2010 Heisman Candidates

[War Wagon]

I am SO hurt by your admittance of skimming my posts.

You were the kid who didn't pay much attention to the teacher in 5th grade, weren't you?

[M Club]

And also truthfully, I wouldn't have even clicked on your shit thread if I hadn't seen 'tart was the last post. Read between the lines and figure out what that means.

cunnilingus?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Whitey, so let me get this straight. poptart rolls into the cfb forum. poptart hijacks a cfb thread and uses it as his personal pulpit to preach "derogatory" line after derogatory line about his hatred and disgust for cfb ...yet a couple of expected posts coming to cfb's defense in the cfb forum is what's got your little silky's in a twist? I know you've got a massive inferiority complex, but christ man, examine the scenario that just played out for a second and realize why you look like a colossal douche right now.

I also love this notion that an admin can't have a take on the NFL unless it apparently coincides with Whitey's.

[Go Coogs']

But I'm sorry.
I CAN NOT get past the fact that D-1 college football is a laughable farce - for the reasons I noted.

It's not watchable and it is not a legit competition, as far as I'm concerned.
It's like a sit-com - something to laff at.

Nothing is perfect. College football is far from perfect, but why stop watching your alma mater because the game is a farce? There still is true passion on this level, no matter if there are cheaters or not.

The pro game is far from perfect too. Based on what we've seen lately, baseball and soccer have their flaws as well.

As far as the Heisman goes, yeah, it's got it's issues just like the MVP award for the Super Bowl. Peyton Manning won the MVP in XLI which was complete bullshit and I pointed it out in a thread. Rhodes was way more deserving by running for a hard 113 yards against one of the best defenses in the game.

The only difference between the SB MVP and Heisman is, there is no build up for the SB MVP. In college, it's all about the Heisman and it's analyzed and broken down every single week by the so called media gurus. The masses pay attention to it and chime in with their endless blogs and message board fodder. The debate is fun to follow. But that's just me...and millions of other people who are intrigued by it.

Again, I don't see the problem with the hype and build up because...well...I'm a fucking fan.

[M Club]

But the college game has slowly moved in the same "vanilla" direction as the NFL over the past couple of decades.
Packaged.
20-30 years ago the college game was even more distinct from the NFL and it was more interesting, fresh and fun to watch.

ja, totally. variation used to include veer, triple option, pro-form, blah blah blah let's run 85% of the time and has evolved into something more 50/50, which, uh, keeps the defense off balance, which, uh, leads to more unpredictability. just because you don't understand what's going on doesn't mean the game doesn't make any sense. it just means you're stupid.

[War Wagon]

I also love this notion that an admin can't have a take on the NFL...

The notion that you can have a shit take on the NFL in the relative comfort and safety of the CFB forum was and is shattered. You had a shit take, I smacked you for it. I'll do it again tomorrow, next week, next year.

pull up your panties and move along.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Moron -- there is no NFL "take" to be had without poptart's cfb-bashing hijack. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

relative comfort and safety of the CFB forum

comfort and safety from what? You seem to think the internet is a really serious place.

Nancy, the discussion is taking place here because this is where it started. Get it?

[poptart]

Actually "hijack" is a little strong.

My first three posts were in response to the Heisman.

It was on when Rumps asked me the "why" question did I elaborate on why I'm not a college fan.
And I also ragged on the NFL.
Wagon knows I've done plenty of that in the NFL forum over the years, too.

[King Crimson]

Actually "hijack" is a little strong.

My first three posts were in response to the Heisman.

yeah, but it's not like anyone here in the BTPCF board doesn't know the Heisman is a joke (QB on highest ranked team award)....or that we live in a world full of meaningless advance hype. really? that's all you got.

[poptart]

Hmmmm ...

Not everyone here seems to think the Heisman is a joke.
MClub and Rumps seem to be ok with it.

that's all you got

Obviously far from all I've got.

I gave a number of criticisms of the D-1 college game, and why I can't take it seriously.

