mattinctown wrote: Is Notre Dame the one that says ND on the map????

hahahahahahaha!

Hey NCF, you can certainly feel our pain, I mean the Boys haven't won a playoff game since 1996. That's a long time!

Michigan lost 7 straight from 69-79 which in my mind is a lot worse than ND's 9 in a row. Who knows how many they would have lost if there were double the amount of bowls like there is today.

Ohio State has lost 3 in a row.

A loss to Oregon this year and they could be in a tailspin...and they could be the next ones to take the torch.

Mooney44Cards wrote: Michigan lost 7 straight from 69-79 which in my mind is a lot worse than ND's 9 in a row. Who knows how many they would have lost if there were double the amount of bowls like there is today.

I don't understand that post at all.

First, the obvious. 7 < 9.

Second, almost equally obvious, there are more bowls today. Meaning there were less back then. Meaning the competition wasn't as watered down and reaching a bowl was actually significant.

How is that worse, other than the fact that you are an ND fan?

Mulva wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote: Michigan lost 7 straight from 69-79 which in my mind is a lot worse than ND's 9 in a row. Who knows how many they would have lost if there were double the amount of bowls like there is today.

I don't understand that post at all.

First, the obvious. 7 < 9.

Second, almost equally obvious, there are more bowls today. Meaning there were less back then. Meaning the competition wasn't as watered down and reaching a bowl was actually significant.

How is that worse, other than the fact that you are an ND fan?

Because they didn't go to a bowl when they were mediocre like ND has the past 15 years, so they didn't have an opportunity to lose a game they weren't playing in. Seriously how did you find that hard to understand, other than the fact that you are an OSU fan?

Mooney, you can sugar coat it any way you want. ND had lost 9 bowl games in a row!! Are you seriously suggesting ND lost a few games because they were mediocre? LOL. That answers all of our questions.

What questions did you ask? Everyone knows Notre Dame is bad and has been for some time, just like the Tigers.

what do the Tigers have to do with anything?

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Because they didn't go to a bowl when they were mediocre like ND has the past 15 years, so they didn't have an opportunity to lose a game they weren't playing in.

Right. That 9-1 Michigan team (ranked #7 and 9 depending on poll) in 1970 that didn't play in a bowl because they lost to a top 5 Ohio State team was clearly mediocre and would have lost a bowl game had they played in it.

Same with the 10-1 #6 Michigan team in 1972.

And the 10-0-1 #6 team in 1973.

The 10-1 #3 team in '74.

All mediocre teams who were lucky not to play in a bowl game, which they surely would have lost. Especially if they could have played a middle of the pack Big East or MAC team. Good call.

Not that this point needs any more proving, but 4 of Michigan's 7 bowl losses during that streak were to top 5 teams as well.

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Seriously how did you find that hard to understand, other than the fact that you are an OSU fan?

Good one. Witty and original.

As an Ohio State fan I have 0 incentive to defend anything Michigan does. But that was one of the more ridiculous comments I've seen on here, and that's saying a lot.

september63 wrote: Mooney, you can sugar coat it any way you want. ND had lost 9 bowl games in a row!! Are you seriously suggesting ND lost a few games because they were mediocre? LOL. That answers all of our questions.

Not sugar coating anything. I don't know what there is to sugar coat. Notre Dame lost 9 bowl games in a row. Wow. That has no bearing on anything. Is it suppose to mean that we will continue to lose games? Or are we subject to ridicule? I offered up an opinion that I think Michigan's 7 in a row was worse because they weren't going to the Insight.com Bowl when they were a shitty 6-6 team. I feel thats a fair argument, if you don't then say so but don't say I'm sugar coating anything because I'm actually trying to put the bowl loss streak in historical perspective. You perhaps didn't know Michigan lost 7 bowl games in a row, including 5 Rose Bowls, an Orange Bowl, and a Gator Bowl. Now you know.

Or would you rather me just agree with you and join in on the Notre Dame bash-fest that this site has turned into?

Mulva wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Because they didn't go to a bowl when they were mediocre like ND has the past 15 years, so they didn't have an opportunity to lose a game they weren't playing in.

Right. That 9-1 Michigan team (ranked #7 and 9 depending on poll) in 1970 that didn't play in a bowl because they lost to a top 5 Ohio State team was clearly mediocre and would have lost a bowl game had they played in it.

Same with the 10-1 #6 Michigan team in 1972.

