|
|
Post by spudbeaver on May 21, 2017 10:15:35 GMT -8
Humor, or irony? That is the question. I believe you meant to say This is the question. Not sure. I graduated in engineering! |
|
|
|
Post by babeav on May 21, 2017 11:26:58 GMT -8
dux are still done, believe what you must blowcheese about who's buying what.....helps to have tradition to bring in the funds to build a facility like Goss instead of Knight and Kilkenny opening their check books to build PK Park.
|
|
|
|
Post by goline on May 21, 2017 13:09:21 GMT -8
And another thread brought to a halt by duckish behavior . . . You're right, my apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 21, 2017 14:10:27 GMT -8
dux are done, he'll we swept UCLA last year with 36 wins and couldn't get it done (thanks Meggs). Whoregon is toast proving once again you can't buy your way to Omaha. Oregon State finished fourth last year, but the Beavers were effectively fifth because Arizona State was one spot ahead in RPI and that was very important, I guess. If UCLA wins two games, they are probably locked in as the fourth Pac-12 team. If the Bruins go 1-4 or 0-5, though, all bets are off. Washington would be the logical replacement as the Pac-12's fourth-best team, but the Huskies need to go at least 3-1. Washington will probably have an RPI at least in the 50s. The Huskies should be in a conversation to get an at large bid as Pac-12 #5, even if UCLA gets its two wins, as long as Washington goes at least 3-1. If UCLA goes 1-4, Oregon goes at least 2-1 against UCLA. If the Ducks can win at least three, they would be in a position to get an at large bid. In 2016, Oregon State beat 12-18 UCLA (25-31 overall). UCLA this year will be 16-14 at worst (27-28 overall), so, if the Ducks beat the Bruins, it will appear to be more impressive. Oregon would need to at least get its RPI into the low 70s and probably would need to get its RPI into the high 60s to realistically stand a chance. Oregon State was straight up jobbed last year. Almost everyone identified the Beavers' snub as the most egregious of the teams that did not participate in postseason play. You can look at 2016 and say that Oregon, UCLA, and Washington do not deserve to get a spot, but, in most years, the three would at least be in the conversation. (That presupposes that the three go at least 3-1, 2-3, and 3-1, respectively. If they cannot hit the right number of wins, the three are probably done.) |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 21, 2017 14:37:22 GMT -8
There - In, at, or to that place or position.
Their - Belonging to or associated with.
For the youngsters who read this board. Just applying a little Pat Casey-like attention to detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 21, 2017 15:23:32 GMT -8
There - In, at, or to that place or position. Their - Belonging to or associated with. For the youngsters who read this board. Just applying a little Pat Casey-like attention to detail. PC's attention to detail doesn't include "sweating the small stuff." |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 21, 2017 17:08:39 GMT -8
There - In, at, or to that place or position. Their - Belonging to or associated with. For the youngsters who read this board. Just applying a little Pat Casey-like attention to detail. PC's attention to detail doesn't include "sweating the small stuff." Getting your signals straight = Big stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on May 21, 2017 18:34:57 GMT -8
Yeah, well; when I got my degrees from OSU, we were expected to know the difference between they're, there, and their. Was one of those degrees in assholery? If not you're a natural. Aww, I hurt your feewings. Me sawee. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on May 21, 2017 18:35:50 GMT -8
Yeah, well; when I got my degrees from OSU, we were expected to know the difference between they're, there, and their. Congratulations on you're degrees. I have a degree from OSU to -- in Journalism. Don't you mean -- T-O-O, as in also? Geez, Louise. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 21, 2017 18:56:26 GMT -8
PC's attention to detail doesn't include "sweating the small stuff." Getting your signals straight = Big stuff. Ya... good analogy... signals and a grammar/spelling Nazi! |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 21, 2017 19:06:29 GMT -8
Getting your signals straight = Big stuff. Ya... good analogy... signals and a grammar/spelling Nazi! Busting out the "Nazi" card = admitting defeat. (You like arguing for its own sake, don't you?) |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 21, 2017 19:15:00 GMT -8
Ya... good analogy... signals and a grammar/spelling Nazi! Busting out the "Nazi" card = admitting defeat. (You like arguing for its own sake, don't you?) Ya that's it. |
|