The Heisman is a mere side issue to that.


Rump's thread here is not wrong, per se.
I could start a thread in the NFL forum now, and list a handful of 2010 MVP "candidates" if I wanted to.
It may be interesting to discuss.

I just chose to crack on the whole Heisman nonsense - because as I see it, it IS nonsense.

[M Club]

MClub and Rumps seem to be ok with it.

the last heisman i paid attention to was when chuck woodson won, for obvious reasons. i couldn't tell you three of the winners since then. i just think you have no idea about cf or any of the parallel awards in other sports that are equally a joke. perhaps if you threw down any bit of logic that took more than yesterday to refute...

[poptart]

i just think you have no idea about cf or any of the parallel awards in other sports that are equally a joke.

In a major sport, there is no other league player of the year award that is anywhere near as pretentious as the Heisman.
And in a major sport, there is no league player of the year award that is near the magnet for complete dumbfuckery as the Heisman is.

It's in it's own league.

I have no idea what you're thinking about.


Oh, that's right, you're not.

Par.

[M Club]

In a major sport, there is no other league player of the year award that is anywhere near as pretentious as the Heisman.
And in a major sport, there is no league player of the year award that is near the magnet for complete dumbfuckery as the Heisman is.

i presume you have actual arguments for this? probably not. maybe you've already tried, like this:

And in the weeks prior to the college season kicking off, you'll see talking head TV douchebags talking about ---> such and such player ---> being a "Heisman Candidate."

which is totally different than the predictions every single publication lays out before every sport's season begins.


or:

LOL

Your 10,000 number is complete bullshit.

Tell me when a non-QB, Back, or WR ever won the award?

Take your time, retard.

i don't know, why don't you tell me the last time even a wide receiver won the nfl mvp, let alone a non-qb or back. i'll save you the trouble: jerry rice in 1987 and lawrence taylor in 1986, which predates the answer to your question by 10 years.


all the mvp awards are similarly pretentious, if that's what you want to call it. they're all voted on by fat sportswriters with regional biases and different criteria for what makes an mvp. the nba's is probably the most openly corrupt considering writers make no bones about giving it out as a lifetime achievement award or refusing to vote for someone who's won it too much.

of course, it's easy for someone who believes in fairy tales to make unsubstantiated comments, so i understand your confusion.

[poptart]

MDumb, publications and talking heads making predictions about an upcoming season in other sports are commonplace, for sure.
But the ape-shit level of Heisman obsession in D-1 college ball dwarfs all others.
If you don't recognize it by now, no manner of me explaining it to you will help, I'm sure.

And you yourself admitted what we all know anyway, already, which is that D-1 programs spend time and effort pimping their guy as a Heisman candidate weeks (or months) before the season even starts.

Doesn't happen in the other sports, guy.

Whatever you're trying to do in this thread, consider it a FAIL.

i don't know, why don't you tell me the last time even a wide receiver won the nfl mvp, let alone a non-qb or back. i'll save you the trouble: jerry rice in 1987 and lawrence taylor in 1986, which predates the answer to your question by 10 years.

This has exactly ZERO to do with me shooting down Dinsdale's wack take.

The Iraq, build up our education, nfl mvp's, maps, locate clue on one.

[M Club]

of course it has zero to do with dinsdale's take: your ad hoc reasoning was meant to to make a point then, not have it turned against you. i'd expect no less from someone who uses something as contradictory as the bible as the basis of his arguments.

i really don't care about the heisman, or any other individual awards in any other team sport. they're all arbitrary and rarely reflect any sort of consensus, especially in a sport as complex as football. but - surprise! - you're overstating the amount of promotion a school puts into its players. bcs conference teams number in the 60s. it's not the cesspool you purport it to be when the iowas or oregon states of the world send some cheap promotional materials to a bunch of sportswriters. the only over-the-top promotional tour i can think of now is jake locker, and as i said before, i'm pretty sure that has more to do with getting some momentum behind the udub brand than actually getting him the heisman.

