Trent Richardson Takes Cancer Survivor To Her Prom

[Bills-n-Browns-Fan]

and i wasn't trying to flame you as much as i came off. it's just the fact that we all on here have heard it from certain members of the forum about TR and how great he is 3 months before the draft. everyday all day long.

 

some of us were thinking claiborn or blackmon. so we all didn't agree on what player to draft at #4 (3). so when you came in to tout TR it was like beating a dead horse.

 

i'm not the guy to talk college football and yes alabama deserved the national championship. i just really don't care about stats and end-of-year voting blah blah blah. there are other members on here that will argue that for me. yeah i like ohio state cuz i'm from ohio. but my best friend likes georgia. his son's best friend graduated alabama so there are some saturday afternoon blasts that are worthy of saying that hands down the SEC is the best conf. in college football. hopefully u. meyer can help change that. but who wouldn't want to go down south or out west to play ball with warm weather and hot blonds sucking your cock all day long? those teams have an advantage in recruiting that we up north can ever show these kids.

 

but i really don't care.

 

give me sunday football and a browns win and i'm happy as a pig in shit.

You mean PoeticG...

[Harry Buffalo]

I don't see that I was talking up/selling Richardson by saying you guys got a talented player.

 

Apparently my theories about Alabama getting into the BCS game came off more crimson-shaded than intended. I was suggesting why the voters (not coaches) did what they did, not stating it as fact. I didn't say that Saban wasn't trying to keep Oklahoma State out of the game, just that he wasn't voting to keep from playing Oklahoma State. I said that Stanford and Oklahoma State were just as deserving as Alabama. That's a valid point. I also said that if we hadn't gotten in then we could only blame ourselves for losing. So, looking back at what I said, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I don't know what I am talking about? I would legitimately like to know, not intended as a cocky reply.

 

I'll be happy to discuss football (college or NFL) with you guys anytime. It wasn't a stir-the-pot and leave post.

 

I've actually never been to Muscle Shoals, but have heard that they have some decent music there.

 

Basically what it comes down to is why you people feel a need to always come on here and hype about your favorite player and try to sell them to use? You make an account and you come on and post 3-7 times and your gone. Save us the trouble and just don't show up. Your not going to contribute more than you currently have and if you had taken just 5 minutes to look around you would find out we had to deal with more than enough of your kind already.

[WhoAmI]

Basically what it comes down to is why you people feel a need to always come on here and hype about your favorite player and try to sell them to use? You make an account and you come on and post 3-7 times and your gone. Save us the trouble and just don't show up. Your not going to contribute more than you currently have and if you had taken just 5 minutes to look around you would find out we had to deal with more than enough of your kind already.

 

If you had taken time to read my posts, you would see that I didn't come in here trying to sell anyone to you. I can't make it any clearer than that, but maybe by again referencing my original post. I said you guys got a talented player in Trent Richardson. That's it. In no way does that translate into "Trent is my favorite player, you guys are soooooo lucky to have him." I have been active in enough message boards to know that some people do that. I didn't. If you in particular feel the need to try to call me out for something that didn't happen, then go right ahead. If you disagreed with my post, tell me. Telling me to "get bent" and referencing "my kind" doesn't add anything constructive to any of this.

 

I can understand that you guys don't know me and my first post while not intended came across jaded. So, here's some info about me. My name is Scott, I am 31. I have lived in Atlanta, Nashville, Cleveland, and currently Birmingham. I love the NFL, College Football, and MLB. If there is anything else I can provide that will help you get to know me better, let me know. I am going to stay on the board. I chose this one because I like the Browns and hope that I can change the perception that I am a typical SEC homer that knows nothing about sports.

[The Gipper]

I'm not disputing the overall coaches poll. My problem is with Saban's voting. He didn't need to pad the lead yet he still did. Evidently he wasn't confident enough his team's merits to make it into the championship game so he put his main rival (Oklahoma State) at a disadvantage by placing them 4th.

 

Again, to me, it is a flaw in the system. You say, apparently, that because Saban voted Ok St. 4th, that that single coaches vote put his team in the NC game ahead of someone else, right?

If it really came down to that small of a margin of error, then, again, something is wrong with the system.

First off, it creates a conflict of interest to me. The BCS should NOT be allowing those who are involved in the competition to vote.

It would be like say, letting Mary Lou Retton to not only be a competitor in her gymnastics event, but also letter her be one of the judges of the event.

It would be like allowing OJ Simpson to sit on the jury of his own trial.

