PDA

View Full Version : THEE NYG SWAG THREAD



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 10:50 AM
Oh I'm totally on MMB's side in this argument..

you most certainly can not be the "champs" of any given year without the season being over and you having won and it being the off-season, you can be defending champs, but as soon as the next year starts you lose the "champs" title....that's common sense.

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 10:55 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</P>


WRONG!!!</P>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</P>


You are not right my friend.</P>


even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science
</P>


I'm not sure if you were in the discussion last year, but it all started when the Celtics got beat in the playoffs last year, and I said that at least I had a few more weeks where the Celtics were still the champions. I never mentioned anything about "defending champs" or "last years champs".</P>


Thats when Matt and his pathetic associates started claiming that the "championship is vacated when a team is eliminated the next year". I asked for that rule that mentions "vacated championships", but they fell short.</P>


All hell broke lose after that.</P>

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 10:56 AM
Oh I'm totally on MMB's side in this argument..

you most certainly can not be the "champs" of any given year without the season being over and you having won and it being the off-season, you can be defending champs, but as soon as the next year starts you lose the "champs" title....that's common sense.
</P>


Scrappy is back.</P>


Bless you my child. As long as you and Matt think the same way, I'm good.</P>

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 10:59 AM
You guys have to admit, the "Dynasty" debate and the "Current Champion" debate are both Morehead classics.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:03 AM
You guys have to admit, the "Dynasty" debate and the "Current Champion" debate are both Morehead classics.your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:03 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</p>


WRONG!!!</p>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</p>


You are not right my friend.</p>even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science


how cna u be champion of a year where no champion has been crowned

its not rocket science

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:04 AM
Oh I'm totally on MMB's side in this argument..

you most certainly can not be the "champs" of any given year without the season being over and you having won and it being the off-season, you can be defending champs, but as soon as the next year starts you lose the "champs" title....that's common sense.


goddamn it, no!

Ur on mooreheads side

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:05 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</P>


WRONG!!!</P>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</P>


You are not right my friend.</P>


even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science


how cna u be champion of a year where no champion has been crowned

its not rocket science
</P>


Who says you can?</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:05 AM
You guys have to admit, the "Dynasty" debate and the "Current Champion" debate are both Morehead classics.
The Dynasty debate was all you

The Current Champion started between me and Matt on Aim and was brought here...

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:07 AM
Just stop, no point to start again.

Doc Rivers knows it, Kobe knows it ( per my sig ) and anyone else with common sense knows it.

You are the champ until someone else wins the championship PERIOD

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:08 AM
You guys have to admit, the "Dynasty" debate and the "Current Champion" debate are both Morehead classics.
The Dynasty debate was all you

The Current Champion started between me and Matt on Aim and was brought here...
</P>


<FONT color=#136895>Basketball</FONT> (http://answers.bettor.com/Basketball-c386)</P>
<DIV>Ask a Question (http://answers.bettor.com/AskQuestion.aspx)</DIV>
<DIV id=contents-left>
<DIV style="WIDTH: 658px">
<DIV class=qstndetails>
<DIV style="HEIGHT: auto" class=userlist>
<DIV class=image>http://answers.bettor.com/images/default-expert.gif<FONT color=#1183c9> </FONT> (http://answers.bettor.com/Guides/Philip-u12)<A style="CURSOR: pointer" class=reportbtn title="Report Abuse" onclick="FlagTopic();return false;"><SPAN><FONT color=#666666>Report</FONT></SPAN> </A></DIV>
<DIV style="LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; PADDING-LEFT: 65px; WIDTH: 550px; PADDING-TOP: 10px">
<H1>Who are the current NBA champions ?</H1>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 11px">by <FONT color=#1183c9>Sports Guy </FONT> (http://answers.bettor.com/Guides/Philip-u12)|4 months, 2 day(s) ago|Views: 28|Answers / Discussions: 0 </DIV>
<DIV style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 5px">The LA Lakers are the current NBA champions after beating the Orlando Magic in five games last year. Kobe Bryant was named the Finals MVP </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>


</P>


You are misremembering that Lando. But thats OK.</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:11 AM
Oh I'm totally on MMB's side in this argument..



goddamn it, no!

Ur on mooreheads side

LMAO

You were on our side before Daven. Come back to the light.

When you and Morehead agree on something it is always right.

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:12 AM
Do you care to explain this bigblue4417 lol
You don't think Brian Shaw is attractive?


Brian Shaw

(Music tune) I wear my sunglasses at night…


http://i46.tinypic.com/w2isd0.jpg

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 11:13 AM
hello to my favorite gents!!!

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:13 AM
You guys have to admit,* the "Dynasty" debate and the "Current Champion" debate are both Morehead classics.

Do you really want me to put my opinion on that?

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:13 AM
You are misremembering that Lando. But thats OK.
Promise I'm not sir. Matt even made a thread before we talked about it in here.

We debated on aim for about 45 minutes before it went public.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:15 AM
Do you care to explain this bigblue4417 lol
You don't think Brian Shaw is attractive?


Brian Shaw

(Music tune) I wear my sunglasses at night…
LMAO, I ****ed that up.

I meant Brian Cook. That is who is in the picture. lol

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:15 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</p>


WRONG!!!</p>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</p>


You are not right my friend.</p>


even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science


how cna u be champion of a year where no champion has been crowned

its not rocket science
</p>


Who says you can?</p>

all of u gentlemen.. except

::gag::

daven

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:16 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:17 AM
Just stop, no point to start again.

Doc Rivers knows it, Kobe knows it ( per my sig ) and anyone else with common sense knows it.

You are the champ until someone else wins the championship PERIOD




defending champion

aka defending last years championship...

Lakers are not the champions of the 2010 season.. unless they win it

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:18 AM
You are misremembering that Lando. But thats OK.
Promise I'm not sir. Matt even made a thread before we talked about it in here.

We debated on aim for about 45 minutes before it went public.


yea the mormon is right

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:20 AM
Oh I'm totally on MMB's side in this argument..



goddamn it, no!

Ur on mooreheads side

LMAO

You were on our side before Daven. Come back to the light.

When you and Morehead agree on something it is always right.
yea if i remember correctly daven WAS on our side. hahaha
cant believe its been a year......

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:21 AM
Do you care to explain this bigblue4417 lol
You don't think Brian Shaw is attractive?


Brian Shaw

(Music tune) I wear my sunglasses at night…
LMAO, I ****ed that up.

I meant Brian Cook. That is who is in the picture. lol


Is he even on the team?

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:22 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

byron
05-25-2010, 11:23 AM
I have no problem calling the Lakers the 2009 NBA Champs... but this years seasonalchamp has yet to be decided so we currently have no champ for the 2010 season....it is true this is not rocket science...that being said</P>


</P>


GO LAKERS!!!!!.....WHOOA!!!</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:26 AM
Just stop, no point to start again.

Doc Rivers knows it, Kobe knows it ( per my sig ) and anyone else with common sense knows it.

You are the champ until someone else wins the championship PERIOD




defending champion

aka defending last years championship...

Lakers are not the champions of the 2010 season.. unless they win it

They are the Champs until someone else wins

Stop putting a title on it.

If another Basketball game was never played again and in 10 years if someone asked you who was the last champion in the NBA would you say no one since one was not crowned this year? lol

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:27 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

Yeah exactly right and 3 Superbowls in 4 years is not a dynasty either.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:27 AM
Do you care to explain this bigblue4417 lol
You don't think Brian Shaw is attractive?


Brian Shaw

(Music tune) I wear my sunglasses at night…
LMAO, I ****ed that up.

I meant Brian Cook. That is who is in the picture. lol


Is he even on the team?
Not for over 4 years, that pic is waaaaay old.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:30 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</p>


WRONG!!!</p>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</p>


You are not right my friend.</p>even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science


how cna u be champion of a year where no champion has been crowned

its not rocket science
good point but its just a title. i know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:31 AM
Do you care to explain this bigblue4417 lol
You don't think Brian Shaw is attractive?


Brian Shaw

(Music tune) I wear my sunglasses at night…
LMAO, I ****ed that up.

I meant Brian Cook. That is who is in the picture. lol


Is he even on the team?
Not for over 4 years, that pic is waaaaay old.


If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:32 AM
<font size="6" color="#800080">GO LAKERS!!!!!.....WHOOA!!!</font>
http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/sportblog/wp-content/uploads/ali.jpg

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:33 AM
I have no problem calling the Lakers the 2009 NBA Champs... but this years seasonalchamp has yet to be decided so we currently have no champ for the 2010 season....it is true this is not rocket science...that being said</p>


</p>


GO SUNS!!!!.....WHOOA!!!</p>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:33 AM
If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?
Depends if you are willing to suffer an equivalent punishment my good man?

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:34 AM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage"><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855">In
Reese We Trust</a> From Paul Dottino (WFAN) re - barden...spending extra
time practicing with Giants Steve Smith and showing much stronger commitment
than rookie season</h6><form class="commentable_item collapsed_comments
autoexpand_mode" method="post" action="/ajax/ufi/modify.php" ajaxify="1"><input name="charset_test" value="€,´,€,´,?,?,?" type="hidden"><input autocomplete="off" name="post_form_id" value="e1d2338d8e11d75e3384565a9367fa0d" type="hidden"><input name="fb_dtsg" value="l9_RB" autocomplete="off" type="hidden"><input autocomplete="off" name="feedback_params" value="{&quot;actor&quot;:&quot;204765974855&quot;,&quot;target_fbid&quot;:&quot;11985332471 9641&quot;,&quot;target_profile_id&quot;:&quot;204765974855&quot;,&quot;type_id&quot; :&quot;22&quot;,&quot;source&quot;:&quot;1&quot;,&quot;assoc_obj_id&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;source_app_i d&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;extra_story_params&quot;:[],&quot;check_hash&quot;:&quot;cd9b18de1bc8ce01&quot;}" type="hidden"><span class="uiStreamSource"><abbr class="timestamp" title="Tue, 25 May 2010 07:29:10 -0700"></abbr> (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855?v=wall&amp;story_fbid=119853324719641)</span><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855">In
Reese We Trust</a> From Paul Dottino (WFAN) re - osi...been told he
continues to be among hardest workers in the Giants off-season
program and is determined to have big year.</form>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:34 AM
Just stop, no point to start again.