And you yourself admitted what we all know anyway, already, which is that D-1 programs spend time and effort pimping their guy as a Heisman candidate weeks (or months) before the season even starts.

Doesn't happen in the other sports, guy.

you're entirely naive (hence the christianity) to think pro teams don't place calls or pick up the hooker tab to buy their players votes off sports writers. and if that doesn't happen, perhaps i'll spend the next hour on mlb.com voting 500 times for miguel cabrera to start in the all-star game.

anyhow, it's nice to see that this

publications and talking heads making predictions about an upcoming season in other sports are commonplace, for sure.
But the ape-shit level of Heisman obsession in D-1 college ball dwarfs all others.

is the argument you're making now even though at the beginning of the thread you were making an entirely different one:

The Heisman winner is essentially the "MVP" of college ball ... or the "Player of the Year" in college ball, right?

So what in fuck's name is the deal with identifying guys as candidates for the award weeks before the season even begins?

It's one of the most idiotic rituals I can think of.

Theoretically, EVERYONE is a "candidate" to be the player of the year.

"Sorry, Joe Smith, but you were not on the preseason "candidate" list, so despite rushing for 2,000 yds and leading the nation in TD's, you are SOL."

seems as if you're




otherwise, still waiting for anything resembling an argument. other than "faith," of course.

[poptart]

at the beginning of the thread you were making an entirely different one (argument)

It's been the same elementary point throughout.
To cut to the chase, you're just really dumb.

THIS piece is typical, and quite fun.

May 10, 2010 - The Heisman Trophy race is on

Yes, and the Indy 500 race begins in February.
The NL MVP race begins in January.
Etc., x many until M Flub catches on.


In recent days postcards trumpeting Washington
quarterback Jake Locker have started showing up in
the mailboxes of the nation’s college football writers.

Gotta get that seed planted if you don't want to fall hopelessly behind in this Heisman "race," which begins 3 months before the season kicks off.

lolz


Apparently it’s never too early to start thinking Heisman.

Apparently. :)


The postcards arrived just days after Husky fans were
encouraged to make the last weekend in April “Heisman
Awareness Weekend” by among other things changing their
Facebook profile picture to a their favorite Locker photo.

Heisman Awareness Weekend on Farcebook ... in April.

April. rotflmao

I hope M Chub participated.


Locker, however, isn’t the only Pac-10 star heading into
the 2010 season worthy of Heisman consideration.

Heisman consideration??

Nobody should be worthy of consideration for a player of the year award for 2010 because ... ummm ... nobody has done jack fucking shit ... in May.

lol


Bonus: Jacquizz Rodgers

Jacquizz

Praying hard.

[Killian]

Hey Pop, do you want to go back to the "college football is moving towards the same vanilla ways as the NFL" argument, or do you just want to abandon it and admit that it was one of the dumbest fucking takes in this forum?

As for the Heisman, it always has been a popularity contest. Tim Brown won the award during a two-three game stretch at the beginning of the 1987 season. Every college football fan knows this, and most accept it.

And if you all want, we can have the NFL vs. CFB threads that will go on for 7+ pages with everyone reverting to 3rd grade level arguments. It would make for a fun offseason.

[M Club]

....

what point are you trying to make there? you still haven't (read: can't) explain how the heisman is different than any other poy award. you're fixated on a single word - 'candidate' - as if only those the media discusses during the pre-season (based on past performances, same as they do in any other sport, before the games are even played) are eligible to win. the discussion updates weekly throughout the season.

you've lost both fronts you've opened up in this thread. how's it feel to get gangbanged?

[indyfrisco]

Whitey, so let me get this straight. poptart rolls into the cfb forum. poptart hijacks a cfb thread and uses it as his personal pulpit to preach "derogatory" line after derogatory line about his hatred and disgust for cfb ...yet a couple of expected posts coming to cfb's defense in the cfb forum is what's got your little silky's in a twist? I know you've got a massive inferiority complex, but christ man, examine the scenario that just played out for a second and realize why you look like a colossal douche right now.

