Stinkin cheapshot steelers never change
-
Boy people sure are defensive around here.
Welcome to Cleveland
-
Anybody who denies that the squealers cheat, cheapshot and
whine their way into winning some football games is all wet in Egypt.
-
Well thanks for the compliments. I appreciate them. But for me, the notion that Texas cheated their way to the top provides me no solace. Ags have a litany of excuses out there that I just choose not to dwell on. We're going to generally be better than Texas going forward and I prefer that over living in the past. Just how I am.
Well thanks for the compliments. I appreciate them. But for me, the notion that Texas cheated their way to the top provides me no solace. Ags have a litany of excuses out there that I just choose not to dwell on. We're going to generally be better than Texas going forward and I prefer that over living in the past. Just how I am.
How do you figure that you are going to generally be better than Texas going forward? I mean, you can't really know because your school did the typical SEC thing and chickened out on that rivalry. (the way Florida chickened out on it rivalry with Miami).
Tell your AD there to stop playing with his vagina and grow a pair and reschedule what is supposed to be one of the best rivalries in the nation.
That rivalry was, once upon a time probably a top 15 rivalry. In fact USA Today ranked the rivalries in this order:
Army-Navy
Ohio St. vs. Michigan
Alabama vs. Auburn
Oklahoma vs. Texas
FSU vs. Miami
Georgia vs. Florida
Notre Dame vs. USC
Cal vs. Stanford
BYU vs. Utah
Florida vs. FSU
Michigan vs. Mich. St.
Minnesota vs. Wisconsin
Oklahoma vs. Nebraska (I believe now defunct)
Texas vs. Texas A&M
Oregon vs. Oregon St.
-
You've definitely got potential or I wouldn't have wasted a second on you. We've read some great posts from you pre-draft. You're smart enough to wise up where you have to. Nuff said there.
If you can remind yourself of how the Texas Longhorns always used to make you feel - you'll get why/how we feel about the Pittsburgh Stee-roids here. The only difference is how frequently Pittsburgh has gotten away with things most other franchises never could never get away with. Meatball on spaghetti, is how Rooney got himself in a position to where the NFL Commissioner answers to him and remains obligated to him for the rest of his gig. That sucks and swallows! This shows up in suspensions shortened (Ben Rapen) or even delayed so Rooney's team can add DeAngelo Williams in the offseason to lessen the sting of losing Bell while Blount now plays for another franchise. It also shows up in deciding to stop suspending Harrison for his repeated head hunting offenses in lieu of just fining him. What this protects most is Rooney's bottom line of wins and losses while making sure only the player pays (which the street smart Rooney prolly takes care of behind closed doors anyway). That's preferential treatment that I wish more than just Cleveland fans would object to.
Wtf??? Suspensions for helmet to helmet were not in effect when Harrison knocked out Mo Mass and Cribbs in the same game...it was after that game when the NFL started seriously considered suspensions for that infraction. Harrison was later suspended one game for knocking out Colt McCoy.
Ben was never charged with rape. He was suspended 4 games for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. Only 2 other players received stiffer penalties for violating that policy, and rightfully so, their conduct was worse. Bens suspension was quite fair in comparison.
Get a load of Chris Henrys personal conduct infractions...one involving minors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)
Your post amounts to nothing more than sour grapes. The same browns fans that bash Ben, Lambert, Harrison, Troy or any great Steeler for playing to rough wished these players wore the orange and brown.
Whether you like it or not, fans anywhere are all the same..you wouldn't be whining one iota if these players helped bring 6 Lombardis to the city of Cleveland.
Steeler fans might though!
Stuart said:
Wtf??? Suspensions for helmet to helmet were not in effect when Harrison knocked out Mo Mass and Cribbs in the same game...it was after that game when the NFL started seriously considered suspensions for that infraction. Harrison was later suspended one game for knocking out Colt McCoy.
Ben was never charged with rape. He was suspended 4 games for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. Only 2 other players received stiffer penalties for violating that policy, and rightfully so, their conduct was worse. Bens suspension was quite fair in comparison.
Get a load of Chris Henrys personal conduct infractions...one involving minors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)
Your post amounts to nothing more than sour grapes. The same browns fans that bash Ben, Lambert, Harrison, Troy or any great Steeler for playing to rough wished these players wore the orange and brown.
Whether you like it or not, fans anywhere are all the same..you wouldn't be whining one iota if these players helped bring 6 Lombardis to the city of Cleveland.
Steeler fans might though!
You are right. It would have been nice to see how those players could have performed with the Browns...without the steroid/HGH stigma and dirty play stigma.
