What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Official Bowl Season Thread

Dude, the duck ****s were miserable pricks in Tempe on January 1, 2002. They’ve been insufferable for at least 20 years.

Couldn't possibly be because CU fans were terrific assholes for the weeks leading up to the game and then got their asses kicked, could it?
We're all the ****ing same, the only difference is that Oregon wins more than most.
 
the b12 is a hot mess of awful. they can't beat anyone. lol at lincoln riley and **** bailer.

the p12 isn't much better, but the oregon win helps a bit. this conference is ripe for the taking. get bigger and more athletic. get deeper and be able to rotate more guys. play physical ball. herm's got his team playing better than i thought, but they are still soft. usc is down. ucla is a train wreck. utah is really good, but i think we are seeing their max upside. we can move up quickly if we find a qb and catch a couple breaks.
 
Couldn't possibly be because CU fans were terrific assholes for the weeks leading up to the game and then got their asses kicked, could it?
We're all the ****ing same, the only difference is that Oregon wins more than most.
Take the ducks, subtract Phil Knights money, and you have something between the Beavers and the Zona schools. Oregon likes to act like they are some kind of blueblood but they always manage to win enough to feed their fans fantasies but lose the big games to prove they aren't.
 
Lol, except defense matters and takeaways are a result of good defense.
Sure, but Wisconsin had 4 turnovers and still only lost by one. Oregon D was solid, but one turnover was a punter dropping the snap that was returned for a TD. They also had drive killing penalties that cost them points. Point is, had they played a relatively clean game, they win going away.
 
Wtf is matt rhule wearing? A smock with a hood?
Hey! It went real well with that hideous haircut!

There are men in the world who can make a Tee shirt look like formal wear and guys who can make a themselves in a tux look like a homeless person.. Rhule is the latter.
 
Take the ducks, subtract Phil Knights money, and you have something between the Beavers and the Zona schools. Oregon likes to act like they are some kind of blueblood but they always manage to win enough to feed their fans fantasies but lose the big games to prove they aren't.

And? Take away Stanford's ten billion dollar endowment from their railroad tycoons and they're UC Davis. Take away Miami being within 30 miles of more NFL talent than any team in the world. Put WSU in Austin Texas. We can play this game all night long. And speaking of Oregon losing big games, that's the 3rd Rose Bowl win in 8 years. Oregon State had a sportsball player gang rape, a pedophile pitcher, a guy who ****ed a sheep, but nobody cares because they're losers. Get it? Oregon has eleven 10 win seasons and 7 conference championships the last 20 years. They played for 2 natty's in that period and should have played for another in 2001, or are you gonna argue the Nubs deserved that one? They've won the 3rd most games in the pac-12 in the last FORTY years. At what point do we move beyond this johnny come lately sour grapes bull****?
 
Sure, but Wisconsin had 4 turnovers and still only lost by one. Oregon D was solid, but one turnover was a punter dropping the snap that was returned for a TD. They also had drive killing penalties that cost them points. Point is, had they played a relatively clean game, they win going away.
But they didn't.

There are no worse takes than the "well if this team didn't step on their own dick so many times, they would have won the game easily!" That **** is Nub logic.
 
Sure, but Wisconsin had 4 turnovers and still only lost by one. Oregon D was solid, but one turnover was a punter dropping the snap that was returned for a TD. They also had drive killing penalties that cost them points. Point is, had they played a relatively clean game, they win going away.
So Wisconsin is undisciplined and doesn't take care of the ball. Got it.
 
LSU has beaten 5 of the Top 10 teams this season in the last AP pole:

Oklahoma
Georgia
Florida
Auburn
Alabama

Of course Clemson can beat LSU, but I do not see it happening.
I think that last game against OSU was pretty telling for where Clemson's offensive line is as the moment. Now does LSU have the same talent up front as OSU? Probably not but still I think they can exploit that and allow for LSU to pull away at some point.
 