 

I can see where a more extreme case could occur, (and it probably has). I can see where a coach, like Nick Saban, could list a team that he is in competiton with for a title game spot

to not just vote them 4th instead of 3rd, but to vote them 10th.

In fact, I swear this has happened in the past where a coach turned in his ballot and didn't even rank another team in the top 25 that nearly everyone else ranked in the top 5.

[The Gipper]

"I don't think the lack of a playoff can be laid directly on the backs of the Big 10/Pac 12. Plenty of players have the hand in the pot....protecting the pot. Particularly the Bowl Committees."

 

That is a fair point. The majority of what is televised points to keeping the tradition of the Rose Bowl has kept the two conferences from wanting a playoff. This isn't helped by the Pac-10(at the time) being reluctant to join the BCS.

 

Well, I think their should be a full national championship playoff, not this silly BCS, so it doesn't bother me if one or two of the conferences are reluctant to join it.

 

"Now you are shuffling, big time. My in laws live in South Carolina...and it IS reality there. Sorry. It ain't Cleveland that thinks that the SEC winning a few silly football games makes up for losing the Civil War. That is your SEC mentality."

I said that racism exists in Alabama, but also in Cleveland. I have lived both places and the South receives more negative coverage of race issues, but that to say the entire state = racists as was said is ignorant.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the entire state is racists, by no means. But I would stick to the fact that there are still a greater percentage of racists there in the south...still, than in the north. (and of course Cleveland, like every other major city has its racial divides)

 

What does the SEC winning football games have to do with the Civil War? Yes, there are people who talk about the South "rising again", but did I imply this in any way?

You answered your own question...that some see SEC dominance in football as the proof that the "South rose again". The things that allowed the "South to rise again" is air conditioning, and the desire of snowbirds to get away from snow drifts and high heating bills.

 

I don't see how I am shuffling big time.

I was talking about your comment that there are more racists in Cleveland than Alabama. That my friend is clearly doing a Stepin Fetchit Shuffle (was that racist to call it that?)

[The Gipper]

If you had taken time to read my posts, you would see that I didn't come in here trying to sell anyone to you. I can't make it any clearer than that, but maybe by again referencing my original post. I said you guys got a talented player in Trent Richardson. That's it. In no way does that translate into "Trent is my favorite player, you guys are soooooo lucky to have him." I have been active in enough message boards to know that some people do that. I didn't. If you in particular feel the need to try to call me out for something that didn't happen, then go right ahead. If you disagreed with my post, tell me. Telling me to "get bent" and referencing "my kind" doesn't add anything constructive to any of this.

 

I can understand that you guys don't know me and my first post while not intended came across jaded. So, here's some info about me. My name is Scott, I am 31. I have lived in Atlanta, Nashville, Cleveland, and currently Birmingham. I love the NFL, College Football, and MLB. If there is anything else I can provide that will help you get to know me better, let me know. I am going to stay on the board. I chose this one because I like the Browns and hope that I can change the perception that I am a typical SEC homer that knows nothing about sports.

 

Can you provide your social security number and bank account numbers along with your ATM PIN?

You said you wanted to get friendly!

[The Gipper]

A proper National Championship Playoff should simply be based on the same way they do things at all the other levels of college football, FCS D-II, and D-III, and should look like this:

 

Champions of the following conferenced get automatic bids:

 

ACC

Big 12

Big 10

Big East

Pac 12

SEC

Conf-USA

MAC

WAC

Mountain West

Sun Belt

Plus 5 At Large teams.

 

One caveat: I would suggest a merger between Mt West and WAC and Conf USA and Sun Belt. That would mean 9 automatic bids and 7 At large teams that would play off in a 16 team Bracket.

 

 

Of course you would have the Top Seed play the 16 seed etc. The Bowls could be incorporated into this. Perhaps the first round at least would be at the home field of the highest seed.

It all makes too much sense.

I know there are some logistics issues about getting fans to the games as the teams go on into the tournament...but so what? Fans are resilient. They will get to see their teams play, if they want. If not, other college football fans will go. I doubt there would be an unsold seat for any game. And the TV money would be astronomical.

No, it has only to do with those who are currently controlling things: ie, bowl committees, who would lose out. But, they really wouldn't either if the Final Eight/Four/Title games were played in the Rose Bowl/Sugar/Fiesta/Orange etc. bowls. Even some of the lesser bowls would do better.

