View Full Version : A Decade of Dominance?
Boomer_Sooner_sax
4/5/2011, 07:24 AM
I am sorry, I didn't realize this was the dominant team of the 2000s. I must be confused here. They didn't even dominate their own division!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/604791-decade-of-dominance-the-top-10-texas-longhorn-football-players-from-2001-2010
Widescreen
4/5/2011, 07:30 AM
Dominant annually over Rice.
soonerloyal
4/5/2011, 07:48 AM
Yeah guys, he's right. Those 2 painful whoopings they gave us alone, scoring over 60+ points on us, shows their domin...oh, wait...
:rolleyes:
Madias must be chomping at the bit to cash his check from the Tejas Boosters for that craptastic "article".
SoonerMarkVA
4/5/2011, 08:15 AM
What a waste of bandwidth.
sooner518
4/5/2011, 08:59 AM
http://www.derrich.com/img/but-were-texas_gameday.gif
NormanPride
4/5/2011, 09:00 AM
5-7
Boomer_Sooner_sax
4/5/2011, 09:01 AM
But wait, there's more...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/647177-texas-longhorns-football-10-reasons-why-mack-browns-the-best-big-12-coach-ever
SoonerOX
4/5/2011, 09:08 AM
garbage.
Mississippi Sooner
4/5/2011, 09:09 AM
What's up with Bleacher Report and their slide shows? Is it because more page clicks equals more ad revenue?
NormanPride
4/5/2011, 09:10 AM
Oh, bleacherreport. Why do people read that?
But wait, there's more...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/647177-texas-longhorns-football-10-reasons-why-mack-browns-the-best-big-12-coach-ever
Yea I was more annoyed by that but oh well. I hope they enjoy their years of decline.
Widescreen
4/5/2011, 10:50 AM
The second article reads like the author is 12 years old. He seems to be pinning his entire argument on them putting lots of players in the NFL. My favorite part is how he mentions that Stoops kicks Mack's a$$ but it doesnt matter because when you throw in a bunch of other teams too (aTm, etc), Mack has a winning record against that group. LOL.
PDXsooner
4/5/2011, 10:59 AM
In the 2000's (01-10 makes no sense, the decade starts at '00 and ends at '09) Texas is behind OU, USC, LSU and Ohio State for sure. Maybe even behind Florida.
StoopTroup
4/5/2011, 11:03 AM
In with a few comments.....:D
Two on the tejas dominance thread and one on this one....
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/629070-texas-football-five-reasons-texas-will-top-oklahoma-in-2011
What brought me here to the BR today was the Texas 2000 Decade of Dominance Thread. Then I saw this and read that some whorn fans were actually writing about The Sooners losing to tejas this year. After tejas 5-7 Season last year....you'd think they would really take a more Humble approach....but it's never been that way so why start now. They have always been delusional and any of them that think they dominated the Big XII South or the Big XII Conference is even more Delusional. But...That's the way it's always been....Delusional. Trophies speak louder than an Asterisk. Not participating in the Big XII Championship but calling yourselves Big XII South Champs is delusional. Most people understand Rules are Rules....but not Whorn Fans. They Dominate the Delusional Bin of all of College Football. Always have....always will.
I normally want to heave when exposed to the arrogance that marks even the casual whorn fan, but after sa*et's stellar performance of 2010 I don't mind. If their definition of "dominance" coincides with what they actually accomplished, then let em believe whatever they want.
Lawton4Life
4/5/2011, 11:45 AM
Isnt bleacher report totally run on fan submissions?
MyT Oklahoma
4/5/2011, 12:26 PM
Exactly what is Mack's record against Bob? Oh yeah.. 5 and 7.
Never mind. ;)
Boomer_Sooner_sax
4/5/2011, 12:50 PM
Isnt bleacher report totally run on fan submissions?
If that the case, this is even worse because the Houston Chronicle will run these stories, hence above.
Quik Sand
4/5/2011, 12:58 PM
Exactly what is Mack's record against Bob? Oh yeah.. 5 and 7.
