LOL, it could be 18 degrees for that game. I guarantee there will be fewer butts in seats than what we saw Saturday. Announced attendance could be close, however.
What was the announced attendance?
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
LOL, it could be 18 degrees for that game. I guarantee there will be fewer butts in seats than what we saw Saturday. Announced attendance could be close, however.
LOL. Weather won't be a factor if we (and MN) are in the race. I think far more people will pay to get into Kinnick that day than you imagine.
And people were saying that last week was a guaranteed sellout after we beat ISU.
Why would more people want to go to a potentially freezing cold game (maybe the coldest ever) as opposed to a beautiful night in September? It doesn't even make basic sense.
How about $100.
You are one of the biggest shit talkers on this board. Put your money where your big mouth is.
What makes no sense is that you think attendance is driven solely by weather. Fans (short for fanatics) will show if the team is winning regardless of the weather.
Well he does post like an obsessed ISU fan. Rips on everything Iowa related. So it would stand to reason he thinks weather is the end all be all.
Hawk Supreme said: ↑
Not too complicated. Loser takes a significant (several week) hiatus from the board. Time to be decided later.
Not too complicated. Loser takes a significant (several week) hiatus from the board. Time to be decided later.
Just as everyone thought. You are just a loud mouth chicken $hit
Do you realize that our announced attendance figures are now the actual number of people having their tickets scanned at the gates? This changed a number of years ago when the university was touting a streak of sellout games as fully attended, when in fact there were empty seats at some of the early non-con games. The school got some heat, and they reverted to actually counting people that show up. And unlike some schools do (or used to do?), we don't count vendors, players, coaches, etc. as attendees of the game.
I like how you can "guarantee" there will be fewer butts, but then say that you expect announced attendance to be close, implying that the university will pad the numbers or lie. You're already setting up a defense for yourself if you were to lose any bet. "Well, they announced an attendance greater than Pittsburgh, but I looked around, and could tell there were fewer people there. So the bet is off." The only way to establish actual attendance is to use the announced attendance. If you don't believe that the figure can be trusted, then you have no basis under which to make any sort of guarantee that could be factually verified.
I fear my explanation may have lost you, but I think most of the people involved in the argument will get my points.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,004
- 200,728
- 113
That's hardly a fair bet. You change handles about 60 times a year.
Not sure if you are aware of Hawk Supreme's posting history but he has about 200 different user names. Da Coach was the most memorable. Even when he loses the bet he just creates a new screen name and continues posting his mindless dribble that is almost always wrong. He can easily be picked out because when he is proven wrong as he always is he changes the argument or changes his screen name. It's been going on for 5 years.
I am pretty sure this is who we are dealing with
Absolutely I will take that bet.
Minnesota will easily eclipse Pitt in attendance.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,004
- 200,728
- 113
No, no they were not. Nice thing about the new Rivals network is you can see all old posts. Go back and find all of those guarantees.
I was one of the most vocal about there being a lot more tickets sold and even I didn't guarantee a Pitt sellout.
LC has shown an amazing ability to gather information on actual attendance, he has a keen sense of much more frequently and significant differences between tickets sold and ACTUAL ATTENDANCE and if you don't believe him you may be an idiot. So give him a shout if you want to keep this counting thing accurate. He is the leading expert on the subject.
Hawk Supreme said: ↑
Not too complicated. Loser takes a significant (several week) hiatus from the board. Time to be decided later.
icu81222 said: ↑
How about $100.
You are one of the biggest shit talkers on this board. Put your money where your big mouth is.
So you are too big of a pussy to take the bet? $100 big talker...
I realize you will have to work an extra 10 hour shift to come up with the dough but if you are a man, you will step up.
Oh, wait, after taxes, that wouldn't be enough to cover the bet at minimum wage. Better start asking for more hours right now.
Yes, I would like fries with my meal
Not too complicated. Loser takes a significant (several week) hiatus from the board. Time to be decided later.
icu81222 said: ↑
How about $100.
You are one of the biggest shit talkers on this board. Put your money where your big mouth is.
So you are too big of a pussy to take the bet? $100 big talker...
I realize you will have to work an extra 10 hour shift to come up with the dough but if you are a man, you will step up.
Oh, wait, after taxes, that wouldn't be enough to cover the bet at minimum wage. Better start asking for more hours right now.
Yes, I would like fries with my meal
How is this a bet if you (not your username) have absolutely no intention of honoring it?
And I accept, of course.
That is some straight ownage right there....
Similar threads