Doc Rivers knows it, Kobe knows it ( per my sig ) and anyone else with common sense knows it.

You are the champ until someone else wins the championship PERIOD




defending champion

aka defending last years championship...

Lakers are not the champions of the 2010 season.. unless they win it

They are the Champs until someone else wins

Stop putting a title on it.

If another Basketball game was never played again and in 10 years if someone asked you who was the last champion in the NBA would you say no one since one was not crowned this year? lol


thats kind of ironic... your telliung me to not put a title on it, when i'm saying NOBDY has the title of being the champs right now, becuase nobody has won the chanmpionship this year...

if anybody should be telling anybody not to put labels, it should be me to you

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:35 AM
http://i46.tinypic.com/11vqfjn.jpg

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:35 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

Yeah exactly right and 3 Superbowls in 4 years is not a dynasty either.


i'd say thats a dynasty

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:36 AM
If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?
Depends if you are willing to suffer an equivalent punishment my good man?


Sounds interesting

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:37 AM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage"><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855">In
Reese We Trust</a> From Paul Dottino (WFAN) re - barden...spending extra
time practicing with Giants Steve Smith and showing much stronger commitment
than rookie season</h6><form class="commentable_item collapsed_comments
autoexpand_mode" method="post" action="/ajax/ufi/modify.php" ajaxify="1"><input name="charset_test" value="€,´,€,´,?,?,?" type="hidden"><input autocomplete="off" name="post_form_id" value="e1d2338d8e11d75e3384565a9367fa0d" type="hidden"><input name="fb_dtsg" value="l9_RB" autocomplete="off" type="hidden"><input autocomplete="off" name="feedback_params" value="{"actor":"204765974855","target_fbid":"119853324719641","target_profile_id":"204765974855","type_id":"22","source":"1","assoc_obj_id":"","source_app_id":"","extra_story_params":[],"check_hash":"cd9b18de1bc8ce01"}" type="hidden"><span class="uiStreamSource"><abbr class="timestamp" title="Tue, 25 May 2010 07:29:10 -0700"></abbr> (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855?v=wall&story_fbid=119853324719641)</span><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855">In
Reese We Trust</a> From Paul Dottino (WFAN) re - osi...been told he
continues to be among hardest workers in the Giants off-season
program and is determined to have big year.</form>

all good to hear

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:37 AM
You are misremembering that Lando. But thats OK.
Promise I'm not sir. Matt even made a thread before we talked about it in here.

We debated on aim for about 45 minutes before it went public.
</P>


I have no idea what you two sexted about. But I started taking crap from everyone when I claimed that I still had a few weeks to ejoy the Celtics being champs after they got beat by the Magic last year.</P>


I remember you two talking about your exchanges during the debate last year. I have no idea whether it was the chicken or the egg. All I can tell you is that I had no idea about your exchanges when I made my comment.</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:40 AM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:40 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</P>


WRONG!!!</P>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</P>


You are not right my friend.</P>


even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science


how cna u be champion of a year where no champion has been crowned

its not rocket science
good point but its just a title. i know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.
</P>


Exactly. There is nothing official, but a team is champions until another team is champions.</P>


There is no such thing as a "vacated championship".</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:42 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:42 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

Yeah exactly right and 3 Superbowls in 4 years is not a dynasty either.


i'd say thats a dynasty
yea me too. borderline anyway

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:44 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

Yeah exactly right and 3 Superbowls in 4 years is not a dynasty either.


i'd say thats a dynasty

So would I, but a certain man with a french tickler doesn't.

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:44 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

Yeah exactly right and 3 Superbowls in 4 years is not a dynasty either.


i'd say thats a dynasty
yea me too. borderline anyway
</P>


Not even close. It the new, lower standards of modern America.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:47 AM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:47 AM
If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?
Depends if you are willing to suffer an equivalent punishment my good man?


Sounds interesting
Sig bets were the thing back in the day. Little BLT would always get murdered with that.

It is pretty ****ty to have to look at something you hate for so long. They are painful if you lose.

We all learned to be careful with that. lol

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:48 AM
your dynasty debate is literally a joke though. haha

SERIOUSLY

Anyone who thinks 6 rings in 8 years is not a dynasty [8-)]
and 2 ws in 4 years is a dynasty?

"not now, not neva"

Yeah exactly right and 3 Superbowls in 4 years is not a dynasty either.


i'd say thats a dynasty

So would I, but a certain man with a french tickler doesn't.
</P>


http://trishatruly.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/sexy_french_maid_costumes.jpg</P>


<FONT size=6>Morehead says NO!!!!</FONT></P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:48 AM
Lakers are DEFENDING champions, not the champions

If the Lakers lose to the Suns they are the Champs until the Suns or Celtics win.

True or False?

You will say False - There is no champ for this year anymore

That is wrong...IMO - there is no way to prove either side but 99% of America feel that way.

It is just the unsaid way it is.

I guarantee you said the Giants were the champs until the Superbowl was over the next year, funny thing is the announcers did to.


its relaly not up for debate thought... its kind of factual..

The Lakers cannot be champions of this season, because they have not won it all this season. They are last years champions and are "defending" champions now. They may have the most recent title, but that does not make them the champions of this year
</p>


WRONG!!!</p>


Its not "defending champions". Its not "last years champions". They are just the "champs". Or "current champs".</p>


You are not right my friend.</p>


even though matts wrong, you can still say defending champs imo. cause thats what the lakers are doing. if your defending champion...................your still the champion, right? lol
this isnt rocket science


how cna u be champion of a year where no champion has been crowned

its not rocket science
good point but its just a title. i know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.
</p>


Exactly. There is nothing official, but a team is champions until another team is champions.</p>


There is no such thing as a "vacated championship".</p>

whose the 2010 champ?

what year are we in?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 11:50 AM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:50 AM
north and south korea are heating up....

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:51 AM
If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?
Depends if you are willing to suffer an equivalent punishment my good man?


Sounds interesting
Sig bets were the thing back in the day. Little BLT would always get murdered with that.

It is pretty ****ty to have to look at something you hate for so long. They are painful if you lose.

We all learned to be careful with that. lol


What could be a fun bet then?

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:52 AM
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs
So just to clarify, someone from another country asks you "Who is the NBA Champion?"

Your answer will be "Nobody"???

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:54 AM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>
No remember, he said when the first practice starts or I mean preseason or I mean the first game.

What was it again Matt?

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 11:54 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 11:54 AM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>

Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:55 AM
Now Matt is going into shut down mode

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 11:56 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....


sitting on last years thrown maybe, they brought in a new thrown, and put it in it's rightful place, now you may be sitting on last years thrown looking at this years thrown, but currently noone is sitting there.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 11:57 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 11:58 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.

ny06
05-25-2010, 11:59 AM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


that sounds about right

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:01 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>

no because what if the lakers didn't make the playoffs this year, they wouldn't even be defneding champs anymore...

ur labaled champions of that season and the whole offseason. Once the new season starts you are no longer champs of the NBA. Thats yet to be decided

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:01 PM
If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?
Depends if you are willing to suffer an equivalent punishment my good man?


Sounds interesting
Sig bets were the thing back in the day. Little BLT would always get murdered with that.

It is pretty ****ty to have to look at something you hate for so long. They are painful if you lose.

We all learned to be careful with that. lol


What could be a fun bet then?
Any pic you want vs any pic I want [6]

Let me get to the Finals first...

ny06
05-25-2010, 12:02 PM
If the Lakers lose to the suns or Finals, u willing to put that pic on your avatar for a week?
Depends if you are willing to suffer an equivalent punishment my good man?


Sounds interesting
Sig bets were the thing back in the day. Little BLT would always get murdered with that.

It is pretty ****ty to have to look at something you hate for so long. They are painful if you lose.

We all learned to be careful with that. lol


What could be a fun bet then?
Any pic you want vs any pic I want [6]

Let me get to the Finals first...


ok

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:04 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.

Exactly, thanks for proving our point. You are sitting on the champs thrown until someone takes the seat.

ny06
05-25-2010, 12:05 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:05 PM
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs
So just to clarify, someone from another country asks you "Who is the NBA Champion?"

Your answer will be "Nobody"???


'd tell them we'll find out in a few weeks, the season isn't over yet

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:06 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....


no last year was last year, we can defend the title we won LAST YEAR, but that doens't make you the champion of this year.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:07 PM
So I guess if the NBA and MLB stopped right now the Yanks and Lakers would not be champs?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:08 PM
Now Matt is going into shut down mode


excuse u?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:08 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


that sounds about right

yea on the 2009 thrown...

sorry there is nobody on the 2010 thrown

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:09 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?
http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/toilet.jpg

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:11 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.

Exactly, thanks for proving our point. You are sitting on the champs thrown until someone takes the seat.


thats totally not ur point...

daven is basically saying once ur a champ ur always gonna be a champ and nobdy can take it away from u

still doens't mean ur the champ of the 2010 year.. thats undecided until the finals are played that year.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:11 PM
that doens't make you the champion of this year.

No one said it made you the 2010 champ, but you are still the champs. ( why don't you understand that )

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:12 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?

a dildo

ny06
05-25-2010, 12:12 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?
http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/toilet.jpg


http://i45.tinypic.com/2la7h3b.jpg

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 12:13 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.

Exactly, thanks for proving our point. You are sitting on the champs thrown until someone takes the seat.


thats totally not ur point...

daven is basically saying once ur a champ ur always gonna be a champ and nobdy can take it away from u

still doens't mean ur the champ of the 2010 year.. thats undecided until the finals are played that year.


