Jump to content

Archived

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

Guest Cowboy Junky

A question for fans of the W eak A merican C heese

Recommended Posts

Let me repost this again.

Read the blog notes for his explanation of the sky high MWC numbers. Doesn't sound like SEC fans voted in this poll.

The SportsBlogs Nation stable of college sports webloggers includes supporters of two teams from the Big Ten, one team from the Big 12, three teams from the Pac-10, and four teams from the S.E.C. . . . plus one booster from the aforementioned Mountain West: Block U, who is following in the footsteps of Sunday Morning Quarterback along the path to becoming a major blogger for a mid-major team. Block U makes no concessions to the so-called B.C.S. conferences, giving no deference to U.C.L.A., declaring the Utes worthy of invitations to join the Pac-10 and play in a B.C.S. bowl game, and calling his readers' attention to the latest poll question here at Dawg Sports. How seriously should we take this mid-major . . . I'm sorry; out of respect for Block U, I will use his preferred term, non-B.C.S. . . . team? Well, less than seven hours after the new poll question was posted, Utah had received over 100 votes as this year's B.C.S. buster. If Utah's football players and coaches are as hardworking as their bloggers . . . watch out, world!

Georgia is pretty far away from the west if you ask me. It's not the end-all-be-all of football opinion, but it's a pretty good sample on the perception of the MWC compared to the perception of the Wac. For whatever reason, fans of Georgia believe the MWC is capable of breaking the BCS this year and the Wac isn't. This is the opinion of 300+ people that visit the Georgia board. It's a lot broader than the ignorant San Fransisco sports writer. Most of the Georgia posters couldn't list all of the teams in either the Wac or the MWC, yet they do know TCU and Utah could bust the BCS, when Boise is returning 26 seniors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgia is pretty far away from the west if you ask me. It's not the end-all-be-all of football opinion, but it's a pretty good sample on the perception of the MWC compared to the perception of the Wac. For whatever reason, fans of Georgia believe the MWC is capable of breaking the BCS this year and the Wac isn't. This is the opinion of 300+ people that visit the Georgia board. It's a lot broader than the ignorant San Fransisco sports writer. Most of the Georgia posters couldn't list all of the teams in either the Wac or the MWC, yet they do know TCU and Utah could bust the BCS, when Boise is returning 26 seniors.

Why dont you post a poll. Ask which WAC school has a better chance of breaking the BCS and list BYU, Utah, BSU, Fresno.

I bet it goes a page before those know it all east coasters figure out half those schools arent in the wac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing with you is impossible. You ask the question about the national perception and the strength of two conferences top teams, and you respond with something completely unrelated.

Unrelated is the what a Georgia Bulldog fan poll has to do with reality. Phil Steele, who I believe is the the pick of the lot relative to pre-season prognosticators, ranks the following teams in his national "top 40":

Boise St. #19

Utah #23

TCU #32

Fresno St. #37

Hawaii #40

San Diego St. #44

The average national ranking of the top 3 teams in each conference according to Steele:

WAC - #32

MWC - #33

What does all of this prove? Nada.

Here's another way of looking at it. Noted below are how the conferences stacked up as to 2005 season composite rankings of their top teams:

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Top Team average comparison (TCU and BSU):

WAC 40

MWC 12

Top 2-teams comparison (add Fresno St. and Utah)

WAC 40.5

MWC 31.5

Top 3-teams comparison (add Nevada and BYU)

WAC 44.3

MWC 40.0

Top 4-teams comparison (add La Tech and CSU)

WAC 49.0

MWC 47.0

Top 5-teams comparison (add Hawaii and New Mexico)

WAC 56.2

MWC 51.8

Top 6-teams comparison (add USU and San Diego St.)

WAC 64.5

MWC 55.5

Top 7-teams comparison (add SJS and Air Force)

WAC 71.0

MWC 60.0

Top 8-teams comparison (add Idaho and Wyoming)

WAC 76.4

MWC 66.0

Top 9-team comparison (add New Mexico St. and UNLV)

WAC 81.1

MWC 68.6

There's not much to choose between the strength of the top 2, 3, 4, and marginally even the 5 top teams from last year. Where the separation begins to develop is with the 4 "bottom feeders" in each league. USU, San Jose St., Idaho, and New Mexico St. were just horrible while only UNLV was horrible in the MWC.

