NHR: Mountain West rumblings
- Thread starter The Real SamC
- Start date
Second place, losing head to head to Rice with the same conference regular season record. If you include the champ game as overall record, still second place with a .5 game lead over ECU and UTSA, but with UTSA at 7-5 overall losing head to head and ECU losing head to head to Marshall. If the .5 didn't exist, Marshall still holds second place overall in that scenario. Unless I am reading that season wrong.
Correct. But in Johns' demented world, Marshall finished third in C-USA. How is that possible, considering they tied with only one other team for the best conference record, won their division, played in the championship game, etc.? Well, in his demented world, he claims that Rice - the Conference USA champion who had tied with one other team in the conference with a 7-1 record - is actually the second place team.
He is arguing that "the first place C-USA team" is the team from that conference with the best overall record. Even though Marshall went 7-1 in the conference and finished ahead of ECU which went 6-2, since ECU is 10-3 overall compared with Marshall's 10-4, then that means ECU is the first place C-USA team. And, yes, even though Rice had the best conference record at 7-1 (along with Marshall) and even though Rice won the conference, they are the second place team because ECU went 10-3. I know; there is no logic behind it and it isn't how it is done, but that is why he continues to argue things he is clearly wrong about.
For instance, I have repeatedly said that Boise's last 11 wins against Pac 10/12 schools have included 9 wins against teams in the top half of that conference. I also said that more than half of those wins were against teams that finished first, second, or third in the Pac. He has denied that. How? Because he judges where a team finishes in the conference based only on the overall record.
He said that Washington State finished fifth in the Pac in 2017. How? I have no idea. Washington State finished tied with one other team for fourth in the conference. They didn't play that other team head-to-head, and Washington State had the better overall record. How he came up with fifth? Counting is hard.
He said that Washington State finished fifth in 2016. How? Again, no clue. They finished tied for third with USC. They didn't play USC that year. Now, USC did have the better overall record, but even if he went by that, Washington State would have finished fourth, not fifth. If you disregard conference record and judge only the overall record, Washington State finished fifth. But that makes no sense in determining which place a team finished in their conference. How he came up with fifth? Counting is hard.
In 2013, he claimed that Oregon State finished third. In reality, they finished tied for seventh. How did he come up with that? Again, no clue. Counting is hard.
It's not just that he changes his argument every time he is shown to be wrong. He then states things that are easily dismissed as false and argues them until moving the goal posts again.
Really- go look at all of the standings for each of those years and try to figure out how he came up with what he stated. It's mind-boggling bad.
Keep dodging the question, like BSU keeps dodging quality teams! You wouldn't call Wasu and Oregon St the cream of the football crop in
the Pac 10 (12) historically would you? I wouldn't think so.
Last time they won the Pac-10
Wasu-2001 , 1996
Ore. St - 2000, 1963
the Pac 10 (12) historically would you? I wouldn't think so.
Last time they won the Pac-10
Wasu-2001 , 1996
Ore. St - 2000, 1963
Last edited:
Nobody has dodged any question other than you. I have refuted every attempt you have made, which are quite a few, because you continue to move the goal posts after each time you're embarrassed.
No, I wouldn't call Washington State and Oregon State the best in the Pac. I would, however, argue that Oregon and Washington are two of the best recently. Boise plays both of those teams as much as anyone. That blows your theory out of the water. Then, when you consider that those four teams are by far the closest teams in the conference to Boise, you realize that your theory is even dumber.
Now, your turn since you have avoided all of the other arguments that blew up in your face. How can you be so damn dumb that you can't even count to five correctly? How do you come up with the standings you have below, moron?
What do you think is dumber - you butchering counting to five multiple times, you claiming that a G5 playing the #26 team, #27 team, and ACC team, and BYU is a weak schedule for a G5, or any of the other failures you have had in this thread?
Where do you keep moving these Goal Posts at?
BSU agrees that's why they continue to schedule them! Granted you schedule a few years ahead of time, they maybe decent by the time you play them. BSU is playing the odds. They sure as hell don't want to take their nemesis Fresno St. route and actually play USC twice. Didn't end up well for them, but at least they had the gonads to schedule.