Yeah, that and the fact that your thrown from last year is no longer at the end of the red carpet means your really just sitting on a very expensive seat, the "actual" thrown is currently unoccupied.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:13 PM
So I guess if the NBA and MLB stopped right now the Yanks and Lakers would not be champs?


go look back at 1994 when the MLB wen tyon strike and there was no champion.. it didn't just name the 1993 team as champion... so yes...

and history proves that... thanks for furthering help my point

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 12:13 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?
http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/toilet.jpg
well....they are from flushing. muhahahahahahahahaha

ny06
05-25-2010, 12:14 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


that sounds about right

yea on the 2009 thrown...

sorry there is nobody on the 2010 thrown


That is correct, the Yankees are the defending champions.

But it is a new season so it is up for grabs

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:14 PM
Now Matt is going into shut down mode


excuse u?

Did I st st st st studder?

ny06
05-25-2010, 12:14 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?
http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/toilet.jpg
well....they are from flushing. muhahahahahahahahaha


LOL

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:17 PM
Now look what you guys did. You made Morhead go home.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:18 PM
that doens't make you the champion of this year.

No one said it made you the 2010 champ, but you are still the champs. ( why don't you understand that )




because there is only one true champion of the season and its not decided til the end of the year

how bout u stop using labels

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:18 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</P>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</P>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</P>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:20 PM
Just like the Yanks are "the champs" until Boston wins it all this year.


yanks are last years champs..

they haven't wonit yet this year
but were still sitting on the thrown until someone else wins....

According to 99.9% of Yankees fans, YES


you are still sitting on A thrown, just not THEE thrown.


What are the Mets sitting on?
http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/toilet.jpg
well....they are from flushing. muhahahahahahahahaha


lol that was good

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Now Matt is going into shut down mode


excuse u?

Did I st st st st studder?




the only shut down mode i go into is shuttin down ur talking points

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:24 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>

the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 12:24 PM
Now Matt is going into shut down mode


excuse u?

Did I st st st st studder?




the only shut down mode i go into is shuttin down ur talking points

You should shut down your computer. lol

But then I would miss you

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 12:24 PM
sorry works been crazy- have i missed anythign exciting?!

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:27 PM
Now Matt is going into shut down mode


excuse u?

Did I st st st st studder?




the only shut down mode i go into is shuttin down ur talking points

You should shut down your computer. lol

But then I would miss you


how could i turn off, when u turn me on so

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:29 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</P>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</P>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</P>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</P>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</P>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</P>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</P>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</P>


</P>


I'm waiting.</P>


</P>


</P>


</P>


</P>


Still waiting.</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 12:29 PM
sorry works been crazy- have i missed anythign exciting?!yea its a pretty active day today. by the way i saw someone post a giff thread and they had the nicks td against the eagles but they only had the catch and him running into the endzone. they cut the part were he breaks two tackles so it was gay.

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:32 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</P>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</P>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</P>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</P>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</P>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</P>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</P>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</P>


</P>


I'm waiting.</P>


</P>


</P>


</P>


</P>


Still waiting.</P>


</P>


Still waiting Matt.</P>

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 12:33 PM
As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs</p>


</p>

It occurs at the moment of the tip off of the first regular season game of the next season, that's when the chase for that years champion begins and when last years champion becomes defending champion.
</p>

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 12:34 PM
your going down this week ****er.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 12:35 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>

the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
i understand where your coming from and i think the same way pretty much, but listen to what your saying. "your becoming defending CHAMPIONS the season after u win the championship"

in boxing they say"now entering the ring, the defeending welterwieght chaaampion of the woooorld"

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:35 PM
As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs</P>



</P>


It occurs at the moment of the tip off of the first regular season game of the next season, that's when the chase for that years champion begins and when last years champion becomes defending champion.
</P>


</P>


Oh is that when it occurs?</P>


Maybe you can show me some evidence that the league agrees.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:36 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</p>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</p>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</p>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</p>


</p>


I'm waiting.</p>



</p>


</p>


Still waiting.</p>

Again, the answer is within your own statement. When they gave the Lakers the trophy last year, it was for the 2009 season, not the 2010 season

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 12:38 PM
sorry works been crazy- have i missed anythign exciting?!yea its a pretty active day today. by the way i saw someone post a giff thread and they had the nicks td against the eagles but they only had the catch and him running into the endzone. they cut the part were he breaks two tackles so it was gay.

i know i gotta work onmy gifs. i need to get dezzz and frozen ones made but they take so long cause i dunno what im doing LOL

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 12:39 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year* (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven.* Thanks for the explaination.* Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>




the answer is within ur own statement.* That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</p>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</p>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later.* Those are official acts by the league.</p>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</p>


*</p>


I'm waiting.</p>



</p>


*</p>


Still waiting.</p>

Again, the answer is within your own statement. When they gave the Lakers the trophy last year, it was for the 2009 season, not the 2010 season

havent we had this debate 17 times already?!

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:40 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</p>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</p>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</p>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</p>


</p>


I'm waiting.</p>


</p>


</p>


</p>


</p>


Still waiting.</p>


</p>


Still waiting Matt.</p>

i wouldn't of had time to piss between ur original post and that post..

relax old man

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:41 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</P>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</P>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</P>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</P>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</P>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</P>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</P>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</P>


</P>


I'm waiting.</P>



</P>


</P>


Still waiting.</P>




Again, the answer is within your own statement. When they gave the Lakers the trophy last year, it was for the 2009 season, not the 2010 season
</P>


So by your logic, the NHL takes back the Stanley Cup when the next season starts.</P>


But thats not what happens. The champions keep the Stanley Cup until its time to award the Cup to the next champion.</P>


They also don't take the Cup away from a Champion when they are eliminated from contention the next season.</P>


I see the NBA's official act of awarding the Championship trophy. I then see the NBA's official act of awarding the Trophy the next year. Show me any official act other than that by the league that declares that a team is no longer champs.</P>


I want to learn from you, Matt.</P>


Teach me.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:42 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>

the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
i understand where your coming from and i think the same way pretty much, but listen to what your saying. "your becoming defending CHAMPIONS the season after u win the championship"

in boxing they say"now entering the ring, the defeending welterwieght chaaampion of the woooorld"


u can't compare boxing to a sport like basketball because theres no season

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:42 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</P>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</P>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</P>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</P>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</P>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</P>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</P>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</P>


</P>


I'm waiting.</P>



</P>


</P>


Still waiting.</P>




Again, the answer is within your own statement. When they gave the Lakers the trophy last year, it was for the 2009 season, not the 2010 season
havent we had this debate 17 times already?!</P>


And i win it every time.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 12:46 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</p>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</p>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</p>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</p>


</p>


I'm waiting.</p>



</p>


</p>


Still waiting.</p>




Again, the answer is within your own statement. When they gave the Lakers the trophy last year, it was for the 2009 season, not the 2010 season
</p>


So by your logic, the NHL takes back the Stanley Cup when the next season starts.</p>


But thats not what happens. The champions keep the Stanley Cup until its time to award the Cup to the next champion.</p>


They also don't take the Cup away from a Champion when they are eliminated from contention the next season.</p>


I see the NBA's official act of awarding the Championship trophy. I then see the NBA's official act of awarding the Trophy the next year. Show me any official act other than that by the league that declares that a team is no longer champs.</p>


I want to learn from you, Matt.</p>


Teach me.</p>

Lol its common sense moorehead... when teams win the championships its for the season they just played, not for the next season...

Show me where the NBA crowned the lakers for the 2009 season they played and the 2010 season...

sorry there is no such thing is temporary champions... only defending

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 12:47 PM
your going down this week ****er.

Doubtful, all three are home games.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 12:52 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>

the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
i understand where your coming from and i think the same way pretty much, but listen to what your saying. "your becoming defending CHAMPIONS the season after u win the championship"

in boxing they say"now entering the ring, the defeending welterwieght chaaampion of the woooorld"


u can't compare boxing to a sport like basketball because theres no season
a champ is a champ regardless.

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 12:53 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</P>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</P>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</P>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</P>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</P>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</P>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</P>




the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
</P>


As I said Matt, all you have to do is show me in the NBA documents where this process of demoting a team from "Champions" to "defending Champions" occurs, and you're position will have been vindicated.</P>


You see the only thing I cam find is a championship trophy being given by the NBA, and then another being given a year later. Those are official acts by the league.</P>


But I'm sure you can show me where they do anything else to support your position.</P>


</P>


I'm waiting.</P>



</P>


</P>


Still waiting.</P>




Again, the answer is within your own statement. When they gave the Lakers the trophy last year, it was for the 2009 season, not the 2010 season
</P>


So by your logic, the NHL takes back the Stanley Cup when the next season starts.</P>


But thats not what happens. The champions keep the Stanley Cup until its time to award the Cup to the next champion.</P>


They also don't take the Cup away from a Champion when they are eliminated from contention the next season.</P>


I see the NBA's official act of awarding the Championship trophy. I then see the NBA's official act of awarding the Trophy the next year. Show me any official act other than that by the league that declares that a team is no longer champs.</P>


I want to learn from you, Matt.</P>


Teach me.</P>




Lol its common sense moorehead... when teams win the championships its for the season they just played, not for the next season...

Show me where the NBA crowned the lakers for the 2009 season they played and the 2010 season...

sorry there is no such thing is temporary champions... only defending
</P>


You may not be keeping up with the playoffs, but the new champs haven't been crowned yet. I'll keep you informed.</P>


We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.</P>


</P>


And regarding your "common sense" all you have to do is show me anything where the league agrees with you. That shouldn't be very hard.</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 12:54 PM
sorry works been crazy- have i missed anythign exciting?!yea its a pretty active day today. by the way i saw someone post a giff thread and they had the nicks td against the eagles but they only had the catch and him running into the endzone. they cut the part were he breaks two tackles so it was gay.

i know i gotta work onmy gifs. i need to get dezzz and frozen ones made but they take so long cause i dunno what im doing LOL
<font size="6">http://209.160.24.97/ds_img_direct.php?i=nicksi-a.gif&amp;t=8&amp;d=1fjdcjav7c&amp;x=360&amp;y=480&amp;l1=169&amp;l2=61

</font>

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 12:55 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 01:00 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
BECAUSE THE WORD CHAMPION IS STILL BEING USED!!!! LOL

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 01:02 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</P>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</P>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</P>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:02 PM
I know the yanks arent the champions of this year, but when other teams are about to play them youll hear the players say, "yea were real excited to play the champs" or something like that.

