I'd Be Surprised if Boston College Doesnt Win the Next Football, Hoops & Hockey Title

EastCoastDouche · 07-17-2006, 10:13 AM

i mean let's be serious about this.

bc practically owns the sports universe.

chestnut hill 4 lyfe motherfucker

17 Seconds · 07-17-2006, 01:22 PM

I thought BC stood for Backup College, as in a backup for those who couldn't get into Notre Dame.

EastCoastDouche · 07-17-2006, 01:29 PM

I'll take the Doug Flutie Hail Mary over Notre Dame's 10 titles any day of the week.

Nate the Grate · 07-17-2006, 01:55 PM

BC sucks! go Terriers!

17 Seconds · 07-17-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoastDouche

I'll take the Doug Flutie Hail Mary over Notre Dame's 10 titles any day of the week.

Spoken like a true Sox fan. Titles are WAY overrated.

Ol' Couch Ass · 07-17-2006, 06:11 PM

hahahahaha

EastCoastDouche · 07-18-2006, 12:05 PM

God I love me some BC.

EastCoastDouche · 09-05-2006, 10:31 PM

we're well on our way in football after that slaughter of MAC powerhouse Central Michigan.

Eulogy · 09-05-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 17 Seconds

I thought BC stood for Backup College, as in a backup for those who couldn't get into Notre Dame.

damn right.

TuralyonW3 · 09-05-2006, 11:37 PM

BC football will be mediocre as usual

EastCoastDouche · 09-05-2006, 11:38 PM

i didnt see our ass messing around with the sisters of the poor like UT did last week

TuralyonW3 · 09-05-2006, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoastDouche

i didnt see our ass messing around with the sisters of the poor like UT did last week

huh

EastCoastDouche · 09-05-2006, 11:43 PM

every year you guys play Lolligag High, Sisters of the Poor, and the Deaf Mutes. They call themselves North Texas, Rice, Tulane, etc but you guys practically are gifted 3 non-conference games plus at least 4-5 conference games with OkState, Baylor, TAMU, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri and teams of that ik. there are no gifts in the acc. you dont just go into Durham and take out Duke in November. that is fucking tough comp. we have no gimmes at bc. your schedule is 7-8 gimmes, a couple overrated rivalry games, then 1 or 2 tough games a year.

TuralyonW3 · 09-05-2006, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoastDouche

every year you guys play Lolligag High, Sisters of the Poor, and the Deaf Mutes. They call themselves North Texas, Rice, Tulane, etc but you guys practically are gifted 3 non-conference games plus at least 4-5 conference games with OkState, Baylor, TAMU, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri and teams of that ik. there are no gifts in the acc. you dont just go into Durham and take out Duke in November. that is fucking tough comp. we have no gimmes at bc. your schedule is 7-8 gimmes, a couple overrated rivalry games, then 1 or 2 tough games a year.

ohio state(#1 team in country), texas tech (in lubbock), nebraska (in nebraska), oklahoma, texas A&M, big 12 championship

EastCoastDouche · 09-05-2006, 11:47 PM

loss,
lol,
finally a good team again,
loss,
lol,
70-3/montana state - pick your poison on that one

yeah thats a tough schedule

go look at bc's schedule.

TuralyonW3 · 09-05-2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoastDouche

loss,
lol,
finally a good team again,
loss,
lol,
70-3/montana state - pick your poison on that one

yeah thats a tough schedule

go look at bc's schedule.

1. playing tech in lubbock is tough, it's been a close game the last few outings

2. lol did you see OU play UAB?

3. BC is a mediocre ball club no matter what their schedule. they have really high academic performance, that probably has something to do with it. (same reason ND can't get who they need to be really killer)

EastCoastDouche · 09-06-2006, 12:00 AM

if playing tech in lubbock is so tough why haven't you lost there since the John Mackovic era?

we're hardly mediocre. if you call winning 8-9 games year in, year out with class athletes medicore, fine. i'd rather go 9-3 with quality individuals than win national titles with trash like romance taylor and tarrel brown.

