Let's see ... so far this morning you've tried repeating what I posted two days ago and calling it your own. And you've tried "wall of words going nowhere" ... what's next?

They’re both wrong. “Coach K” didn’t tell Brooks he was a “great/terrific player”. He told Brooks he was a “gweat/tewwific pwayer”.

Edit: ... and I FUCKING WROTE IT Wednesday at 11:00 PM, but now you want to claim it as your own thought

... and you would certainly have something there, had you EVER actually said that. However, all one needs to do is scroll up top to my first comment in this discussion, to see me initially correct your stupid.

I think you’ve just provided enough fresh stupid for the both of us ...

Nope - you’re wrong yet again.

In 1897 Ohio State played Ohio Medical, Case, Michigan, Otterbein, Columbus Barracks, Oberlin, West Virginia, Cincinnatti, Ohio Wesleyan. In the same year, Michigan played Michigan State, Ohio Wesleyan, Ohio State, Oberlin, Purdue, Minnesota, Wittenberg, and Chicago. So they played two common opponents that year but…

You ARE that dense!

Are you this dense in real life?

No - Michigan didn't "start the series as the better team". Michigan was the better, more established program - a national power, competing in a premier conference.

This is just so ... soccer.

Again - suggesting that 1912 is an “arbitrary” date just doesn’t make it so.

Nope - straight facts:

Nope - just providing you with the facts. Again.

Yes, I’ll always have the facts.

*smiling and nodding, smiling and nodding*

I see ... you’ve opted to go full-on chest-thumping halfwit mode, eh?

... OR, you can be a halfwit and thump your chest and shout about how wins from the late 1800s are as indicative as wins from THIS CENTURY, in terms of current relative program competiveness. You’d have to be a moron or a Michigan fan to see 1912 - Ohio State’s entrance into the Big Ten and competitive football - as…

Hey - it’s your logic. I’m just trying to show some appreciation for the day you’ve spent flogging it ...

You've just spent an entire day looking exceptionally ridiculous, while arguing that results from decades - much less centuries - ago mean no less than recent results. What difference would it make that they haven't played in decades? By your logic, Cornell - with its 12-6 record over Michigan - should be the favored…