It ain't the WAC fans that seem to have a bone to pick about the "top teams" of the conference. It's the guy that starts about 50% of the threads on this board that seems to have the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

Then stop arguing that the WAC's top teams are as good as the MWC top teams and this subject will die.

This is the only stat you need to look at.

2004 MWC champion 4th

2004 Wac champion 12th?

2005 MWC champion 9th

2005 Wac champion 30th?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then stop arguing that the WAC's top teams are as good as the MWC top teams and this subject will die.

Hey Skippy----you are the one that pulled the pin out of the grenade and rolled it on the table. The title of your thread consisted of the following:

If our top teams are the same....

Your premise was top "TEAMS" not "THE" top team.

Here are Sagarin's ranking of the top 3 teams in years past:

2005

MWC - 40.3 (thanks TCU!)

WAC - 55.7

2004

MWC - 29.3 (thanks Utah!)

WAC - 24.0 (thanks BSU and FSU!)

2003

MWC - 38.0

WAC - 45.3

2002

MWC - 49.0

WAC - 49.0

2001

MWC - 40.0

WAC- 41.3

5-year average:

MWC - 39.3

WAC - 43.1

Allow me to interpret. There is very little difference between the top teams of the two conferences over the past 5 years. Game.....set.....match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cowboy Junky -

What is bothering you so much?

Most posts I remember have given due credit to Boise, Fresno, Utah and TCU based on accomplishments over the last 5 years. 

My take-

Boise - Consistency, end of year rankings

Fresno - Big wins against BCS teams

Utah - only MM to a BCS bowl

TCU - a premier team among mid-majors (off my personal radar when they left the WAC for C-USA)

Every team has it's setbacks

Of course, there are always axe-grinders and those who think they can elevate themselves / teams by tearing others down.

It seems Junky has multipersonality dissorder. Sometimes he's Junky talking up Boise and how they will be the next non-BCS team to bust in. The other times he's Junky thrashinig on WAC fans...and calling their conference W eak A merican C heese (whatever that is) and saying their stupid for thinking they could ever have a team worthy of busting in the BCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it from someone who lives in Georgia.

Fresno State has made a name for itself in football and people make comments to me all the time about the Bulldog sticker on my car or my Fresno State visor.

What you are mistaking for fondess is simply one Bulldog barking at another. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if someone already posted this, but i skipped right to the bottom of the thread. Junky, you are an idiot. A NATIONWIDE poll by ESPN showed Fresno nearly tied with TCU in votes. I will have to post the link for you, because you won't believe me. The only state that Utah led the voting in was, well, Utah. This poll obviously had a larger sample size (with over 1,000 voters from a states with more voters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then stop arguing that the WAC's top teams are as good as the MWC top teams and this subject will die.

This is the only stat you need to look at.

2004 MWC champion 4th

2004 Wac champion 12th?

2005 MWC champion 9th

2005 Wac champion 30th?

Now go back 5 years, and see where the MWC ends up.

Junky,

I love reading your posts, you crack me up half the time. But come on, proof of anything from an SEC poll? Thats a pretty big stretch, even for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Junky has multipersonality dissorder.  Sometimes he's Junky talking up Boise and how they will be the next non-BCS team to bust in. The other times he's  Junky thrashinig on WAC fans...and calling their conference W eak A merican C heese (whatever that is) and saying their stupid for thinking they could ever have a team worthy of busting in the BCS.

This board gets slow, so Junky likes to stir the pot.... noth'in wrong w/ stir'in the pot either... just sometimes ya have to eat yer own cooking.........

Dirt Sorcerer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me but "hardly lost anyone"?  We had three players drafted -- highest of any non-BCS school -- and had five more players sign free agent contracts within 24 hours of the draft. And I think we had a couple more sign later.

"Highest" implies more than anyone else. Since TCU had three as well, we can just chalk this up as another b/s post by Yoda. Throw some s hit on the wall and see if it sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Highest" implies more than anyone else.

____________________________________________...

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



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...