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

Guest Cowboy Junky

Why do the SEC fans and visitors of their board think Utah and TCU have a chance to bust the BCS, but Fresno and Boise don't?

Maybe you Wac-offs are the only ones that think national perception is the same for both of our conferences.

Who has the best shot of busting the BCS poll located at.....

http://www.dawgsports.com/

So far the results are 61 % for Utah, 32 % for TCU, 1 % for Boise, and 0 % for Fresno. Maybe they should have included Nevada in the poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

Boise and Fresno hardly lost anyone from last years teams. You guys were both young last year, and return the majority of your starters. Everyone has to replace coaches and quarterbacks, but with the amount of seniors both of your teams have, you should be better than last year.

That sounds like an excuse to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted. both teams return a lot of starters and both teams may have outstanding seasons, but turnover at HC & QB rightfully cause uncertainty in polling. What am I missing? I am neither a statistician or a rocket scientist.

Thankfully, there is more meaning in how a team finishes the season, not how they are initially placed in polls. For that reason, Utah, TCU, BSU and Fresno all have significant accomplishments to be proud of over the last 5 years.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares what a bunch of SEC-focused fans think - be it Pro-WAC or Pro-MWC?

They are out of touch with us. We just need to keep beating them - and do it more frequently (GG Wyo sweeping Ole Miss).

I'm glad football season is coming, but all the arguing of late is lame.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance...no matter how many yellowed box scores we shake at each other.

All we have right now is '06.

Let the games begin.

Go Cougars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

The reason why I brought it up is the constant argument from Wac fans that say our conferences are basically the same, that national perception of the two is the same, and that the top of the Wac is as good as the top of the MWC. This is just more evidence that none of those arguments are valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do the SEC fans and visitors of their board think Utah and TCU have a chance to bust the BCS, but Fresno and Boise don't?

Maybe you Wac-offs are the only ones that think national perception is the same for both of our conferences.

Who has the best shot of busting the BCS poll located at.....

http://www.dawgsports.com/

So far the results are 61 % for Utah, 32 % for TCU, 1 % for Boise, and 0 % for Fresno. Maybe they should have included Nevada in the poll.

So how many votes do you think Wyoming would garner in that poll? Do you ever think before you post this crap?

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

They're SEC fans so they think football gets weaker the further west you go.  They don't think the PAC-10 belongs in the BCS.

Actually, they're Georgia fans...and I'm not suprised they didn't vote for Boise State...after all, they obliterated you just last year

Here's a preview of a BCS buster from a more reputable source:

http://collegefootballnews.com/wac/2006_Pr...ate_preview.htm

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

Guest Cowboy Junky

So how many votes do you think Wyoming would garner in that poll? Do you ever think before you post this crap?

Go away little stalker. The post is about the national perception of the top of both conferences. It's not about Wyoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I brought it up is the constant argument from Wac fans that say our conferences are basically the same, that national perception of the two is the same, and that the top of the Wac is as good as the top of the MWC. This is just more evidence that none of those arguments are valid.

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.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go away little stalker. The post is about the national perception of the top of both conferences. It's not about Wyoming.

Well then, the fact that Boise & Fresno made the list says enough...I don't see any C-USA or MAC teams on the list....

Who cares what a bunch of dumb Georgia fans think anyways

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

Boise and Fresno hardly lost anyone from last years teams. You guys were both young last year, and return the majority of your starters. Everyone has to replace coaches and quarterbacks, but with the amount of seniors both of your teams have, you should be better than last year.

That sounds like an excuse to me.

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.

In other words, we lost more than you had to begin with.

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

Guest Cowboy Junky

I don't know how long you've been reading this board. I've been reading it for a while. Wac fans constantly pimp their conference and teams on this board and talk about how national perception is the same, the top teams are the same, and that the bottom feeders are bringing the Wac down.

This is evidence that national perception is not the same. Two top ten teams in a row is evidence our top teams are better.

Why is it when a MWC fan posts evidence you immediately try to change the subject?

The thread title is pretty obvious. If you aren't a part of the ongoing debate between MWC and Wac fans about who's top teams are better and national perception of the two conferences, then read a different thread.

Don't try to turn this into a what's wrong with CJ or what's wrong with Wyoming thread. If you want one of those, post it.

This is a thread comparing the top Wac teams to the top MWC teams and the national perception of the two conferences. Is that so hard to understand?

Since you asked, I'm bothered by sweet potatoes, fat girls, and questions about infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

So how many votes do you think Wyoming would garner in that poll? Do you ever think before you post this crap?

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.

Question: "how does the MWC compare to the Big East?"

Evil Vodkas response: "My neighbors dog has a four inch clit."

Thread title: "Does the MWC top teams compare to the Wac's top teams"

EV's brilliant retort: "Cowboy Junky is retarded. I've got a snake. One time I fed him some beer, he was slithering this way and that. He was all f'd up."

Get it off your chest EV because it's getting kind of weird. Do you have something to say to me? Please, clear it up and move on with your life. The only time you post is in response to me, and usually it's the intellectual equivalent of a third grader finger painting with his own shi+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Why do the SEC fans and visitors of their board think Utah and TCU have a chance to bust the BCS, but Fresno and Boise don't?

Maybe you Wac-offs are the only ones that think national perception is the same for both of our conferences.

Who has the best shot of busting the BCS poll located at.....

http://www.dawgsports.com/

So far the results are 61 % for Utah, 32 % for TCU, 1 % for Boise, and 0 % for Fresno. Maybe they should have included Nevada in the poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because of one fan poll the MWC now has the greatest recognition in the world. I'm actually one that has always said that out of all the non-BCS leagues, the MWC has had the best football performance since 2000. But you know what, you are still non-BCS, just like the WAC, just like C-USA, just like the MAC, and just like the SBC. That right there should let you know about your national recgonition.

Secondly I find it funny that suddenly you have proven your point through an internet fan poll, or a haphazard sample that cannot be considered an accurate sample, but when StanfordAggie showed an article by a sportswriter from San Francisco saying that Alex Smith played in the WAC, it is irrelevant. (And I might add that there have been other writers that have made the same mistake.) Which is it? Should we trust this poll and the articles or shall we reject both? You can't have it both ways. Neither can truly be considered an accurate sample.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do the SEC fans and visitors of their board think Utah and TCU have a chance to bust the BCS, but Fresno and Boise don't?

Maybe you Wac-offs are the only ones that think national perception is the same for both of our conferences.

Who has the best shot of busting the BCS poll located at.....

http://www.dawgsports.com/

So far the results are 61 % for Utah, 32 % for TCU, 1 % for Boise, and 0 % for Fresno. Maybe they should have included Nevada in the poll.

Why don't you post that same poll on the on every conference board available.... your premise, that the DAwg board poll is valididation of your own bias... is about as screwy as me saying that global warming is the reason for Laramie's population growth spurt.

What do a bunch of Southern Crackers know bout anything anyways....

Dirt Sorcerer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and usually it's the intellectual equivalent of a third grader finger painting with his own shi+.

kinda like trying to compare two conferences by referencing a slanted poll on a Georgia Bulldogs blog??

What you just described eerily resembles this thread lol

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

Guest Cowboy Junky

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



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...