PonyFans.com

Cougar_triumph wrote: And to the tulsa fan hurling "cooger highs" around on this thread...HA! Wait your turn little lamb. We're saving the best for last.

Now cougar high is really gonna p!$$-off the aggies. they regard their lambs very highly.

GO PONIES!!!

Make sure you never forget this history either:



or this:

A few words about Penn State from a student I know well
I asked Emily Kaplan, a friend of mine from New Jersey, a Penn State junior, and a writer for the campus paper the Daily Collegian, to write something about how the campus was dealing with the Sandusky/Paterno crisis. Her report, filed Sunday night from State College, Pa.:
The origin of the iconic "We Are ... Penn State" chant, the school's signature slogan on and off the football field, is believed to have occurred the same year Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier. In the pre-Paterno year of 1947, SMU didn't want to play Penn State because of PSU's two African-American players and wanted to negotiate a compromise. "We are Penn State," said captain Steve Suhey. "There will be no meetings."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1dniHW8XT

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/11/14/Week10/1.html

I thought that would shut you up. Now make sure you get back to your hilarious 7-11 references. Those never, ever stop being funny.

Cougar_triumph wrote:Houston 95, SMU 21.

I promise you'll forget. What's coming on Saturday will make that seem like a scrimmage. I know people who were at that game, and yeah, it was awful. Klingler had to throw passes into the 3rd row to keep from breaking 100. This current squad isn't as gracious.

nor are they as talented...

Cougar_triumph wrote:Houston 95, SMU 21.

Wait your turn little lamb. We're saving the best for last.

who talks like that?

Wolphboy wrote:I thought that would shut you up. Now make sure you get back to your hilarious 7-11 references. Those never, ever stop being funny.

have you forgotten that SMU had the first black scholarship player in the SWC?

no go refill the cheese and chili dispensers. you know how people like their big bites.

Wolphboy wrote:Make sure you never forget this history either:



or this:

A few words about Penn State from a student I know well
I asked Emily Kaplan, a friend of mine from New Jersey, a Penn State junior, and a writer for the campus paper the Daily Collegian, to write something about how the campus was dealing with the Sandusky/Paterno crisis. Her report, filed Sunday night from State College, Pa.:
The origin of the iconic "We Are ... Penn State" chant, the school's signature slogan on and off the football field, is believed to have occurred the same year Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier. In the pre-Paterno year of 1947, SMU didn't want to play Penn State because of PSU's two African-American players and wanted to negotiate a compromise. "We are Penn State," said captain Steve Suhey. "There will be no meetings."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1dniHW8XT

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/11/14/Week10/1.html

dude, that was from 1981...

Junior wrote:

Wolphboy wrote:Make sure you never forget this history either:



or this:

A few words about Penn State from a student I know well
I asked Emily Kaplan, a friend of mine from New Jersey, a Penn State junior, and a writer for the campus paper the Daily Collegian, to write something about how the campus was dealing with the Sandusky/Paterno crisis. Her report, filed Sunday night from State College, Pa.:
The origin of the iconic "We Are ... Penn State" chant, the school's signature slogan on and off the football field, is believed to have occurred the same year Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier. In the pre-Paterno year of 1947, SMU didn't want to play Penn State because of PSU's two African-American players and wanted to negotiate a compromise. "We are Penn State," said captain Steve Suhey. "There will be no meetings."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1dniHW8XT

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/11/14/Week10/1.html

dude, that was from 1981...

Dude, 95 -21 was from 1989.

the [deleted] sign is very very embarrassing but ultimately a deed perpetrated by really stupid kids. 95-21 was a decision made by grown men, cheered on by grown men and condoned by grown men. You beat the living crap out of a team will all true freshmen, little to no D1 offers in their sixth game in D1 ball...bravo.

Wolphboy wrote:
Dude, 95 -21 was from 1989.

yet you're still talking about it...

i'm wondering how we actually scored 21 points in that game. More points than we scored against USM, Tulsa or Navy!!

Junior wrote:

Wolphboy wrote:
Dude, 95 -21 was from 1989.

yet you're still talking about it...

You have a thread dedicated to it. We only talk about it when someone else brings it up.

Did you expect that team to suddenly break out the wishbone again? They played everyone on the roster that game. Should we have knelt down in front of you? Punted on first down? Or did you want us to run the ball time and time again? The only embarrassing part of it is that you still complain about us running it up, when in reality, it was the offense that we ran, it was the reads that the kids were taught to make. They played liked they practiced. Maybe we should have lined up under center and ran off tackle all game. Problem was, that play wasn't in the playbook.

You got embarrassed in that game, ultimately, because your program was eliminated because your cheating was so bad, so institutionalized, that the NCAA felt it appropriate to kill it. You should be embarrassed for how bad the cheating was, not because of this score.

SMU2007 wrote:i'm wondering how we actually scored 21 points in that game. More points than we scored against USM, Tulsa or Navy!!

apparently, their defense was as full of [deleted] as their offense was.

Wolphboy wrote:

Junior wrote:

Wolphboy wrote:
Dude, 95 -21 was from 1989.

yet you're still talking about it...

You have a thread dedicated to it. We only talk about it when someone else brings it up.

Did you expect that team to suddenly break out the wishbone again? They played everyone on the roster that game. Should we have knelt down in front of you? Punted on first down? Or did you want us to run the ball time and time again? The only embarrassing part of it is that you still complain about us running it up, when in reality, it was the offense that we ran, it was the reads that the kids were taught to make. They played liked they practiced. Maybe we should have lined up under center and ran off tackle all game. Problem was, that play wasn't in the playbook.

You got embarrassed in that game, ultimately, because your program was eliminated because your cheating was so bad, so institutionalized, that the NCAA felt it appropriate to kill it. You should be embarrassed for how bad the cheating was, not because of this score.

gimme a break. we all know what went on here. do you really think we're PROUD of it?

but you seem to be PROUD of the fact that you took it to us that day. that you were able to pile it on a team full of freshmen and sophomores. notre dame called off the dogs in the second half, but i guess you would call that a sign a weakness as opposed to a some sort of sportsmanship (even though our team said they wished that they had kept trying as that was almost a bigger insult). this type of crap is exactly why they took out the margin of victory component of the computer rankings.