Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CUSA/Tall Grass

Poor Yoda.

Recommended Posts

A newspaper article posted on the Big East board and subsequently re-posted on the CUSA board quotes the BE Commissioner acknowledging that the Big East has no plans to expand. A 9 team conference is recognized as being much easier to schedule but there is no 9th team out there that would bring value to the Big East says the Commish.

Here's my take. The BE will split $17 among 8 teams (more than $2 million per BE team) and so why split it with a 9th team. Any 9th member has to automatically bring more than $2 million to the Big East table...just to keep the Big East even with money distribution. Sorry Yoda! Rather than expanding, just give some team $300K to $500K to play an extra home game at the Big East school and to heck with expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A newspaper article posted on the Big East board and subsequently re-posted on the CUSA board quotes the BE Commissioner acknowledging that the Big East has no plans to expand.  A 9 team conference is recognized as being much easier to schedule but there is no 9th team out there that would bring value to the Big East says the Commish.

Here's my take. The BE will split $17 among 8 teams (more than $2 million per BE team) and so why split it with a 9th team. Any 9th member has to automatically bring more than $2 million to the Big East table...just to keep the Big East even with money distribution. Sorry Yoda! Rather than expanding, just give some team $300K to $500K to play an extra home game at the Big East school and to heck with expansion.

OH good grief. If you think Yoda was really serious then I have a bridge to sell you. He was playing and enjoys the discussion. I expect he was in debate LOL

go get em yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A newspaper article posted on the Big East board and subsequently re-posted on the CUSA board quotes the BE Commissioner acknowledging that the Big East has no plans to expand.  A 9 team conference is recognized as being much easier to schedule but there is no 9th team out there that would bring value to the Big East says the Commish.

Here's my take. The BE will split $17 among 8 teams (more than $2 million per BE team) and so why split it with a 9th team. Any 9th member has to automatically bring more than $2 million to the Big East table...just to keep the Big East even with money distribution. Sorry Yoda! Rather than expanding, just give some team $300K to $500K to play an extra home game at the Big East school and to heck with expansion.

Well, we all know that if a commisioner says that a conference "has no plans to expand" it can mean a lot of things, like it "has no plans to expand in the next 15 minutes" or it "is having discussions about expanding but no plans" or "stop asking me about expansion" or, most likely in this case, "there won't be any expansion before we split".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tall, I think you suffer from Yoda-envy -- and I think most everybody here would agree that there is no sadder malady on the planet than Yoda-envy... :(

The article states: "Tranghese acknowledges a nine-team conference would be ideal for scheduling. But adding a ninth team is not on his list of priorities.

"We haven't even played a game in our league with our new members," he said. "There are a lot of issues with a ninth team. OK, it will make scheduling easier. But are they going to bring us any value? No. So, you want to make scheduling easier and we'll give our money away? It's illogical.

"I think our people would look very favorably upon a ninth team if it was the kind of school we wanted to be affiliated with and they brought some value. You don't just bring people in to solve a scheduling issue. That doesn't make sense. With the teams that are available, I don't think there's anybody out there who's going to bring us extra television value or bowl value."

=====

END

=====

The problem that the Big East has is that there is not a single available eastern expansion candidate that will improve their power ratings over the long haul. So expansion is anything but a high priority for MT.

At the same time, however, they do have a strong need for a ninth football team -- especially with the new 12 game season. There are only two or three non-BCS schools in the country that would improve their power rating now and that have the infrastructure to be able to sustain their on-field success on into the future. The two are Utah and Fresno State -- the third, maybe, is Boise State. Now I'm thinking that Utah is not available and I'm also thinking that all three are too far outside their geographic footprint to be attractive to them -- even on a football only basis. But I still think you can make a plausible argument for the inclusion of any of the three.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH good grief.  If you think Yoda was really serious then I have a bridge to sell you.  He was playing and enjoys the discussion.  I expect he was in debate LOL

go get em yoda

I agree, Yoda provides some good insight from time to time, but he is a homer for his own school, just like the rest of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH good grief.  If you think Yoda was really serious then I have a bridge to sell you.  He was playing and enjoys the discussion.  I expect he was in debate LOL

go get em yoda

Actually, I'm absolutely serious. And I was never in debate -- although I do enjoy a challenging argument.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tall, I think you suffer from Yoda-envy -- and I think most everybody here would agree that there is no sadder malady on the planet than Yoda-envy...  :(

You have to admit that it's hard to argue with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fun part for the BE will be trying to find 5 non-conference games every year.  I can see all of them playing two non-D1 games every year now that they will count toward bowl eligibility.