Yeah Matt, why do they say that? Why do people say they are the champs until someone beats them?

Stop trying to put a title on it. There is no title. They are "the champs"

Everyone on the ****ing planet knows there is no champion of the 2010/11 NFL season but everyone knows the Saints are "the champs" and will be that until Feb 2011 when the Giants win in Dallas.

Stop being so ****ing stubborn *****. lol


people grasping to last years victories...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, the lakers haven't won anything this year, hence they are no the champs

they could be tho
</p>


So for how long are you champs if you win it all?</p>


Answer,.............. for a year (at least until the next champs are crowned)</p>




Incorrect answer, -10 points, the correct answer was, until the regular season begins the following season, then the champs become the "defending champs" seeing as they can no longer hold the title of champs since it's a new season.
</p>


Oh I see Daven. Thanks for the explaination. Now if you could just show me in any of the league charters where this process is administered, we can put this debate to bed.</p>


You see, I can show you the ceremony where the champions are crowned, but I'm having trouble finding the process where the champions go from the status of "current champions" to "defending champions".</p>


So again, just show us all that rule in any of the league documents, and we can turn our attention to the "dynasty" debate.</p>

the answer is within ur own statement. That ceremony u speak of crowns a team for the year that just went on, not for the next year.

You becoming defending champions the season after u win the championship
i understand where your coming from and i think the same way pretty much, but listen to what your saying. "your becoming defending CHAMPIONS the season after u win the championship"

in boxing they say"now entering the ring, the defeending welterwieght chaaampion of the woooorld"


u can't compare boxing to a sport like basketball because theres no season
a champ is a champ regardless.


once champ, always a champ... yea we know

but don't try and compare a situation to where a guy could lose his championship every match, which would be equivalent to every game in the NBA, and say its the same thing

You have to play a full season and a full playoffs to become a champ in NBA

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:03 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</p>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</p>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</p>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</p>

sorry theres is only one champ per year... just because somebody own it last year... doesn't mean they have anything to do with the following year. They can just defend the title they won last year

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:04 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</p>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</p>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</p>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</p>

it does prove it... becuase of the engravings on it, when it says 2009 champion, that doesn't also include the 2010 season..

ur right tho, stanley cup does prove our point

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 01:04 PM
At least there is one thing we can all agree on...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs596.snc3/31413_434287926326_637966326_6089505_4726901_n.jpg

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 01:06 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</P>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</P>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</P>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</P>




sorry theres is only one champ per year... just because somebody own it last year... doesn't mean they have anything to do with the following year. They can just defend the title they won last year
</P>


The Yankees won the WS in 98, 99 and 2000.</P>


There was not a second during that time when they were not the champs.</P>


According to you I suppose they were only champs from November until April during those years.</P>

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 01:07 PM
sorry works been crazy- have i missed anythign exciting?!yea its a pretty active day today. by the way i saw someone post a giff thread and they had the nicks td against the eagles but they only had the catch and him running into the endzone. they cut the part were he breaks two tackles so it was gay.

i know i gotta work onmy gifs. i need to get dezzz and frozen ones made but they take so long cause i dunno what im doing LOL
<font size="6">http://209.160.24.97/ds_img_direct.php?i=nicksi-a.gif&t=8&d=1fjdcjav7c&x=360&y=480&l1=169&l2=61

</font>
hes so ****ing beast.

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 01:07 PM
May I suggest you delete that quickly Lando. I wouldn't want to see you join BB62.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 01:18 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 01:19 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</P>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</P>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</FONT></P>


+1</P>


afternoon folks</P>

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 01:22 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid.* some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i* say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast

its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 01:24 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</p>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</p>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</p>


<font color="#0000ff">The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</font></p>


+1</p>


afternoon folks</p>

as MMB pointed out, the Stanley Cup has name plates, the name plate says 200<font color="#0000ff" size="4">9</font> champions on it when it's 2010, so they would be considered "defending" champions even in the NHL.

I'd totally plow Pam by the way.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:25 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</p>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</p>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</p>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</p>


</p>


</p>

sorry theres is only one champ per year... just because somebody own it last year... doesn't mean they have anything to do with the following year. They can just defend the title they won last year
</p>


The Yankees won the WS in 98, 99 and 2000.</p>


There was not a second during that time when they were not the champs.</p>


According to you I suppose they were only champs from November until April during those years.</p>

thats because they won it three years in a row. Now say they had lost in 1999 and not won a ring, by ur standards they still would of been champions from 98 to 2000

which is where the major flaw in ur argument is

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:27 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast

its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent

byron
05-25-2010, 01:30 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 01:31 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</P>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</P>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</P>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</P>


</P>



</P>


sorry theres is only one champ per year... just because somebody own it last year... doesn't mean they have anything to do with the following year. They can just defend the title they won last year
</P>


The Yankees won the WS in 98, 99 and 2000.</P>


There was not a second during that time when they were not the champs.</P>


According to you I suppose they were only champs from November until April during those years.</P>




thats because they won it three years in a row. Now say they had lost in 1999 and not won a ring, by ur standards they still would of been champions from 98 to 2000

which is where the major flaw in ur argument is
</P>


I have no idea what you're talking about.</P>


If they had lost in 1999, there would have been one year when they weren't champs.</P>


Lets make sure I get your point. You just agreed that there was no point in those 3 years that the Yankees weren't champs. By that, you are agreeing with me that they were champs throughout the entire next season.</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 01:36 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast

its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn hahalol what are you trying to say amanda?[;)]

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 01:37 PM
Lets make sure I get your point. You just agreed that there was no point in those 3 years that the Yankees weren't champs. By that, you are agreeing with me that they were champs throughout the entire next season.

Half of the time they were "defending champs" not "champs"

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 01:38 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</P>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</P>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</FONT></P>


+1</P>


afternoon folks</P>

as MMB pointed out, the Stanley Cup has name plates, the name plate says 200<FONT color=#0000ff size=4>9</FONT> champions on it when it's 2010, so they would be considered "defending" champions even in the NHL.

I'd totally plow Pam by the way.
that i am pretty sure would be wrong considering the season starts in one year finishes in the following..

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 01:40 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid.* some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i* say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast

its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn hahalol what are you trying to say amanda?[;)]

i look but dont touch? hahaha

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 01:42 PM
The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/Nokari/Amen-Brother.jpg

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:43 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 01:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StanleyCupAvs2000-01Engraved.jpg</P>


</P>


pour vous</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 01:44 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast

its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn hahalol what are you trying to say amanda?[;)]

i look but dont touch? hahahalol thats cool.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 01:45 PM
You just agreed that there was no point in those 3 years that the Yankees weren't champs. By that, you are agreeing with me that they were champs throughout the entire next season.
http://mirrorcracked.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/checkmate777.jpg

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 01:51 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 01:56 PM
We all just have to deal with the Lakers as champs for only a few weeks more,...... tops.

All you have to do is add the word defending before champs and you'd be right morehead, I see no reason for you to so stubbornly deny the obvious answer.
</p>


I have no problem with calling them defending champs if you want. But even after they get eliminated, they are still the current champs until the next team is crowned.</p>


The ultimate point is that a teamare thechampions until the championship is awarded to someone else.</p>


The example of the Stanley Cup essentially proves that.</p>


</p>



</p>


sorry theres is only one champ per year... just because somebody own it last year... doesn't mean they have anything to do with the following year. They can just defend the title they won last year
</p>


The Yankees won the WS in 98, 99 and 2000.</p>


There was not a second during that time when they were not the champs.</p>


According to you I suppose they were only champs from November until April during those years.</p>




thats because they won it three years in a row. Now say they had lost in 1999 and not won a ring, by ur standards they still would of been champions from 98 to 2000

which is where the major flaw in ur argument is
</p>


I have no idea what you're talking about.</p>


If they had lost in 1999, there would have been one year when they weren't champs.</p>


Lets make sure I get your point. You just agreed that there was no point in those 3 years that the Yankees weren't champs. By that, you are agreeing with me that they were champs throughout the entire next season.</p>

yes moorehead, this is what im saying tho

by ur standards, they would of been champions for the 1998 season, all the way up to the last world series game from when we lost in 1999 (for arguments sake), then for the entire 2000 season

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:01 PM
You just agreed that there was no point in those 3 years that the Yankees weren't champs. By that, you are agreeing with me that they were champs throughout the entire next season.
http://mirrorcracked.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/checkmate777.jpg


of coarse i agree.. looking back at it... they won the championships that year, they were champs for those years... how is that checkmate, thats been exactly what i've bene saying

are u guys ******s

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 02:01 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 02:04 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid.* some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i* say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:04 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH


thanks for confirming the ******ed comment

[;)]

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:05 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 02:09 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 02:10 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:12 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:13 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.


thats not true, amandsa been on top of me MANY times..

it was quite easy actually

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 02:16 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething
just don't ask him if for any specific item, member what happened to the last guy..

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 02:17 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething
yea and a kitchen cabinet store. one in the same. most of the furniture is traditional. we carry harden, halligan and hooker. they all have websites, if you see anything you like just pm me or something. its all wood, none of that particle board ****
what do you need? how much you looking to spend?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:18 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething
just don't ask him if for any specific item, member what happened to the last guy..

Customer: Excuse me, do you have model XX2309

Dezz: WHAT THE **** DO I LOOK LIKE, THE OWNERS SON?! CALL TOMORROW *****!

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 02:19 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething
yea and a kitchen cabinet store. one in the same. most of the furniture is traditional. we carry harden, halligan and hooker. they all have websites, if you see anything you like just pm me or something. its all wood, none of that particle board ****
what do you need? how much you looking to spend?



hmm....

i do love hookers

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 02:20 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething
just don't ask him if for any specific item, member what happened to the last guy..matt seems like a pleasant fella so far

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 02:26 PM
hey dezzz

got any friend discounts? I am moving monday
what do you mean?


dont u own a furniture store or osomething
just don't ask him if for any specific item, member what happened to the last guy..