ESPN said Georgia was down about a dozen regulars, including three starting OL. Some hurt, others preserving health for the upcoming draft. Still beat ****ler by a dozen. That is some quality depth.
That O line was the heart of the Georgia team too.
 
The “if they hadn’t turned the ball over, they would have won” argument never fails to amaze me. It’s so husker-like. How many times has surveyor said “if they didn’t turn the ball over, the huskers would have won easily”? It’s like saying “if they had only scored more points, they would have won”. Turnovers are a huge part of the game. News flash: CU turned the ball over a bunch against UO, too. If we hadn’t, the game would have been a lot closer.
 
The “if they hadn’t turned the ball over, they would have won” argument never fails to amaze me. It’s so ****er-like. How many times has surveyor said “if they didn’t turn the ball over, the ****ers would have won easily”? It’s like saying “if they had only scored more points, they would have won”. Turnovers are a huge part of the game. News flash: CU turned the ball over a bunch against UO, too. If we hadn’t, the game would have been a lot closer.
I generally agree but I do think there is a difference when a team has unforced errors that change the game. Yes, if you are beating the crap out of someone on defense and they start throwing pics and fumbling the ball then there is a correlation there. When Laviska Shenault is running a kickoff back against Nebraska and a player gets him from behind while hs is looking to his left for tacklers and he fumbles that is more about luck.
 
But they didn't.

There are no worse takes than the "well if this team didn't step on their own dick so many times, they would have won the game easily!" That **** is Nub logic.
The “if they hadn’t turned the ball over, they would have won” argument never fails to amaze me. It’s so ****er-like. How many times has surveyor said “if they didn’t turn the ball over, the ****ers would have won easily”? It’s like saying “if they had only scored more points, they would have won”. Turnovers are a huge part of the game. News flash: CU turned the ball over a bunch against UO, too. If we hadn’t, the game would have been a lot closer.
Turnovers are part of the game, no doubt. The difference here is that usually when a team is a -3 in turnover differential it's a blowout the other way. Wisconsin thoroughly dominated Oregon and lost by one despite all the turnovers and untimely penalties. I get it. Blaming turnovers and penalties is like blaming officials. The point of my post was that Wisconsin is/was the superior team but made too many mistakes yesterday and couldn't overcome the last one.
 
Turnovers are part of the game, no doubt. The difference here is that usually when a team is a -3 in turnover differential it's a blowout the other way. Wisconsin thoroughly dominated Oregon and lost by one despite all the turnovers and untimely penalties. I get it. Blaming turnovers and penalties is like blaming officials. The point of my post was that Wisconsin is/was the superior team but made too many mistakes yesterday and couldn't overcome the last one.
I agree that Wisonsin turned the ball over more and took more penalties while losing the game, but I'm still lost on how that translates to them being the better team.

Edit: Ahh, I just remembered who Tschecks second favorite CFB team is. Ding Ding!
 
My top ten:

1. LSU
2. Clemson
3. Ohio St
4. UGA
5. Oregon
6. Bama
7. Wisconsin
8. Florida
9. Minnesota
10. PSU (slightly over ND)

No OU, no Baylor.
I could go with that list. I would put a couple of schools ahead of Notre Dame as first out.

This will probably end up looking bad because of an upset but I think we have some very clear groupings in terms of quality this year.

LSU is to me clearly the best team,

Clemson and Ohio State are significantly better than anyone not named LSU,

Your 4-7 are fairly interchangeable, teams that could beat each other based on the bounce of the ball or who has a bad day. Quality teams but each has their flaws.

Florida and Minnesota are legit top ten teams but a long way from being close to the top three.

From 10 on its a crapshoot with some teams that are very good on one side of the ball but not the other or who lack talent at certain key positions or who just didn't show up or who significantly outplayed their talent.

Reason for optimist is that in looking at some of the schools from 10-25 there is no reason why Mel Tucker can't have CU at that level within a few years (or less.) The gap between CU and the bottom of the top 25 is much less than the gap between the bottom of the top 25 and the top seven.

It's been a fun year of college football.
 
Back
Top