Seems and they happen to be the least successful teams in the Pac-10; how convenient. I think that's what MU should do just that to pad their G5 schedule each year. Get Duke, Maryland, Indiana, maybe Northwestern. Beat those scrubs then boast how we Rolled through the Big Ten and ACC each year. Maybe we will get the same kudos as BSU and giftwrap to the Access Bowl. I mean they are CLOSE RIGHT!
All I know is in NM we played the Superior MWC Colo. St and beat they by 7. We ran for 80+ three times. We should have beat them by 14 if we didn't sit on the ball and allowed Stevens to have a short field. We had one 80+ run brought back, by a fair catch signal. That's debatable, could have beat them theoretically by 21. What I say out of the third place MWC team, is terrible Defense and generally slow overall. If that's what the MWC has to offer it's not that impressive, IMO.
For the tenth time, none of what you said makes any sense when you consider that they schedule Washington and Oregon just as much. So, are they scheduling top teams on accident or is it maybe because those four teams (Oregon/Oregon State/Washington/Washington State) also happen to be the four closest P5 teams to Boise? Exactly. You can ramble on as much as you want about Oregon State and Washington State, but it means absolutely nothing once you realize they also schedule Washington and Oregon.
Nice job avoiding how you can't count to five.
Boise's wins against that conference have overwhelmingly been against teams that finish in the top half of that conference. The majority of those wins have been against the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place Pac team.
Your argument continues to fail.
Nice job avoiding how you can't count to five.
Boise's wins against that conference have overwhelmingly been against teams that finish in the top half of that conference. The majority of those wins have been against the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place Pac team.
Your argument continues to fail.
Do you ever get tired of talking in circles so much? From page 2 in this thread.
Works Cited: http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BoiseState.htm
Oh yeah, the also scheduled Oregon and Washington. Not as many times as the States.
Last edited:
It isn't talking in circles. It is continuing to show you how wrong your arguments have been.
2004? Wait a minute- you said since 2007. Now, you want to get back to 2004 since your other five arguments have blown up. This keeps getting better and better.
Tell us again how their success is because they only play the bottom half of the Pac even though 9 of their 11 wins have been against teams finishing in the top half of that conference.
Yes and if we go back to 2002, BSU played Oregon St in 2002 and 2003. So From 2002-2017 they played Oregon State seven times. You know the Oregon State that hasn't won the Pac-10 since 2000, before that 1963! Way to pick them Boise!
Oh, it keeps getting better. First you only wanted to look from 2007. Then, when that blew up, you wanted to go back to 2004. Then, when that blew up, you wanted to go back to 2002. And instead of looking at all of their Pac 10/12 opponents, you now only want to focus in on one.
Ok, lets evaluate that. Your claim is that Boise's success is due to scheduling "the bottom half" of Pac 10/12 teams. That was thoroughly destroyed when looking at facts. But now you just want to look at one team; Oregon State. So lets look at Boise's success against Oregon State.
Boise beat Oregon State in 2004. That year, Oregon State finished 5-3 in the Pac 10, good enough to tie for third place. They lost the head-to-head against the team they tied with, so they finished in fourth in the conference.
Boise beat Oregon State in 2006. That year, Oregon State finished 6-3 in the Pac 10, good enough for third place.
Boise beat Oregon State in 2010. That year, Oregon State finished 4-5, good enough to tie for fifth place in the Pac 10. They beat both other teams that had 4-5 records, so they earned the fifth spot in the conference.
Boise beat Oregon State in 2016. That year, Oregon State finished 3-6 in the Pac 12, good enough to tie for seventh place in the Pac 12. They beat the team they tied with head-to-head.
So, since 2002, Boise State has four wins against Oregon State (2004, 2006, 2010, 2016). In those years, Oregon State has finished 4th out of 10, 3rd out of 10, 5th out of 10, and 7th out of 12.
As you can see, Boise's success even against Oregon State isn't because they are beating them when they are bottom feeders.