[WhoAmI]

I can see what you are saying about my post. I was referencing one post in particular that I took exception to. Hopefully I will be able to have more quoting capabilities as my post count rises. I know the perception of the state and just like you guys are tired of people going over the top about draft choices, I get tired of being labeled as a redneck or racist because of where I live. I know that was not the intent and that was over-reaction on my part.

I am not disputing that there are more racists in Alabama than Cleveland, just my observance that their appears to be more apprehension in Cleveland (from my experiences) in interacting with other races than I have seen in Alabama. I should have read over that before posting.

 

As far as my social and my bank information, there isn't enough value there to waste your time with. Maybe this weekend when I am up there I will win the Lotto. If I do, I'll buy a round for any of you who want one.

[WhoAmI]

A proper National Championship Playoff should simply be based on the same way they do things at all the other levels of college football, FCS D-II, and D-III, and should look like this:

 

Champions of the following conferenced get automatic bids:

 

ACC

Big 12

Big 10

Big East

Pac 12

SEC

Conf-USA

MAC

WAC

Mountain West

Sun Belt

Plus 5 At Large teams.

 

One caveat: I would suggest a merger between Mt West and WAC and Conf USA and Sun Belt. That would mean 9 automatic bids and 7 At large teams that would play off in a 16 team Bracket.

 

 

Of course you would have the Top Seed play the 16 seed etc. The Bowls could be incorporated into this. Perhaps the first round at least would be at the home field of the highest seed.

It all makes too much sense.

I know there are some logistics issues about getting fans to the games as the teams go on into the tournament...but so what? Fans are resilient. They will get to see their teams play, if they want. If not, other college football fans will go. I doubt there would be an unsold seat for any game. And the TV money would be astronomical.

No, it has only to do with those who are currently controlling things: ie, bowl committees, who would lose out. But, they really wouldn't either if the Final Eight/Four/Title games were played in the Rose Bowl/Sugar/Fiesta/Orange etc. bowls. Even some of the lesser bowls would do better.

 

I completely agree with this. Hopefully the realignment will calm down and this can come to fruition. There would be no need to find a better conference if there were 16 teams that would get an invite.

[miktoxic]

So, here's some info about me. My name is Scott, I am 31. I have lived in Atlanta, Nashville, Cleveland, and currently Birmingham. I love the NFL, College Football, and MLB. If there is anything else I can provide that will help you get to know me better, let me know.

do you like pina colodas? gettin caught in the rain?

 

 

hope that I can change the perception that I am a typical SEC homer that knows nothing about sports.

 

= username ballpeen

[WhoAmI]

do you like pina colodas? gettin caught in the rain?

 

Not really, but I could waste away in Margaritaville.

[The Gipper]

Fair enough Who Am I. (Who are you, oo, oo, oo, oo)

 

Back to my bracket, if you took last year's results you would have a field that looked like this more or less:

 

ACC Clemson

Big 12 OK St.

Big East Cincinnati

Big 10 Wisconsin

Pac-12 Stanford

SEC LSU

C-USA Houston

MAC N. Illinois

WAC La. Tech

Mt. West TCU

Sun Belt Arkansas St.

 

At Large: Alabama, Oregon, Boise St. Michigan St. Arkansas

If some of the conferences were consolidated, then add Va. Tech and either Georgia or South Carolina to the At-Large spots.

It would not also bother me if you made LSU and Alabama the #1 and #2 seed, and put them at either end of the Brackets.

 

And you would have had first round matchups like this (per "The Gipper's seeding system):

 

#1 LSU vs. #16 La. Tech

#2 Alabama vs. #15 Ark. St.

#3 Oklahoma St. vs. #14 No. Illinois

#4 Stanford vs. #13 Clemson

#5 Wisconsin vs #12 Cincinnati

#6 Oregon vs. #11 Houston

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 TCU

#8 Michigan St. vs. #9 Boise St.

 

You could play around with these seedings a little, but I think they are fairly good. There are actually some good regional matchups in this first round....and in several cases travel distances could be minimized. Sorry, but a couple of teams have to go west coast.

 

If chalk held, second round matches would have looked like this:

 

LSU vs. Mich St.

Alabama vs. Arkansas

Oklahoma St. vs. Oregon

Stanford vs. Wisconsin

 

Again, if chalk held you would have:

LSU vs. Stanford

Alabama vs. OK. St.

 

Then the title game could have been LSU v. Ala......but at least then these two would have faced a serious gauntlet to get there, and who knows what would happen along the way.

[WhoAmI]

Fair enough Who Am I. (Who are you, oo, oo, oo, oo)

 

Back to my bracket, if you took last year's results you would have a field that looked like this more or less:

 

ACC Clemson

Big 12 OK St.

