Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This I agree with. He underestimated the mediaI think VT's AD completely outclassed Jurich on this one.
Jurich is one of the best AD's in the business, but he flat whiffed on that statement yesterday.
Babcock sure attempted to sound classy while spouting a bunch of drivel and admitting as little as possible. Just only what the phone records reveal. Tom named names and exactly how it came about. He probably did more than he had to.I think VT's AD completely outclassed Jurich on this one.
Jurich is one of the best AD's in the business, but he flat whiffed on that statement yesterday.
This I agree with. He underestimated the media
Tom named names and exactly how it came about. He probably did more than he had to.
That's possible but still a pretty big assumption on your part that Bobby knew something then and that Tom is shielding him.The reason Jurich had to do more is because of what Petrino said back in November. If not for Petrino's comments, Jurich could have said the same thing as the Virginia Tech AD. It would have worked out better if Petrino either didn't comment, or just said somebody called his assistant, and left it at that.
Other people said ish back in Novemeber IIRC. Yet they try to post here with impunity anyway.The reason Jurich had to do more is because of what Petrino said back in November...
Exactly correct, and Jurich doesn't play games. He doesn't have to like these lighter weight ADs.Blah blah blah Whit Babcock...
Tom Jurich could have easily done what the Virginia Tech AD did by saying that "We have no indication at this time that any of the information was shared with any other staff members" (yeah right) and it's likely no one could have proved different but he decided to tell the truth...
That's possible but still a pretty big assumption on your part that Bobby knew something then and that Tom is shielding him.
It's possible but does anyone in their right mind think that Bobby Petrino with all he has been through, finally back where he's happy, Coaching the future Heisman winner, program future couldn't be brighter is going to jeopardize all that for an opportunity to get a couple of plays from a total dullard Wake Forest coach of the most moribund offense since Rutgers in 1903?
I guess everyone needs to clam up and act sincere like the AD of Virginia Tech
I hope it won't come out that money was exchanged for what Elrod was peddling. It seems like an obvious question to ask what he expected in return.
Oh hell, me too. Elrod was peddling pure gold with Wake Forest Demon Deacons' offensive game plans.
The difference between holding a sh!t team to 12 points and 14 is significant.
That's possible but still a pretty big assumption on your part that Bobby knew something then and that Tom is shielding him.
It's possible but does anyone in their right mind think that Bobby Petrino with all he has been through, finally back where he's happy, Coaching the future Heisman winner, program future couldn't be brighter is going to jeopardize all that for an opportunity to get a couple of plays from a total dullard Wake Forest coach of the most moribund offense since Rutgers in 1903?
I guess everyone needs to clam up and act sincere like the AD of Virginia Tech
Other people said ish back in Novemeber IIRC. Yet they try to post here with impunity anyway.
Same standard...
Conference champ trumps all....Yeah, except for everything that I said in November is correct. If you want to argue with me, then argue about what I actually said, not what you made up.
Conference champ trumps all.
Wanna start with that one, a$$hat?...
Standard PC response is your life motto apparently mr gutless. What a sad existence.I'm not assuming anything. Back in November, Petrino said Louisville didn't have Wake Forest's plays. Jurich confirmed that they in fact did. What I'm saying is, if Petrino actually didn't know they had the plays, he should have just said given the standard PC non-answer response. If he did know, he should have either said they had some plays, or either no comment.
Yeah, except for everything that I said in November is correct. If you want to argue with me, then argue about what I actually said, not what you made up.
You really want me to go thru all of your inaccuracies, like...Well, that's your problem. I didn't say "conference champ trumps all."
Those threads on that topic are still here on the board. Go back and post the quote where I said "conference champ trumps all." I'll give you a hint. You won't find it because I never said it.
Standard PC response is your life motto apparently mr gutless. What a sad existence.
Nothing good about lying and doing so on purpose. No evidence of that here.
Step aside for a man that expressed confidence in the people who work with him, even if he was he wrong.
Look at it that way, little tigger.
You really want me to go thru all of your inaccuracies, like...
"You can't make a legitimate case that a team who is 3rd in their own conference is one of the 4 best in the nation..." -- from ACC #2 in the RPI (10/19/2016)
I don't recall that tOSU even played in the Big 10 CCG. You want me to quote others??
"Here's what would realistically happen. If the ACC champ had 2 losses, and Louisville has 1, then the ACC just won't get a team into the playoffs. It will be the champs of the other 4 conferences..." -- from Louisville's Playoff Chances (10/9/2016)
"...the committee gives precedence to conference champs. This is already established. Even with two losses, it's going to be hard to get an 'at large' team in over a conference champ..." -- from Louisville's Playoff Chances (10/9/2016)
[My remark: Not only did Penn State have two losses and not get in, it had a WIN over tOSU which got in...]
