted with during the rose bowl kept talking about 2 time national champions recently. A quick survey revealed they didn't even know LSU had won the national championship during one of the years they were claiming they had. They didn't even know they were claiming a dual national championship.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Ben Prather — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:49:39 -0000

Can I anser both?

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

DuckCanuck — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:42:10 -0000

Haha. Thanks for the clarification. I won't be any further trouble.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:27:27 -0000

DuckCanuck:

The answer to one of your other posts is that, me and TE, have somewhat of an adversarial relationship. Most people might not understand it - and they probably ought to just not try. We had a "hijacker" from Oklahoma butt in, and it's unfortunate, but he had to be dealt with in the same manner that TE likes it.

"Some men you just can't reach, which is the way that he want's it, well then he gets it. I don't like this anymore than you men do". These are the famous excerpts from the movie "Cool hand Luke". Tiger Educated fancies himself as Luke. TE would also eat a hundred eggs to prove a point. In this case, he'll post a hundred times, to win the argument. It's a sad tale - but I do believe that he has been seriously neglected as a child. I've tried to get him help, but as you well know, he can't get it until he's ready.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:11:37 -0000

DuckCanuck:

Hey, I really appreciated the lessons in etticut, but I didn't call anybody a "pimp". I told my beeatch TE, that if he didn't behave, I might have to reach out with this big ol' pimp hand and teach him some respect. And, besides, my arguments have no credibility as you say.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

DuckCanuck — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:05:02 -0000

I'm relatively new to this community. Is TT normally like this, or did he just decide to post while drunk tonight?

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:01:41 -0000

TE:

Yep, just call me Roberto Duran from now on. Your blows are just so punishing. It's kinda like getting into a scrap with Hector "Macho" Camacho. Your hard to pin down, but eventually, your gonna get that big right hand.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:57:04 -0000

Was that your no mas moment?

LOL...No more facts and stats left to stand on, eh?

FAIL...

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

DuckCanuck — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:56:49 -0000

Tommy_Trojan:

Were you not constantly referring to TigerEducated and others as pimps, beatches, jerk offs and "azzwipes", it might lend you and your arguments a little more credibility (not to mention readability).

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:50:41 -0000

TE:

Sometimes I wonder if your gay? You might be my beeatch - but I am not your daddy. You really ought to go find somebody else to take it all out on. I'd flip you a hundred dollar bill, throw you my truck keys, and tell you to go dancin' - if I thought that you might really leave.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:37:39 -0000

So...Freshman All SEC, Freshman All-Americans, and kids who set all-time conference marks for Won/Loss records are "really plain" huh?

I'm taking notes, TT...Keep going...I feel like I'm in the presence of some collegiate football equivalent of Yoda, here...

Continue, oh wise one...

[snicker]

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:31:45 -0000

Why couldn't USC handle Cal like the other 6 teams they lost to that year?

Like Kansas State? Colorado State? Utah? Oregon State? UCLA? Oregon?

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:26:56 -0000

6th toughest schedule in the country, victories over three ranked teams (Georgia, South Carolina, & Wisconsin), finished 10-4, Eastern Division Champion, won their Bowl game against a Top 20 Wisconsin team, and ranked #12 nationally.

Keep going...I'm having fun with this...LOL...

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:26:49 -0000

TE:

Looks like three other teams that were not # 1 handled him fairly well. Why couldn't LSU beat him?

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:26:39 -0000

TE:

Sorry, my bad, I almost gave LSU too much credit. That was until I remembered that Leak was only a freshman. Kinda like your pathetic QB's and the ones at Ohio State and Michigan were. Yep, that Florida team must have been really hard to beat.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:23:54 -0000

TE:

Tennessee was garbage also.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:23:52 -0000

SEC Freshman record 6-3 record, Freshman All-SEC, Freshman All-American...

He beat LSU & Georgia that year, who both ended the year in the Top 5...

How's that? LOL!

