Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/31/16 at 9:34 pm to UKWildcats
quote:
Your incessant need to repeatedly respond in a thread that has absolutely dick to do with Missouri in an attempt to save face however does elude my understanding.
Maybe you've just unveiled Concerned Student 1950 at Mizzou? This could be a momentous discovery.
Posted on 7/31/16 at 9:35 pm to Kentucker
Eureka!
Posted on 7/31/16 at 9:44 pm to UKWildcats
quote:
No, if you'd bothered to read any of this thread or the other much lengthier one you'd see plenty of acknowledgment of the different standards applied then vs today. Your incessant need to repeatedly respond in a thread that has absolutely dick to do with Missouri in an attempt to save face however does elude my understanding.
save face from what? You respond all the time to threads about/involving Mizzou that didnt have dick to do with Kentucky. Sounds like you need to harden the frick up. This is the SEC rant.
Anyway, if you acknowledge that there are different standards then you can understand why people are laughing at Uk for claiming 1950 using 2015 conventions. You acknowledge that there were different standards then continue to try and apply modern thinking to 1950 in a defense of your magical title.
This post was edited on 7/31/16 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 7/31/16 at 9:50 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Maybe you've just unveiled Concerned Student 1950 at Mizzou? This could be a momentous discovery.
God forbid anyone actually questions your magical national title claim....
Posted on 8/1/16 at 7:06 am to kilo
quote:We've got an internet bad arse over here!! Everyone hide your wife and kids!!
Sounds like you need to harden the frick up. This is the SEC rant.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 9:30 am to kilo
Yep. Its like Mizzou claiming the 2007 title. After all, we finished the regular season ranked #1. That was good enough back in the day
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:03 am to kilo
quote:
God forbid anyone actually questions your magical national title claim....
It's all in fun. If you've haven't noticed, the SEC is so competitive that even the non-Big 6 schools need every single advantage when recruiting. A glittering NC trophy might be the factor that causes a young man to come to UK. We're not going to back away, even a little bit, from our claim. Saban will just have to win another natty to match the Bear.
BTW, all college football titles prior to 2014 were magical.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:04 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
MOAR 1950 THREADS!!11!!
There is a lot of UK obsession on these boards for sure.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:06 am to LCTFAN
I don't really care if anyone or everyone questions it. UK, 1950 champs. Tennessee, y'all get one too. Oklahoma? Sure man, y'all can split it.
It's not a sum zero game and I'm going to continue to regard Kentucky as 1950 National Champs, deluded or not.
It's not a sum zero game and I'm going to continue to regard Kentucky as 1950 National Champs, deluded or not.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:08 am to MizzouTrue
quote:
Yep. Its like Mizzou claiming the 2007 title. After all, we finished the regular season ranked #1. That was good enough back in the day
Make the trophy and claim it. Prior to 2014, the beauty contests that we called college football seasons were decided in people's heads, not on the field.
Mizzou was beautiful that year so crown that team with a trophy and put it where recruits can see it. Don't hate us and berate is. Follow our lead.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:13 am to Kentucker
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:19 am to Kentucker
quote:
all college football titles prior to 2014 were magical.
Why wouldn't the BCS count?
Posted on 8/1/16 at 10:54 am to AlabamaAlum07
Because only two teams were selected for a title game. Only the most beautiful teams stood to make the draw, with the notable exception of LSU in 2007. Although there weren't that many beautiful teams that season.
A four-team playoff is an improvement because it dips down at least to the level that a hot team that struggled early can reach by season's end. An 8-team or even 16-team playoff would be much more fair in determining a champion.
Teams with one, two or even three losses have gone on runs to win playoffs in the other categories of college football. The pros have also seen teams jell late and win the Super Bowl.
A four-team playoff is an improvement because it dips down at least to the level that a hot team that struggled early can reach by season's end. An 8-team or even 16-team playoff would be much more fair in determining a champion.
Teams with one, two or even three losses have gone on runs to win playoffs in the other categories of college football. The pros have also seen teams jell late and win the Super Bowl.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 11:01 am to Kentucker
Exactly. CFB is the only sport where people question who actually win the title
Can you imagine if the Cowboys tried to "claim" Super XIII? Or if UNC tried to claim the national championship last year in Basketball?
It is ludicrous
Can you imagine if the Cowboys tried to "claim" Super XIII? Or if UNC tried to claim the national championship last year in Basketball?
It is ludicrous
Posted on 8/1/16 at 11:04 am to Kentucker
quote:
Because only two teams were selected for a title game. Only the most beautiful teams stood to make the draw, with the notable exception of LSU in 2007. Although there weren't that many beautiful teams that season.
A four-team playoff is an improvement because it dips down at least to the level that a hot team that struggled early can reach by season's end. An 8-team or even 16-team playoff would be much more fair in determining a champion.
Teams with one, two or even three losses have gone on runs to win playoffs in the other categories of college football. The pros have also seen teams jell late and win the Super Bowl.
It was a system everyone agreed to play under. Just like the CFP.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 1:21 pm to BluegrassBelle
What's up with the Mizzou fans and the 1950 team? Honestly, who gives a frick. The acknowledgement is for the players who played on the team. I know we never had nothing in Commonwealth displaying the title.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 2:40 pm to AlabamaAlum07
quote:
It was a system everyone agreed to play under. Just like the CFP.
I disagree. The bowl "system" has been money driven for its whole history. It's money and money alone that has perpetuated the asinine major college football post season.
Regrettably, that has foisted upon the public a perception that major college football is somehow different from other divisions, even the pros. Subsequently, we have missed out on glorious seasons followed by even better playoffs that would have seen some truly historic programs turn away all comers and others that suffered monumental upsets to teams that got stronger as the season went on.
Posted on 8/1/16 at 2:47 pm to Kentucker
^Nail meet head. It has always been the most asinine postseason setup in all of sport. The only proponents are the bowls who benefit from the revenue and the usual suspects who get the benefit of the doubt at selection time. I wish Kentucky basketball could just up and claim championships based on AP polls. Could you imagine where we'd be?
Posted on 8/1/16 at 3:07 pm to UKWildcats
We wouldn't be second to UCLA in all-time titles. That's for sure.
This post was edited on 8/1/16 at 3:08 pm
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News