"...I hate to tell you, but the committee puts way more precedence on conference championships than you realize." -- from Louisville's Playoff Chances (10/9/2016)
And these are just from one page of a multi-page thread. Google "topdecktiger" and "champ" for all the evidence needed.
"I hate to tell you, but" this is a LOT easier than an a$$hat thinks...
2) Other conference champs lose multiple games. For example, if the Pac 12 & Big 12 champs went 11-2, Louisville could jump over them at 11-1.
Underscoring the strength of football in the conference now. Can the ACC get two teams in the playoff? Could the SEC? Same answer.
Gotta love a rival fan worrying about another program taking a PR hit. Watching this unfold is like listening in on a sewing circle.Gutless would be insulting someone from behind the safety of the computer.
Nobody said there is evidence of lying. What there is evidence of is inaccuracy. Petrino said they didn't have any of Wake Forest's plays, but Jurich confirmed they actually did.
Gotta love a rival fan worrying about another program taking a PR hit. Watching this unfold is like listening in on a sewing circle.
And your the fan of supposedly big boy program. Jeez, who gives a rat's ass.
I'd insult you in person as well after your performance here. Time to move on.All I did was make a comment. Instead of simply having a rational discussion on the topic, you insulted me (again, from behind the safety of your computer). Then, you deflect and act like it's so out of the ordinary for someone to make a casual observation about a sports topic. Yeah, because that never happens on a sports message board.
Yeah the video is out on Mixon and it's about as disgusting as it gets. That guy should be going to jail.If ppl are worrying bout how it is playing out on a College Sports Level...well right now the focus is on OU, Stoops, Boren and Joe Mixon...Finebaum on ESPN & Brandon Gall on SiriusXM ripped them this morning
You ain't taking refuge in my shorthand, a$$hat. You've been spewing "conference champ" BS in this space since this season started based on the last two years of CFP invitees. As you were told and failed to understand, that was two stinking data points. But you were SO sure that a one-loss non-champ would never beat out a conference champ....Yeah, and see the problem is, what I said is 100% true. If the ACC champ had 2 losses, and Louisville just had one loss, Louisville still wouldn't have jumped the conference champs into the playoffs...
...You're claiming I said "conference champ is all that matters," yet you overlooked a quote where I said Louisville (non-conference champ) could jump other conference champs. (This is exactly what happened with Ohio St, by the way.) I'll wait to see how you square that with the notion that I said "conference champ is all that matters..."
Well, the Big Ten finished #2 in the RPI (as the ACC was when you made this post), and they didn't get two teams into the playoffs.
I'd insult you in person as well after your performance here. Time to move on.
You ain't taking refuge in my shorthand, a$$hat. You've been spewing "conference champ" BS in this space since this season started based on the last two years of CFP invitees. As you were told and failed to understand, that was two stinking data points. But you were SO sure that a one-loss non-champ would never beat out a conference champ.
Only this year, a non-champ was invited that lost to the champ from the same conference, and said champ didn't get invited. In case an a$$hat has lost track, that's TWO tie-breakers (champ and HTH) that were "trumped" by the Committee.
All that freaking experience and knowledge you were so proud of was worth jack$hit in the end. The entire ranking came down to one factor: the number of losses the P5 teams at the top sustained. That's it. Tie-breakers were applied within a group of teams so ranked, but if you had one loss, you were getting in over a team with two losses. Period. An a$$hat can spin it any way an a$$hat wants, but them's the facts.
And thanks in retrospect for several months of your worthless input...
Ok. But yes I would. Glad you are here to prove out.No you wouldn't.
And aside from that, you still didn't deal with the actual subject matter. When you can't make a legitimate argument based on facts, deflect to insults.
...I did not say a non-champ would "never" get in over a conference champ...
"...Even with two losses, it's going to be hard to get an 'at large' team in over a conference champ..." -- from Louisville's Playoff Chances (10/9/2016)
A lying a$$hat too who wants to parse his own words...
Ok. But yes I would. Glad you are here to prove out.
Deny you thought that conference champ trumps most other factors in the CFP decision. I wanna watch you squirm explaining your a$$hat analysis one more time."It's going to be hard" vs. "never." Two different things. The lying is on your part, trying equate the two, when they aren't the same thing...
Deny you thought that conference champ trumps most other factors in the CFP decision. I wanna watch you squirm explaining your a$$hat analysis one more time.
While being too damned blind to see the criterion that matters more than tie-breakers...
The committee has plainly said they give precedence to conference champs. A 12-1 P5 champ is getting in over an 11-1 non-champ.
The committee has specifically said that when it comes down to a close decision, they favor the conference champions.
For a non-champ to jump a P5 champ, there is going to have to be a huge disparity.
Effing liar...
WARNING! WARNING!No you wouldn't.
And aside from that, you still didn't deal with the actual subject matter. When you can't make a legitimate argument based on facts, deflect to insults.