Jump to content

Archived

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

Guest ragtimeJOE

WAC WAS EXPOSED

Recommended Posts

Funny thing is, if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, not only would that have been a much better game, Hawai'i might taken Illinois. Then all the MWC trolls would have been replaced by WAC trolls.

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

Funny thing is, if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, not only would that have been a much better game, Hawai'i might taken Illinois. Then all the MWC trolls would have been replaced by WAC trolls.

Yoda out...

I think the appropriate response to this is one I saw on the WAC board directed to a BYU fan.

"And if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is, if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, not only would that have been a much better game, Hawai'i might taken Illinois. Then all the MWC trolls would have been replaced by WAC trolls.

Yoda out...

So this is assuming Hawaii would match-up with Illinois??.. Good grief... It's apparent to everyone except WAC fans that Hawaii barely matched up against horrible WAC teams.

Illinois would have only beat Hawaii by 14 instead of 30...

Say it with us Yoda. The WAC is garbage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

Funny thing is, if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, not only would that have been a much better game, Hawai'i might taken Illinois. Then all the MWC trolls would have been replaced by WAC trolls.

Yoda out...

Still doesn't cure the sting of ECU and UNM. Also, I doubt that hawaii would have beaten anyone in the top 25 on a neutral field. Although, I will grant that it would have been a little closer if they played Illinois and much more fitting. The b_s bowl between the two of the most undeserving teams in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to diss the MWC at all. However, I do enjoy pointing out reality to delusional MWC fans.

The amount of chest thumping over beating a bunch of teams with losing records is fricken hilarious. Then comparing it to playing a top 10 team in a BCS bowl is absolute comedy gold.

The WAC had a down year in football. Woopty-do. The MWC had a subpar year in football, and with the total luck of scheduling a TON of crappy teams in OOC, they made it look respectable.

Congrats! You're all geeked up over being the 7th best conference in the nation.

Marshall

Tulane

TCU

BYU (twice)

Those are the schools that would have been to a BCS bowl if the current rules were in place when they had successful season that got Boise and Hawaii to BCS bowls the past two years. So it's a little frustrating to see Hawaii and Boise's schedule and reap the benefits that these other conferences set up for them.

BUT props to Fresno State for taking care of Kansas State and pasting Georgia Tech (Georgia Tech must get sick of getting beat down by the WAC / MWC teams). Pat Hill sure gets his teams up for those games!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

Funny thing is, if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, not only would that have been a much better game, Hawai'i might taken Illinois. Then all the MWC trolls would have been replaced by WAC trolls.

Yoda out...

I would also say that if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, I seriously doubt that the Sugar would have taken Illinois. I kind of think Mizzou would have got in? Still, the result would have been roughly the same.

Edit: I don't think Mizzou could have gone with OK and Kansas getting in (that was dumb on my part). Still I don't think Illinois goes; maybe AZ state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing if I were a Hawaii fan: Having to watch my team play teams like Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern as a season ticket holder, watching Hawaii play tonight or watching 400 overweight men wearing no shirts and body paint in the stands and acting like Warriors... That big fat +++ that claims he's the mascot could really use a bath and a shirt.. I'm sure he scared every woman and child that watched the game tonight..

4510_464ba6f25703c.jpg:lol: ;)

#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

Guest ragtimeJOE

I would also say that if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, I seriously doubt that the Sugar would have taken Illinois. I kind of think Mizzou would have got in? Still, the result would have been roughly the same.

Edit: I don't think Mizzou could have gone with OK and Kansas getting in (that was dumb on my part). Still I don't think Illinois goes; maybe AZ state?

Man, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I posted this. I don't think there is any way the Rose could have taken Georgia. I thought the SEC was tied in with the Sugar, so I assume the Sugar would have had to signed off on it. With 2 SEC teams in other games, this would leave the Sugar scrambling for matchups and no SEC teams in SEC country. I'm sure they would never do that.

I'll bet this whole 2 team from 1 conference limit gets adjusted this offseason. After a little more thought I can see why things shook out the way they did. Basically, they could have replaced Illinois with another Big East or ACC team--I'm not sure that would have been any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is, if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia, not only would that have been a much better game, Hawai'i might taken Illinois. Then all the MWC trolls would have been replaced by WAC trolls.

Yoda out...

Why would the Tournament of Roses, under any condition other than hosting the BCS championship or the failure of either conference to provide a qualifier, take a team from any conference other than the Big 10 to play a PAC-10 team? There still is that tradition of PAC-8/10 verses Big 10 considered by the Rose Bowl, and I for one am glad for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I posted this. I don't think there is any way the Rose could have taken Georgia... After a little more thought I can see why things shook out the way they did. Basically, they could have replaced Illinois with another Big East or ACC team--I'm not sure that would have been any better.

You're forgetting one BIG part of the whole Rose Bowl -- they're desire to keep the game a Big 10-Pac 10 matchup.