Big East Cincinnati

Big 10 Wisconsin

Pac-12 Stanford

SEC LSU

C-USA Houston

MAC N. Illinois

WAC La. Tech

Mt. West TCU

Sun Belt Arkansas St.

 

At Large: Alabama, Oregon, Boise St. Michigan St. Arkansas

If some of the conferences were consolidated, then add Va. Tech and either Georgia or South Carolina to the At-Large spots.

It would not also bother me if you made LSU and Alabama the #1 and #2 seed, and put them at either end of the Brackets.

 

And you would have had first round matchups like this (per "The Gipper's seeding system):

 

#1 LSU vs. #16 La. Tech

#2 Alabama vs. #15 Ark. St.

#3 Oklahoma St. vs. #14 No. Illinois

#4 Stanford vs. #13 Clemson

#5 Wisconsin vs #12 Cincinnati

#6 Oregon vs. #11 Houston

#7 Arkansas vs. #10 TCU

#8 Michigan St. vs. #9 Boise St.

 

You could play around with these seedings a little, but I think they are fairly good. There are actually some good regional matchups in this first round....and in several cases travel distances could be minimized. Sorry, but a couple of teams have to go west coast.

 

If chalk held, second round matches would have looked like this:

 

LSU vs. Mich St.

Alabama vs. Arkansas

Oklahoma St. vs. Oregon

Stanford vs. Wisconsin

 

Again, if chalk held you would have:

LSU vs. Stanford

Alabama vs. OK. St.

 

Then the title game could have been LSU v. Ala......but at least then these two would have faced a serious gauntlet to get there, and who knows what would happen along the way.

 

That is completely acceptable. Too many teams such as Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.. get passes sometimes due to name. I don't doubt this helped Alabama last year. They aren't always the better team though. For example, a few years ago, Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl because they were the better team. I would much rather have a playoff.

 

btw, WhoAmI is a reference to a song I like by Dave Matthews Band.

[The Gipper]

Well, one thing we can forget is having the WAC in on the playoffs. After all the realignment of conferences, the WAC is down to just two team: Idaho and New Mexico St.

 

As it will stand in about 2014 after all the realignment comes down you will have the following conference lineups:

 

BIG TEN, 12 members:

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mich. St., Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio St., Penn St. Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue

 

PAC 12, 12 members:

Arizona, Ariz. St., Cal, Oregon, Ore St., Stanford, UCLA, USC, Wash., Wash St., Colorado, Utah

 

BIG 12, 10 members:

Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas, Kan. St., Oklahoma, OK St., Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, West Virg.

 

 

SEC, 14 members:

Alabama, Ark, Auburn, Fla, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St., So. Caro., Tenn. Vandy, Missouri, Texas A&M

 

 

Big East, 11 members:

Cinci, L-ville, UConn, Rutgers, South Fla., Temple, Boise St. Houston, Memphis, SMU, Cent. Fla.

 

ACC, 14 members:

Boston College, Clemson, Duke, FSU, Ga. Tech, Maryland, Miami, NC, NC ST., Virginia, Va. Tech, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse

 

Mountain West, 11 members:

Air Force, Colo. St., New Mex., San Diego St., UNLV, Wyoming, Fresno St., Hawaii, Nevada, San Jose St., Utah St.

 

Conf.-USA, 12 members:

East Carolina, Marshall, Rice, So. Miss., Tulsa, Tulane, UAB, UTEP, Fla Int'l, North Texas, UT-San Antonio

 

Sun Belt, 10 members:

Ark. St., Fla-Atlantic, Lou-Lafayette, Lou-Monroe, Mid Tenn. St., Troy St., West. KY, So. Alabama, Georgia St., Texas St.

 

MAC, 13 members:

Akron, Ball St., Bowling Green, Buffalo, Cent. Mich, E. Mich., West. Mich., Kent St. Miami O.,

N. Illinois, Ohio U., Toledo, UMass.

 

WAC, 2 members:

Idaho, N.Mex. St.

 

Independents, 4:

Army, Navy, Notre Dame, BYU

 

Clearly some additional changes will be forthcoming. Obviously the WAC will seemingly go under. Not sure why the MWC doesn't just absorb those last two members.

 

That is 121 schools that are in now 10 viable confereces plus 4 independents.

Maybe 10 Automatic plus 6 at large is a number that my proposed playoff system could work with.

[Zombo]

do you like pina colodas? gettin caught in the rain?

 

 

Ha! Funny...

 

Zombo