I also love this notion that an admin can't have a take on the NFL unless it apparently coincides with Whitey's.

What he said.

As for the Heisman, I only give a shit about it if someone on my team is considered a preseason favorite. And the only reason that gets me excited is because it means my team is supposed to be pretty damn good. Hence, a possible championship. Last A&M player to be a preseason favorite was Leeland McElroy in 1995. A&M was coming off an undefeated season where we had a postseason ban. That's what interested me. The fact we had what was considered at the time one of the best players in CFB and a team ready to win a MNC. Of course, A&M went 9-3 that year with a win over Michigan in the Alamo Bowl and McElroy didn't even rate for shit....but the hype was fun for a little while.

[PSUFAN]

Not everyone here seems to think the Heisman is a joke.
MClub and Rumps seem to be ok with it.

Several posts have addressed this more than capably, but I'll echo my own assertion from above...defending the discussion of the Heisman race is far different than defending the process of the race itself. You'll have a tough time finding the latter here.

[PSUFAN]

Dude who trolls his own board is accusing somebody else of drama?

that's rich.

No idea what you're referring to...but then, neither do you, so...

[poptart]

Hey Pop, do you want to go back to the "college football is moving towards the same vanilla ways as the NFL" argument, or do you just want to abandon it and admit that it was one of the dumbest fucking takes in this forum?

Why do you think it is a dumb take?

Both D-1 college football and the NFL have become more vanilla, more "packaged" over the past 20-30 years.

D-1 still has more "character" and "variation" than the NFL, though, and as I said, I LIKE the college game over the NFL in many ways.


M Flub, my point about the absurdity of the Heisman process has been made.
Most of the posters in this forum are very astute.
They know that the point I have made is correct.
They're college honks, though, so they just let it slide by without much comment.
I understand.

If my point doesn't resonate with you, oh well.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Define vanilla and packaged? Specifics, please.

[M Club]

M Flub, my point about the absurdity of the Heisman process has been made.
Most of the posters in this forum are very astute.
They know that the point I have made is correct.
They're college honks, though, so they just let it slide by without much comment.
I understand.

If my point doesn't resonate with you, oh well.

ja, great, you made your point. that's not what i asked. i asked how is it any different than the poy awards in other sports. you have no answer.

[M Club]

Define vanilla and packaged? Specifics, please.

it just is. about the best you're going to get.

[poptart]

how is it any different than the poy awards in other sports. you have no answer.

I don't know what else you need for me to say, son.
I've already said it in a number of ways.

Do people go around saying the NFL MVP race begins ... in May?
Do postcards show up in NFL sportwriters mailboxes ... in May ... trumpeting Steven Jackson as an MVP candidate?
Is seeminlgy "everyone" thinking NFL MVP ... in May?
Are "NFL MVP Awareness Weekends" ever up on Farcebook, let alone ... in fucking MAY?
Are NFL players spoken of as being "worthy of NFL MVP consideration" ... months before the season even begins?

Does all of this go on because the peeps involved think there is no BENEFIT for their player or school by doing so?

No, it happens because the Heisman process, the Heisman obsession, is uniquely pretentious and WACK.
And the schools participate in hyping their guy ... in MAY ... because they think it DOES have a potentially positive effect on the voting, when we finally get to that point.

Pull your head out of your @ss.

Define vanilla and packaged? Specifics, please.

First, it's important to note that Killian subtely altered my take, but in subtley doing so, altered the meaning of my take.
Or maybe I wasn't clear enough with my own take.

Killian said I said this: "college football is moving towards the same vanilla ways as the NFL"

My meaning is not that the college game is moving toward the same vanilla ways as the NFL.
My meaning is that they BOTH have shifted in a more vanilla direction.
I think the NFL has shifted farther and faster, but the college game has also moved.

Let's say the 1980 NFL was a 9 on a 1-10 scale of "colorful" to "vanilla" - with 10 being colorful and 1 being vanilla.
It's shifted to, say a 6 now in 2010.
And the college game was a 10 in 1980.
Now it is an 8.

