Note to Ignorant "Fans" of CFB

by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 3, 2008 10:16 AM CST Comment 14 comments

I am sick and tired of hearing morons from either Oklahoma or other areas contend that Texas did not really win on a neutral field. "It's in Texas! It can't be neutral!" they cry. I've heard SO MANY PEOPLE say this, and it is absolutely astounding. Do these people know anything about football? In fact, do these people know basic geography.

One such fan posted this on CCmachine, and that is right here. I was not particularly nice in my post back to him, but I'm getting quite exasperated. The more knowledgeable OU fans that have actually, you know, gone to the game agreed with me. Seriously, if you call yourself a Texas or OU fan and you don't know the tradition of the neutral site in Dallas, then you're kidding yourself. You're not a true fan.

We can go back and forth about OU and Texas for hours. But one thing that should never, EVER, come up is the fact that Texas didn't win on a neutral field. We did, and anyone with a gram of college footballl knowledge knows that.

As I condescendingly illustrated there, the RRR meets the following requirements for a neutral field:

1. Roughly equal distance (Norman is actually closer to Dallas)
2. Resident fans on both sides
3. A 50/50 split stadium

Why is the game in Texas? Well, when I was in kindergarten or so, I looked at a map and saw a rather large state called Texas. To the north was a smaller state named Oklahoma. Naturally, if you find a halfway point between two cities in each state, the chances are that the point will fall in the state with a lot more area... the one called Texas. The only time that would not happen is if you find a halfway point from a city way up north, which is definitely not Austin.

Add in the tradition, the craziness of the night before downtown and the sea of red and orange walking around the State Fair, it is a neutral site that is arguably unparalelled anywhere in college football. There's a reason many were angry at the Cotton Bowl for being stubborn with the renovations.

If you thought that Texas didn't win on a neutral site because of the brute fact that "The game was in Texas," you suck at life. That's about as nice as I can be about it.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

2 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

YES!

SPEAK THE TRUTH ELUSIVE SHADOW!!!

Also, I can personally attest to the craziness of the night before the game…

You heard about that right?

Steelers Roll Left!

by Drewmonsta on Dec 3, 2008 10:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I overheard a knucklehead OU fan in a Dallas bar a few weeks back

Saying how Texas fans fill 80% of the seats in the cotton bowl. I almost lost my mind, but seeing as I was there with two women, decided not to get in his face about it.

The simple argument if someone claims it isn’t neutral is, have you ever been to it in person? They will obviously answer no, because anyone who has knows the score, and its as neutral as it can be, unless you want the teams to play on the moon or somewhere else that no regular fan can get to.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 3, 2008 10:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Sooner math

80% = half

If anything I’d argue that the scales tip towards in OU’s favor because the tunnel on the OU side of the field.

by Horncasting on Dec 3, 2008 10:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

most idiots who say that the field isn't neutral

haven’t actually gone to the game.

by longhornricky on Dec 3, 2008 11:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

ut-arlington

I saw one post saying its not neutral because the University of Texas at Arlington is only 30 minutes away from the stadium

ridiculous. sad to think that this is how educated some of the bcs voters might be

by vyvyvy on Dec 3, 2008 12:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I guess the OU vs Ok St game

was on a neutral field since the game was played in Oklahoma?

by Wells on Dec 3, 2008 2:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Of course it was neutral and Texas beat OU's butt

Oklahoma’s legitimate complaint is that the ESPN/ABC announcers were not neutral in the OU-Tech and the OU-OSU games, in that they did not maintain their integrity in reminding the viewers that it is a true three way tie in the big 12 south. There is no justification for ignorant announcers argueing for a two way tie breakers, when indeed it was a true three way tie! Texas fans, and Mack Brown have every right to use politics and make that argument because of the BCS system, but announcers do not!

by Randyy on Dec 3, 2008 2:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Go search for my posts

And I argue why it is not an equal three way. Numerous other people have pointed this out, and announcers like Herbstreit and Palmer also saw it. The debate, in the case of a three-way, was purely between OU and Texas. Nobody was talking about Tech. Thus, if you are deciding between two teams that are so closely ranked, something like a head-to-head matchup on a neutral field should weigh very, very heavily.