It would also have been nice to have added 6 Lombardis to our current trophy case. That would have made 19 total then.
-
Stuart said:
Wtf??? Suspensions for helmet to helmet were not in effect when Harrison knocked out Mo Mass and Cribbs in the same game...it was after that game when the NFL started seriously considered suspensions for that infraction. Harrison was later suspended one game for knocking out Colt McCoy.
Ben was never charged with rape. He was suspended 4 games for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. Only 2 other players received stiffer penalties for violating that policy, and rightfully so, their conduct was worse. Bens suspension was quite fair in comparison.
Get a load of Chris Henrys personal conduct infractions...one involving minors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)
Your post amounts to nothing more than sour grapes. The same browns fans that bash Ben, Lambert, Harrison, Troy or any great Steeler for playing to rough wished these players wore the orange and brown.
Whether you like it or not, fans anywhere are all the same..you wouldn't be whining one iota if these players helped bring 6 Lombardis to the city of Cleveland.
Steeler fans might though!
You are right. It would have been nice to see how those players could have performed with the Browns...without the steroid/HGH stigma and dirty play stigma.
It would also have been nice to have added 6 Lombardis to our current trophy case. That would have made 19 total then.
let me beat him to it: But Gipper, those championships weren't won in the super bowl era, so they don't count!You are right. It would have been nice to see how those players could have performed with the Browns...without the steroid/HGH stigma and dirty play stigma.
It would also have been nice to have added 6 Lombardis to our current trophy case. That would have made 19 total then.
-
let me beat him to it: But Gipper, those championships weren't won in the super bowl era, so they don't count!You are right. It would have been nice to see how those players could have performed with the Browns...without the steroid/HGH stigma and dirty play stigma.
It would also have been nice to have added 6 Lombardis to our current trophy case. That would have made 19 total then.
let me beat him to it: But Gipper, those championships weren't won in the super bowl era, so they don't count!
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/
Count any time you see Cleveland/Akron/Canton
-
You said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
-
You said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
True. The AD in college station wanted to keep the rivalry alive and UT pooned outYou said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
-
You said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
You said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
I said that I would prefer that the SWC be reconstituted and that college football would be well served by it. I am not sure I said that TAMU would be well served. (actually, they probably would....from a competitive standpoint they probably would).
As for which school terminated the relationship......your opinion is skewed by your A&M view of things.
But here is what I glean from reading various articles:
It was the A&M people who terminated the rivalry.....but that it is now the Texas people that say no......if you decided to chicken out, then why should we accept you when you beg to come back.
So, the fact is I was right....I knew exactly what I was talking about: A&M is responsible for ducking out when they joined the SEC.
Now A&M wants to renew the rivalry and Texas is saying "maybe...when we have a future opening in our schedule".
Beyond all that, in my remote view it is still Texas that is the predominant football program in Texas that is just having a bit of a down turn. And I really don't have any skin in the game to be biased one way or another. My loyalty is to a different UT....or TU.
-
Meanwhile, some things suealer never change. Seems that not only did they draft a cheapshot
artist db, but their LT is ...
all of a sudden.... bigger and stronger. Go figure. Reckon they are hard up to get back to
the superbowl? I wonder what the Vegas odds are of them injuring another qb or two to get there.
-
No, it was definitely A&M that you said would be better served. And I'm not sure how college football would be well served by giving small schools like Rice and Houston another chance in the big leagues.
From a competitive standpoint we'd be well served by joining the CUSA too.
We left for the SEC. Our president (who was the spokesman throughout the move) said repeatedly that he would like to keep Texas on the schedule and that he was open to the game "anytime, anywhere." That's an exact quote.
If anything, we are the ones that now don't want the game. And I think that's evidenced by the chancellor taking a shot on Twitter (I thought it was classless for a man of his stature, FTR) at the fact that Texas' schedule is so weak and boring (we would tremendously add to their schedule's substance, while A&M wouldn't have all that much to gain).
But they were definitely the ones that, at least publicly, didn't want the game at the outset.
They are historically the predominant program and I'm not one of the Aggies that are going to argue that. But with all the advantages Of the SEC, that is no longer the case. The best things going for them are A. easy path to conference championship, B. the fact that they are "THE" "flagship" program in the state.
They will be in another conference or independent before 2025. Book it.
-
David Ubben is an ESPN Big 12 writer. I've met him a couple times. He has zero to gain from making A&M or the SEC look good. Here is an article he wrote in 2011:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34658/ut-am-rivalry-playing-the-blame-game
"We want to make it abundantly clear we will play the game anywhere, any time," new Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told the Austin American-Statesman last month. "If that game dies, it will not be on us. That game is bigger than Texas and bigger than A&M. That game belongs to the people of Texas, and if it goes away, it's not going to be on our watch."
Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin told the Associated Press on Sunday: "We're able to accommodate them anytime they want to make that happen. ... It's their choice, obviously."
And yeah, I'll grant you that Ubben puts some blame on A&M, but that blame pretty much extends solely to the fact that we left the conference, and the fact that maybe (he doesn't know for sure) we wouldn't be willing to pay for Texas to get out of future non-conference contracts, even though it's cheap, is done all the time, and would more than pay for itself.
-
True. The AD in college station wanted to keep the rivalry alive and UT pooned outYou said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
True. The AD in college station wanted to keep the rivalry alive and UT pooned out
That is not what I found.....A&M cancelled it, Texas now essentially refuses to revive it.
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
-
No, it was definitely A&M that you said would be better served. And I'm not sure how college football would be well served by giving small schools like Rice and Houston another chance in the big leagues.
From a competitive standpoint we'd be well served by joining the CUSA too.
We left for the SEC. Our president (who was the spokesman throughout the move) said repeatedly that he would like to keep Texas on the schedule and that he was open to the game "anytime, anywhere." That's an exact quote.
If anything, we are the ones that now don't want the game. And I think that's evidenced by the chancellor taking a shot on Twitter (I thought it was classless for a man of his stature, FTR) at the fact that Texas' schedule is so weak and boring (we would tremendously add to their schedule's substance, while A&M wouldn't have all that much to gain).
But they were definitely the ones that, at least publicly, didn't want the game at the outset.
They are historically the predominant program and I'm not one of the Aggies that are going to argue that. But with all the advantages Of the SEC, that is no longer the case. The best things going for them are A. easy path to conference championship, B. the fact that they are "THE" "flagship" program in the state.
They will be in another conference or independent before 2025. Book it.
No, it was definitely A&M that you said would be better served. And I'm not sure how college football would be well served by giving small schools like Rice and Houston another chance in the big leagues.
I think I said that A&M would be better served in that they would win more games/appear in more bowls if they reconstituted the SWC.
And here is a clue for you.....A&M, from a national perspective was considered barely a bump ahead of Rice (and not at all above Houston...especially when they had a slew of QBs doing the run and shoot...and beating opponents by like 70-0)
From a competitive standpoint we'd be well served by joining the CUSA too.
Probably.
We left for the SEC. Our president (who was the spokesman throughout the move) said repeatedly that he would like to keep Texas on the schedule and that he was open to the game "anytime, anywhere." That's an exact quote.
What he said and what he did are two different things. Again....I can only go by the accounts I have read....all of which said A&M cancelled it to join the SEC.
If anything, we are the ones that now don't want the game. And I think that's evidenced by the chancellor taking a shot on Twitter (I thought it was classless for a man of his stature, FTR) at the fact that Texas' schedule is so weak and boring (we would tremendously add to their schedule's substance, while A&M wouldn't have all that much to gain).
Again, NO, that is NOT what I am reading on reputable websites (like Sporting News/ Sports Illustrated/ESPN etc.
But they were definitely the ones that, at least publicly, didn't want the game at the outset.
Again, no, no, no. That must be the Aggie sychophant view of things...it is not the national reports.
They are historically the predominant program and I'm not one of the Aggies that are going to argue that. But with all the advantages Of the SEC, that is no longer the case. The best things going for them are A. easy path to conference championship, B. the fact that they are "THE" "flagship" program in the state.
They will be in another conference or independent before 2025. Book it.
There was talk of them joining the Big Ten at one point.
And they have their own TV network....not a league network, where it seemed possible that they did not wish to share revenues. Perhaps the Big 12 is allowing them to keep all their TV money.
-
David Ubben is an ESPN Big 12 writer. I've met him a couple times. He has zero to gain from making A&M or the SEC look good. Here is an article he wrote in 2011:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34658/ut-am-rivalry-playing-the-blame-game
"We want to make it abundantly clear we will play the game anywhere, any time," new Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told the Austin American-Statesman last month. "If that game dies, it will not be on us. That game is bigger than Texas and bigger than A&M. That game belongs to the people of Texas, and if it goes away, it's not going to be on our watch."
Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin told the Associated Press on Sunday: "We're able to accommodate them anytime they want to make that happen. ... It's their choice, obviously."
And yeah, I'll grant you that Ubben puts some blame on A&M, but that blame pretty much extends solely to the fact that we left the conference, and the fact that maybe (he doesn't know for sure) we wouldn't be willing to pay for Texas to get out of future non-conference contracts, even though it's cheap, is done all the time, and would more than pay for itself.