What effect do you think playing D1AA (two or more per team) will do to the computer ratings for the BCS conferences? I think they may drop the rating some, that may bode well for the MWC.

For example: If each BE team played two D1AA teams next year, I think that would drop the Sagarin rating for the BE. Am I missing something here. Big XII teams are in a rush to add D1AA schools (TT has two, I think K-State also and several more are running after them for 06 season).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What effect do you think playing D1AA (two or more per team) will do to the computer ratings for the BCS conferences?  I think they may drop the rating some, that may bode well for the MWC. 

Of course it will drop them some, which could help the MWC as long as we don't start scheduling D1-AA's too.

For example:  If each BE team played two D1AA teams next year, I think that would drop the Sagarin rating for the BE.  Am I missing something here.  Big XII teams are in a rush to add D1AA schools (TT has two, I think K-State also and several more  are running after them for 06 season).

The problem for the BE is that their in-conference power ratings are not as strong as the SEC, ACC, Big12, Big 10 or PAC-10, so it will hurt them much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the BE expanding is that they already have 16 member schools. It is the Commissioner's job to keep those schools together in the same conference, and it's impossible to expand without splitting into an 8-team football conference and an 8-team "christian" basketball conference... furthermore it is expected that in such a split, Notre Dame would side with their counterpart religio-basketball schools.

Still, there is a lot of pressure from the football schools to #1 Split, and split soon (basketball schools as well), #2 Get rid of pesky Notre Dame, stopping them from "leeching" of off their hard-earned money, and #3 Expand to at least 9, adding a school like Memphis that brings in an almost guaranteed Bowl game and is better than average in both football and basketball. They hate their scheduling situation in the Big east right now, and rightfully so. But if they ever add ECU or UCF I'll pity them, the poor fools. That is, unless they somehow manage to do that and keep their auto-bid, then I'll just hate them instead!

#20 BYU 14, #3 Oklahoma 13

#18 BYU 26, #21 Utah 23

#14 BYU 44, #16 Oregon State 20

#10 BYU 82, Utah 69

#14 BYU 71, Utah 51

#16 BYU 99, Florida 92

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eldermars, the Big East's problem is that Memphis DOESN'T bring "better than average football" to the table. In fact, they would bring down the conference power rating.

Sagarin rating for Memphis are as follows:

2004 -- 69.21

2003 -- 71.96

2002 -- 59.73

2001 -- 63.87

AVG -- 66.19

Quoting from the revised version of what was sent out...

[start]

Clearly, the Big East is functionally no longer one of the top conferences. They are a mid-major with a very serious problem. There are only two expansion candidates in the east that can significantly impact their power ratings in a positive way

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand, you have to have the VOTES FIRST. Mike Tranghese knows that he will never have the votes for expansion under their current setup. In a 16 team Big East Conference it takes 12 "YES" votes for expansion to happen, you will never be able to get those 12 "YES" votes and Tranghese knows this.

What you will see happen with the Big East is that it will split into two conferences in either 2008 or 2009. The eight Football schools will break away to form their own conference leaving behind the eight Basketball schools.

When this breakup occurs the eight football schools will either become a nine team conference or a 12 team conference. This means they will invite either one new all sports member to join them or they will invite four new all sports members to join them.

The leading candidates are Central Florida, Memphis, East Carolina and Marshall.

The Big East currently is NOT looking to expand, Tranghese is correct. He can't get the 12 votes for expansion and never will be able to get the votes for expansion. This is well known and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

What Tranghese is not telling you is that the days are numbered for the Big East-16 team conference and that it won't last another four years in its current form. Change is coming!