TuralyonW3 · 09-06-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoastDouche

if playing tech in lubbock is so tough why haven't you lost there since the John Mackovic era?

we're hardly mediocre. if you call winning 8-9 games year in, year out with class athletes medicore, fine. i'd rather go 9-3 with quality individuals than win national titles with trash like romance taylor and tarrel brown.

yeah by mediocre i mean a consistent 7,8,9 win a year team, never getting over the hump you know? I mean you guys are good, I just don't think you could really hang with a BCS caliber team. nice win against boise state in that bowl though.

EastCoastDouche · 09-06-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

yeah by mediocre i mean a consistent 7,8,9 win a year team, never getting over the hump you know?

You know what this is jackass:

1984: 7-4-1
1985: 8-4
1986: 5-6
1987: 7-5
1988: 4-7
1989: 5-6
1990: 10-2 (including 49-3 thrashing by Miami in Cotton Bowl)
1991: 5-6
1992: 6-5
1993: 5-5-1
1994: 8-4
1995: 10-2-1
1996: 8-5
1997: 4-7
1998: 9-3
1999: 9-5
2000: 9-3
2001: 11-2
2002: 10-2
2003: 10-3
2004: 11-1

That's called 21 years of mediocrity. Congratulations on finally having a year of non-mediocrity. We had one of those back in 84 too. Your fans are the biggest bunch of overzealous, overly cocky, arrogant assholes. Ever since Darrel K left, you have been a mediocre program.

Your average season between 1984 and 2004 was 7.9 Wins and 4.28 losses. You averaged an 8-4 season for 21 years before Vince took you on one of the great 2-year rides in college football history.(166-90-3 during that span). By your own defintion that is mediocre.

Please, in the future shut the fuck up about Texas football.

Trotskilicious · 09-06-2006, 05:24 PM

Texas won the football and baseball title in the same year, I think. They would have won the hoops title last year if TJ Ford was playing point like he was supposed ta.

Trotskilicious · 09-06-2006, 05:27 PM

People are so jealous of the Longhorns title win, and their upcoming #1 status after Ohio State surrenders 350 yards of rushing offense. The fact that they have been mediocre, a teir two football program makes the title win all the sweeter. I've been a longhorns fan since they would lose to Baylor or Rice back in the old SWC. Although, I remember a certain team being the first to win a big 12 title, and they were wearing Burnt Orange.

TuralyonW3 · 09-06-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastCoastDouche

You know what this is jackass:

1984: 7-4-1
1985: 8-4
1986: 5-6
1987: 7-5
1988: 4-7
1989: 5-6
1990: 10-2 (including 49-3 thrashing by Miami in Cotton Bowl)
1991: 5-6
1992: 6-5
1993: 5-5-1
1994: 8-4
1995: 10-2-1
1996: 8-5
1997: 4-7
1998: 9-3
1999: 9-5
2000: 9-3
2001: 11-2
2002: 10-2
2003: 10-3
2004: 11-1

That's called 21 years of mediocrity. Congratulations on finally having a year of non-mediocrity. We had one of those back in 84 too. Your fans are the biggest bunch of overzealous, overly cocky, arrogant assholes. Ever since Darrel K left, you have been a mediocre program.

Your average season between 1984 and 2004 was 7.9 Wins and 4.28 losses. You averaged an 8-4 season for 21 years before Vince took you on one of the great 2-year rides in college football history.(166-90-3 during that span). By your own defintion that is mediocre.

Please, in the future shut the fuck up about Texas football.

Longhorns have the 2nd most winningest record in the last 5 years behind Miami, which they will soon eclipse, obviously. Amazing players and millions of dollars will continue to flood into the school over the following years. BC is a stagnant, mediocre football program.

Trotskilicious · 09-06-2006, 05:38 PM

BC is what I call a teir three football team. You have tier one which are the national championship contenders, UT, Auburn, Ohio State, USC, etc. Tier two would be the guys that round out the top ten and are consistently excellent every year, and tier three are those programs that have new coaches at least every five years and are a threat to be in the top 25 once in a while as well as those schools from mid-majors that make their way into the polls.

TuralyonW3 · 09-06-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

BC is what I call a teir three football team. You have tier one which are the national championship contenders, UT, Auburn, Ohio State, USC, etc. Tier two would be the guys that round out the top ten and are consistently excellent every year, and tier three are those programs that have new coaches at least every five years and are a threat to be in the top 25 once in a while.

well put.