David Ubben is an ESPN Big 12 writer. I've met him a couple times. He has zero to gain from making A&M or the SEC look good. Here is an article he wrote in 2011:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34658/ut-am-rivalry-playing-the-blame-game
"We want to make it abundantly clear we will play the game anywhere, any time," new Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told the Austin American-Statesman last month. "If that game dies, it will not be on us. That game is bigger than Texas and bigger than A&M. That game belongs to the people of Texas, and if it goes away, it's not going to be on our watch."
Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin told the Associated Press on Sunday: "We're able to accommodate them anytime they want to make that happen. ... It's their choice, obviously."
And yeah, I'll grant you that Ubben puts some blame on A&M, but that blame pretty much extends solely to the fact that we left the conference, and the fact that maybe (he doesn't know for sure) we wouldn't be willing to pay for Texas to get out of future non-conference contracts, even though it's cheap, is done all the time, and would more than pay for itself.
Yes, NOW A&M's guy is wanting to revitalize the game.....and yes, as I said, NOW Texas is essentially saying Nyet.
But it was A&M who cancelled.
And I guess it is A&M who will have to grovel more than they have if they want to get it back.
-
nothing against the irish BUT the rooney family is as close to the irish mafia in america that you can get. between the IRA connections, casinos and horse track dealings the stoolers are minor league horse shit when it comes to the shady dealings spun by that family.
fuck the steelers and fuck their fans. stick a shilaleigh up yer arse and be done wit ya.
nothing against the irish BUT the rooney family is as close to the irish mafia in america that you can get. between the IRA connections, casinos and horse track dealings the stoolers are minor league horse shit when it comes to the shady dealings spun by that family.
fuck the steelers and fuck their fans. stick a shilaleigh up yer arse and be done wit ya.
LOL! You ain't kiddin.
Half my blood is Irish so I can tell you first hand that God invented whiskey to prevent the Irish from ruling the world. That said Rooney was street smart enough to remember God hand selected Moses to lead his people to the Promise Land. Nobody powerglued more hotties and naughties than Moses. That was all Rooney needed for leverage in his negotiations with God. Consequently, God said I'll give this scum bag the Sodom and Gomorrah of the United States. Then I'll throw in a bunch of counterfeit trophies and rings made out of costume jewelry along with a bottle of MD 20/20 - and be done with him until judgment day.
Because he's God - he didn't forget to add a Deputy to Rooney's payroll to clean up behind all of the essential ingredients that go into winning at all costs in Pittsburgh. So here's that part of it: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12210027/pittsburgh-steelers-security-chief-dual-role-sheriff-officer-questioned
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Good points Gipper; but I liked your points related to the subject heading a lot better. I hate to see you distracted on college football when you were just getting warmed up to bend steel. Let's get back to our show and tell session with Steeler Stu. He needs more of that inconvenient truth; because only people willing to tell the truth to Pittsburgh fans are Cleveland fans. Those poor bastards have been rooting for flunkies, junkies, rapists and domestic violence poster boys since the 70s.
Some of them even bring their pom poms to crack houses in the offseason to chant "Here we go Steelers - Here we go!" How else do you think they got autographs from guys like Bell and Blount?
-
A&M has more SWC titles than Houston and Ruce combined. Houston won 4. Rice won 8. We won 18. Predictably, you will say "well Houston was only in the league from 76-95." We won 6 in that period. So spare me. You say you don't have a dog in the fight, yet your intentions are clearly to tear down A&M. That's fine, but stop the ruse that you are neutral.
Here is what you posted, and it's actually worse than I thought.
"Prediction: Texas A&M will join a reconstituted "Southwest Conference".
Or at least they should."
If you want to get all nuanced about what you meant then fine. But merely winning games isn't an end unto itself. See what I said about CUSA.
Post the national reports that agree with you. I guarantee you I've followed this thing a lot more closely than you have and you will not be able to provide such reports without an equal (and more accurate) counter. Maybe some from Chip Brown, who I listen to almost every morning on the radio here and is a shill for the university.
Yes, the Big 12 does allow them to keep all their TV money, because OU is the only conference member with any clout, and they're tied to OSU so their power is somewhat diminished. And even if it weren't, they still don't wield near the power that Texas does. Not only does Texas keep all the money from the Longhorn Network, they also receive a larger share of the conference's TV package, a perk they also offered to A&M in 2010. None of the other power 5 conferences allow that. Makes for an unhappy and unhealthy league. In the SEC, Vandy gets the same money as Alabama.
The article (and its included quotes from A&M officials) is from 2011. Not sure how that qualifies as "NOW."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login