Word on the street is that Craig Thompson knows he can't get the votes for expansion either, that is why all is quiet on the MWC expansion front. The current presidents have already made it clear to Thompson that they are not going to give him the 75% (7 "yes" votes) he needs to add a 10th, 11th or 12th school anytime soon. Getting the votes for TCU was not easy and several arrangements had to be made at the time to even come up with the six "YES" votes in that mess.

Fresno and Boise can talk all the $hit they want about the MWC but they DO NOT have the seven "yes" votes needed to be admitted to this conference. If they did have the seven "YES" votes they would already be in.

Good luck getting those votes.

Nevada is the next likely to be admitted and they are the closest to getting the needed votes for expansion. If you want UNLV's "YES" Vote a deal is going to have to be worked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Memphis went 5-6 in 2001, 3-9 in 2002, 9-4 in 2003, and 8-4 in 2004. That's 25-23 over the last 4 years, slightly above average though undoubtedly in a weak conference. I would respect the addition of Marshall or Bowling Green much more, but Marshall had a down year in 2004 (their first in a long time) and West Virginia hates them, and I don't think that BG is even in the picture yet. They certainly don't have any Boises or Fresnos to add, and thus need to hope to create some in their new conference by adding money to their programs.

RebelRobert, good to see you again! You know, if they can't get a 75% vote to add Boise and Fresno, our conference is run by complete morons! Same could be said if they added Nevada. Do you know that I've been stumping on this board for the last week and a half to have UNLV kicked out of the MWC beginning in the 2008 season? I would consider myself much more BCS without you guys. :)

#20 BYU 14, #3 Oklahoma 13

#18 BYU 26, #21 Utah 23

#14 BYU 44, #16 Oregon State 20

#10 BYU 82, Utah 69

#14 BYU 71, Utah 51

#16 BYU 99, Florida 92

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, you've got a lot of wishful thinking going on here...

Yes, no question, no matter the conference, you need the votes. And I haven't a clue who has how many votes -- well, no more than you do (which is zilch).

But the Big East will not be splitting into two conferences unless they can expand and still keep their autobid. So who are they going to add? Let's look at your four leading candidates:

Sagarin ratings for Central Florida are as follows:

2004 -- 44.01

2003 -- 55.28

2002 -- 68.60

2001 -- 69.60

AVG. -- 59.37

(And incidentally, their four year home attendance average is only 21,508 -- hardly worthy of a BCS school and barely worthy of a D1-A school.)

Sagarin ratings for Memphis are as follows:

2004 -- 69.21

2003 -- 71.96

2002 -- 59.73

2001 -- 63.87

AVG -- 66.19

Sagarin ratings for East Carolina are as follows:

2004 -- 56.71

2003 -- 51.25

2002 -- 64.11

2001 -- 71.89

AVG. -- 60.99

Sagarin ratings for Marshall are as follows:

2004 -- 62.67

2003 -- 72.70

2002 -- 74.01

2001 -- 79.09

AVG. -- 72.12

Three of these four schools would lower the four year average Sagarin rating of the conference. The fourth, Marshall, gives it a slight bump, but look at their trend -- they are in a four year freefall from 79.09 to 62.67.

Let's look at it a different way...

Based upon their four year Sagarin averages, there are 7 better non-BCS schools in the country than Marshall (and they are still in a free fall), 19 better schools than Memphis (one better than UNLV), 27 better schools than ECU and 31 better schools Central Florida. And you want to build a BCS conference with them?

Or how about this...

If the four schools were in a MWC 13 (nine, plus these four), then:

Marshall would be the third best team in the conference

Memphis would be the 8th best team in the conference

ECU and UCF would be the worst two teams in the conference.

Suggesting that you can build a conference around these schools is like suggesting that the best way for the MWC to get into the BCS is to invite Idaho, New Mexico State and Utah State -- which would sound like a really stupid idea except that is what the WAC did. We've outflanked you!