EastCoastDouche · 09-06-2006, 05:52 PM

These responses further remind me of why Trotsky's take on Texas sports has never beaten me down and Turdylon further reinforces why I hate Texas FOOTBALL fans. Trotsky cites facts and admits where the program has gone wrong. Sure there is a brash prediction about the OSU game that will likely if not certainly be proven wrong, but it's one game. Whatever.

Turdfest on the other hand proves his complete ignorance of college football. "Amazing players and billions of dollars...." It is not easy to build a college dyansty. Arguably we've only had 3 since 1980: Miami of the 1908s, Nebraska of the early to mid 1990s and USC of present. Think about what circa 2001-03 Miami and circa 2000-2003 Oklahoma had going for them and still could not build a dynsasty. Miami entered the 2003 Orange Bowl as double-digit favorite to repeat as national champions over Ohio State. Had they won that game they would have entered the following season with a realistic chance at winning 50 games in a row. Insane. They had killed Nebraska the previous year in the title game. They lost that game though. And 2 years later they are arguably back to being a bottom-level top tier team again. OU won the 2001 title and played for 2 more title games this decade, but has really fallen upon hard times over the past couple years. They are back to being a mid-level top tier team.

Right now there is USC and then there is everyone else. That will obviously change if Texas even plays for the title this year. And if they can keep finishing top 2-5 every year as they have the past 2 years, they COULD build a dynasty. But to suggest that one title with the greatest player in college football history leads you automatically to a dynasty is just plan fucking stupid. In a sport where ONE LOSS ends your title hopes and TWO LOSSES means a "mediocre" season even in your own definition (9-2), it is damn tough to build a dynasty.

EastCoastDouche · 09-06-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

BC is what I call a teir three football team. You have tier one which are the national championship contenders, UT, Auburn, Ohio State, USC, etc. Tier two would be the guys that round out the top ten and are consistently excellent every year, and tier three are those programs that have new coaches at least every five years and are a threat to be in the top 25 once in a while as well as those schools from mid-majors that make their way into the polls.

agreed 90 percent. we're in the top 25 8 out of 10 years. go look it up. it's fact.

EastCoastDouche · 09-06-2006, 05:55 PM

Arguably Florida State 1986 to 2002 was a dynasty. They were top 12 for 16 years in a row and won 2 titles. But I really don't see that as dynasty in college football.

I actually think Texas has the potential to be top 10 for the better part of a decade. But there is a huge difference between top 10 and top 5 in college football.

coffee spoon · 09-08-2006, 08:36 PM

god Turdylon is a nigger lover

Trotskilicious · 09-08-2006, 08:55 PM

I always kind of like BC, honestly. It's that Irish Catholic DNA i suppose.

07-17-2006, 10:13 AM	#1
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	I'd Be Surprised if Boston College Doesnt Win the Next Football, Hoops & Hockey Title i mean let's be serious about this. bc practically owns the sports universe. chestnut hill 4 lyfe motherfucker

07-17-2006, 01:22 PM	#2
17 Seconds The best $5 I ever spent Location: River City, USA Posts: 820	I thought BC stood for Backup College, as in a backup for those who couldn't get into Notre Dame.

07-17-2006, 01:29 PM	#3
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	I'll take the Doug Flutie Hail Mary over Notre Dame's 10 titles any day of the week.

07-17-2006, 01:55 PM	#4
Nate the Grate Minion of Satan Posts: 6,212	BC sucks! go Terriers!

07-17-2006, 06:11 PM	#6
Ol' Couch Ass Socialphobic Location: The Filthy South Posts: 11,261	hahahahaha

07-18-2006, 12:05 PM	#7
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	God I love me some BC.

09-05-2006, 10:31 PM	#8
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	we're well on our way in football after that slaughter of MAC powerhouse Central Michigan.

09-05-2006, 11:37 PM	#10
TuralyonW3 Immortal Posts: 25,567	BC football will be mediocre as usual

09-05-2006, 11:38 PM	#11
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	i didnt see our ass messing around with the sisters of the poor like UT did last week

09-05-2006, 11:43 PM	#13
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	every year you guys play Lolligag High, Sisters of the Poor, and the Deaf Mutes. They call themselves North Texas, Rice, Tulane, etc but you guys practically are gifted 3 non-conference games plus at least 4-5 conference games with OkState, Baylor, TAMU, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri and teams of that ik. there are no gifts in the acc. you dont just go into Durham and take out Duke in November. that is fucking tough comp. we have no gimmes at bc. your schedule is 7-8 gimmes, a couple overrated rivalry games, then 1 or 2 tough games a year.