Sorry, but it seems you simply misinterpreted them. They weren’t saying it’s a two-way tie; they were saying in the event that everyone is debating between Texas and OU, the actual game played should be the deciding factor.

by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 3, 2008 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Its a debate about the ranking, not the three way tie, which brings it to two teams. nt whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiills

by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 3, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course you and Mack and all Texas fans have a right to argue as such.

Politics were a part of the BCS system – I do NOT fault you for your opinion or arguments! In fact it was a very good stragety! You guys won the debate and that is why the announcers bought it.

But there are no rules in place that demanded transforming this three way tie into a two way tie! Yes other conferences use that as a tie breaker. There are no rules set in place for a 5th tie breaker in the big 12 that say throw Tech out of the argument because they got beat by 44 points! Nobody can argue away the fact of the three way tie – you can argue the perception away, and you did – congratulations!

I commend Texas and its coach and its fans for being smart. I condemn the ESPN/ABC announcers for NOT being neutral.

Being neutral is what this debate is about BodumbClutch

by Randyy on Dec 3, 2008 3:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

What are we, in middle school?

First of all, you are going with a common substitution insult, where you change one part of someones name with something derogatory. You chose the word dumb, which would normally be considered an adequate choice, but you replace the phrase “ddickerIs” which makes no sense whatsoever. Partly because the pronunciation of Boddicker has the BO as a non-emphasized syllable, similar to ‘bah’. If it were a hard syllable, like ‘bow’ this would make more sense, but it here it doesn’t at all. Phonetically speaking, the insulting name doesn’t read at all similar to the original, which is usually considered critical to this type of insult.

The other part that makes it a poor insult is that the handle is already a phrase, and instead of putting a spin on the phrase, you throw it out altogether and carelessly tossed in your derogatory term. Keeping symmetry with the original is what makes substitution insults worthwhile. BoddickerIsDumb, or DumbIsClutch, or perhaps NodickerIsClutch (I strayed from the intelligence theme here to provide a better substitution insult).

Really my handle doesn’t lend itself well to using Dumb in substitution, so personally I think that was a poor choice from the start, and perhaps the root of the sloppiness of the insult in general. So my suggestion, would be to try and tailor your insult to the subject at hand, and not try and force your derogatory term.

Or, and I’m just throwing this out there, perhaps consider not resulting to weak insults as your first method of refuting someones argument. I think you will find it rarely furthers your point, and from the sample that I have seen, it is not your strong suit.

The point is, no one is arguing the tie breaker as you first said, not even announcers. They are all talking about the ranking, and in the ranking, Tech is out of the picture. It gets the additional scrutiny by the media due to the tie breaker rules, but no one thinks that the rules should set the rankings, everyone’s beef is with the rankings themselves.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 3, 2008 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

It was all about the tie breaker

This post was all about some claiming that Texas didn’t win on a neutral field. The fact that Texas won on a neutral field, is an valid argument about a tie breaker.

My point little girl is that I agree that it is a foolish argument for OU fans to say it wasn’t a neutral field, especially because an OU fans can make better arguments.

I could make insults that would be more down your line, but I have already been censured.
You are a smart girl, you should move to Oklahoma so that you could raise the average IQ’s for both states.

by Randyy on Dec 3, 2008 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Little girl? Awesome arguement buddy. You are good at this.

Since you cant remember what you wrote, or apparently are too lazy to scroll up and read, I’ll quote it here for your convenience:

There is no justification for ignorant announcers argueing for a two way tie breakers, when indeed it was a true three way tie!

No one is arguing for the tie breaker, they are arguing for the ranking. The tie breaker, comes after the fact. A tough concept to understand apparently, but I tire of having to state it while you completely ignore it and instead go to insults. Lets see; dumb, girl, whats next? Will I develop a case of Cooties? Do I smell funny? Is my family suddenly going to be poor? Grow up dude, if you want to participate on this site, step your game up, else leave the feeble attempts at insults at home, its not going to get you anywhere.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 4, 2008 8:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Man...

Go to Crimson and Cream Machine and listen to this guy go at me. I feel bad, but I also can’t help but laugh since he’s just trying to tear into me while completely ignoring the issue. I know I should be nicer, but it’s really ridiculous.

by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 4, 2008 12:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs