Most Ridiculous Trophy - the Old Broken Chair

[PnkPanther]

Did the Original 1903 Jug Survive All These Years?

 

[4down20]

Do you need a tissue?

Why? All I did was point out the truth about Notre Dame.

 

[4down20]

Jimmies fully engaged.

Thanks for the status update, enjoy your visit ridding my jimmies. Please keep us updated if there are any changes in them.

 

[Moab]

UCF went 14-0. Alabama had a loss. Who was that to again?

Did UCF beat the team that beat Alabama? Asking for a friend...

 

[4down20]

UCF went 14-0. Alabama had a loss. Who was that to again?

Georgia lost to Auburn.

And they beat Auburn.

What does it mean!?!

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Yew SHUT yer whorish Paul-Bunyan-sized mouf!

Totes awesome:

That's the winner. Dumbest shit I've ever seen. We don't need a fucking trophy for this rivalry, everyone knows who the losers are at the Thanksgiving table.

 

[socaljim242]

Georgia lost to Auburn.

And they beat Auburn.

What does it mean!?!

UCF> Georgia?

 

[nddulac]

UCF> Georgia?

That's what I got out of that . .

 

[iowajerms]

This trophy lasted about a day.

 

[socaljim242]

That's what I got out of that . .

Same here. Doesn't help his case.

 

[Red_Alert]

Georgia lost to Auburn.

And they beat Auburn.

What does it mean!?!

It means rematches tend to favor the team that lost the first time.

 

[4down20]

It means rematches tend to favor the team that lost the first time.

That's dumb. Correlation doesn't equal causation. The notion that after 4 quarters of play, the previous games outcome is what went towards determining the winner is stupid.

 

[Red_Alert]

That's dumb. Correlation doesn't equal causation. The notion that after 4 quarters of play, the previous games outcome is what went towards determining the winner is stupid.

No it's not.

Many times the loser of the first game either wins the 2nd or closes any scoring gap considerably.

The reason is that the team that lost the first time makes adjustments to how they got beat. The team that won the first time is likely to do what gave them success the first time.
Also the team that lost the first time is motivated by revenge.

The exception here would be if Auburn and Alabama had a rematch last season. Auburn would have won the rematch too.

 

[4down20]

No it's not.

Many times the loser of the first game either wins the 2nd or closes any scoring gap considerably.

The reason is that the team that lost the first time makes adjustments to how they got beat. The team that won the first time is likely to do what gave them success the first time.
Also the team that lost the first time is motivated by revenge.

The exception here would be if Auburn and Alabama had a rematch last season. Auburn would have won the rematch too.

So, motivation is a factor in game wins?

Well shit, about time you fucks actually admit it.

 

[Red_Alert]

So, motivation is a factor in game wins?

Well shit, about time you fucks actually admit it.

Of course it is. Particularly in rematches and rivalries.

"Didn't Want To Be There" is horseshit though.

"Naw. We didn't want to add a Peach Bowl trophy to our case, so we didn't try". LOL

 

[Erie Warrior]

This trophy lasted about a day.

What hell is that?

 

[Erie Warrior]

Some of these trophies are pretty solid. That rifle trophy is pretty awesome.


The Land Grant Trophy may be the worst trophy I have ever seen.

 

[iowajerms]

What hell is that?

It was a trophy that was introduced for the Iowa-ISU rivalry game. They revealed it at the Iowa State Fair. Due to the people's reaction to it, they quickly decided to not use it.

I think there was a football inside the corn husk.

 

[Erie Warrior]

It was a trophy that was introduced for the Iowa-ISU rivalry game. They revealed it at the Iowa State Fair. Due to the people's reaction to it, they quickly decided to not use it.

I think there was a football inside the corn husk.

I can see why, its pretty bad.

 

[nddulac]

That's dumb. Correlation doesn't equal causation. The notion that after 4 quarters of play, the previous games outcome is what went towards determining the winner is stupid.

Correlation does, however, equal correlation - which is all he is claiming. The big hint is that he never attempted to answer the question "why?" which is all about the "causation" part of the equation.