They care more about the traditional Big 10-Pac 10 set up than they care about having a good match up.

That's the thing that trumps every other argument.

So the Rose Bowl wouldn't have gone out of its way to schedule up and create a better match up. They're not interested in that.

They could've replaced Illinois with anyone they pleased, but they chose not to because they want the Rose to be Big 12-Pac 10 every year unless the Rose hosts the national championship. They had it written in that way in the renegotiated BCS deal. They don't WANT it any other way.

So there was basically no other way the Rose could've shaken out -- other than them choosing another Big 10 school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAC still has 17 million reasons why they have a smile from ear to ear on their faces! Congrats on making it to the BCS again! :D

Actually, it's a LOT less than $17 million.

The BCS money Hawaii made is split with all the other non-AQ conferences -- so the MWC and CUSA both got money from Hawaii's appearance.

The WAC got the lion's share of the $17 million, and Hawaii got a chunk of that.

But the WAC only got a fraction of the $17 mil the BCS conferences get for their BCS appearances.

Which is why all this WAC/MWC talk is a load of crap.

The BCS conferences WANT us to fight for their scraps.

It keeps us from being able to form a strong enough coalition to demand more equal access to the BCS.

But naw... you guys got the right idea.

Let's just keep shooting each other down while the BCS conferences -- the true enemy here -- laugh all the way to the band.

That approach is really working, don'tcha thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAC still has 17 million reasons why they have a smile from ear to ear on their faces! Congrats on making it to the BCS again! :D

Well actually the WAC doesn't get the full 17 million but, your point is well taken...

I am sure Hawai'i and the WAC will take the check and not feel too guilty about the fraud they perpetrated on the nation.

The downside is that when the price of getting caught in that fraud is paid it may not be paid by the WAC or Hawai'i... If in a year or two a truly deserving non-AQ team gets denied a chance at a BCS bowl because of the 2007 Hawai'i/WAC fraud that would be a real shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

You're forgetting one BIG part of the whole Rose Bowl -- they're desire to keep the game a Big 10-Pac 10 matchup.

They care more about the traditional Big 10-Pac 10 set up than they care about having a good match up.

That's the thing that trumps every other argument.

So the Rose Bowl wouldn't have gone out of its way to schedule up and create a better match up. They're not interested in that.

They could've replaced Illinois with anyone they pleased, but they chose not to because they want the Rose to be Big 12-Pac 10 every year unless the Rose hosts the national championship. They had it written in that way in the renegotiated BCS deal. They don't WANT it any other way.

So there was basically no other way the Rose could've shaken out -- other than them choosing another Big 10 school.

You are definitely right. However, I was talking about beyond that. Even if the Rose was willing and/or could pass on a Big 10 team, then......(the contents of that post). I should have been more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right we did beat average teams, but the difference is we beat them so what is wrong with being proud of that? The only WAC team that had a win was Fresno and they beat a team that likely would have been rolled by UCLA (because they have a real defense and their 4th string QB is WAY better then GT's QB, if you don't believe it ask their own fan base, not to mention UCLA's RB is light years better then GT), Cal wouyld have been close either same reasons., Heck Navy likeyl would have taken them to the tool shed. Good win for Fresno, they beat a GT team that has no defense and absolutely no offense and whose interim caoch had nothing to coach for he was already fired before the game even was close to being starteed unlike UCLA whose best shot at the HC job was winning that bowl game. There was a reason why they had last choice of bowls in their conference.

Wow where do I begin with this misinformation and ludacris post?

First of all, the GT team that "would likely have been rolled by UCLA" was one of the best teams in the country on defense during the season, especially against run going into the Bowl game vs. Fresno State. They ended the season 3rd in the ACC in total defense (They were higher going in but the 285 yards rushing and 285 yards passing (talk about balance) that Fresno State put on them for 571 total yards, made their stats look a lot worse at the end of the year).

Also, UCLA's RB is light years ahead of GT's? Well why then is GT's Tashard Choice the #1 Rushing Leader in the ACC? His 1,310 yards this season almost equals UCLA's top two rushing leaders Markey and Bell COMBINED.

Also UCLA's QB is nothing to write home about, so I won't even go there.... And in regards to Tenuta being a lame duck coach, Walker at UCLA was in the same boat IMO, no one thought that his chance at landing the head coaching job at UCLA hinged on the LV bowl, they probably were not aware that Skippy would end up coach, but Walker was far from being the favorite. UCLA was a bad team at the end of the year as was GT, but if you want to talk stats, it appears GT had the stronger stats going in and Fresno blew them out of the water. Oh and Fresno State put up more yards vs. GT than UGA did :rolleyes:

So in short, there are better ways to further your MWC vs WAC jibberish than trying to fabricate info to downplay Fresno's win and make BYU's look better (since you decided to compare UCLA vs GT).

Bulldog Football! Putting in Work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

I don't want to throw my hat in this too much because I thought both were solid wins by both respective teams. I guess more of an observation than an argument is that the acc like the wac was exposed this bowl season. The acc is pathetic. I will be curious to see the final conference rankings--I'll bet the acc is near the non-aq conferences.