Never mind. ;)That five and seven record seems awfully familiar for another stat....
silverwheels
4/5/2011, 12:59 PM
Yeah, Bleacher Report sucks.
SoonerPride
4/5/2011, 01:05 PM
In the 2000's (01-10 makes no sense, the decade starts at '00 and ends at '09)
no, the decade starts 2001...
the first year was not year zero.
you count 1 through 10.
2000 was the last year of the 90s.
that's why it was "2001 a space odyssey."
It was a new millennium.
2000 was the omega, not the alpha.
don't believe me?
read on...
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html
jumperstop
4/5/2011, 03:56 PM
no, the decade starts 2001...
the first year was not year zero.
you count 1 through 10.
2000 was the last year of the 90s.
that's why it was "2001 a space odyssey."
It was a new millennium.
2000 was the omega, not the alpha.
don't believe me?
read on...
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html
That's dumb....2000 was the beginning of the new millennium. Just like 1990 was the beginning of the 90. Whether or not there was a year zero, there was a year 1000 and 2000. There will be year 3000 and so on, seems easier to go with it now instead of going by the one exception 2011 years ago. You wouldn't say 1980 was in the seventies dumb ***...
Bourbon St Sooner
4/5/2011, 04:08 PM
* really has dominated the Sun Belt over the last 10 years.
agoo758
4/5/2011, 05:11 PM
"He lost to Oklahoma the first five seasons at UT, but Mack Brown has a 27-15 record against those same Sooners, plus Texas A&M, Arkansas and Texas Tech."
First of all. The opening statement is inaccurate, if I remember correctly Brown didn't start coaching * in 2000. Second, the remaining sentence...... lol. And guess what? Stoops is 7-5 and against texas and 69-5 against texas....... and tulsa!:rolleyes:
jumperstop
4/5/2011, 06:26 PM
"He lost to Oklahoma the first five seasons at UT, but Mack Brown has a 27-15 record against those same Sooners, plus Texas A&M, Arkansas and Texas Tech."
First of all. The opening statement is inaccurate, if I remember correctly Brown didn't start coaching * in 2000. Second, the remaining sentence...... lol. And guess what? Stoops is 7-5 and against texas and 69-5 against texas....... and tulsa!:rolleyes:
We've played Tulsa 62 times in the last ten years? :confused: ;)
JLEW1818
4/5/2011, 06:32 PM
no, the decade starts 2001...
the first year was not year zero.
you count 1 through 10.
2000 was the last year of the 90s.
that's why it was "2001 a space odyssey."
It was a new millennium.
2000 was the omega, not the alpha.
don't believe me?
read on...
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html
wrong
http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/seasons.html
JLEW1818
4/5/2011, 06:32 PM
That's dumb....2000 was the beginning of the new millennium. Just like 1990 was the beginning of the 90. Whether or not there was a year zero, there was a year 1000 and 2000. There will be year 3000 and so on, seems easier to go with it now instead of going by the one exception 2011 years ago. You wouldn't say 1980 was in the seventies dumb ***...
correct
usmc-sooner
4/5/2011, 06:37 PM
Bleacher Report sux
JLEW1818
4/5/2011, 06:38 PM
it does for the most part. Anybody can make one.
About Constantine (The Author):
I'm 21 years old, and a die-hard Cleveland sports fan
I stopped reading after that.
Bleacher Report is beyond worthless. It boggles my mind that people bother to write articles for it, and even worse, that people go and read them.
Quik Sand
4/5/2011, 07:10 PM
5-7...thats dominance alright. They still have grape at QB....that makes sure they arent contenders right there. If they switch to McCoy, they are pinning their hopes on a guy that appears to be "down."
SoonerPride
4/5/2011, 08:31 PM
wrong
http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/seasons.html
Um, sorry but 2000 was the last year of the 20th century.
Period.
Oklahoma won championships in the 50s, 70s, 80s, and 90s of the 20th century.
