Notre Dame 38 Stanford 17

[TheDeuce]

Those are actually the same statements.

 

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

[UKMustangFan]

Live look at @TheDeuce & @Run To State...:banghead: :banghead:

[TheDeuce]

Those are actually the same statements. One is broken down into bullet points and gives a description of “big OOC opponent” and includes the inferences that I figured I didn’t need to break down because any rational person would understand they’re there i.e. going undefeated and having multiple 2 loss conference champs. It’s really not that complicated...

 

No... Nobody would automatically assume that you meant there ALSO had to be multiple two-loss teams because you didn't say that. Ironically, it's actually pretty irrational to say that anybody would make that leap.

[Run To State]

Live look at @TheDeuce & @Run To State...:banghead: :banghead:

 

:lol2:

[GrantNKY]

No... Nobody would automatically assume that you meant there ALSO had to be multiple two-loss teams because you didn't say that. Ironically, it's actually pretty irrational to say that anybody would make that leap.

Given the context of the thread from last year? Come on man. I’d appreciate not being portrayed as some moron every day. It’s pretty damn clear if you go back through the thread from last year what I was talking about and those inferences were pretty obvious given the context of the conversation. To say otherwise is ridiculous. You cant just quote one post in a different thread without the context of the thread it was posted in. The only thing irrational in this is the constant bashing I get day in and day out.

[TheDeuce]

Given the context of the thread from last year? Come on man. I’d appreciate not being portrayed as some moron every day. It’s pretty damn clear if you go back through the thread from last year what I was talking about and those inferences were pretty obvious given the context of the conversation. To say otherwise is ridiculous. You cant just quote one post in a different thread without the context of the thread it was posted in. The only thing irrational in this is the constant bashing I get day in and day out.

 

So we're bashing you because we're pointing out clear inaccuracies in your "criteria?"

 

In regards to UCF, you clearly posted what you thought they had to do to be considered for this years playoff discussion. You never mentioned having to have multiple two-loss conference champions, and you never mentioned specific teams having to have multiple losses, until today. Those are facts.

 

How could anybody make the leap of assuming you mean all that when you never mentioned it, again, until today? And then you have the nerve to call us ridiculous and irrational?

 

If your criteria has changed, fine. Just say that. But to act like we are making something up, or to try to convince is that you said something when you quite clearly didn't is pretty incredible.

[woodsrider]

Pure gold