JTrain

I haven't kept up on this. Was there a second incident or was it just the flashing the mini-Moss to the gas station worker? Do we really want to base punishment on degree of weirdness versus, say, degree of moral wrongness? I mean, people can suffer horrific injuries or even death in bar brawls. The only thing that died in this case was one person's sex drive for a week or two.

Who did this?? Again?

Cut FBS to 85 or 90 teams, then don't allow games against FCS.

I'm so pissed they put us behind Iowa! The media hates us! We get no respect! [Loses to Iowa] [blames injuries and Twitter]

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has? No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying (for most) than winning consistently with no championships. The difference is you coupled in 2 Natty's from a coach that, get this....won no less than 9 games a year for 21 years before finally winning THE big one. Followed shortly after by a guy who clearly didn't belong here. It skews it. Give Bo some time. Epic drastic changes are afoot in college football. BAYLOR!!! is top 10. Central Florida (who?) is playing BCS games. JoePa is dead, so are a lot of normals. Except this: Bo wins 9 games. Everyone gets so wrapped up in the specifics of the analogy ("Auburn steals laptops, though!!!") they miss the point: For the vast majority of fans, it's more emotionally satisfying to win championships, even if coupled with the occasional bad season, than to have 9-win consistency without championships. So, going 6-7 followed by a 13-0 national championship is preferable to 9-4 followed by 9-4 with no championships, or even BCS bowl wins. The 6-7 year fades in memory pretty quickly while the national title is a rare prize.

You wanna get nuts? Let's get nuts.

Better pull a four-star or I'm registering FireCharlton.com

How many teams fit this description over the last six years? Alabama, Florida, Stanford, FSU, Ohio St., South Carolina, Boise St., TCU, Oklahoma, Penn St., Wisconsin, Oregon, LSU, USC. Probably a handful more but that's what I can find at the moment.

Which ones are preferable? Well, I'd say ones that had multiple: BCS bowl wins, top ten finishes and/or conference championships. Or anybody that had a national championship. You can't tell that just by seeing the loss totals. But that's what's most important to me.

I wasn't around for TO's first six. I don't deny that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction among the fans. But when I look at the final rankings (finished top 10 five of the six years, and 12th the other year) it sure seems like it is not equal (zero top 10 finishes in Bo's first six).

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has? No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying (for most) than winning consistently with no championships. Who is emotionally tied up in a position? Which side of this argument started an entire thread just to try to prove that winning 9 games the last 6 years means nothing? Please quote where OP said it means nothing (he didn't-- he stated in the title that it "isn't the whole story"). Please show where OP demonstrated an emotional tone. I read it as being as dour as his avatar.

Well if that's how you feel, that's fine. I personally have trouble seeing it that way. A decade or two from now, you really think 2008 or 2012 will bother Auburn fans that much? I doubt most of them will even be able to remember much of them. But the national title and conference title years will be great memories revisited for a long, long time. For example, I won't ever forget a lot of things about the '94 team. That level of accomplishment remains very vivid. But I have only a faint recollection of, say, 1998 and 2004. Even though '98 was a very respectable 9-4 team that had close losses, while '04 was horrifically bad with many blowout losses. The fact is, both were disappointing and not ultimately satisfying, so they fade away pretty quickly (as I suspect 2013 will, aside from maybe the hail mary and Bo's post-Iowa game presser).

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has? No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying than winning consistently with no championships. And at what stakes. cheating or walking a thin line, oversigning, trading coaches every few years, poor graduation rates, etc. Bo does a very good job of keeping that crap out of here.

Are you really to the point that you have to make a hypotetical situation to discredit the 9 win streak Bo has? No. I'm not discrediting anything. Nine wins for six years is good. It's an accomplishment. You are so emotionally tied up in your position that you aren't even looking at my point, which is that a roller coaster ride that includes bad seasons and championship seasons would be more satisfying (for most) than winning consistently with no championships.

A team that does what?

No signature wins is bullsh#t. This whole anti-nine wins bitchfest is bullsh#t. If winning nine games a year, every year, is meaningless, then more coaches would do it. They don't, especially at this stage in their careers, and whining about it is some seriously childish entitlement crap. If you don't like the fact that this team wins nine games per year, every year, then go be a front-runner and pick a team that does and cheer for them. Oh please. "If you're unhappy, you're an entitled brat and you should go root for another team!" Horrifically bad non-argument. No one said nine wins is meaningless. No one is "whining" or being "childish" by not being satisfied with Nebraska losing four games. If you or anyone else is satisfied with it-- great. Nothing wrong with that. For the rest of us who aren't particularly satisfied, there is no reason why we can't have these discussions. For you to come swooping in every time you get annoyed and start calling everyone self-indulgent, self-entitled whiners is just annoying.

I anticipated Accountability's response in advance, which is why I added "for the results" in my post. Auburn is just an example. The results are what I'm focusing on, not the ethics of how they were achieved. But since any SEC team invokes total disgust and clearly clouds one's ability to focus on the basic point at hand, let me keep the example in house: From 1995 through 2004 (10 seasons) Nebraska won two national championships and three conference championships. They also had rough seasons (2002 and 2004). Let's say you could replace those seasons with 10-4 and 9-3 respectively, but you have to knock '95 and '97 down to 9 or 10 win seasons, thus giving up the championships. You get rid of the lowest lows and get the consistency of the 9-win streak, but give up the greatest achievements. I think at least 95% of fans would keep things as is rather than accept my offer.

Auburn has won 9 or more games 2 of the last 6 seasons. Nebraska has won 9 or more games 6 of the last 6 seasons. And yet, 95% of fans would trade for the results of their six in a heartbeat. Because theirs included truly satisfying accomplishments: Two SEC championships and a National Championship. We got three mid-tier bowl wins and a moral victory against Texas.

The plus indicates "or more". 6+ indicates all teams that won 6 or more games.

I'd like to try the Year of Winning the Conference but perhaps we could work the Blackshirts theme into that.

Back in the '90s they used to do a thing where the players would go full contact and really get into it with each other. It was called practice.