Welcome PSU Fans

[talon]

Bringing this back on topic, I'd like a Penn State lurker to explain why it's hypocritical of BC fans to bring up Sandusky. What culpability does Boston College have in any child molestation cases?

Thanks in advance.

[StratEagle]

On the plus side, we got Brighton campus out of it. Maybe if they keep diddling we'll find enough cheap space to build a goddamn indoor practice facility.

[HJS]

http://coed.com/2011/01/14/the-winninge ... e-2000-is/

[mod6A]

all this ND talk is going to piss off EvertonEagle.


EVERY.SINGLE.THREAD.

[ILikeBC]

I bet none of you others have the pleasure of living in South Bend like I do... (Sarcasm, for you #$@%@% who don't do the internet well. But yes, I do currently reside in South Bend)

[hansen]

not to get in a pissing match because we'd both be bored, but if i recall correctly that year ND went down and beat the shit out of oklahoma on the road, an oklahoma team that was pretty damn good (again iirc).

that bama team was the best team in football by a mile that year

this was an underappreciated post

[hansen]

this thread is begging for contribution from the nexus: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=13481784

No comment

How much money is being devoted to the shower facilities?

oh noes, i just made a sophomoric joke at the expense of pedd state!

[StratEagle]

this thread is begging for contribution from the nexus: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=13481784

No comment

How much money is being devoted to the shower facilities?

oh noes, i just made a sophomoric joke at the expense of pedd state!

I'd assume they come with mood lighting like the rendering above

[ILikeBC]

^ This StratEagle guy. Whatta douche.

[Eaglekeeper]

BC had a pedophile assistant hoops coach in the 80's. He was finally forced out and later arrested while coaching an AAU team.

[twballgame9]

how does one define relevance?

success: 30% of the time they've been in a BCS bowl. 10% of the time in the national championship. id take that.
spotlight: only have a personal TV deal
poll rankings: they always get propped up. that inherently makes them relevant
tv ratings: only played in the 2nd most watched game this year in college football.

they are relevant any way you slice it. i don't see whats wrong in admitting that

i can call them relevant and still not root for them

When you name the top 20-25 programs in college football over the last two decades, does ND make your list? If so, leave Southie or South Bend and try again.

success =/= relevance. the fact that this is even being discussed proves my point.

and i'd love to see a top 25 ranking of programs over the last decade that doesn't include them. you're out of your mind if you don't think they're in the top 25. but again, success and relevance are not the same thing.

Shit, then Navy is relevant.

C'mon dude, ND isn't close to top 25 over the last 20 years. Only NBC tells you otherwise, Braylon Edwards

[flyingelvii]

how does one define relevance?

success: 30% of the time they've been in a BCS bowl. 10% of the time in the national championship. id take that.
spotlight: only have a personal TV deal
poll rankings: they always get propped up. that inherently makes them relevant
tv ratings: only played in the 2nd most watched game this year in college football.

they are relevant any way you slice it. i don't see whats wrong in admitting that

i can call them relevant and still not root for them

When you name the top 20-25 programs in college football over the last two decades, does ND make your list? If so, leave Southie or South Bend and try again.

success =/= relevance. the fact that this is even being discussed proves my point.

and i'd love to see a top 25 ranking of programs over the last decade that doesn't include them. you're out of your mind if you don't think they're in the top 25. but again, success and relevance are not the same thing.

Shit, then Navy is relevant.

C'mon dude, ND isn't close to top 25 over the last 20 years. Only NBC tells you otherwise, Braylon Edwards

Well you're using sustained success as a definition instead of mild success with some peaks and mediocre valleys. They've had 9+ win season every year outside of three years, two of which were the post-JoePa's Dead years. But hey, it's a teddy argument so fuck facts and figures and reality and let's go by memory. And let's move it from 10 to 20 years because it better fits his point. 20 years in college football is an eternity. USC wasn't relevant 20 years ago. Not sure why that matters they sucked in the late 90s though.

Ultimately, however, none of this argument matters as all of those games were forfeited.

[Brooklyneagle]

Some of you have a pretty high/pretty strange standard for "relevant", in keeping with this board's occasional tendency to wild exaggeration. If being in the national championship game is the measure of meaningfulness, how relevant is that to the exertions of all the rest of us? Makes the USC victory, not to mention the Pinstripe bowl, pretty meaningless. Is this not obvious?

(As some of us learned at BC, "relevant" is an "intentional" term: something is never just relevant; it is "relevant to" something or someone. If you decide that that something is the national championship, fine. That's YOUR decision. But you don't necessarily have grounds for assuming that's everyone else's definition -- which it evidently isn't -- since most of us care deeply about lots of contests that have no practical relationship to a national championship.)

The "to college football" is inherent in the context of this discourse. Just like the "obnoxious" was inherent in your post.