09-05-2006, 11:47 PM	#15
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	loss, lol, finally a good team again, loss, lol, 70-3/montana state - pick your poison on that one yeah thats a tough schedule go look at bc's schedule.

09-06-2006, 12:00 AM	#17
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	if playing tech in lubbock is so tough why haven't you lost there since the John Mackovic era? we're hardly mediocre. if you call winning 8-9 games year in, year out with class athletes medicore, fine. i'd rather go 9-3 with quality individuals than win national titles with trash like romance taylor and tarrel brown.

09-06-2006, 05:24 PM	#20
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,602	Texas won the football and baseball title in the same year, I think. They would have won the hoops title last year if TJ Ford was playing point like he was supposed ta.

09-06-2006, 05:27 PM	#21
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,602	People are so jealous of the Longhorns title win, and their upcoming #1 status after Ohio State surrenders 350 yards of rushing offense. The fact that they have been mediocre, a teir two football program makes the title win all the sweeter. I've been a longhorns fan since they would lose to Baylor or Rice back in the old SWC. Although, I remember a certain team being the first to win a big 12 title, and they were wearing Burnt Orange.

09-06-2006, 05:38 PM	#23
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,602	BC is what I call a teir three football team. You have tier one which are the national championship contenders, UT, Auburn, Ohio State, USC, etc. Tier two would be the guys that round out the top ten and are consistently excellent every year, and tier three are those programs that have new coaches at least every five years and are a threat to be in the top 25 once in a while as well as those schools from mid-majors that make their way into the polls.

09-06-2006, 05:52 PM	#25
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	These responses further remind me of why Trotsky's take on Texas sports has never beaten me down and Turdylon further reinforces why I hate Texas FOOTBALL fans. Trotsky cites facts and admits where the program has gone wrong. Sure there is a brash prediction about the OSU game that will likely if not certainly be proven wrong, but it's one game. Whatever. Turdfest on the other hand proves his complete ignorance of college football. "Amazing players and billions of dollars...." It is not easy to build a college dyansty. Arguably we've only had 3 since 1980: Miami of the 1908s, Nebraska of the early to mid 1990s and USC of present. Think about what circa 2001-03 Miami and circa 2000-2003 Oklahoma had going for them and still could not build a dynsasty. Miami entered the 2003 Orange Bowl as double-digit favorite to repeat as national champions over Ohio State. Had they won that game they would have entered the following season with a realistic chance at winning 50 games in a row. Insane. They had killed Nebraska the previous year in the title game. They lost that game though. And 2 years later they are arguably back to being a bottom-level top tier team again. OU won the 2001 title and played for 2 more title games this decade, but has really fallen upon hard times over the past couple years. They are back to being a mid-level top tier team. Right now there is USC and then there is everyone else. That will obviously change if Texas even plays for the title this year. And if they can keep finishing top 2-5 every year as they have the past 2 years, they COULD build a dynasty. But to suggest that one title with the greatest player in college football history leads you automatically to a dynasty is just plan fucking stupid. In a sport where ONE LOSS ends your title hopes and TWO LOSSES means a "mediocre" season even in your own definition (9-2), it is damn tough to build a dynasty.

09-06-2006, 05:55 PM	#27
EastCoastDouche Pledge Location: Boston, aka, The Motherfucking Home of the Pink Popped Collar Izod, Bitch Posts: 153	Arguably Florida State 1986 to 2002 was a dynasty. They were top 12 for 16 years in a row and won 2 titles. But I really don't see that as dynasty in college football. I actually think Texas has the potential to be top 10 for the better part of a decade. But there is a huge difference between top 10 and top 5 in college football.

09-08-2006, 08:36 PM	#28
coffee spoon Ownz Location: black is beautiful Posts: 562	god Turdylon is a nigger lover

09-08-2006, 08:55 PM	#29
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,602	I always kind of like BC, honestly. It's that Irish Catholic DNA i suppose.