SoundOff Roll Call

[Tidergirl]

Life happens to all of us girl, and we all have things we're not proud of. The group of folks we had together on SO were like family. We didn't always agree, but we supported each other when the chips were down. I hate what happened, especially to those that really did nothing wrong and got caught in the crosshairs but at least we can still interact and converse here. This bunch has welcomed us degenerates and for that I am thankful.

Posted a few times a couple of years ago. I had no issues at all here.

 

[Tidergirl]

Well hello young lady, great to see ya here too! Now don’t tell anyone (just between you and me), but Operation Marmot is now underway

 

[Duckdude73]

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

I like any site that recognizes the utility and versatility of the word “fuck”.

On Rivals, saying “fuck” was treated as if you just openly expressed a desire to ****** children while participating in Satanic rituals and burning puppies.

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

I like any site that recognizes the utility and versatility of the word “fuck”.

On Rivals, saying “fuck” was treated as if you just openly expressed a desire to harm children while participating in Satanic rituals and burning puppies.

 

[Tidergirl]

I like any site that recognizes the utility and versatility of the word “fuck”.

On Rivals, saying “fuck” was treated as if you just openly expressed a desire to ****** children while participating in Satanic rituals and burning puppies.

 

[Duckdude73]

You gonna see it? Lol

 

[dade305cane]

I'm here for the party motherfucker's!

 

[Tigity]

haha...which makes me a bad peep.

It is a rather disturbing picture....and the laughs I've had reading the discomfort here has been worth it.

I can't find the previous award...but I'll work something up. It is meant to be embarrassing...not like cute puppy balls or something. A deterrent to bad play as I'm just trying to look out for you.

How about this with a inscription of some sort 2018 Rivals Rumble Sacko Champion. Last place has it's privileges.


Also @Stake you gotta watch The League some day. Fricking hilarious show. It is where the phrase Sacko came from.

 

[Stake]

I'm searching. It needs to be a little embarrassing to make it more fun. Don't have Netflix as consistent internet flow is not available.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I'm searching. It needs to be a little embarrassing to make it more fun. Don't have Netflix as consistent internet flow is not available.

I mean gold balls are not exactly my first choice.

Top ten though of course

 

[Surfahgal]

I'm here for the party motherfucker's!

Mooching here too I see.

 

[bamagrad75]

Glad to see how many made across enemy lines ot the safe zone.

I know more are coming. Keep a light burning for them to find their way

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Daaaamn Jeep just make yourself at home with a neg on my otherwise pristine like history

This has truly turned my world upside down

 

[legalizequack]

No, Conservatives only bro.

So go Bernie?

 

[CU#1Fan]

I never suggested I was the proprietor to the Belt, I am going to keep pressing my opinion though because it seems there is a direct connection to the Belt (my version) and the CFP NC. For clarity the Belt (your version) doesn't separate. How fair is that? Case in point. Texas Christian I believe it was 2015 played Baylor in Waco. Lost. In OT. Then they played Oregon and won in OT. I don't think anyone can dispute that's a split Belt.
Minimally TCU retains a measure of it, bit YOUR rules give it to Baylor like they won it.
Review it, then get back to me, FWIW it was the Alamo Bowl.

Yeah I mostly follow that logistic, but OT introduces a new element. Again. Texas Christian had the Belt until losing to Baylor in Waco, but OT isn't regulation. Consider had the 'former' rules applied TCU in fact would have retained the Belt. Before OT. I'm going to throw a wrench in the machinery. I offered the suggestion a fair way to resolve a tie (before OT) was to give impetus to the visiting team (TCU) since the home team has a logistical advantage. It has the same condition attached to it that OT does. It doesn't change the result or put a motive other than which team might have earned the win above the operative. And that game went to 2 OT. It hardly seems fair to remove TCU from the Belt in that circumstance. I think if you review it you might concur an OT win like Ohio St.'s (even though it would correlate to my metric) isn't definitive! And, it isn't. Simple as that.

Did you review the subtext relative to the operative (CFP national championship)? Georgia was 12-1 last year. Beat Auburn in the CC, claiming a measure of the Belt. Then they played Oklahoma (won in 2 OT). Played Alabama (lost in OT). What's OT/W, OT/L?
Its the same (statistically) as two ties. 0-0-2. Or simply 1-1-0. Georgia therefore finished the year at 13-2. Two losses removes them.