"Relevant to college football" is so utterly vague and undefined it's meaningless. If you mean "relevant only in so far as related directly to the national championship", then you're simply weird and alone.

[b0mberMan]

Have any actual Penn St. fans shown up to this board? Or is this just another thread for arguing amongst each other.

[eagle9903]

Have any actual Penn St. fans shown up to this board? Or is this just another thread for arguing amongst each other.

there was one for a minute, he seemed OK, but then he invited KBB25 to the Alamo Bowl.

[commavegarage]

how does one define relevance?

success: 30% of the time they've been in a BCS bowl. 10% of the time in the national championship. id take that.
spotlight: only have a personal TV deal
poll rankings: they always get propped up. that inherently makes them relevant
tv ratings: only played in the 2nd most watched game this year in college football.

they are relevant any way you slice it. i don't see whats wrong in admitting that

i can call them relevant and still not root for them

When you name the top 20-25 programs in college football over the last two decades, does ND make your list? If so, leave Southie or South Bend and try again.

success =/= relevance. the fact that this is even being discussed proves my point.

and i'd love to see a top 25 ranking of programs over the last decade that doesn't include them. you're out of your mind if you don't think they're in the top 25. but again, success and relevance are not the same thing.

Shit, then Navy is relevant.

C'mon dude, ND isn't close to top 25 over the last 20 years. Only NBC tells you otherwise, Braylon Edwards

i didnt notice you shifted it to 20 years.

[commavegarage]

how does one define relevance?

success: 30% of the time they've been in a BCS bowl. 10% of the time in the national championship. id take that.
spotlight: only have a personal TV deal
poll rankings: they always get propped up. that inherently makes them relevant
tv ratings: only played in the 2nd most watched game this year in college football.

they are relevant any way you slice it. i don't see whats wrong in admitting that

i can call them relevant and still not root for them

When you name the top 20-25 programs in college football over the last two decades, does ND make your list? If so, leave Southie or South Bend and try again.

success =/= relevance. the fact that this is even being discussed proves my point.

and i'd love to see a top 25 ranking of programs over the last decade that doesn't include them. you're out of your mind if you don't think they're in the top 25. but again, success and relevance are not the same thing.

Shit, then Navy is relevant.

C'mon dude, ND isn't close to top 25 over the last 20 years. Only NBC tells you otherwise, Braylon Edwards

Well you're using sustained success as a definition instead of mild success with some peaks and mediocre valleys. They've had 9+ win season every year outside of three years, two of which were the post-JoePa's Dead years. But hey, it's a teddy argument so fuck facts and figures and reality and let's go by memory. And let's move it from 10 to 20 years because it better fits his point. 20 years in college football is an eternity. USC wasn't relevant 20 years ago. Not sure why that matters they sucked in the late 90s though.

Ultimately, however, none of this argument matters as all of those games were forfeited.

should i point out the irony here or just leave it for you to figure out?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

http://coed.com/2011/01/14/the-winningest-college-football-program-since-2000-is/

it's incredibly convenient that mo'js link ignores the worstest of the spaz years

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

this thread is begging for contribution from the nexus: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=13481784

No comment

How much money is being devoted to the shower facilities?

oh noes, i just made a sophomoric joke at the expense of pedd state!

I'd assume they come with mood lighting like the rendering above

And all the soap-on-a-rope you can handle!

[eagle9903]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

TRE doesn't like sports and lives in the walmarty part of the country and wears a polo shirt with a company logo to work where he only has three-quarter height walls and gets his coffee at orange julius and he quit the board and deleted all his posts and is the primary reason eagle216 is distraught... but he's right here.

I think the last part of TRE's post is important. We had a period where we could fall back on our program punching above our weight on the field ~1999-2008, even while acknowledging we have a bottom 5 P5 fanbase. According to A-Z lists and shower tourers, we should have been bottom third in our respective conference most of those years and .500ish in the best ones. So you could argue with a Penn state or Notre Dame fan that our program did more (or the same) with less. Then Spaz happened and for now we are, I think, justifiably OK with 7 win seasons. But 7 win seasons stink and are nothing to brag about, they are just much better than 2 and 4 win seasons. Since the fanbase is a permanent problem, the program needs to win a bit more before we recapture our perceived place. We just had our Zack Mills/Matt Lovecchio era.

[twballgame9]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

So none of the three is relevant to actual football, but the other two are relevant for things unrelated to football and BC is not. Agree entirely.

[DomingoOrtiz]

BC had a pedophile assistant hoops coach in the 80's. He was finally forced out and later arrested while coaching an AAU team.

Someone told me that we have a former women's tennis coach (a guy) on the run. I didn't catch the entire story. He coached in the early 90's but got canned, I think.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

So none of the three is relevant to actual football, but the other two are relevant for things unrelated to football and BC is not. Agree entirely.

as long as "actual football" = "performance on the field" then sure...

that said, i would have much preferred to lose badly in the "national chanpionship" than go 2-10.

