Forgive the bump, but it's compelling to me that there has been utter silence concerning the input regarding progression/relegation by informed others. I realize that probably shouldn't suggest anything more than "I'm tired of dealing with your idiot ways of thinking" by the one who initiated that argument against... but it appears the initial argument is, at least, difficult to make and not worth the time to try to prop up and support.

(05-20-2013 11:56 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Forgive the bump, but it's compelling to me that there has been utter silence concerning the input regarding progression/relegation by informed others. I realize that probably shouldn't suggest anything more than "I'm tired of dealing with your idiot ways of thinking" by the one who initiated that argument against... but it appears the initial argument is, at least, difficult to make and not worth the time to try to prop up and support.

It's not exactly what you're proposing, but you already know that CUSA and the MWC were going to merge.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...g-together

Nevertheless, if I understand your suggestion (correct me if I’m wrong), one of the two conferences would have to agree to becoming the worst FBS conference ever….

(05-20-2013 11:56 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Forgive the bump, ...

No. And your excuse given for the bump seems to boil down to "forgive the bump but nobody was interested in talking to me about my brilliant idea so this was dropping down the topic list".

Except those are precisely the topics that OUGHT TO drop down the topic list. If the only person who was willing to bump this was the original poster, but the original poster insists on bumping it, it should be locked.

This is how strut works... If you comment that he is putting something stupid up he chides you ofr participating in "his thread" when you don't like "his idea". And then laughingly jokes who you pup it up..

But when people rightfully ignore this steaming pile he bumps it himself for any dang reason he sees fit..

(hehe... can't we all just get along?...)

So, let me get this straight.

(1) Bruce, you fire off a post that asserts your expertise on a topic of interest within the scope of the thread... namely, progression/relegation as it has been studied and assessed in European leagues...

(2) Strangely, you do not reply when, on the basis of just the first page of returned links from a Google search, your assertion is found to be severely lacking in the balance department, ill-informed...

(3) And when I give you a second chance to offer a rational reply, the best you can do is offer some juvenile attack on me for bumping it... yes... s'helpme... bumping it up yourself just so you could complain about the bumping... evidently figuring no one here is intelligent enough to note the attempt at distraction from the substance of the discussion.

Yes...sorry Bruce... you, too, Bull since you don't like for me to laugh... but that's some funny stuff there.

Gave you a second shot at it, thinking you might have something worth adding, Bruce... but... can't help but say I'm disappointed that it appears you *still* have no actual adult content that is responsive to the counterpoints made.

But hey, I'm here for legitimate discussion about legitimate questions and ideas... not to pursue embarrassing anyone. If you want to let this particular thread drift on down the page, I'm good with that and won't get it the way of that again.

Let me just reply to Underdog and/or anyone else that chimes in, and then I'll indulge your wish.

(05-20-2013 12:16 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:56 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Forgive the bump, but it's compelling to me that there has been utter silence concerning the input regarding progression/relegation by informed others. I realize that probably shouldn't suggest anything more than "I'm tired of dealing with your idiot ways of thinking" by the one who initiated that argument against... but it appears the initial argument is, at least, difficult to make and not worth the time to try to prop up and support.

It's not exactly what you're proposing, but you already know that CUSA and the MWC were going to merge.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...g-together

Nevertheless, if I understand your suggestion (correct me if I’m wrong), one of the two conferences would have to agree to becoming the worst FBS conference ever….

(1) CUSA/MWC... yes... though it was never explicitly indicated what form that merger would take... in hindsight, it appears it may have been more accurately considered an attempt by Thompson and Banowsky to get Marinnato to engage them in a three-conference cooperative.

(2) Neither the 12 remaining MAC schools nor the 12 remaining CUSA schools would be becoming worse than the other, and both likely would continue to be at least as good as SBC. The 4 MAC and 4 CUSA ascending to what I'm calling the Great 8 Conference would constitute a conference that--talking numbers here, so removing the subjectivity from it--would annually be reasonably expected to compete with AAC and MWC for the lone guaranteed major bowl slot.