Customer: Excuse me, do you have model XX2309

Dezz: WHAT THE **** DO I LOOK LIKE, THE OWNERS SON?! CALL TOMORROW *****!






thats NOT what that twat said. lol i said let me look and she said dont waste my time.

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 02:40 PM
you guys think boss will make it back in time and be 100% opening day? honestly i wouldnt mind seeing beckum out there.

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 02:43 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid.* some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i* say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.


thats not true, amandsa been on top of me MANY times..

it was quite easy actually

excuse me..................................

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 02:58 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.


thats not true, amandsa been on top of me MANY times..

it was quite easy actually

excuse me..................................

you should take it as a compliment.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:05 PM
lol

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 03:07 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.


thats not true, amandsa been on top of me MANY times..

it was quite easy actually

excuse me..................................
http://www.caerdroia.org/116/nuclear-explosion.jpg

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 03:12 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJS YI

some people really are as dumb as dog ****.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:15 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid. some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.


thats not true, amandsa been on top of me MANY times..

it was quite easy actually

excuse me..................................

ohhh shut up, u loved it

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 03:18 PM
did the celtics win last night......i dont know how you guys watch bball. watched it for about an hour to try and get into. close game the whole game from what i saw, just didnt excite me at all. didnt know garnet was all gangsta gangsta like that. some fouls they were calling were so stupid.* some cool dunks, but that was about it and i passed out. must of rolled over on the remote cause i woke up to the office.


anyone watch that show? you know pam? i think i want to plow her. and i* say think cause iv never been so confused about being sexually attracted to someone. lol sometimes shes cute, other times meeehh. here this chick
http://www.adunai.com/sshnd/office-pam.jpg
can go to
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolpolltool/jenna-fischer-sexy-time
real fast
its so true.. hahah esp at work alotta girls just throw on work clothes hair up like dont care then you see them in somethign sexy and its like damnnnnn haha

i'd like to get in her file cabinent
bottom draw

**** man, i'd pop it in the top and back drawer too
id make her notes sticky
http://www.dreamstime.com/sticky-note-girl-thumb665608.jpg

ewwwwwwww! lol now THAT was tmi.lol well its not easy topping matt.


thats not true, amandsa been on top of me MANY times..

it was quite easy actually

excuse me..................................

ohhh shut up, u loved it

and ill say the same about you! [;)]

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 03:22 PM
im calling it now. drunk make out sess between these two whenever "we be meeting up" in oct. lol

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:30 PM
im calling it now. drunk make out sess between these two whenever "we be meeting up" in oct. lol


me and lando dont need to be drunk for that to happen

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 03:35 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</P>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</P>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</P>


Did I miss something here?</P>

ibleedblue85
05-25-2010, 03:35 PM
im calling it now. drunk make out sess between these two whenever "we be meeting up"* in oct. lol


me and lando dont need to be drunk for that to happen

you stole my reponse!

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 03:38 PM
im calling it now. drunk make out sess between these two whenever "we be meeting up" in oct. lol


me and lando dont need to be drunk for that to happen

you stole my reponse! yea yeaa well see. theres always lots of emotions flying around gameday. haha

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 03:38 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 03:39 PM
im calling it now. drunk make out sess between these two whenever "we be meeting up" in oct. lol


I'm calling it now, if Blondie gets drunk, they "won't" be making out, because MMB will be taking care of her...

as in holding the hair back.

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 03:40 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.
</P>


The frailty of man.</P>

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 03:40 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

if it makes you feel better though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:41 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>

Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 03:44 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>

Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000




using semantics you actually disagreed with yourself if you read Moreheads question correctly.

he said "at no point" were they not the Champions during those years, using your previous definition that's not true, but you agreed with him.

During the regular season, while they were on their way to becoming champs, they weren't actually champs, they were defending champs.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:44 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

if it makes you feel better though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.


it actually makes me sick to think about it

OBama is ****ting the bed on this

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 03:47 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</P>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</P>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</P>


Did I miss something here?</P>




Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000


</P>


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. My position is simple.</P>


<FONT size=4>If a team wins a championship, they are champs until another team wins the championship.</FONT></P>


My position is backed up by two arguments.</P>


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</P>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</P>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:49 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>

Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000




using semantics you actually disagreed with yourself if you read Moreheads question correctly.

he said "at no point" were they not the Champions during those years, using your previous definition that's not true, but you agreed with him.

During the regular season, while they were on their way to becoming champs, they weren't actually champs, they were defending champs.


ah well then i misread

all i saw was yankees were champions in 98, 99, 00. Obviously by my definition they were the champions of that seaosn

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 03:51 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

if it makes you feel better though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.


it actually makes me sick to think about it

OBama is ****ting the bed on this
</P>


Our President is charming, smart, has a nice family and seems like a genuinly nice person.</P>


But he is no leader, he has no guts. He's a walking political calculation.</P>


He is way over his head in this job.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:51 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>




Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000


</p>


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. My position is simple.</p>


<font size="4">If a team wins a championship, they are champs until another team wins the championship.</font></p>


My position is backed up by two arguments.</p>


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</p>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</p>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</p>

to call a team the champion of that year at any point regardless if they won it the year before a not is a ridiculous. Champs aren't temporary, you either are or your not. Yankees are not champion of the 2010 season (yet). I don't care waht they did last year when it was a different year

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:52 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

if it makes you feel better though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.


it actually makes me sick to think about it

OBama is ****ting the bed on this
</p>


Our President is charming, smart, has a nice family and seems like a genuinly nice person.</p>


But he is no leader, he has no guts. He's a walking political calculation.</p>


He is way over his head in this job.</p>

dont take a mile when i give an inch...

and dont start another issue up...

lets not start getting crazy, this isn't his fault, he didn't spill the ****

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 03:52 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>

Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000




using semantics you actually disagreed with yourself if you read Moreheads question correctly.

he said "at no point" were they not the Champions during those years, using your previous definition that's not true, but you agreed with him.

During the regular season, while they were on their way to becoming champs, they weren't actually champs, they were defending champs.


ah well then i misread

all i saw was yankees were champions in 98, 99, 00. Obviously by my definition they were the champions of that seaosn
and real, true dynasty.

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 03:53 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</P>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</P>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</P>


Did I miss something here?</P>




Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000


</P>


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. My position is simple.</P>


<FONT size=4>If a team wins a championship, they are champs until another team wins the championship.</FONT></P>


My position is backed up by two arguments.</P>


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</P>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</P>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</P>this is still going on.. CFL does the same thing if you need another example

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 03:58 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>




Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000


</p>


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. My position is simple.</p>


<font size="4">If a team wins a championship, they are champs until another team wins the championship.</font></p>


My position is backed up by two arguments.</p>


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</p>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</p>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</p>this is still going on.. CFL does the same thing if you need another example

they let them hold the trophy for being champions LAST YEAR...

that doesn't mean they are champions of the next year...

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 03:59 PM
The Blue Jays have played a total of <U>18</U> games vs. winning teams.</P>


The Yankees have playes a total of <U>23 </U>games vs. winning teams.</P>


The Red Sox have played a total of <U>32</U> games vs. winning teams.</P>


These things even out...and will soon enough.</P>

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:01 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</P>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</P>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</P>


Did I miss something here?</P>




Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000


</P>


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. My position is simple.</P>


<FONT size=4>If a team wins a championship, they are champs until another team wins the championship.</FONT></P>


My position is backed up by two arguments.</P>


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</P>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</P>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</P>


this is still going on.. CFL does the same thing if you need another example

they let them hold the trophy for being champions LAST YEAR...

that doesn't mean they are champions of the next year...
</P>


No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:02 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>
Nope, I am glad you were able to educate him today.

It was especially sweet since you used his team to prove our point.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:02 PM
My position is backed up by two arguments.


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</p>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</p>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</p>

I believe I've brought up a valid point against the Stanley Cup argument, the Stanely Cup use's name plates, during the NHL 2010 season, there is not 2010 name plate, thus the Stanely Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, so just like they don't take the 2007 Lombardi trophy away from the giants, you wouldn't call the giants the 2010 Champions just because they have it would you?

the difference being there is only one trophy in NHL, to summarize the 2009 Stanley Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, but the 2009 Stanley Cup's location, during the 2010 NHL season is irrelevant to our conversation, since it's not the 2010 Stanley Cup trophy until the name plate is on it.

For argument number 2, I deem the entire argument irrelevant, whether they have a "rule in the books" or not is silly, do they have a "rule in the books" stating that the winner of the super bowl shall from that point onward be called the "champions" I seriously doubt it, it's just what everyone calls the winners, and what everyone calls the winners the next year is "The Defending Champions" not, "the champions" in the way you describe, because in your description of champions you imply that they've "already" won, which is impossible since the season is currently still in session.

patsrule666
05-25-2010, 04:03 PM
Almost 3:00pm people. </P>


I have to run out for a bit. Hope the vote goes thru for you guys.</P>


Lando- answered the PM.</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 04:03 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

if it makes you feel better though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.


it actually makes me sick to think about it

OBama is ****ting the bed on this
</p>


Our President is charming, smart, has a nice family and seems like a genuinly nice person.</p>


But he is no leader, he has no guts. He's a walking political calculation.</p>


He is way over his head in this job.</p>

dont take a mile when i give an inch...

and dont start another issue up...

lets not start getting crazy, this isn't his fault, he didn't spill the ****
agreed 100% matt. this had nothing to do with him or the gov. but its starting to effect american citizens so its becoming HIS problem. i said last week bp should sign a contract with the gov.
the gov loans them some money and if bp doesnt pay the gov back on time, they should face stiff fine.

regarding obamas leadership......i have yet to see any kind of leadership. for someone with a whole lot on his plate he seems only concerned about his own agenda and proposed bills.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:04 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.

there can not be a current champ during the course of the season, the entire idea that there can makes no sense...if there was a current champ during the season then there would be no use in playing the games that season because you'd already know who the champ was.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

<font color="#0000ff">if it makes you feel better</font> though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.