[twballgame9]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

So none of the three is relevant to actual football, but the other two are relevant for things unrelated to football and BC is not. Agree entirely.

as long as "actual football" = "performance on the field" then sure...

that said, i would have much preferred to lose badly in the "national chanpionship" than go 2-10.

Fair enough. I would have much rather actually watched the national championship because there were two teams in it relevant to actual football.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

So none of the three is relevant to actual football, but the other two are relevant for things unrelated to football and BC is not. Agree entirely.

as long as "actual football" = "performance on the field" then sure...

that said, i would have much preferred to lose badly in the "national chanpionship" than go 2-10.

Fair enough. I would have much rather actually watched the national championship because there were two teams in it relevant to actual football.

fair enough but it's still better than boise state

[twballgame9]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

So none of the three is relevant to actual football, but the other two are relevant for things unrelated to football and BC is not. Agree entirely.

as long as "actual football" = "performance on the field" then sure...

that said, i would have much preferred to lose badly in the "national chanpionship" than go 2-10.

Fair enough. I would have much rather actually watched the national championship because there were two teams in it relevant to actual football.

fair enough but it's still better than boise state

It's similar. Boise probably has had better teams over the last decade.

[hansen]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

TRE doesn't like sports and lives in the walmarty part of the country and wears a polo shirt with a company logo to work where he only has three-quarter height walls and gets his coffee at orange julius and he quit the board and deleted all his posts and is the primary reason eagle216 is distraught... but he's right here.

I think the last part of TRE's post is important. We had a period where we could fall back on our program punching above our weight on the field ~1999-2008, even while acknowledging we have a bottom 5 P5 fanbase. According to A-Z lists and shower tourers, we should have been bottom third in our respective conference most of those years and .500ish in the best ones. So you could argue with a Penn state or Notre Dame fan that our program did more (or the same) with less. Then Spaz happened and for now we are, I think, justifiably OK with 7 win seasons. But 7 win seasons stink and are nothing to brag about, they are just much better than 2 and 4 win seasons. Since the fanbase is a permanent problem, the program needs to win a bit more before we recapture our perceived place. We just had our Zack Mills/Matt Lovecchio era.

Yup, I'm still bitter about this.
If having a supportive fan base makes you relevant in college football, then those two schools are definitely relevant.

[twballgame9]

my opinion is that notre dame is relevant to college football because a bunch of sully's buy their gear (through unauthorized outlets) and watch their games on free television. that does not mean that notre dame is good on the field now, has always been good on the field, or has the performance to back up the legions of non-alumni that show support to their football program (notice, i didn't say school).

my opinion is that penn state is relevant to college football in a lesser extent to the reasons above (their fans are loyal to a fault, feel their program is the alpha and omega of college football, and buy their blue and white kitty kat shit for every birthday and holiday). penn state increased their relevance to college football through a child-rape scandal that shocked and disgusted the non-penn state fan and created ill-will towards the team and it's fan base. this ill will is a strong emotion that makes both sides of the issue care about penn state football. like notre dame, the performance of the football team has almost nothing to do with their relevance to college football.

in comparison to these two programs i think boston college has less relevance to college football. the pinstripe bowl is the first time a boston college game has been sold out since it was fashionable to have an onion on your belt (i don't view season ticket sell outs like teh clemson or rcc as any indication of the relevance of boston college football to college football because those folks would sell out to watch their home team play an alaskan pop warner team). anyone that disagrees that notre dame and/or penn state don't derive interest from a greater population than boston college football is just kidding themselves. please note, this has nothing to do with the on-the-field success (which we should also lay of off while spaz still sits focused and transfixed in our rear view mirror)

TRE doesn't like sports and lives in the walmarty part of the country and wears a polo shirt with a company logo to work where he only has three-quarter height walls and gets his coffee at orange julius and he quit the board and deleted all his posts and is the primary reason eagle216 is distraught... but he's right here.

I think the last part of TRE's post is important. We had a period where we could fall back on our program punching above our weight on the field ~1999-2008, even while acknowledging we have a bottom 5 P5 fanbase. According to A-Z lists and shower tourers, we should have been bottom third in our respective conference most of those years and .500ish in the best ones. So you could argue with a Penn state or Notre Dame fan that our program did more (or the same) with less. Then Spaz happened and for now we are, I think, justifiably OK with 7 win seasons. But 7 win seasons stink and are nothing to brag about, they are just much better than 2 and 4 win seasons. Since the fanbase is a permanent problem, the program needs to win a bit more before we recapture our perceived place. We just had our Zack Mills/Matt Lovecchio era.

Yup, I'm still bitter about this.
If having a supportive fan base makes you relevant in college football, then those two schools are definitely relevant.

Agree.

This is kind of making my point. They're relevant like the Red Sox and Yankees were relevant to baseball last season.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

shut up, hansen