And the 10-0-1 #6 team in 1973.

The 10-1 #3 team in '74.

All mediocre teams who were lucky not to play in a bowl game, which they surely would have lost. Especially if they could have played a middle of the pack Big East or MAC team. Good call.

Not that this point needs any more proving, but 4 of Michigan's 7 bowl losses during that streak were to top 5 teams as well.

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Seriously how did you find that hard to understand, other than the fact that you are an OSU fan?

Good one. Witty and original.

As an Ohio State fan I have 0 incentive to defend anything Michigan does. But that was one of the more ridiculous comments I've seen on here, and that's saying a lot.

You're almost proving my point. The fact that they had records that pretty much guaranteed they would be in a bowl game nowadays (a BCS bowl game more than likely) just means they for sure would have had more opportunities to lose and extend the streak. Sure they could have won and cut the streak short before 7, but you never know. Can you get this through your head? IF THEY PLAYED IN MORE BOWL GAMES THEY WOULD HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO LOSE AND EXTEND THE STREAK. I put it in bigger letters so that maybe you would understand. This is like arguing with a moron who shouts your own arguments back at you louder and doesn't understand why you're laughing at him.

NOPE!!! What happened is ND typically was selected to a bowl game that they didnt deserve. The hype has always been there with ND!! If you wanna accept the hype, the NBC contract, all of the other..............Accept the fact that you have been in Bowl games that you didnt belong, and you got your asses kicked for it, 9 times in a row!!

James Traficant is your hero, or at minimum selection as your pic? Umm, He is a convicted felon!! You further the idea of Y'town being nothing but corruption. Take that however you wish.

Traficant is an OG.

Still think this wasn't a thread to bash, SQ?

From

Mooney44Cards wrote: Because they didn't go to a bowl when they were mediocre like ND has the past 15 years

To

Mooney44Cards wrote: The fact that they had records that pretty much guaranteed they would be in a bowl game nowadays (a BCS bowl game more than likely) just means they for sure would have had more opportunities to lose and extend the streak.

Interesting.

Mooney44Cards wrote: This is like arguing with a moron who shouts your own arguments back at you louder and doesn't understand why you're laughing at him.

Sure. It's either like that, or it's like changing your argument completely when I make the previous one look foolish with stats. You say Michigan didn't lose more than 9 straight because their mediocre teams didn't play in bowl games. I show that they were ranked in the top 10 every year they didn't play a bowl, making them far from mediocre, you pretend like that was your argument all along.

But I'll play along. Let me just clarify... your argument has now become that Michigan losing 7 mostly-BCS caliber games in a row is worse than Notre Dame losing 9 bowl games of varying caliber in a row because, had they played more, which they didn't, they MIGHT have lost more than 9 straight?

Brilliant.

I like this thread. ND fans get so offensive.

Mulva 1
Mooney 0

september63 wrote: Seriouslly, James Traficant? and you dont want ppl to think Mooney has some type of illegal edge? LOL Mr. Traficant stands for illlegall!!

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Mulva wrote: From

Mooney44Cards wrote: Because they didn't go to a bowl when they were mediocre like ND has the past 15 years

To

Mooney44Cards wrote: The fact that they had records that pretty much guaranteed they would be in a bowl game nowadays (a BCS bowl game more than likely) just means they for sure would have had more opportunities to lose and extend the streak.

Interesting.

Mooney44Cards wrote: This is like arguing with a moron who shouts your own arguments back at you louder and doesn't understand why you're laughing at him.

Sure. It's either like that, or it's like changing your argument completely when I make the previous one look foolish with stats. You say Michigan didn't lose more than 9 straight because their mediocre teams didn't play in bowl games. I show that they were ranked in the top 10 every year they didn't play a bowl, making them far from mediocre, you pretend like that was your argument all along.

But I'll play along. Let me just clarify... your argument has now become that Michigan losing 7 mostly-BCS caliber games in a row is worse than Notre Dame losing 9 bowl games of varying caliber in a row because, had they played more, which they didn't, they MIGHT have lost more than 9 straight?

Brilliant.

