Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
Au Blue,Au Blue wrote:What? Where did I say that? You've got your posts mixed up.Savage wrote: I still don't see how I dis-owned anything I said about the Griz or the Cats and that was what Blue was trying to say. I have not backed away from anything.
According to you, you should have a refreshed memory after this weekend, right?AlphaGriz1 wrote:I just have one question for cat fans, since I forgot the answer.
What's it like to lose?
Yes, I am not feeling good about this one coming up.kmax wrote:According to you, you should have a refreshed memory after this weekend, right?AlphaGriz1 wrote:I just have one question for cat fans, since I forgot the answer.
What's it like to lose?
All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?Savage wrote:I agree losing does make you appreciate it more but if that’s some kind of attempt to make me cheer for the Cats once in a while you can forget it!crazycat wrote:To be honest the first post I ever read by you was the one I reacted to. As you can tell you got my goat. I hope you understand where I was coming from. Yes, I know exactly what fans you're talking about. And I agree winning is great, I've seen both winning and losing in my day. Winning's better, but losing once in a while makes you appreciate it more.Savage wrote:Hey not a problem. I have no problem putting the Griz in the crosshair when it’s needed. It's something that makes me un-popular with the popular Griz fans. You know who I'm talking about. Griz fans who wear a Griz hat everyday of their lives and only became a fan after 1995 or they go to the games because it’s popular to be "seen" at the Griz game because you think it's good for your business. Their so drunk on Maroon Kool-Aid they can't see the truth. We are the best in the Big Sky and I'm glad about that but the recent news has been hard to swallow and the local paper has been full of people calling for Bobby to step down. IMO they are the old school Griz fans probably natives of the state. Winning is great but it’s not everything. Not that you guys would know much about winning!!!!crazycat wrote:Hey, thanks! I appreciate that. I wasn't implying that UM lose schollies. Again I appreciate your ability to acknowledge this.Savage wrote:CrazyCat,
I agree with you. I want to see some major reforms at UofM. I would rather the program die than be turned into the University of Miami. I'm sure you guys feel the same way about the Cats. The Griz coaches have no excuse IMO and need to be disiplined with no punshiment taken off the table including termination.
I remember someone on here commented about your loss of schollies. That was because of your low graduation rate and had nothing to do with the criminal activities of your players. So lets not call for the Griz to loses schollies too just because your players are dumb.
Of course I knew my first post was going to send you guys through the roof. I will always be a Griz fan but I can appreciate what Cat fans have to go through with the constant let downs on the field. It’s the same thing I suffer through with the Raiders. I'm just glad the Raiders are so far away. You guys have to put up with your Cats sucking ass right in your own home state.
Nah, you just knew you were outnumbered...by a lot...and most of us weren't exactly in a friendly to the Griz sort of mood post game.AlphaGriz1 wrote:Yes, I am not feeling good about this one coming up.kmax wrote:According to you, you should have a refreshed memory after this weekend, right?AlphaGriz1 wrote:I just have one question for cat fans, since I forgot the answer.
What's it like to lose?
Had to get my shot in while I had the chance. I let youg usy off this weekend so you owe me one!
That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
Silly argument, to turn it around. Jefferson was a rent a player for one semester and the starting CB got busted in June. Do the cats make the playoffs last year with out them?tampa_griz wrote:That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
But, if instead we would've been 7-4 without them, then yes to Quinn and Rassum. No to Coleman.
OK. Allow me to try that again.tampa_griz wrote:That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
But, if instead we would've been 7-4 without them, then yes to Quinn and Rassum. No to Coleman.
You said B) wouldn't have happenned in the absence of Rassum, Quinn, and Coleman.crazycat wrote:OK. Allow me to try that again.tampa_griz wrote:That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
But, if instead we would've been 7-4 without them, then yes to Quinn and Rassum. No to Coleman.
Which would you prefer:
A) 11-0 and No. 3 seed with Russum, Quinn and Coleman on the team.
or
B) 7-4 and no playoffs without Russum, Quinn and Coleman.
That's not turning it around. Jefferson and Fuller didn't have any prior legal problems before they came here. Coleman, Russum and Quinn all did have prior legal problems. So I'm wondering if winning is worthwhile knowing that Hauck brought these guys in to help get it done. Was it worth it?jagur1 wrote:Silly argument, to turn it around. Jefferson was a rent a player for one semester and the starting CB got busted in June. Do the cats make the playoffs last year with out them?tampa_griz wrote:That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
But, if instead we would've been 7-4 without them, then yes to Quinn and Rassum. No to Coleman.
I didn't mean to.tampa_griz wrote:You said B) wouldn't have happenned in the absence of Rassum, Quinn, and Coleman.crazycat wrote:OK. Allow me to try that again.tampa_griz wrote:That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
But, if instead we would've been 7-4 without them, then yes to Quinn and Rassum. No to Coleman.
Which would you prefer:
A) 11-0 and No. 3 seed with Russum, Quinn and Coleman on the team.
or
B) 7-4 and no playoffs without Russum, Quinn and Coleman.
Do the Griz beat the cats or lose to the cats?crazycat wrote:I didn't mean to.tampa_griz wrote:You said B) wouldn't have happenned in the absence of Rassum, Quinn, and Coleman.crazycat wrote:OK. Allow me to try that again.tampa_griz wrote:That doesn't make any sense. If, as you say, we wouldn't be 7-4 with their absence, their presence doesn't make them worth anything.crazycat wrote:All I'm wondering now is with Russum, Quinn and Coleman playing pretty big roles on your team (Russum and Quinn were 1st All-Big Sky), just how much has that taken away from your winning? Not that this would've happened, but would you rather have a 7-4 record and not be in the playoffs without them? Were they worth it?
But, if instead we would've been 7-4 without them, then yes to Quinn and Rassum. No to Coleman.
Which would you prefer:
A) 11-0 and No. 3 seed with Russum, Quinn and Coleman on the team.
or
B) 7-4 and no playoffs without Russum, Quinn and Coleman.
How's this? "If" you had gone 7-4 w/o R, Q, and C, would you have preferred that over going 11-0 with R, Q and C and all the negativity they bring to the table?
I'll answer your question if you answer my question about the cats giving up the playoff win last year without Jefferson and the coke dealing CB that the Bozo PD let play all year.crazycat wrote:I'm sensing a reluctance to answering this question. So I think I know the answer.
