Jump to content

Rippers

Members
  • Content Count

    492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

434 Excellent

About Rippers

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

343 profile views
  1. If you wholeheartedly endorse Folsom going to a State Bowl Game after an early season beat down and zero signature wins, then you should have no problem with a 1 loss team holding the extremely early 4th seed in the CFP rankings.
  2. I want Block to admit it. He won't, but we all know.
  3. Oh, and since you have having problems comprehending, it began with the CIF Football Advisory Committee. Who was the head of this committee?
  4. How? Your main support is that the CIF Executive Director was a So Cal guy, the quoted section is "a SoCal guy himself" even though in an earlier post you claimed that none of the words you posted where your own. I do not see the relevance of this as it is not as though he drove the agenda. But, he is quoted as saying "votes by both the football coaches Advisory Committee and the 10 Section Commissioners indicated..." So he puts the Advisory Committee, of which he is not a part of, on the same level as the Section Commissioners, of which he is the spokesperson for. And its not like he veto'ed their vote, so again, his home is irrelevant since he was not pushing the issue. But, since the AC was put on the same level as the commissioners, this indicates that the AC was pushing the idea. And who was in charge of the coaches Advisory Committee?
  5. I can read. But you cannot comprehend what you have posted because your post does not support your argument in any manner.
  6. So someone correct me if I am wrong, but aren't MD, SJB, Cen10, MV, Servite, etc. all in the same sectional playoff? So ultimately, only the champion in most cases would go to a state final? So, an open play in game would affect two champs from different sections in a "win or go home" scenario. Removing said play in game would allow for both teams to have a shot at a state bowl game. So, again, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't this increase the likelihood of those teams matching up the non open game? And in Norcal, the play in game was "win or go home" between two section champs. Removing it allows for one of them going on to the lower bowl game instead of losing and going home. Oh, and look. Folsom is conveniently in a different section than DLS.
  7. No, this is the topic. You claimed that the "SoCal rule" got created so that "certain schools could avoid certain schools", implying Socal avoiding Folsom. But as of 2014, Folsom was only 1-0 versus a meaningless SoCal team. So why would the SoCal CIF even have Folsom on their radar and worry that their top teams would be "forced" to play Folsom? Your logic does not add up. If the powers that be were worried about their top teams playing a dangerous NorCal team, they would focus on the only NorCal team that has done serious damage to SoCal's elite. And that team was definitely not Folsom. If it was not for the 2014 vote, Folsom would have had to play DLS in the NorCal Open Regional game, probably each year since. This was the lose and go home game, of which Folsom was 0-2 with two blow out losses in. Folsom got their first SoCal win before the Regional Open game was created. Without that 2014 vote, how many parades would your lovely city had? So who benefited the most from the vote? Folsom, despite being a very good team, would just have been regulated to the forum fodder board as another "Norcal Baby Seal Slapdick". But, no. Because of the vote, Folsom got to play in the lower level "title" games. Did SoCal's second best team get that opportunity? No, they did not. Did SoCal do this to "save" their second best team? Save them from what? A team that has been crushed by the only elite Norcal team? Seriously, what has Folsom ever done and who have they ever beaten to have the SoCal CIF worry that their elite teams would even risk breaking a sweat versus them? Nothing. But they got to benefit by playing lesser teams that they were able to go 6-0 since then. Does DLS crow about beating La Costa Canyon the way you tout Folsom's "acheivements"? Wanna try to spin some more? We'll wait.
  8. Instead of giving him fodder, why don't we try to hold him accountable to these few things: 1) What was SoCal's record versus Folsom as of April of 2014? It had to be so bad that they were scared to send their second best D1 team to a D2 bowl. Block, what was it? 2) So because of the vote, Socal #2 goes home but Norcal #2 (who gets to avoid #1 because of the vote) gets to play on? And this benefits SoCal how? Block, care to address? 3) Given Folsom's record versus SoCal teams as of April 2014, why would CIF want "certain Socal teams to be able to avoid certain NorCal teams"? In 2014, the only relevant Norcal team was DLS. JSerra and Servite were in the same league as MD and SJB. Block, do you really think that the CIF voted to save 4 teams from the same league, much less same section, from playing in a State Bowl game that three of any of the four teams would not have deserved to play in? Why play league? 4) How about this angle? Socal voted the way they did- actually, screw it, I have no idea how they voted since Block only posted excerpts from the article- so that their best played in the Open and because they did not give a crap about any other bowl results. Welcome to state, not section, playoffs. Folsom and their lard assed moms wanted no part of that equation and pressured the powers that be to allow their little boys to avoid DLS so that they could get their D1AAAA trophies and parade. Block? 5) But lets go back to question #1, since that is the crux of Block's attempt to spin the Folsom rule into the SoCal rule. Simple question, cupcake. Actually, two questions. Please answer. #1) What was Folsom's record against SoCal schools as of April 2014? #2) What was Folsom's record against the teams, that you listed, as of April 2014? For that matter, what was their record versus any Los Angles area team as of April 2014? To quote you.... "we'll wait".
  9. Once again, "they're" means "they are". You still cannot get that right. Also, what was SoCal's record against Folsom before 2014?
  10. Never thought that you would agree that the Folsom moms are a bunch of fat asses.
  11. Well, they do have more than ample weight to pull.
  12. Actually, look how the Seahawks have played under Carroll since 2012. Most of their games are tight and they won those more often than not. And anyway, my OP was me being obnoxious and literal.
  13. Seattle is really a .750 team, you can look it up. They may have been fortunate in the way they got there, but 6-2 is 6-2. And Franky, don't be your usual dumbass self. You were talking about the 49'ers in this thread, not the Patriots. Neither one has really played anyone of consequence, but that was not the context of your original post. You really need a dictionary to go along with your grammar text book.
  14. Actually, that reminds me, since I am pretty sure that is where Montana transferred to. You could argue that Oaks was one of the first attempts at a recruited up super team. I don't remember the year they were founded and I am too lazy to look it up, but they did attempt to become an IMG type of academy.
×
×
  • Create New...