It doesn't. It has almost been a month. This is devastating to "OUR" gulf. It is unreal. Like they never thought this could happen and didn't have a plan. I read it is supposed to have a valve that is required on all pumps and it didn't.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:07 PM
dont take a mile when i give an inch...

and dont start another issue up...

lets not start getting crazy, this isn't his fault, he didn't spill the ****


but just last year, the agency in charge of inspecting these oil rigs, which is under his control, gave this particular oil rig (Deep Horizon) the all clear, in fact, they claimed it was the industry standard for safety.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/...ll_inspections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections)

I'm not saying it's Obama's fault, I'm not saying it's the Inspectors fault, but I'm also not going to agree if you tell me it's all BP's fault either.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:09 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

<font color="#0000ff">if it makes you feel better</font> though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.

It doesn't. It has almost been a month. This is devastating to "OUR" gulf. It is unreal. Like they never thought this could happen and didn't have a plan. I read it is supposed to have a valve that is required on all pumps and it didn't.


you'd think that valve (if what your saying is true) would have been something the inspectors would have caught no?

by the way, they did have a plan, they were supposed to burn it, but they took so long to act that the plan in place became impossible to enact.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:12 PM
arguments sake is irrelevant.

GAME, SET, MATCH
</p>


Lando...Do you understand Matt on this? What am I missing?</p>


I say that a team is the champ until another team in crowned. He argues that I'm wrong. Then he agrees with me, and claims that there is something wrong with us for arguing.</p>


Did I miss something here?</p>




Its very simple.. they won all three years so they were champs for the years they won... thats my argument

Now lets say for arguments sake the Yankees lost game 7 of the world series in 1999.

By my standards yankees would of only been champs in 98 and 00

by ur standards yankees would of been champs all of 98, all of 99 until game 7 and then all of 2000


</p>


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. My position is simple.</p>


<font size="4">If a team wins a championship, they are champs until another team wins the championship.</font></p>


My position is backed up by two arguments.</p>


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</p>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</p>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</p>


this is still going on.. CFL does the same thing if you need another example

they let them hold the trophy for being champions LAST YEAR...

that doesn't mean they are champions of the next year...
</p>


No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.</p>

False, there is no current champ of the 2010 NBA season

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:12 PM
Am I the only one that can't ****ing believe that oil is still gushing.


dude, it's a mile underneath the water, it's not like they can just mosey on down there and fix it....and it's not like the government is helping, this seems to all be on BP, and I think it's just over their heads.

if it makes you feel better though, the total amount of oil being released is nothing compared to what the earth naturally seeps out over time anyhow, so it's not as bad as it's being made to seem, also it's not the same type of oil that the Valdez dropped, this stuff isn't "as" hazardous.


it actually makes me sick to think about it

OBama is ****ting the bed on this
</P>


Our President is charming, smart, has a nice family and seems like a genuinly nice person.</P>


But he is no leader, he has no guts. He's a walking political calculation.</P>


He is way over his head in this job.</P>




dont take a mile when i give an inch...

and dont start another issue up...

lets not start getting crazy, this isn't his fault, he didn't spill the ****
agreed 100% matt. this had nothing to do with him or the gov. but its starting to effect american citizens so its becoming HIS problem. i said last week bp should sign a contract with the gov.
the gov loans them some money and if bp doesnt pay the gov back on time, they should face stiff fine.

regarding obamas leadership......i have yet to see any kind of leadership. for someone with a whole lot on his plate he seems only concerned about his own agenda and proposed bills.
</P>


For this brief moment. (very brief) Matt is right. Our President didn't spill the oil.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:13 PM
My position is backed up by two arguments.


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</p>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</p>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</p>

I believe I've brought up a valid point against the Stanley Cup argument, the Stanely Cup use's name plates, during the NHL 2010 season, there is not 2010 name plate, thus the Stanely Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, so just like they don't take the 2007 Lombardi trophy away from the giants, you wouldn't call the giants the 2010 Champions just because they have it would you?

the difference being there is only one trophy in NHL, to summarize the 2009 Stanley Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, but the 2009 Stanley Cup's location, during the 2010 NHL season is irrelevant to our conversation, since it's not the 2010 Stanley Cup trophy until the name plate is on it.

For argument number 2, I deem the entire argument irrelevant, whether they have a "rule in the books" or not is silly, do they have a "rule in the books" stating that the winner of the super bowl shall from that point onward be called the "champions" I seriously doubt it, it's just what everyone calls the winners, and what everyone calls the winners the next year is "The Defending Champions" not, "the champions" in the way you describe, because in your description of champions you imply that they've "already" won, which is impossible since the season is currently still in session.


hey i broughtt hat point up ******!!

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:13 PM
agreed 100% matt. this had nothing to do with him or the gov. but its starting to effect american citizens so its becoming HIS problem. i said last week bp should sign a contract with the gov.
the gov loans them some money and if bp doesnt pay the gov back on time, they should face stiff fine.

There is a cap, 750 Million (if I remember correctly) that's how much we are allowed to take from BP after that we aren't supposed to take more, but BP is "offering" to pay more anyhow and not hide behind the cap.
Really there is no need to sign a contract, Obama already has the power to intercede here, he's choose not to thus far, for what reason? I can only assume because he doesn't know what to do, so instead of taking action, he's resigned himself to pointing fingers at those who ARE taking action, telling them they are "doing it wrong" without offering any solutions himself.

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:14 PM
Almost 3:00pm people. </p>


I have to run out for a bit. Hope the vote goes thru for you guys.</p>


Lando- answered the PM.</p>

PATS!!!

IGOT THE CARDS YESTERDAY!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH MAN!!

They are awesome.. that big papi being dug up card was AWESOME

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:15 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.

there can not be a current champ during the course of the season, the entire idea that there can makes no sense...if there was a current champ during the season then there would be no use in playing the games that season because you'd already know who the champ was.

It is not "current" champs. They are just champs.

Like I said, apparently Doc Rivers, Kobe Bryant and countless other athletes are wrong. I guess I am just confused...why would Doc Rivers say "They are the Eastern Conference Champs until someone beats them." Hence another one was crowned?

Is the coach of the Boston Celtics wrong?

Why would Kobe say what he did in my sig if that is not the case?

Is the greatest Laker in history wrong?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:17 PM
dont take a mile when i give an inch...

and dont start another issue up...

lets not start getting crazy, this isn't his fault, he didn't spill the ****


but just last year, the agency in charge of inspecting these oil rigs, which is under his control, gave this particular oil rig (Deep Horizon) the all clear, in fact, they claimed it was the industry standard for safety.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/...ll_inspections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections)

I'm not saying it's Obama's fault, I'm not saying it's the Inspectors fault, but I'm also not going to agree if you tell me it's all BP's fault either.


i would have to Inspectors and BPS fault, wouldn't know who else to even think of piutting on that list

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 04:17 PM
My position is backed up by two arguments.


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</P>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</P>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</P>




I believe I've brought up a valid point against the Stanley Cup argument, the Stanely Cup use's name plates, during the NHL 2010 season, there is not 2010 name plate, thus the Stanely Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, so just like they don't take the 2007 Lombardi trophy away from the giants, you wouldn't call the giants the 2010 Champions just because they have it would you?


Dav.. maybe i am missreading your post but the Pitsburgh Penguins "plate" has 2009-2010 Champions.. </P>


see link.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StanleyCupAvs2000-01Engraved.jpg</P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:20 PM
So from 90-93 and 95-98 the Bulls were not champions for all 6 years?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1206371/article_images/aceinaction.jpg

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 04:21 PM
so whats the deal, you guys have a longweekend down there this weekend, lazy buggers </P>


</P>

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:22 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.

there can not be a current champ during the course of the season, the entire idea that there can makes no sense...if there was a current champ during the season then there would be no use in playing the games that season because you'd already know who the champ was.

It is not "current" champs. They are just champs.

Like I said, apparently Doc Rivers, Kobe Bryant and countless other athletes are wrong. I guess I am just confused...why would Doc Rivers say "They are the Eastern Conference Champs until someone beats them." Hence another one was crowned?

Is the coach of the Boston Celtics wrong?

Why would Kobe say what he did in my sig if that is not the case?

Is the greatest Laker in history wrong?




the reason the coach says it is motivation, the reason Kobe said what he said I can't tell you, what I can tell you is that if what he said were true, you could consider the Giants Champs right now because no one is taking that 2007 trophy from them....but it would be silly to do so.

would you walk around calling the Giants "champs" right now? I wouldn't, now unless someone was specifically referring to 2007.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:22 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.</p>

False, there is no current champ of the 2010 NBA season

Right, but the Lakers are the champs

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:24 PM
My position is backed up by two arguments.


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</P>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</P>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</P>




I believe I've brought up a valid point against the Stanley Cup argument, the Stanely Cup use's name plates, during the NHL 2010 season, there is not 2010 name plate, thus the Stanely Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, so just like they don't take the 2007 Lombardi trophy away from the giants, you wouldn't call the giants the 2010 Champions just because they have it would you?

the difference being there is only one trophy in NHL, to summarize the 2009 Stanley Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, but the 2009 Stanley Cup's location, during the 2010 NHL season is irrelevant to our conversation, since it's not the 2010 Stanley Cup trophy until the name plate is on it.

For argument number 2, I deem the entire argument irrelevant, whether they have a "rule in the books" or not is silly, do they have a "rule in the books" stating that the winner of the super bowl shall from that point onward be called the "champions" I seriously doubt it, it's just what everyone calls the winners, and what everyone calls the winners the next year is "The Defending Champions" not, "the champions" in the way you describe, because in your description of champions you imply that they've "already" won, which is impossible since the season is currently still in session.
</P>


Your "nameplate" argument defies logic. What does that matter to this argument. By leaving the Cup with the SC champs and allowing them to keep it until they are ready to award it in the SC finals, they are presumed to be leaving it with the current champs until they aren't champs any longer.</P>


You can bring this foolish "nameplate" argument in to it, but it means nothing. Its one of the few sports leagues that has one trophy that changes hands every year. The league presumes that the champs from the previous season is the current champ a until another is crowned as defined by the posession of the Cup.</P>

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:24 PM
i would have to Inspectors and BPS fault, wouldn't know who else to even think of piutting on that list


when teams fail does any of the responsibility go to the coach?