Well, I was foolish enough to think that they had to be mediocre to NOT play in a bowl. Turns out I was wrong, very good Michigan teams did not play in bowls, but it doesn't change my point at all. My point was that nowadays ND goes to bowls pretty much every year (even when they are mediocre) and therefore has more opportunities to lose. Back then teams like Michigan only went to bowl games with their best teams, usually Big 10 Championship teams, and they still lost 7 in a row. So years like 70, and 72, and 73, and 74 where they lost to (or tied) the only quality team they played all year (OSU), what makes you think they would have won a bowl game? Yes they very well could have and I have said that. But I have a right to an opinion that I think their 7 losses when they were supposedly the best of the best is worse. Notre Dame's 9 losses while they were in a slump doesn't mean a lot to me.

So you can either come back with some smartass remark and we can argue semantics allll day long cuz you want to prove that what I said is somehow wrong (not sure how opinions can be wrong) and you can get internet cookies all day long from your OSU buddies and fellow ND bashers (oh look, that guy gave you a point, and I don't have one I'm SO SAD)

Or you can accept my opinion as just that, an opinion.

I gave him a "point" because your "argument" (or should I say opinion?) was terrible. The point you fail to realize (among many others) is that when a mediocre team makes a bowl game, they generally play other mediocre teams. Therefore, they are evenly matched. Further, your "point" (lol) that 'nowadays ND goes to bowls pretty much every year (even when they are mediocre) and therefore has more opportunities to lose' - also gives them more opportunities to win, and in turn, break the streak. Such as the 2004 bowl game where a 6-5 ND was paired up with a 6-5 Oregon State. Oh poor ND, how unfair that their mediocre team was forced into a bowl game to extend their streak!!

That Michigan team didn't have the Hawaii Bowl against a 6-6 mid major to stop their streak.

If dwccrew or someone like that started this thread....I'd say it was an honest question and no attempt to bash. Seeing as who started it.....I think the intention is pretty clear.

Let's say an ND poster who trolls started a thread about OSU's losing streak to the SEC. Would you guys buy that it was just a question with no underlying intention to bash? Come on.

Also, what's the point of saying to people what does Dover or Detroit have to do with the thread after Steubenville and geography were heavily discussed on this thread as well?

Boats N' Hoes, I gotta have me my boats and hoes
The Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria
I'll do you on the Bottom While you drink a Sangria

Nachos, Lemonheads, my dad's boat
You wont go down cuz my dick can float

We sail around the world and go port to port
Everytime I *** I produce a quart
Come on everybody, lets drop anchor
(Oh) that's a nice lady, I'd like to spank her

(Boats N' Hoes
Boats and Hoes, I gotta have me my boats and hoes!

Deadliest catch, without the crabs
We're almost out of gas,
Call the Arabs!
I'm a pussy pervert my name is jack sparrow
I'll take off my pants so she can see my flesh arrow

Mooney44Cards wrote:Well, I was foolish enough to think that they had to be mediocre to NOT play in a bowl. Turns out I was wrong, very good Michigan teams did not play in bowls, but it doesn't change my point at all. My point was that nowadays ND goes to bowls pretty much every year (even when they are mediocre) and therefore has more opportunities to lose. Back then teams like Michigan only went to bowl games with their best teams, usually Big 10 Championship teams, and they still lost 7 in a row. So years like 70, and 72, and 73, and 74 where they lost to (or tied) the only quality team they played all year (OSU), what makes you think they would have won a bowl game? Yes they very well could have and I have said that. But I have a right to an opinion that I think their 7 losses when they were supposedly the best of the best is worse. Notre Dame's 9 losses while they were in a slump doesn't mean a lot to me.

Fair enough. The bold is actually a decent point. I still totally disagree with the logic behind your opinion of 7 being worse than 9, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree

So you can either come back with some smartass remark and we can argue semantics allll day long cuz you want to prove that what I said is somehow wrong (not sure how opinions can be wrong)

Opinions are pretty useless then. If they can't be wrong it stands to reason that they can't be right either. And for the record when I first addressed your post I didn't say it was wrong. I said I didn't understand it and asked for your possible reasoning for thinking it.

and you can get internet cookies all day long from your OSU buddies and fellow ND bashers (oh look, that guy gave you a point, and I don't have one I'm SO SAD)

Just as sad as I was when you said it was like arguing with a moron who shouts your arguments back at you. And I didn't post anything in this topic to bash ND. If anything I un-bashed Michigan.

Or you can accept my opinion as just that, an opinion.

I already did. I just didn't agree with it.

Cleveland Buck wrote: That Michigan team didn't have the Hawaii Bowl against a 6-6 mid major to stop their streak.

/end thread