SoonerPride
4/5/2011, 08:41 PM
That's dumb....2000 was the beginning of the new millennium. Just like 1990 was the beginning of the 90. Whether or not there was a year zero, there was a year 1000 and 2000. There will be year 3000 and so on, seems easier to go with it now instead of going by the one exception 2011 years ago. You wouldn't say 1980 was in the seventies dumb ***...
Starting counting.
The first year is year one.
If you get hung up figuring it out, you can use your fingers and toes.
And since 1980 was the last year of the Carter administration, I would say it was part of the 70s.
Sorry if the concept of numbers is too challenging for you.
salth2o
4/5/2011, 09:13 PM
Bleacher report seems to like fellating teh Whorns.
I am sorry, I didn't realize this was the dominant team of the 2000s. I must be confused here. They didn't even dominate their own division!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/604791-decade-of-dominance-the-top-10-texas-longhorn-football-players-from-2001-2010
He was trying to teach Vince to count OU conference championships but it doesn't matter - Vince lost him on the thumb
Wayne Jarvis
4/5/2011, 10:32 PM
going 7-2 in all of their bowl games
Yeah, it's pretty easy to go 7-2 in the Holiday Bowl and the Alamo Bowl against another conference's fourth and fifth place team every year.........
Also, I love how they feature Nathan Vasher (2000-2003) as one of their best players, a DB who was around for both Hindenburgerings (63-14 & 65-13).
JLEW1818
4/5/2011, 10:36 PM
Starting counting.
The first year is year one.
If you get hung up figuring it out, you can use your fingers and toes.
And since 1980 was the last year of the Carter administration, I would say it was part of the 70s.
Sorry if the concept of numbers is too challenging for you.
go ahead and email soonersports and tell them they are ****ing dumbasses then?
And every magazine that published the last decade 2000-09... which was every single one. talking teams of the decade.
it terms of decades you start with 2000-2009, 1990-1999
when counting say expiration date? and it says 5 months from Date made, you would count your way.
lol, and like somebody said earlier, if you are born in 1980, according to you, you are born in 70's.
lol get real man.
agoo758
4/5/2011, 10:38 PM
Could you help me read this JLEW?
http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/milk.jpg
;)
Caboose
4/5/2011, 11:01 PM
Hey dipsh!ts, a decade is merely a period of 10 years. It does not have rigid starting or ending conditions. 2000-2009 was a decade, so was 2001-2010. So is 2005-20014. So is April 5, 2011 - April 4 2020. A decade is whatever 10 year period the speaker is referring to. So shut the F up and stop arguing about it.
2000 was the first year of the 2000's by definition, right?
but it would be the last year of the 20th century
JLEW1818
4/5/2011, 11:27 PM
Hey dipsh!ts, a decade is merely a period of 10 years. It does not have rigid starting or ending conditions. 2000-2009 was a decade, so was 2001-2010. So is 2005-20014. So is April 5, 2011 - April 4 2020. A decade is whatever 10 year period the speaker is referring to. So shut the F up and stop arguing about it.
yes, that is correct. a decade does mean 10.
but it also can mean, a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
so, if one were to say "give me the football national champions of the decade of the 2000's"
they would be
2000 - OU
2001 - Miami
2002 - Ohio St
2003 - LSU
2004 - usc
2005 - texas
2006 - florida
2007 - lsu
2008 - florida
2009 - bama
if the idiot above thinks that the 2000 Oklahoma Sooners were a team of the 1990's decade he really is retarded.
picasso
4/5/2011, 11:27 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-07vTc3jFAc/0.jpg
DOM MON NONCE!!!
i'll take Ohio State over Texas
JLEW1818
4/5/2011, 11:36 PM
lol, another
okay... let's talk about the DECADE OF THE 90'S, THE ****ING 90'S!!!
THE NUMBER "90" HAS TO BE IN THE YEAR. holy ****ing ****
1990 = 1 YAHH!!!!!!!!!