Obama's the coach.

I don't think it's right to be blaming "anyone" to be honest, at least not for the spill itself, blame people for their reaction to the spill, not the spill itself, the spill itself was an unfortunate and unexpected accident.

bandwgn86
05-25-2010, 04:24 PM
My position is backed up by two arguments.


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</P>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</P>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</P>




I believe I've brought up a valid point against the Stanley Cup argument, the Stanely Cup use's name plates, during the NHL 2010 season, there is not 2010 name plate, thus the Stanely Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, so just like they don't take the 2007 Lombardi trophy away from the giants, you wouldn't call the giants the 2010 Champions just because they have it would you?


Dav.. maybe i am missreading your post but the Pitsburgh Penguins "plate" has 2009-2010 Champions.. </P>


see link.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StanleyCupAvs2000-01Engraved.jpg</P>oops sorry that was the Avs' engraving..

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:25 PM
the reason the coach says it is motivation,

And because it's true. Surely Garnett, Rondo, Pierce and Allen all know it to.


the reason Kobe said what he said I can't tell you

I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:27 PM
Matt, since you misread my statement regarding the Yankees, let me ask this.</P>


Was there any time between their WS championship in 98 and their championship in 2000 that the Yankees were not the champs?</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:27 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.

there can not be a current champ during the course of the season, the entire idea that there can makes no sense...if there was a current champ during the season then there would be no use in playing the games that season because you'd already know who the champ was.

It is not "current" champs. They are just champs.

Like I said, apparently Doc Rivers, Kobe Bryant and countless other athletes are wrong. I guess I am just confused...why would Doc Rivers say "They are the Eastern Conference Champs until someone beats them." Hence another one was crowned?

Is the coach of the Boston Celtics wrong?

Why would Kobe say what he did in my sig if that is not the case?

Is the greatest Laker in history wrong?




yes they are all wrong...

the Magic didn't win the ECC this year, hence they are not the ECC.


If you want t osay they are the defending ECC then i'd say okay

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:27 PM
I don't know if any of you plan on watching the World Cup but I can ****ING GUARANTEE you they will refer to Italy as the champion after they are knocked out.

I wonder why they would do that?

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:29 PM
Matt, since you misread my statement regarding the Yankees, let me ask this.</p>


Was there any time between their WS championship in 98 and their championship in 2000 that the Yankees were not the champs?</p>
Or the Bulls?

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:31 PM
Your "nameplate" argument defies logic. What does that matter to this argument.

What does it matter to this argument? The Stanley Cup isn't just the cup, it needs to have the name plate proclaiming you to be the champs of that particular season to hold any significance, without the name plates anyone could be considered NHL champions, I could steal it take it back to my house and claim "I'm" personally the champion of the NHL because I have possession of it....no Morehead, without the name plate, the Stanley Cup is just any old cup.

Thus, the Stanley Cup from the 2009-2010 season, bears ZERO significance towards what teams are considered in the 2010-2011 season, without the name plate for the 2010-2011 season it means nothing.



By leaving the Cup with the SC champs and allowing them to keep it until they are ready to award it in the SC finals, they are presumed to be leaving it with the current champs until they aren't champs any longer.

by leaving the 2009-10 SC in their possession they are presumed to be leaving it with the "Previous" or "Defending" Champions, there can be no current champions, in fact, there isn't even a current SC until after the final game of the next season is decided.




You can bring this foolish "nameplate" argument in to it, but it means nothing. Its one of the few sports leagues that has one trophy that changes hands every year.</p>

But it's not really just one Trophy, it's a different trophy each year, without the current year's name plate it's just "Last Years" trophy.
</p>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:31 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.

there can not be a current champ during the course of the season, the entire idea that there can makes no sense...if there was a current champ during the season then there would be no use in playing the games that season because you'd already know who the champ was.

It is not "current" champs. They are just champs.

Like I said, apparently Doc Rivers, Kobe Bryant and countless other athletes are wrong. I guess I am just confused...why would Doc Rivers say "They are the Eastern Conference Champs until someone beats them." Hence another one was crowned?

Is the coach of the Boston Celtics wrong?

Why would Kobe say what he did in my sig if that is not the case?

Is the greatest Laker in history wrong?




yes they are all wrong...

the Magic didn't win the ECC this year, hence they are not the ECC.


If you want t osay they are the defending ECC then i'd say okay

Ask your work neighbor "Who is the Eastern Conference Champion is in the NBA?"

If you ask like EXACTLY that and they don't say the Orlando Magic you can punch me in the face.

Given they know about sports of course. Maybe that will prove our point.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:33 PM
I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned


Answer me this, how can the results of the 2010-2011 season already be decided before the 2011 calendar year has even begun.

once you can explain that, then I will understand, until then, what your saying is actually impossible.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:36 PM
I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned


Answer me this, how can the results of the 2010-2011 season already be decided before the 2011 calendar year has even begun.

once you can explain that, then I will understand, until then, what your saying is actually impossible.

I am not putting a time, date, calendar, constellation or anything else on it.

They are "champs" until someone else is. Since sports started there has always been a champ, unless it was the first year of that sports existence.

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:38 PM
You guys are the ones putting dates and times on things.

It is very general.

There is always a champ until another champ is crowned.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:39 PM
I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned


Answer me this, how can the results of the 2010-2011 season already be decided before the 2011 calendar year has even begun.

once you can explain that, then I will understand, until then, what your saying is actually impossible.
</P>


You are looking at this the wrong way. Or at least in a different way than we are. The Lakers won the championship in the 2008-2009 season. The way I look at it, that gives them the "status" of the current champs. That is until someone else is awarded the championship this season.</P>


Its the "status" as the champs that I'm talking about. Otherwise, there would never be a champ. It would expire seconds after they earn it. Or are you suggesting a time period where that status exists.</P>

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:41 PM
Every sport always has a current champ. Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:42 PM
Every sport always has a current champ. Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?
Nope, when that plane left Miami they were not champs anymore.

ny06
05-25-2010, 04:44 PM
Still debating the subject about current champions

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:45 PM
Every sport always has a current champ. Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?

they will no longer be champs immediately following the coin toss of the earliest scheduled regular season game.

there title (as soon as that coin lands heads or tails) will turn from "Current Champs" to "Defending Champs" and they will hold the "Defending Champs" title during the course of the regular season up until they are no longer mathematically able to "Defend" their "Championship"

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:45 PM
So from 90-93 and 95-98 the Bulls were not champions for all 6 years?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1206371/article_images/aceinaction.jpg



no, they were champions 91-93 and 96-98

and they were determined champions at the end of the year AFTER they won the championship in each season

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:46 PM
Still debating the subject about current champions</P>


Thanks for the review.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:46 PM
so whats the deal, you guys have a longweekend down there this weekend, lazy buggers </p>


</p>

City of Atlantic, Craps, Booze, Strippers, and Conan O Brian on sunday night

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:46 PM
Every sport always has a current champ. Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?

they will no longer be champs immediately following the coin toss of the earliest scheduled regular season game.

there title (as soon as that coin lands heads or tails) will turn from "Current Champs" to "Defending Champs" and they will hold the "Defending Champs" title during the course of the regular season up until they are no longer mathematically able to "Defend" their "Championship"

and then they are "champs" until the end of the Superbowl

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:47 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.</p>

False, there is no current champ of the 2010 NBA season

Right, but the Lakers are the champs


they were last years champs, they didn't win the NBA finals

if there is no winner of the finals than there is no champ

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:48 PM
Every sport always has a current champ. Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?

they will no longer be champs immediately following the coin toss of the earliest scheduled regular season game.

there title (as soon as that coin lands heads or tails) will turn from "Current Champs" to "Defending Champs" and they will hold the "Defending Champs" title during the course of the regular season up until they are no longer mathematically able to "Defend" their "Championship"
</P>


You don't think thats a bit arbitrary?</P>


The coin toss for God's sake. Jezz Daven, you really earn that rep.</P>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:48 PM
My position is backed up by two arguments.


1. The NHL awards the Stanley Cup and doesn't take it back from that team until they are ready to award it again.</p>


2. The NBA, MLB (or any league) has absolutely no acknowledgement that a team is "no longer" the champs except the awarding of the championship to another team. No other procedure, acknowledgement or process. In no rule is there an official position that transforms a team from Champs to defending champs. In no rule does a league ever "vacate a championship.</p>


If I'm wrong, show it to me.</p>




I believe I've brought up a valid point against the Stanley Cup argument, the Stanely Cup use's name plates, during the NHL 2010 season, there is not 2010 name plate, thus the Stanely Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, so just like they don't take the 2007 Lombardi trophy away from the giants, you wouldn't call the giants the 2010 Champions just because they have it would you?

the difference being there is only one trophy in NHL, to summarize the 2009 Stanley Cup is the 2009 Champions Trophy, but the 2009 Stanley Cup's location, during the 2010 NHL season is irrelevant to our conversation, since it's not the 2010 Stanley Cup trophy until the name plate is on it.

For argument number 2, I deem the entire argument irrelevant, whether they have a "rule in the books" or not is silly, do they have a "rule in the books" stating that the winner of the super bowl shall from that point onward be called the "champions" I seriously doubt it, it's just what everyone calls the winners, and what everyone calls the winners the next year is "The Defending Champions" not, "the champions" in the way you describe, because in your description of champions you imply that they've "already" won, which is impossible since the season is currently still in session.
</p>


Your "nameplate" argument defies logic. What does that matter to this argument. By leaving the Cup with the SC champs and allowing them to keep it until they are ready to award it in the SC finals, they are presumed to be leaving it with the current champs until they aren't champs any longer.</p>


You can bring this foolish "nameplate" argument in to it, but it means nothing. Its one of the few sports leagues that has one trophy that changes hands every year. The league presumes that the champs from the previous season is the current champ a until another is crowned as defined by the posession of the Cup.</p>

it actually is logic..

it clearly stats in 2009 who the champion was and that the 2010 plate isn't even on it..

it just defies your argument

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:49 PM
i would have to Inspectors and BPS fault, wouldn't know who else to even think of piutting on that list


when teams fail does any of the responsibility go to the coach?