Define vanilla and give specifics?

Admittedly hard to find tanglible points, Mgo.
It's a feel more than anything.

It's like having a favorite pizza place you go to - because the toppings are always just GREAT.
Then they cut corners, cut costs, just a little bit ... and they change one topping.
You barely notice.

But then they change another topping.
And you think, "Hey, this tastes just a little different, not so good."

And then they skimp on another topping - and dick with the crust just a little bit.
Pretty soon the change is evident and the product is just not as good.

I haven't read this book, but I sense I might find it interesting and relevant to the question of yours.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780312323455-1

Scott posted this thread a couple of weeks ago.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35699

The sport has been dicked with in a way that takes it further away from ... PURE ... competition.
It's TV driven.
It's become too much of a TV show, if you know what I mean.


I'm probably too much of a purist for my own good - in many areas of my life, not just sports, and probably belong in the '50s with Wolfman.

[M Club]

I don't know what else you need for me to say, son.
I've already said it in a number of ways.

Do people go around saying the NFL MVP race begins ... in May?
Do postcards show up in NFL sportwriters mailboxes ... in May ... trumpeting Steven Jackson as an MVP candidate?
Is seeminlgy "everyone" thinking NFL MVP ... in May?
Are "NFL MVP Awareness Weekends" ever up on Farcebook, let alone ... in fucking MAY?
Are NFL players spoken of as being "worthy of NFL MVP consideration" ... months before the season even begins?

Does all of this go on because the peeps involved think there is no BENEFIT for their player or school by doing so?

No, it happens because the Heisman process, the Heisman obsession, is uniquely pretentious and WACK.
And the schools participate in hyping their guy ... in MAY ... because they think it DOES have a potentially positive effect on the voting, when we finally get to that point.

Pull your head out of your @ss.

really, that's all you have, that people are talking about the potential heisman winner in may? and facebook? i didn't realize the first "_________ for heisman" group to reach one million members determined actual heisman voting.

basically, you're whining that people who like college football are talking about college football.

and yes, schools promote their players for awards, which obviously determines the winner. "oh, i have a jake locker lock. get it? that's so much more witty than the photo of ryan mallet on the rubber hammer arkansas sent me." i'm pretty sure this process is much less salacious than what a PR dept. for a professional team comes up with. and yes, pro teams do lobby on behalf of their players for pre-season accolades.

sorry i had to explain to you how the world works.

[M Club]

Define vanilla and give specifics?

Admittedly hard to find tanglible points, Mgo.
It's a feel more than anything.

It's like having a favorite pizza place you go to - because the toppings are always just GREAT.
Then they cut corners, cut costs, just a little bit ... and they change one topping.
You barely notice.

But then they change another topping.
And you think, "Hey, this tastes just a little different, not so good."

And then they skimp on another topping - and dick with the crust just a little bit.
Pretty soon the change is evident and the product is just not as good.

in other words, you have no idea of what you're talking about. glad that's cleared up.

[poptart]

in other words, you have no idea of what you're talking about. glad that's cleared up.

This is funny.
No, I mean really funny.

'Tard, I SAW college ball in the '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's, and '00's.

You did NOT watch college ball in the '60's, '70's, and probably very little to none in the '80's.

You seriously have NO point of reference and don't know what YOU are talking about ... at all.



On this point, I'd be interested to see how those other old timers who saw games in those decades view the current product in comparison - but not that I care very much, anyway, as I'm not a college ball fan - for reasons given, and it doesn't matter at all to me if people think today's ... show ... is somehow less "vanilla" than the game of the '60's, '70's, or '80's.

I won't be watching, anyway, because I recognize a farce when I see one.

basically, you're whining that people who like college football are talking about college football.

Basically I mocked and laffed at the Heisman process and the Heisman obsession.

And you.

Those things.

[M Club]

This is funny.
No, I mean really funny.

'Tard, I SAW college ball in the '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's, and '00's.

