Tulsa logic is especially absurd

(09-04-2018 01:08 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:48 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:01 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  That's 7 wins by more than 33 points in the last 3seasons(and 1 game).

3 years not 3 season.... i wasnt counting the 2015 season...and didnt notice hawaii and lala in 16..

and you keep missing the point boise got up that big on troy becuase of turnover luck..

OK so you are counting 3 calendar years? SMH. the 2015 season would be inside 3 calendar years.

I havent had a conversation this stupid in years.

16-17-18...not sure why you are making this more complicated than it needed to be ..
nitpicking details doesn't change the point..15 still technically being in the calender year proves what?

Nitpicking details? you've been shown to be factually wrong in every area of the argument by multiple posters on this thread. Usually people have the selfawareness to say, "You know what... I was wrong about that" when shown they were mistaken. No one thinks poorly of them afterwards.

People are wrong everyday. Myself included. Hell, I've been wrong a half dozen times today and its only 1:15pm. I'm not wrong about Boise winning by more than 33 over the last 3 seasons/years/stardates/Pesik Units of Time Measurements though

(09-04-2018 01:13 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Tulsa logic is especially absurd

explain..

my logic: under tulsa's current staff and system, if the team hasnt been top 25 dominant they havent blownout tulsa..
there have also been numerous top 25 teams who didnt blowout tulsa (even when tulsa was horrible)
texas is not top 25 dominant...they are actually struggling

explain the absurdity

(09-04-2018 01:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:13 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Tulsa logic is especially absurd

explain..

my logic: under tulsa's current staff and system, if the team hasnt been top 25 dominant they havent blownout tulsa..
there have also been numerous top 25 teams who didnt blowout tulsa (even when tulsa was horrible)
texas is not top 25 dominant...they are actually struggling

explain the absurdity

Texas sucks, yes. UCA is good for FCS, yes. There is still a huge ******* difference between Texas and the University of Central Arkansas.

(09-04-2018 01:16 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:08 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:48 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:01 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  That's 7 wins by more than 33 points in the last 3seasons(and 1 game).

3 years not 3 season.... i wasnt counting the 2015 season...and didnt notice hawaii and lala in 16..

and you keep missing the point boise got up that big on troy becuase of turnover luck..

OK so you are counting 3 calendar years? SMH. the 2015 season would be inside 3 calendar years.

I havent had a conversation this stupid in years.

16-17-18...not sure why you are making this more complicated than it needed to be ..
nitpicking details doesn't change the point..15 still technically being in the calender year proves what?

Nitpicking details? you've been shown to be factually wrong in every area of the argument by multiple posters on this thread. Usually people have the selfawareness to say, "You know what... I was wrong about that" when shown they were mistaken. No one thinks poorly of them afterwards.

People are wrong everyday. Myself included. Hell, I've been wrong a half dozen times today and its only 1:15pm. I'm not wrong about Boise winning by more than 33 over the last 3 seasons/years/stardates/Pesik Units of Time Measurements though

the ONLY area i was wrong in was missing ulala and hawaii in 2016..
(3 games TOTAL in the last 27)

i said 3 YEARS (aka jan to dec)..you made it 3 season...you found a way to nitpick that to add the 2015 season

i said NOT including troy..you said ..."THEY DID IT 3 DAYS AGO". i literally added that exclusion of troy in my point...

YOUR entire POINT CAN BE SUMMARIZED by me saying that boy is taller than that girl.. he is 6'4 she is 5'8...and you responding saying he is technically 6'2..YOU DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!!
You have addressed 0 points!!!! none..nada....

you have added zero reason...

okay, im tired of debating..lets make a sig bet.. i am that certain of my pick

(09-04-2018 01:19 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:13 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Tulsa logic is especially absurd

explain..

my logic: under tulsa's current staff and system, if the team hasnt been top 25 dominant they havent blownout tulsa..
there have also been numerous top 25 teams who didnt blowout tulsa (even when tulsa was horrible)
texas is not top 25 dominant...they are actually struggling

explain the absurdity

Texas sucks, yes. UCA is good for FCS, yes. There is still a huge ******* difference between Texas and the University of Central Arkansas.

you realize we arent talking about winning..just covering a 4 score spread???

my point was that tulsa might not be as bad as they seem, that most fbs would have struggled some vs uca too..

that the gap between them might not be 4 scores..also hasnt there been fcs to beat top 25 p5 in recent years

(09-04-2018 11:15 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If you are dumb enough to even consider betting on ECU then you deserve to lose your money.

This. Lead up to this game reminds of the Temple game last year. We were optimistic, until they turned their whole season around against us.