1991 = 2 yah!!!!!!!
1992 = 3 yahhooooo!!!
1993 = 4 yhipppieed!!!!!
1994 = 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1995 = 6 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1996 = 7 !!!!!!!
1997 = 8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1998 = 9 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1999 = wait wait wait for it!!! you ready????? 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG 10 YEARS ALL IN THE 90'S !!!!! SAY THIS AINT TRUE!!!!
so yes if you wanted to say the decade from 2001-2010, you very well could call that a decade, and be correct, but it would NOT be the decade of the 2000's (which was 2000-2009).
agoo758
4/6/2011, 12:20 AM
Seriously. This thread needs to be moved to the comments section on the Youtube web page.
lol, another
okay... let's talk about the DECADE OF THE 90'S, THE ****ING 90'S!!!
THE NUMBER "90" HAS TO BE IN THE YEAR. holy ****ing ****
1990 = 1 YAHH!!!!!!!!!
1991 = 2 yah!!!!!!!
1992 = 3 yahhooooo!!!
1993 = 4 yhipppieed!!!!!
1994 = 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1995 = 6 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1996 = 7 !!!!!!!
1997 = 8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1998 = 9 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1999 = wait wait wait for it!!! you ready????? 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG 10 YEARS ALL IN THE 90'S !!!!! SAY THIS AINT TRUE!!!!
so yes if you wanted to say the decade from 2001-2010, you very well could call that a decade, and be correct, but it would NOT be the decade of the 2000's (which was 2000-2009).
You just blew my f'n mind. Jlew; boy genius.
AlbqSooner
4/6/2011, 06:45 AM
Also, I love how they feature Nathan Vasher (2000-2003) as one of their best players, a DB who was around for both Hindenburgerings (63-14 & 65-13).
Vasher was also the one who demonstrated the wisdom of fair catching a punt inside the 5. :D
AlbqSooner
4/6/2011, 06:48 AM
The first decade Anno Domini began with the year 1. The second decade Anno Domini began with the year 11. The third decade Anno Domini began with the year 21.
Continue working at your own pace and get back with me when you get to the year 2001.
Leroy Lizard
4/6/2011, 07:08 AM
The first decade Anno Domini began with the year 1. The second decade Anno Domini began with the year 11. The third decade Anno Domini began with the year 21.
Continue working at your own pace and get back with me when you get to the year 2001.
I'm up to 1101. Man, this is taking all night.
usaosooner
4/6/2011, 12:31 PM
Whats hiliarious is that they eat out of Jesus Shuttlesworth hands on his blog. The dude is a former bleacherreport writer
soonerborn45
4/6/2011, 12:40 PM
I am sorry, I didn't realize this was the dominant team of the 2000s. I must be confused here. They didn't even dominate their own division!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/604791-decade-of-dominance-the-top-10-texas-longhorn-football-players-from-2001-2010
I don't see why everybody gets all worked up over something that is on bleacherreport.
Bourbon St Sooner
4/6/2011, 12:43 PM
About Constantine (The Author):
I stopped reading after that.
She can't write worth a damn so I hope she's :hot:
Mississippi Sooner
4/6/2011, 12:47 PM
She really should stick to bringing Christianity to the Romans.
Leroy Lizard
4/7/2011, 09:42 AM
I'm up to 1801...
JLEW1818
4/7/2011, 09:55 AM
LOL
PDXsooner
4/7/2011, 03:04 PM
Man I loved the 80's! Especially 1990!!
Quik Sand
4/7/2011, 03:07 PM
5-7 / Garrett Gilbert
PDXsooner
4/7/2011, 08:30 PM
no, the decade starts 2001...
the first year was not year zero.
you count 1 through 10.
2000 was the last year of the 90s.
that's why it was "2001 a space odyssey."
It was a new millennium.
2000 was the omega, not the alpha.
don't believe me?
read on...
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html
You can find whatever evidence you think you need, whatever links you can provide...2000 was still in the 2000's, not in the 90's.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.