You did NOT watch college ball in the '60's, '70's, and probably very little to none in the '80's.

You seriously have NO point of reference and don't know what YOU are talking about ... at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. you're some sort of expert because you watched cfb 100 years ago yet you can't tell us why it's become 'vanilla' now? why don't you just tell us to get off your lawn and be done with it. jokeshow.

basically, you're whining that people who like college football are talking about college football.

Basically I mocked and laffed at the Heisman process and the Heisman obsession.

And you.

Those things.

it's a shame you can't read. you and van must have been touched by the same priest.

[poptart]

you're some sort of expert because you watched cfb 100 years ago yet you can't tell us why it's become 'vanilla' now?

I never said I was an expert.
And of course I also didn't say it's become vanilla now.

That'd be ... strike two ... if you hadn't already stuck WAY the fuck out in this thread.

In fact, if you look strictly at the action on the field, D-1 college football is less "vanilla" than the NFL by a long shot.
It's also probably less "vanilla" than all of the other major sports have become by now.

I said this ...

The NFL game is too packaged, too predictable, the teams run the same things, there is very little variance in "character" or uniqueness from team to team.
I've said before that you could switch the uni's of teams and it'd be hard for the fan to notice the change.
It's become way too vanilla in a lot of ways.

The college game has more variation from team to team.
More unique traits and quirks.
More differences in gameplans, formations, and approaches.
It is a faster paced game.
It's not as predictable as the NFL.

I LIKE the college game in a lot of ways.

I give D-1 ball props for NOT being vanilla.

But despite this - the D-1 game has moved, as the NFL has also, in the direction toward being packaged as a "show."
Some of the "edge" is off of it, compared to what I saw 25-30 yrs ago.
Teams have become more alike, as a trend, rather than more unique.
There is a bit less "character" and more ... same ol'.

As I said to Mgo, it's a hard thing to pinpoint.
You could point to the hash mark change in the early 90's - or some other things - but it's hard to nail down.

It's like the old porn thing - I can't necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it.

I can't necessarily define how D-1 ball has been slightly neutered, but to my eyes, it has.

[M Club]

I never said I was an expert.

no, but you provided context for why anything you say should be taken seriously. regardless of context, you've made it abundantly clear you have no clue about what you're talking about.

And of course I also didn't say it's become vanilla now.

i didn't realize semantics were so important to you, he who flipped his shit because pre-season discussion of potential heisman winners use the word "candidates." you said it's becoming vanilla, which insinuates it's moved away from something more complex. we're still waiting to hear what this means. of course you can't explain.

As I said to Mgo, it's a hard thing to pinpoint.
You could point to the hash mark change in the early 90's - or some other things - but it's hard to nail down.

It's like the old porn thing - I can't necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it.

it's not a hard thing to pinpoint. you joined this thread to rail on cfb for becoming less competitive than it used to be - a farce, even though it's more competitive than it used to be - but when pressed for details you moved onto some quip about your dumbfuck 'vanilla.' opinions aren't a hard thing to explain if you actually have a reason for holding them. you're just talking out of your ass.

[indyfrisco]

poptart,

I think it is simply a generation thing. Football, at any level, is a business first and a sport second now. Used to not be that way. I understand how someone who grew up with it the other way around would see the change and not like it. From a younger person's perspective, I must say that I am ok with the business first aspect. The game itself, the athletes, it's much more watchable. I'd rather see today's air attack than yesteryear's HB Dive as the #1 option. Of course, I'd like to see yesteryear's "let them play" attitude rather than today's "let's coddle everyone, especially the QB' attitude. Each era has it's pluses and minuses. I would not say one era is more or less vanilla. I'd just say they are different and leave it at that.

Of course, you are a raiduh fan so I can see how you are barely able to watch a game these days.

[poptart]

M Club you are just flailing all over the place in this thread.

you said it's becoming vanilla, which insinuates it's moved away from something more complex.