Again, that's why this Fresno/Boise thing isn't as far fetched as it sounds. The Big East quite literally has two choices -- take Fresno and Boise (for football only) or fall behind the MWC. End of story.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the Big East could add USC and Texas, while they're at it. That would be a better option right? Unfortunately Hawaii and San Jose State already turned them down.

#20 BYU 14, #3 Oklahoma 13

#18 BYU 26, #21 Utah 23

#14 BYU 44, #16 Oregon State 20

#10 BYU 82, Utah 69

#14 BYU 71, Utah 51

#16 BYU 99, Florida 92

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Or the Big East could add USC and Texas, while they're at it.  That would be a better option right?  Unfortunately Hawaii and San Jose State already turned them down.

The point is, in order to achieve an autobid, both the Big East and the MWC have a desperate need to add strength. I've chosen to look only at "available" schools and, on that basis, I chose to ignore USC and Texas -- and Utah, by the way.

Fresno and Boise are available and they are the #3 and #1 rated non-BCS schools in the country (respectively, based upon their 4 year Sagarin averages). They are the only two available schools in the country that either conference can add that will improve their power ratings on a consistent basis.

The Mountain West has repeatedly chosen to pass on those two schools. That is a choice that your Presidents have every right to make. But having made it, the decision to explore other options is a choice that we have a right to make. Indeed, it is a choice that we have a responsibility to make.

All I'm trying to do is to point out to the Big East the advantages of leaving their geographic footprint -- the advantages of thinking outside the box. They would improve their own power ratings and, at the same time, they would prevent you from ever improving yours through expansion. In my opinion, it is both their best defensive strategy and their best offensive strategy -- and it is not often that a strategy meets both those objectives.

You folks think I'm nuts. But the people that are nuts are the people who assumed that we were eunichs with no other options -- the people who assumed that we would always be there, contentedly and excitedly panting like dogs anxious for their master's return. That would be your athletic directors, your presidents and even a lot of your fans. Wrong move, in my view. Wrong paradigm.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoda Plan II = one fan's delusional desperation.

I'm not delusional. I can make a plausible case -- perhaps a strong case even -- but if it were to happen, I'd be as surprised as you. Like I said, sometimes you have to make the effort even if you expect to lose. Call that desperation if you want.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, you've got a lot of wishful thinking going on here...

Yes, no question, no matter the conference, you need the votes.  And I haven't a clue who has how many votes -- well, no more than you do (which is zilch).

But the Big East will not be splitting into two conferences unless they can expand and still keep their autobid.  So who are they going to add?  Let's look at your four leading candidates:

   

Three of these four schools would lower the four year average Sagarin rating of the conference.  The fourth, Marshall, gives it a slight bump, but look at their trend -- they are in a four year freefall from 79.09 to 62.67.

Let's look at it a different way...

Based upon their four year Sagarin averages, there are 7 better non-BCS schools in the country than Marshall (and they are still in a free fall), 19 better schools than Memphis (one better than UNLV), 27 better schools than ECU and 31 better schools Central Florida. And you want to build a BCS conference with them?

Or how about this...

If the four schools were in a MWC 13 (nine, plus these four), then:

Marshall would be the third best team in the conference

Memphis would be the 8th best team in the conference

ECU and UCF would be the worst two teams in the conference.

Suggesting that you can build a conference around these schools is like suggesting that the best way for the MWC to get into the BCS is to invite Idaho, New Mexico State and Utah State -- which would sound like a really stupid idea except that is what the WAC did.  We've outflanked you!

Again, that's why this Fresno/Boise thing isn't as far fetched as it sounds.  The Big East quite literally has two choices -- take Fresno and Boise (for football only) or fall behind the MWC.  End of story.

Yoda out...

This is all fine and dandy, but you're forgetting about the "human element"...the safety net, of the new BCS deal....what the Big East really needs is for someone like Louisville to really take off the next couple of seasons...then no one will care about Sagarin's rankings, especially the human element...

All rules aside...All you really need to get in the BCS is to CONSISTENTLY field a top 10 team

LSU alum/FSU fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...