It's not Tark, you haven't beaten anyone but Al twice in that world.

nice win, how's that national title trophy case looking?

I won't rehash that idiocy again -- you showed your ***, lots of smart people laughed at/mocked you, it was good fun.  And I do have double digits.  GL the rest of the season.

* goes to store and buys a family-size bag of Smartfood popcorn *

im getting fat off all this popcorn im stealing and eating...

*steals popcorn, microwaves it, then eats it*

was there ever any evidence to suggest collusion?

Posted by fd343ny on 7/18/2015 8:14:00 AM (view original):
was there ever any evidence to suggest collusion?

+1

Posted by the0nlyis on 7/18/2015 1:52:00 AM (view original):
im getting fat off all this popcorn im stealing and eating...

*steals popcorn, microwaves it, then eats it*

I bought the Smartfood thinking it didn't need to be microwaved, meaning less chance of you having the time to steal it.

* goes out and buys another bag of Smartfood popcorn *
* pours glass of lemonade *

Posted by colonels19 on 7/17/2015 10:47:00 PM (view original):
And I'm sure the fact that A. ixolabrat no longer coaches at Mississippi in Knight and B. you coach Mississippi in another world are mere coincidences, right?

You can spin what happened however you like johnsensing, however there's no logical reason for me to beat you, other than karma.  You know what you did, and that's good enough for me.

i am totally moved by this new evidence. no way john would coach mississippi in another world if he wasn't colluding with ALL the mississippis in all the other worlds he plays in. i guess this goes much deeper colonels, you've uncovered an entire collusion ring! nobody believed you but you stuck with it, good for you. so who are the other cheating bastards coaching at mississippi?

Posted by fd343ny on 7/18/2015 8:14:00 AM (view original):
was there ever any evidence to suggest collusion?

the level of evidence presented the first time was literally much less than the evidence presented this time. that mississippi thing is a proverbial smoking gun compared to what colonels came up with last time.

edit: ill quickly recap, because i can't stand seeing the name of a coach i respect so much brought into question in such a completely insane manner. heres the story: colonels is coaching new orleans, with a b- prestige (maybe a b), and johnsensing is coaching LSU, with an A+ of course. so early in recruiting, colonels jumps on a local 4 star or something, a BCS quality guy, and is on him alone. meanwhile, he is fighting some 3rd coach for a recruit, and apparently, is winning (the other guy was maybe C prestige mid major or something). 

later in recruiting, john takes the 4 star off colonels. colonels thinks, wow, that guy only has 1 and 2/3rds grades and who knows how much bonus money on me, i should probably take that fight. so he does. it goes without saying that he lost. well then, the C prestige school coach apparently notices that colonels is on a suicide mission battling an A+ BCS. so, he picks up the original battle. colonels loses both. much whining and menstrual bleeding ensues, with colonels concluding that john must be colluding with the C prestige school, because apparently its easier to believe that A+ hall of fame coaches go around colluding with C prestige schools against B- prestige schools, than it is to believe that john was simply taking the player because he was an A+ bcs worthy player and thats what A+ BCS schools do.

thats the entire story. there was no communication between john and the C prestige guy, no past history presented, nothing except the "timing of the events makes it obvious collusion"

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/18/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 7/18/2015 8:14:00 AM (view original):
was there ever any evidence to suggest collusion?

the level of evidence presented the first time was literally much less than the evidence presented this time. that mississippi thing is a proverbial smoking gun compared to what colonels came up with last time.

edit: ill quickly recap, because i can't stand seeing the name of a coach i respect so much brought into question in such a completely insane manner. heres the story: colonels is coaching new orleans, with a b- prestige (maybe a b), and johnsensing is coaching LSU, with an A+ of course. so early in recruiting, colonels jumps on a local 4 star or something, a BCS quality guy, and is on him alone. meanwhile, he is fighting some 3rd coach for a recruit, and apparently, is winning (the other guy was maybe C prestige mid major or something). 

later in recruiting, john takes the 4 star off colonels. colonels thinks, wow, that guy only has 1 and 2/3rds grades and who knows how much bonus money on me, i should probably take that fight. so he does. it goes without saying that he lost. well then, the C prestige school coach apparently notices that colonels is on a suicide mission battling an A+ BCS. so, he picks up the original battle. colonels loses both. much whining and menstrual bleeding ensues, with colonels concluding that john must be colluding with the C prestige school, because apparently its easier to believe that A+ hall of fame coaches go around colluding with C prestige schools against B- prestige schools, than it is to believe that john was simply taking the player because he was an A+ bcs worthy player and thats what A+ BCS schools do.

thats the entire story. there was no communication between john and the C prestige guy, no past history presented, nothing except the "timing of the events makes it obvious collusion"

This was educational and entertaining. +1