I said it's moved toward vanilla - and said also a few times that it is much LESS vanilla than the NFL, and also probably less vanilla than any of the major sports.
And I TOLD you what I meant by that vanilla term.

The overall product has become more packaged, and teams ... generally ... look more alike than they did 20-30 yrs ago.
There was a bit more "character" and variation evident in that past time, imo.
Things were generally was a bit more - "off the cuff" than they are now.

I didn't say anything at all about complexity.
In fact, many of the current offenses are much more complex than what we saw 20-30 yrs ago, imo.

you joined this thread to rail on cfb for becoming less competitive than it used to be - a farce, even though it's more competitive than it used to be

I never said D-1 football is less competetive than it used to be.

Where do you get all this bullshit? lol


Do you remember why I said D-1 football is a farce?

If you remember, what did I say?

[Killian]

I knew it and fucking called it out in the MLB forum. Pop is "in my day" guy. Everything was better when he was younger. You're going to get no where.

[Killian]

Oh, and the whole pandering to Heisman voters has been going on since at least the 60's. Why do you think Joe Theisman changed the pronounciation of his name?

[M Club]

I said it's moved toward vanilla - and said also a few times that it is much LESS vanilla than the NFL, and also probably less vanilla than any of the major sports.
And I TOLD you what I meant by that vanilla term.

no you didn't. you said you couldn't explain it. "it just is" only works in bible study.

I never said D-1 football is less competetive than it used to be.

Where do you get all this bullshit? lol

now you've moved from complete dumbfuckery to straight up lying. i'd expect no less from a bible thumper, especially one who refers to his own wife as a slant.



topics that have fucked you in the ear in this thread:

- the heisman is more of a farce than other poy awards. you were wrong.

- cfb is becoming vanilla/moving toward vanilla/whatever ad hoc bs you want to say about vanilla. i'd say you're wrong here but you don't even know what you mean by vanilla.

- cfb is less competitive than it used to be. now you're claiming you said no such thing.


you and van are one and the same where you throw out moronic statements you've taken for granted as fact and as soon as someone asks you to explain you start with the "er, that's not what i said." i'd buy your appeal to semantics if you could actually string a few coherent sentences together.

[King Crimson]

Oh, and the whole pandering to Heisman voters has been going on since at least the 60's. Why do you think Joe Theisman changed the pronounciation of his name?

because he was such a good player, one assumes.

sounds like poptart needs some good, ol' fashioned Peyton Manning ball-sucking commercials for everything to feel right on planet awesome sport.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I don't know what pop is really driving at. I'm not sure he does either. But I could go for some ice cream.

[poptart]

M Club, you once again flailed and made REPEATED mischaracterizations of what I've said.

Definitely a very stong trend on your part.


In your previous post you said this, "you joined this thread to rail on cfb for becoming less competitive than it used to be - a farce, even though it's more competitive than it used to be"


I never said cfb is less competetive than it used to be.
And then in order to clarify for you, I asked you this ...

Do you remember why I said D-1 football is a farce?

If you remember, what did I say?

In all your flailing in the above post, you didn't answer my question.

Go ahead now and answer the question.

Why did I say D-1 college football is a farce?

topics that have fucked you in the ear in this thread:

- the heisman is more of a farce than other poy awards.

Nope.
I never said the Heisman is more of a farce than other poy awards.

I said it is pretentious, the process (which apparently begins months before the season even begins) is wack, and it is phenomenally idiotic bullshit.

It's not a farce, though.

There is legitimate voting for the award.

cfb is becoming vanilla/moving toward vanilla/whatever ad hoc bs you want to say about vanilla.

Yeah, I think it is.
As I said, The overall product has become more packaged, and teams ... generally ... look more alike than they did 20-30 yrs ago.
There was a bit more "character" and variation evident in that past time, imo.
Things were generally was a bit more - "off the cuff" than they are now.

cfb is less competitive than it used to be

Nope.
I never gave that take.

I said I consider D-1 college football to be a farce.

And again, if you remember why I said it is a farce, tell me why I said it.