Defense is slightly improved, but the O-line is horrendous. Herring is going to get hurt, and UNC is going to cover.

If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

Logic goes out the window in rivalry games. This one might be closer than most think, but what do I know....I don’t give a **** about football anyway...

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

this was a thread, where it clearly said i started..that you could have easily scrolled by... that YOU chose to open, that you chose to post in

cheers

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

I know. It's social experiment though. How many times can one human being be so obviously wrong before he/she actually admits to it or eventually gets something correct? Its fascinating.

(09-04-2018 02:09 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

I know. It's social experiment though. How many times can one human being be so obviously wrong before he/she actually admits to it or eventually gets something correct? Its fascinating.

SIG BET!!!!!!!!
if im wrong it will be on every post i make for a week....

but you wont becuase you are scared

(09-04-2018 01:58 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

this was a thread, where it clearly said i started..that you could have easily scrolled by... that YOU chose to open, that you chose to post in

cheers

I'm choosing to attempt to start a movement for everybody to ignore you.

(09-04-2018 02:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:58 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

this was a thread, where it clearly said i started..that you could have easily scrolled by... that YOU chose to open, that you chose to post in

cheers

I'm choosing to attempt to start a movement for everybody to ignore you.

You would get banned mid-way there is literally a rule against that..
But more power to you

I’m in less than 25% of the threads here..most of the thread I comment in I start myself
Not sure how you don’t have the ability to just scroll by.. and why there is an obsession with my posts but sure ... go for it!

Edit: and I just noticed that every negative interaction I’ve had with you, YOU always start it..
Last year When I said Memphis fans were expecting at least an NIT, and if tubby doesn’t doesn’t get that he is fired. You went out of your way to attack me and said that Memphis fans realize the situation and know it’s would take time (even though i ended up correct)

A few days ago when I said I would move Houston to the same tier as Cincy and Memphis, you went out of your way to say Memphis and Cincy were in a higher tier

Me simply saying Memphis qbs struggled in spring camp (with direct quotes from your coach saying exactly that) you attacked me

When I said penny said he expects to make the tourney yr 1, first you attacked me saying it wasn’t true before changing it to it being good for penny to have confidence

It always starts with you!

slhNavy91: "It's hard to believe that Navy was preparing for its first AAC game three years ago."
pesik: "Oh, in January of 2016?"

(09-04-2018 02:44 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  slhNavy91: "It's hard to believe that Navy was preparing for its first AAC game three years ago."
pesik: "Oh, in January of 2016?"

It is common for people to reference the calendar year (Jan to dec, 2018, 2017 etc) when referencing years... I don’t see why this is even an issue

I don’t know why we are making a big deal about semantics ...I used a similar measurement for Tulsa
I used the stat that Tulsa’s current staff hasn’t been blown out in 4years (by non-elite teams). They’ve only been there 3 seasons ...

Not sure why this is even being discussed

(09-04-2018 03:02 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 02:44 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  slhNavy91: "It's hard to believe that Navy was preparing for its first AAC game three years ago."
pesik: "Oh, in January of 2016?"

It is common for people to reference the calendar year (Jan to dec, 2018, 2017 etc) when referencing years... I don’t see why this is even an issue

I don’t know why we are making a big deal about semantics ...I used a similar measurement for Tulsa
I used the stat that Tulsa’s current staff hasn’t been blown out in 4years (by non-elite teams). They’ve only been there 3 seasons ...

Not sure why this is even being discussed

I guess today really is a monday , calendar tuesday.

Anyway I think tulsa and uconn could both cover

(09-04-2018 02:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 02:09 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

I know. It's social experiment though. How many times can one human being be so obviously wrong before he/she actually admits to it or eventually gets something correct? Its fascinating.

SIG BET!!!!!!!!
if im wrong it will be on every post i make for a week....

but you wont becuase you are scared

Yes, I will sig bet you that Boise has won by more than 33 points in the last 3 years.

Since they did it on Saturday that was an easy win

(09-04-2018 04:11 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 02:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 02:09 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If you guys would stop citing Pesik's posts, and not reply to him (including me), and just ignore him, this forum would be a LOT easier to read.

I know. It's social experiment though. How many times can one human being be so obviously wrong before he/she actually admits to it or eventually gets something correct? Its fascinating.

SIG BET!!!!!!!!
if im wrong it will be on every post i make for a week....

but you wont becuase you are scared

Yes, I will sig bet you that Boise has won by more than 33 points in the last 3 years.

Since they did it on Saturday that was an easy win

not sure why you are deflecting

We are just living in his world