Obama's the coach.

I don't think it's right to be blaming "anyone" to be honest, at least not for the spill itself, blame people for their reaction to the spill, not the spill itself, the spill itself was an unfortunate and unexpected accident.


really? So do you blame David Stern when a team plays bad?

ny06
05-25-2010, 04:49 PM
Still debating the subject about current champions</P>


Thanks for the review.</P>

Welcome

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:49 PM
Still debating the subject about current champions</p>


Thanks for the review.</p>
LOL

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:49 PM
i would have to Inspectors and BPS fault, wouldn't know who else to even think of piutting on that list


when teams fail does any of the responsibility go to the coach?

Obama's the coach.

I don't think it's right to be blaming "anyone" to be honest, at least not for the spill itself, blame people for their reaction to the spill, not the spill itself, the spill itself was an unfortunate and unexpected accident.


really? So do you blame David Stern when a team plays bad?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:50 PM
Matt, since you misread my statement regarding the Yankees, let me ask this.</p>


Was there any time between their WS championship in 98 and their championship in 2000 that the Yankees were not the champs?</p>

yes, the entire seasons until they actually won it..

they were defending champions alot of that time

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:51 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.</p>

False, there is no current champ of the 2010 NBA season

Right, but the Lakers are the champs


they were last years champs, they didn't win the NBA finals

if there is no winner of the finals than there is no champ

No, there is no champ of the 2010 season. But there is always a champ

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:52 PM
Matt, since you misread my statement regarding the Yankees, let me ask this.</p>


Was there any time between their WS championship in 98 and their championship in 2000 that the Yankees were not the champs?</p>
Or the Bulls?


yea i woulda been able to answer all of this faster if some ******* doesn't always go pic crazy and flood the website so it wont load and then everything in my computer freezes


grrrrrrrrrrr

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 04:52 PM
so whats the deal, you guys have a longweekend down there this weekend, lazy buggers </p>


</p>

City of Atlantic, Craps, Booze, Strippers, and Conan O Brian on sunday night
how you do in craps?


http://www.starzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/conan-obrien1.jpg
a true OG.

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:53 PM
You are looking at this the wrong way. Or at least in a different way than we are. The Lakers won the championship in the 2008-2009 season. The way I look at it, that gives them the "status" of the current champs. That is until someone else is awarded the championship this season.

I understand your point of view Morehead, I just don't agree with it, in my view, the Lakers won the Championship in the 2008-2009 season, therefore they are the 2008-2009 season Champions...."Forever" they will hold the title of "current champions" until the next season starts because, logically, there can be no current champion for a season of football that has just begun, you may (if you choose to) call the former "current champions" from last season the "defending champions" if you wish to though.




Its the "status" as the champs that I'm talking about. Otherwise, there would never be a champ. It would expire seconds after they earn it. Or are you suggesting a time period where that status exists.</p>

I am suggesting a time period where that status exists, it exists from the end of one regular season/playoff season to the beginning of the next regular season.
</p>

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:53 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.

there can not be a current champ during the course of the season, the entire idea that there can makes no sense...if there was a current champ during the season then there would be no use in playing the games that season because you'd already know who the champ was.

It is not "current" champs. They are just champs.

Like I said, apparently Doc Rivers, Kobe Bryant and countless other athletes are wrong. I guess I am just confused...why would Doc Rivers say "They are the Eastern Conference Champs until someone beats them." Hence another one was crowned?

Is the coach of the Boston Celtics wrong?

Why would Kobe say what he did in my sig if that is not the case?

Is the greatest Laker in history wrong?




yes they are all wrong...

the Magic didn't win the ECC this year, hence they are not the ECC.


If you want t osay they are the defending ECC then i'd say okay

Ask your work neighbor "Who is the Eastern Conference Champion is in the NBA?"

If you ask like EXACTLY that and they don't say the Orlando Magic you can punch me in the face.

Given they know about sports of course. Maybe that will prove our point.


hes def not gonna say the magic, he'll porolly say Boston cuz they are a win away from actually being the champions and not just given the title

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:54 PM
Every sport always has a current champ. Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?

they will no longer be champs immediately following the coin toss of the earliest scheduled regular season game.

there title (as soon as that coin lands heads or tails) will turn from "Current Champs" to "Defending Champs" and they will hold the "Defending Champs" title during the course of the regular season up until they are no longer mathematically able to "Defend" their "Championship"

and then they are "champs" until the end of the Superbowl
</P>


No. The Lakers are champions until the superbowl. The Saints are champs until game two of the ALCS.</P>


The Yankees are champs until the first Wednesday after the first full moon in September. If September has a blue moon, that status is extended in days by a factor of of the numeric total of the birth dates of the mothers of the KC Royals starting rotation., divided by the length of my ****. Trust me, Euclid himself would struggle with that calculation.</P>


<FONT size=6>Or</FONT></P>


The champs are just the champs until someone else is the champs.</P>


Ah yes, the simplest explaination is always the correct one.</P>

dezzzR
05-25-2010, 04:54 PM
No one but you mentioned being champs of a given year. You are either the current champs or your not. And there is always a current champ.</p>

False, there is no current champ of the 2010 NBA season

Right, but the Lakers are the champs


they were last years champs, they didn't win the NBA finals

if there is no winner of the finals than there is no champ

No, there is no champ of the 2010 season. But there is always a champ
lol. unless the defending champion isnt really a champion anymore?

DavenIII
05-25-2010, 04:54 PM
really? So do you blame David Stern when a team plays bad?

If that teams poor performance has an effect on the entirety of the NBA yes, I would blame David Stern for letting it get to that point.

do you think this oil spill will effect people and companies beyond "just" BP?

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:55 PM
I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned


Answer me this, how can the results of the 2010-2011 season already be decided before the 2011 calendar year has even begun.

once you can explain that, then I will understand, until then, what your saying is actually impossible.

I am not putting a time, date, calendar, constellation or anything else on it.

They are "champs" until someone else is. Since sports started there has always been a champ, unless it was the first year of that sports existence.


So who was the champ when baseball went on strike n didnt ifnsih the season

ny06
05-25-2010, 04:55 PM
Every sport always has a current champ.* Are the Saints no longer the champ since free agency and the draft have been condusted and teams are working for next season?

they will no longer be champs immediately following the coin toss of the earliest scheduled regular season game.

there title (as soon as that coin lands heads or tails) will turn from "Current Champs" to "Defending Champs" and they will hold the "Defending Champs" title during the course of the regular season up until they are no longer mathematically able to "Defend" their "Championship"

and then they are "champs" until the end of the Superbowl
</P>


No.* The Lakers are champions until the superbowl.* The Saints are champs until game two of the ALCS.</P>


The Yankees are champs until the first Wednesday after the first full moon in September.* If September has a blue moon, that status is extended in days by a factor of of the numeric total of the birth dates of the mothers of the KC Royals starting rotation., divided by the length of my ****.**** Trust me, Euclid himself would struggle with that calculation.</P>


<FONT size=6>Or</FONT></P>


The champs are just the champs until someone else is the champs.</P>


Ah yes, the simplest explaination is always the correct one.</P>

The Yankees are the champs... Has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:55 PM
You are looking at this the wrong way. Or at least in a different way than we are. The Lakers won the championship in the 2008-2009 season. The way I look at it, that gives them the "status" of the current champs. That is until someone else is awarded the championship this season.

I understand your point of view Morehead, I just don't agree with it, in my view, the Lakers won the Championship in the 2008-2009 season, therefore they are the 2008-2009 season Champions...."Forever" they will hold the title of "current champions" until the next season starts because, logically, there can be no current champion for a season of football that has just begun, you may (if you choose to) call the former "current champions" from last season the "defending champions" if you wish to though.




Its the "status" as the champs that I'm talking about. Otherwise, there would never be a champ. It would expire seconds after they earn it. Or are you suggesting a time period where that status exists.</P>


I am suggesting a time period where that status exists, it exists from the end of one regular season/playoff season to the beginning of the next regular season.
</P>


</P>


Where does it say that anywhere? </P>

bigblue4417
05-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Matt, since you misread my statement regarding the Yankees, let me ask this.</p>


Was there any time between their WS championship in 98 and their championship in 2000 that the Yankees were not the champs?</p>
Or the Bulls?


yea i woulda been able to answer all of this faster if some ******* doesn't always go pic crazy and flood the website so it wont load and then everything in my computer freezes


grrrrrrrrrrr

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/crying-baby-0509-s2-99576567.jpg

MattMeyerBud
05-25-2010, 04:57 PM
I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned


Answer me this, how can the results of the 2010-2011 season already be decided before the 2011 calendar year has even begun.

once you can explain that, then I will understand, until then, what your saying is actually impossible.
</p>


You are looking at this the wrong way. Or at least in a different way than we are. The Lakers won the championship in the 2008-2009 season. The way I look at it, that gives them the "status" of the current champs. That is until someone else is awarded the championship this season.</p>


Its the "status" as the champs that I'm talking about. Otherwise, there would never be a champ. It would expire seconds after they earn it. Or are you suggesting a time period where that status exists.</p>

ohhh so now there is such a thing as current champs?

Cuz i coulda swore anytime we used that phrasing last time u asked us to give u the definition or where its used.

Your not champion unless you win it in that year... u can be last years champ or the defending champ... but ur not no current champ

Morehead State
05-25-2010, 04:57 PM
I can, because he is right. In sports there is always a champ until another one is crowned


Answer me this, how can the results of the 2010-2011 season already be decided before the 2011 calendar year has even begun.

once you can explain that, then I will understand, until then, what your saying is actually impossible.

I am not putting a time, date, calendar, constellation or anything else on it.

They are "champs" until someone else is. Since sports started there has always been a champ, unless it was the first year of that sports existence.


So who was the champ when baseball went on strike n didnt ifnsih the season
</P>


All bets are off when the league stops functioning. Its a constitutional crisis. Too bad, the Yanks had a heck of a team that year.</P>