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:17:09 -0000

LSU won both of its two games with its backup quarterback...One was Middle Tennessee...They were garbage...

The other was a 10-4 Tennessee team...

I guess you could say LSU overcame adversity, while USC just succumbed to it...

That's the difference between a National Champion, and a Rose Bowl Champion, huh? Too bad we "ducked" ya'll last year, too...

I should stop, huh? This is just too easy, at this point...

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:14:46 -0000

TE:

No, your the one lacking any substance. And, I'm not the one who is uninformed. Why don't you tell us all about the circumstances of the loss to that 9-4 Florida team. Then, we might all understand a little bit more. I do know that a sophmore QB named Leak was at the helm. I also know that he had a really plain year. Tell us all a little bit more...

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:12:48 -0000

sooner777:

Here's a fact for you, azzwipe! John Booty broke his hand in the Stanford game and threw four interceptions. Mark Sanchez had to play the Oregon game and we lost that one also. Seems as if Stanford and Oregon got "the breaks", jerk off!

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:12:42 -0000

You crack me up...and by the way, I do not know anything about old threads. I didn't destroy braincells like some folks do (not saying you, Mr. Sensitivity), and I'm pretty comfortable with my own memory & recollection.

I just find it odd that you dredged all of this stuff up...

You obviously have had a burr under your saddle regarding this subject for what...4 months and counting now?

It's sort've funny, and sad...all at the same time.

It's okay. After seeing what you said, I stopped taking you-or your takes-seriously, long ago.

You just seem to love to keep taking the short end of the stick, though...Sort've a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

Enjoy the last word, Tough Guy...

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:06:22 -0000

TE:

Constantly spinnin' it - arent you? Man, you know as well as I do that you have a very short time to edit anything. Those posts were left there forever. You didn't start really ballin' until the next day on most of them. Now, since you know they never happened that way, without bothering to look - you've decided to let everybody think that I had edited them. That's good. Your a standup guy. Don't forget to cross your legs when you sit back down though.

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:05:11 -0000

If you don't care, then why did you try to compare losses between USC's and LSU's earlier?

I am confused as to how you can post about the relative merits of your loss that year, yet at the same time not really care about it, and get tired of hearing about it...

Either way, this thread is getting the "Skinny post syndrome", and I think I've jerked your chain enough...

G'night, TT...

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

-TE- — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:59:43 -0000

So wait...You are the one that tried to "compare losses", not me.

I pointed out what happened, and clarified what you were uninformed about.

But, when you edged out onto the limb, and I corrected you, suddenly I'm the one pushing an agenda?

You are teetering on the edge of becoming a joke, TT...Sincerely.

YOU did the comparison, TT, not me.

No one else is bringing up Oregon State. I'm discussing a very specific topic that YOU brought up.

I have not said a single peep about USC in specific in the past few days in terms of how they undressed the Nittany Lions. I addressed the relative merits of the PAC-10 as a whole in Bowl Games.

You seem easily confused, and even more easily agitated. I get a kick out of how hard you are trying, though.

You get an A for effort. It's just the F for substance that's stuck in your craw, huh, buddy?

Re: Whittingham may not vote Utes #1

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:57:35 -0000

FSU_Ben:

Who really cares? Does it really matter? Did we prove that USC was # 1? No way! We didn't play LSU or Oklahoma. Did LSU prove that they were really the best? I don't think so. They did not have to play the team that was ranked # 1 by the AP all year. They got to play Oklahoma instead. So, did anybody really prove who was # 1? No. It didn't happen. It was just one more joke of a year by the BCS. That's all it was. Who really cares? I don't. I didn't vote. But, a whole lot of sportswriters got really upset, that soome computer undermined the game that they wanted to see. That's what happened. Don't blame USC either. It's not our fault either. What should we have done - lost to Michigan just to make everything OK for the BCS and LSU? Was that the answer? Why do we constantly have to hear this drivvle?