VeeshanVault

Posted: **October 31, 2004, 10:42 am**

Make a list of what you think are the top 5 teams in the country. Don't care if there are some one loss teams, if you think they are better than no loss teams feel free to rank them. Also make a list of your top five Heismann candidates.

My teams:
1. USC
2. California
3. Oklahoma
4. Auburn
5. Utah

Yes I think Cal could beat both OU and Auburn. Cal is one hell of a team. Michigan is an outsider here but I'd probably list them as #6 with Wisconsin as #7.

My Heisman candidates:
1. Reggie Bush - USC
2. Adrian Peterson - OU
3. Braylon Edwards - Michigan
4. Matt Leinart - USC
5. Alex Smith - Utah

I personally think Chris Leak could be on that list as well but his team pretty much stinks so that wont happen! Cedric Benson is another possibility but he is also hurt by his team.

Posted: **October 31, 2004, 11:04 am**

1. OU
2. USC

and the rest doesn't really matter.

Posted: **October 31, 2004, 5:09 pm**

If OU and USC don't play for the national championship this year, that would be a crime. No team can beat either of them at this point unless of a massive choke. No team.

Posted: **October 31, 2004, 5:55 pm**

I think Cal could beat both, and yes i know USC beat them already. USC should have lost that game.

Posted: **October 31, 2004, 7:01 pm**

1. USC 8-0
2. OKLAHOMA 8-0
3. UTAH 8-0
4. CALIFORNIA 6-1
5. AUBURN 9-0
6. WISCONSIN 8-0

Been watching Utah all year, and IMO Utah beats any team other than USC and OU. And those two games would be closer than most think, with Utah having a chance in the 4th qtr.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 12:37 am**

Shanter wrote:If OU and USC don't play for the national championship this year, that would be a crime. No team can beat either of them at this point unless of a massive choke. No team.

you mean no unranked team, right? i'll painstakingly give USC all the credit they deserve. they are number 1 right now and should be there. OU is not number 2, however. for some odd reason coaches and associated press have a hard on for stoops and his boys year after year. i only remember them winning one championship in the past 10+ years. other then that, they have done jackshit, yet are rated in the top 3 year after year (hello last year, and year before) and stay there, disregarding losses. They consistently play shitty teams, and have one of the poorest schedules of anyone. The only word that comes to mind when people speak of great big 12 teams is 'overrated'.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 11:57 am**

I think Auburn might be able to beat either USC or OU.

And so could Michigan!

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 2:12 pm**

It should be a USC vs Cal rematch for the National Title. No team east of the Rockies is worthy this year! Florida football is more corrupt than politics in that state if you can believe that!

BTW, Kerry screwed up and said how great a team the Buckeyes were while he was in Michigan this weekend. Nice gaff!

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 2:19 pm**

he said that Buckeye thing several months ago, but Winnow's political quips are about as accurate as his assessments of football.

Auburn is going to be in the top 3 at the end of the year, along with Oklahoma.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 2:32 pm**

Voronwë wrote:he said that Buckeye thing several months ago, but Winnow's political quips are about as accurate as his assessments of football.

Auburn is going to be in the top 3 at the end of the year, along with Oklahoma.

Yeah, and Kerry, all excited over Boston winning...I guess people don't recall that Kerry wouldn't put on his Boston baseball cap at a Boston game in case they eventually lost and he'd be branded a loser. Nice support of your team! A true fan would wear the hat no matter what.

Kerry is trying too hard to fake it to gain votes.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 3:27 pm**

Winnow wrote:I guess people don't recall that Kerry wouldn't put on his Boston baseball cap at a Boston game in case they eventually lost and he'd be branded a loser.

You're right, I don't recall that. Seems odd that he'd say that is why he didn't want to put his hat on... downright unbelievable.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 4:11 pm**

Sylvus wrote:
Winnow wrote:I guess people don't recall that Kerry wouldn't put on his Boston baseball cap at a Boston game in case they eventually lost and he'd be branded a loser.
You're right, I don't recall that. Seems odd that he'd say that is why he didn't want to put his hat on... downright unbelievable.

yeah cause Red Sox fans are so well known to be fairweather fans.

this just in: Winnow makes up crap and posts it to irritate people.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 4:15 pm**

Sylvus wrote:
Winnow wrote:I guess people don't recall that Kerry wouldn't put on his Boston baseball cap at a Boston game in case they eventually lost and he'd be branded a loser.
You're right, I don't recall that. Seems odd that he'd say that is why he didn't want to put his hat on... downright unbelievable.

I didn't say that Kerry "said" he wouldnt wear it. The cameras during the game showed Kerry with the Red Sox cap in his hands but he didn't wear it. It's in contrast to Kerry wearing the hat at all the speeches after the WS victory sucking up all the glory about "his" team. Not that it's surprising for a politician to be fake but he seems to go beyond your normal level of bullshit when it comes to being all over the board trying to get support.

Politics aside, Kerry appears as fake as three dollar bill to me.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 4:27 pm**

I was simply trying to point out that you were just assuming that he didn't want to wear the hat lest he be labelled a loser. The truth is, there are a million possible reasons why he wasn't wearing it. Maybe it was too hot or too tight or he didn't want to have hat hair or any number of reasons.

You said people don't remember him not wearing it when he didn't want to be branded a loser. I contend that they don't remember it because it's a fabrication.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 5:19 pm**

Sylvus wrote:I was simply trying to point out that you were just assuming that he didn't want to wear the hat lest he be labelled a loser. The truth is, there are a million possible reasons why he wasn't wearing it. Maybe it was too hot or too tight or he didn't want to have hat hair or any number of reasons.

You said people don't remember him not wearing it when he didn't want to be branded a loser. I contend that they don't remember it because it's a fabrication.