What about Oklahoma? They were 12-1. Lost to Iowa St. (I addressed that earlier). Post-season they were 0-0-1 (OT/L). Alabama was (after beating Clemson) 12-1.
National champion 0-0-1 (OT/W). We can't have (this circumstance) a partial championship, we necessarily have to combine those results (OT/L), (OT/W) to yield a fair result, That's 1-1-0. We can't choose who the NC is. Its either Alabama or Oklahoma. Obviously it makes better sense to award a NC to the Tide but not without consequence. 1-1 says either team might claim a full measure (25%) of the NC, The only way to resolve it is to split it. Alabama retains their share and Oklahoma's forfeittted. (Which is how it carries forward from Iowa St to USF), USF was 10-2. 2 losses remove a team (any team) from a NC. That's why Pittsburgh (5-7) is eliminated but retain their share if the Belt. Ohio St beat USC to secure their share. Four teams met the eligibility standard. Alabama. Ohio St. Pittsburgh. USF. Only Alabama met the requirement as a legitimate national champion. The other three carry it forward.
That's how Alabama still has a measure. How Ohio St secured the Belt (defeated Penn St) lost it to Purdue, retained it from Michigan St. And lost part of it to Maryland.

I never suggested anything at all about what might constitute a Belt champion other than merit. You are confused. OT isn't definitive. I know what you are saying. But I think when a team like Texas Christian nearly beats as goid a team as Baylor in Waco there needs to be an amendment. It shouldn't count the same as a loss. That's fairly obligatory. I don't have to outline that because its fairly self-explanatory. In the following game (Alamo Bowl) Texas Christian won in OT. Vs Oregon. Defeated the Oregon Ducks. In OT. What's OT/L, OT/W? Its 1-1-0. I suppose we might argue Texas Christian 'lost' to Baylor and defeated Oregon (won Alamo Bowl). But that metric can also be applied the opposite way, just as easily, which suggests TCU retained a measure of the Belt. 50/50. Follow? It isn't fair to punish Texas Christian.

Again its fair to assume that OT rules left Georgia at 13-2. Removed from the championship. Eliminated. But Alabama didn't defeat them, they share that distinction with Oklahoma, you can try to tell me Alabama won but that's not true. They tied. Oklahoma tied. What's 0-0-2? Its 1-1. If we remove OT its a co-championship between Alabama and OU.
And you can't tell me you have a crystal ball.
Without OT its anyones guess who the NC is. With OT we can infer Alabama 'might' be the NC. Oklahoma might concede but to do that they forfeit. Simple as that. They forfeited. But that leaves the title open-ended. Alabama never secured it. They claim 1/2 measure the other 1/2 is passed from Iowa St (beat Oklahoma) to USF (beat Texas Tech) Birmingham AL. Texas Tech beat Texas. Texas beat W. Virginia, W.Virginia beat Iowa St. USF was 10-2. They're removed from the championship.

Thanks Dr.Phil.

Actually I had posted a thread relative to the Belt. I could simply respond through that thread but this one was more readily available. His is specific to a method the Belt wasn't familiar to either. Its too bad that webpage no longer exists but their method simply gives full credit to Ohio St. I hope that clears up any confusion.

I'm outlining a procedure that should serve the paradigm of CFP appropriately, you aren't following it. Georgia had (I believe) the Belt (CFP) in tow when they played Oklahoma. I outlined the procedure. Even if you don't follow its still single elimination. Regulation rules. OT isn't single elimination. Oklahoma wasn't eliminated. OT/L means they're still viable. I Shoukdnt have to explain it. Georgia was eliminated OT/W, OT/L removes them, 1-1.
But it splits their championship 50/50. Alabama is entitled to their share 50%. Oklahoma forfeits theirs for sake of fairness to the process but its carried forward by USF. USF (this year) lost to Houston. Houston lost to S.Methodist. SMU lost to Memphis. Memphis is 7-4. Look it up! They carry a full measure of the Belt to the divisional championship against Houston.

^^^^ That shit, stop it or I will go invite his ass here just for you and prime him up just so he goes all title belt on your ass.

 

[ThereIsNoPlace]

^^^^ That shit, stop it or I will go invite his ass here just for you and prime him up just so he goes all title belt on your ass.

 

[LeroyOU12]

during CC weekend last year soundoff was rocking, it's kinda ghost town this year.

 

[Wunder.Noid]

Oops, wrong thread...

 

[Tidergirl]

Damn you surely can't be this big of a dick all the time can You?