Tell us again how Boise's success is due to them beating bottom half Pac 10/12 teams while ignoring reality. And while you're at it, explain why you keep running from this, coward:
Last edited:
There must not be anything going on in my office this morning because I actually read through most of this.... Johns- You're a fool
Boise State is where the herd wants to be as a program. They have one of the best football programs in America. Case closed
School Championships Last Championship
USC 39^ 2017
UCLA 17 1998
Washington 16 2016
Stanford 15 2015
California 14 2006
Oregon 11 2014
Oregon State 5 2000
Washington State 4 2002
Arizona State 3 2007
Arizona 1 1993
Idaho 1 1927
Colorado 0 –
Utah 0 –
Montana 0 –
Notice where Wasu and Oregon St are!
USC 39^ 2017
UCLA 17 1998
Washington 16 2016
Stanford 15 2015
California 14 2006
Oregon 11 2014
Oregon State 5 2000
Washington State 4 2002
Arizona State 3 2007
Arizona 1 1993
Idaho 1 1927
Colorado 0 –
Utah 0 –
Montana 0 –
Notice where Wasu and Oregon St are!
Oh, so now you want to move the goal posts again. This time, your argument is that Boise doesn't play the teams that have won the PAC the most in the history of the conference.
Tell me, since it appears that UCLA last won the conference in 1998, how does that impact your argument that Boise has been avoiding them since 2007? . . . or 2004 when you changed the argument back to that date after failing . . . or 2002 when you changed the argument back to that date after failing?
Why does it matter that UCLA won the conference last in 1998 if we are only discussing Boise since 2007 (or any of the years you kept changing your argument to include)?
Further, what is a better program? A team that wins the conference once every five years and then finishes in dead last the other four or a team that finishes in second place every single year? I think most logical people - which excludes you - would say that the latter is the better program. So that program wouldn't even be included on your list.
Let us not forget- one of your numerous failed arguments was that Boise's success against the PAC is due to playing only the bottom half of PAC teams (of course facts states just the opposite). So, how does Washington (#3) or Oregon (#6) count as the bottom half? How does Oregon State (#7) count as the bottom half when there are 14 teams listed?
You can keep changing your argument as many times as you want, but the result is still the same: you're a moron who doesn't know when to give up.
Knowing that Idaho and Montana are no longer in the league. Before 2011 Utah and Colorado were not in the Pac-10. That would make Oregon in the bottom 1/2. Way to pick them Boise. Now step up and take on USC, Stanford, and UCLA; Finish the Pac-12 tour!
Dear Stupid,
There are 12 teams in the Pac 12. Even by your own bizarre and illogical way of ranking which teams are the best in the conference, Oregon is 6th. How is 6 in the bottom half of a group of 12?
Sincerely,
Somebody Far Smarter than You Whom You should Avoid
That's your problem in a nutshell. You don't actually READ what people actually write. I wrote before Colo. / Utah was in the Pac-10. Do yourself a favor. Look over the list I provided above with number of Championships for each team, and ask why BSU has failed to play 3 of the 4. I'm not buying the "Distance" excuse especially when about 1/3 of their roster is from the So Cal area. http://www.broncosports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/bosu-m-footbl-mtt.html
Clearly, it is because they are concerned that UCLA won those conference championships in the 60s. They were scared of that, so they decided to schedule two teams who have been better recently (Oregon and Washington) so that they wouldn't have to play the ghosts of those UCLA teams from the '60s.
Do you have no pride? Do you have no self-respect. Every single attempt you have made in this thread has been a drastic failure. You think teams look at who won a particular conference - especially which teams have the most titles going back to 1959 - and choose which teams they will play (as if Boise is in complete control of which PAC teams agree to play them) instead of being more concerned about which teams are more competitive now?
Just stop. Numerous people have called you out for your numerous bogus arguments and your continuous attempts at moving the goal posts. Go back to capitalizing random letters to show sarcasm (huh?)
clearly he has a comprehension issue. just yank his chain, he will perform like a good puppet.