I wasn't assuming. I was watching the game. (it was in high def so I got a fright during the close up shots of kerry during an interview in between innings) One of the ESPN commentators even said something jokingly about it during the game while the cameras were on Kerry with the hat in his hand.

You are correct in saying there are many reasons he wouldn't be wearing it with hair spray issues being the frontrunner but he was at a ballgame and had a hat in his hand...no reason not to wear it! I don't recall it being excessively hot and it was a night game : )

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 7:04 pm**

he looks like a dork with a baseball hat on. and he is smart enough to know that most likely.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 7:19 pm**

Voronwë wrote:he looks like a dork with a baseball hat on. and he is smart enough to know that most likely.

Why yes he does look like a dork!

Even looking like an assclown won't prevent him from trying to squeeze out another vote after they won though! The Michigan Buckeyes endorse him! : )

Too bad Schilling isn't helping things much!

BOSTON — Looking to share some of the magic that propelled the Boston Red Sox to their first World Series title in 86 years, President Bush enlisted a fan favorite to deliver his pitch while Democratic Sen. John Kerry recruited the team's front office.

Curt Schilling, the Red Sox winning pitcher in Game 2 of the World Series, endorses Bush in automated recordings that will be used in three competitive states — New Hampshire, Maine and Pennsylvania — before Tuesday's voting.

Kerry, the four-term Massachusetts senator who frequently mentions his hometown team and donned a cap this past week, was appearing Sunday with Boston's principal owner John Henry, part-owner Tom Werner and general manager Theo Epstein at a campaign stop in Manchester, N.H.

Schilling endorsed Bush in a television interview Thursday, a day after the Red Sox won the franchise's first title since 1918.

In his phone message to voters, Schilling says, "These past couple of weeks, Sox fans ... trusted me when it was my turn on the mound. Now you can trust me on this: President Bush is the right leader for our country," according to a transcript from the Bush campaign.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 7:28 pm**

The Osama endorsement didnt even help.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 8:33 pm**

1. USC
2. Auburn
3. OU
4. Cal
5. Utah

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 8:42 pm**

It's as stupid of Schilling to comment on politics as it is for those liberal Hollywood morons you've commented on before Winnow.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 8:45 pm**

Kelshara wrote:It's as stupid of Schilling to comment on politics as it is for those liberal Hollywood morons you've commented on before Winnow.

/sarcasm ON

FUCK YOU KELSHARA!!! I AM VOTING FOR KERRY BECAUSE BRAD PITT TOLD ME TO!!!!!

/sarcasm OFF

Oh wait, I'm not. Shilling, Pitt, anyone is entitled to their opinion, and as sports/movie personalities, they've got a platform to express that opinion, but anyone who's vote is swayed by someone like Pitt or Shilling is a fucking idiot.

Way to derail a good thread, Winnow.

1. USC
2. Cal
3. OU
4. Auburn
5. Utah

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 8:47 pm**

Schilling took a political science class in college. He knows stuff.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 9:11 pm**

1. USC
2. Auburn
3. OU
4. Texas
5. Tennessee

California, Wisconsin or Utah couldn't beat any of these teams atm, IMO.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 9:12 pm**

I'd put Texas on my list if they had a QB that could throw.. at least once in a while!

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 9:27 pm**

Xatrei wrote:1. USC
2. Auburn
3. OU
4. Texas
5. Tennessee

California, Wisconsin or Utah couldn't beat any of these teams atm, IMO.

You have not watched Cal

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 10:10 pm**

ASU is the only game I've seen much of, but even that performance doesn't change my opinion about Cal. They're easily my #6 pick, though. I just don't believe that they'd beat any of the teams I listed as my 5 picks.

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 11:20 pm**

Xatrei wrote:ASU is the only game I've seen much of, but even that performance doesn't change my opinion about Cal. They're easily my #6 pick, though. I just don't believe that they'd beat any of the teams I listed as my 5 picks.

The reason I said that is they clearly outplayed your #1 team

Posted: **November 1, 2004, 11:47 pm**

Pherr the Dorf wrote:The reason I said that is they clearly outplayed your #1 team

You mean the game where Cal never had the lead and lost by 6 despite owning time of possession, all-purpose/rushing/passing yardage, passing efficiency, yards per rush, first downs and 3rd down efficiency?

Cal failed to get the job done despite a lackluster performance on both sides of the ball by USC. USC was still able to hold the lead from their first possession on. Every team has a down game, and the fact that USC still managed to beat Cal while underachieving says something to me. I think if the two had a rematch tomorrow, it wouldn't even be close.

Posted: **November 2, 2004, 12:22 am**

Xatrei wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:The reason I said that is they clearly outplayed your #1 team
You mean the game where Cal never had the lead and lost by 6 despite owning time of possession, all-purpose/rushing/passing yardage, passing efficiency, yards per rush, first downs and 3rd down efficiency? Cal failed to get the job done despite a lackluster performance on both sides of the ball by USC. USC was still able to hold the lead from their first possession on. Every team has a down game, and the fact that USC still managed to beat Cal while underachieving says something to me. I think if the two had a rematch tomorrow, it wouldn't even be close.

Xatrei wrote:ASU is the only game I've seen much of, but even that performance doesn't change my opinion about Cal. They're easily my #6 pick, though. I just don't believe that they'd beat any of the teams I listed as my 5 picks.

You didn't see the game, you saw the stat sheet

Posted: **November 2, 2004, 1:01 am**

Very true. ESPN highlights and stats are all I have to go on for that game. I'll concede that there are intangibles that aren't obvious from watching highlights or reading stats & recaps. All I can do is base my opinions on what I see and read for myself, though.

VeeshanVault

NCAA football

NCAA football