That aside, I'm not sure how this is still going on. The wac had somwhere around a 7-22 OOC record (throwing out the D1AA wins). The wac suffered 2 blowout losses (1 to a MWC team) and also was beaten by an underdog. bsu will fall out of the rankings and hawaii is likely to drop below BYU.

The MWC had a better OOC during the season, had a much better bowl showing, and will finished with not only the highest ranked team, but I'll bet that our top 5 will average a better ranking than the wac's top 5. I'm pretty sure every conference ranking has the MWC ahead. There really is no question which conference had the better season. Some wac-offs try to cloud their argument with smoke and mirrors of a game here or a game there, but pretty much everyone outside of wacky land knows the real situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAC still has 17 million reasons why they have a smile from ear to ear on their faces! Congrats on making it to the BCS again! :D

Here is how it works according to what I have heard... Every year now the 5 non-Auto conferences get a little over $9 million split among themselves (part of it is shared equally and the other is split according to a BC$ power rating), even if they don't make the BC$ Bowl. If a non-Auto team does make a BC$ Bowl then the 5 non-Auto conferences make another $9 million plus. Of that, roughly 70% off the top of the $9 million goes to the conference of which the team made the Bowl or around $6.3 million. The different conferences I'm sure distribute that money differently, but we only know how the WAC does it so far (because when Utah went the MWC got the full $17 million under the old rules). The way the split the money Boise St brought the WAC, was Boise St got around $4.5 million of the $6.3 million. Now the other $2.7 that did not go to the WAC is split among the 5 non-Auto conferences (so the WAC gets some more) according to the BC$ power ranking. It's my understanding they go on a credit system, top conference gets 5 credits, 2nd 4 credits, 3rd 3 credits, 4th 2 credits, and last 1 credit. So since the MWC is the top non-Auto conference, thus got 5 x $180,000 = $900,000, WAC got $720,000, and ect... Really last year the numbers were like $9.275 million instead of $9 million on both accounts (guaranteed and money for making a BC$ Bowl). So the top conference made around $1 million (close to $200,000 per credit), 2nd made around $800,000, and ect...

Of the guaranteed money, something like half is split evenly-- $9.275 million / 2 = $4,637,500 / 5 = $927,500

The other half is split according to the BC$ power rating-- $4,637,500 / 15 = $309,167 per credit

So...

Top conference gets- $2,473,335

2nd conference gets- $2,164,168

3rd conference gets- $1,855,001

4th conference gets- $1,545,834

5th conference gets- $1,236,667

Now it could be a lower % that is divided equally, but I'm just trying to give you an idea of how it works... Last year the BC$ power rating went like this; MWC, then WAC, then C-USA, then MAC, and Sun Belt...

So the rough numbers would look something like this;

WAC- $9,264,168

MWC- $3,473,335

C-USA- $2,455,001

MAC- $1,945,834

Sun Belt- $1,436,667

So yes, the conference that send the team to the BC$ does quite well, but the way the WAC splits the money the team that when to the BC$ Bowl gets over half of the total $$$.

Boise St or Hawaii (the break down);

$4.5 million off the top

$88,889 of the WAC's split of the BC$ Bowl conference power rating split

$240,463 WAC's guaranteed money split

$4,829,352 Total

Now granted these are just rough numbers, because I'm sure the WAC keeps some of these type monies for operating expenses and such...

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to throw my hat in this too much because I thought both were solid wins by both respective teams. I guess more of an observation than an argument is that the acc like the wac was exposed this bowl season. The acc is pathetic. I will be curious to see the final conference rankings--I'll bet the acc is near the non-aq conferences.

That aside, I'm not sure how this is still going on. The wac had somwhere around a 7-22 OOC record (throwing out the D1AA wins). The wac suffered 2 blowout losses (1 to a MWC team) and also was beaten by an underdog. bsu will fall out of the rankings and hawaii is likely to drop below BYU.

The MWC had a better OOC during the season, had a much better bowl showing, and will finished with not only the highest ranked team, but I'll bet that our top 5 will average a better ranking than the wac's top 5. I'm pretty sure every conference ranking has the MWC ahead. There really is no question which conference had the better season. Some wac-offs try to cloud their argument with smoke and mirrors of a game here or a game there, but pretty much everyone outside of wacky land knows the real situation.

Good point...

The WAC was 1-3 in this years Bowls (25%)

The ACC was 2-6 in this years Bowls (25%)

Also the ACC has never been known for their power offenses...

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point...

The WAC was 1-3 in this years Bowls (25%)

The ACC was 2-6 in this years Bowls (25%)

Also the ACC has never been known for their power offenses...

:unsure:

Not to mention that a 3rd to last place MWC team took down one of their top teams at the beginning of the season, and when I say took down I mean they took theym behind the tools shed and beat them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...