If you're familiar with the Marathon Oil + Ashland Oil cooperative ventures of several years ago... under which, if you bought your gas at Speedway, you were benefiting both... I've used that as an example of how the Great 8 would be cooperative venture... so some have inquired about TV money, and that would remain the same--no special cut for being in the Great 8.

Helpful?

(05-20-2013 03:42 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:16 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:56 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Forgive the bump, but it's compelling to me that there has been utter silence concerning the input regarding progression/relegation by informed others. I realize that probably shouldn't suggest anything more than "I'm tired of dealing with your idiot ways of thinking" by the one who initiated that argument against... but it appears the initial argument is, at least, difficult to make and not worth the time to try to prop up and support.

It's not exactly what you're proposing, but you already know that CUSA and the MWC were going to merge.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...g-together

Nevertheless, if I understand your suggestion (correct me if I’m wrong), one of the two conferences would have to agree to becoming the worst FBS conference ever….

(1) CUSA/MWC... yes... though it was never explicitly indicated what form that merger would take... in hindsight, it appears it may have been more accurately considered an attempt by Thompson and Banowsky to get Marinnato to engage them in a three-conference cooperative.

(2) Neither the 12 remaining MAC schools nor the 12 remaining CUSA schools would be becoming worse than the other, and both likely would continue to be at least as good as SBC. The 4 MAC and 4 CUSA ascending to what I'm calling the Great 8 Conference would constitute a conference that--talking numbers here, so removing the subjectivity from it--would annually be reasonably expected to compete with AAC and MWC for the lone guaranteed major bowl slot.

If you're familiar with the Marathon Oil + Ashland Oil cooperative ventures of several years ago... under which, if you bought your gas at Speedway, you were benefiting both... I've used that as an example of how the Great 8 would be cooperative venture... so some have inquired about TV money, and that would remain the same--no special cut for being in the Great 8.

Helpful?

How can you take four schools from each conference and form your Great Eight, but have them still associated with their former conferences? Explain how NCAA rules would allow this. Also, both conferences wouldn't give up their best schools. Moreover, these Great Eight schools would probably still be considered secondary to either Boise St or the AAC champ even if the idea were feasible....

Short answers since I'm on a tablet...

1) NCAA manual establishes parameters... and this does conform to those.

2) Conferences don't actually lose anything... and stand to gain in a couple of ways that have been explained in this thread -- (a) stronger shot at major bowl and (b) production of a third champion, which also translates into greater interest since the otherwise middling teams are also competing for a title, and potentially a shot at elevation to the Great 8.

3) Not actually. Rather this sets up what amounts to a repeat of the catapult that Kent was to Northern Illinois... ie, SOME team among the G8 ends their season with three wins against what is inherently quality opponents,at least at the Group of Five level.

(05-11-2013 10:37 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  - CUSA adds 2 schools... perhaps Georgia State (East) and Texas State (West)

- MAC adds 3 schools... perhaps Army, Delaware and James Madison (all East)

- Top two football schools from the MAC East, MAC West, CUSA East and CUSA West--8 total--secede to form new football-only conference, though one that remains in an "alliance" relationship with CUSA and MAC

(05-12-2013 08:51 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 03:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Football only FBS conferences are not allowed. Eight schools must play the required number of Olympic sports together in order to sponsor FBS football. Football only members are allowed, but only after the 8 all-sports member threshold has been met.

I'd heard that, but when I downloaded the manual, couldn't find it.

Found it after all.

Requirement is 6 men's sports that include football and basketball, and 8 women's sports that include basketball. Overall, a conference must sponsor at least 12 championships; so, indeed, it wouldn't be a football-only situation. But that's okay. In fact, it's potentially even advantageous, placing an additional conference champion into the mix for March Madness.

I'll commend you for trying with your proposal because a lot of thought went into it. However, your proposal isn’t practical, which is why you changed it from a football only conference (which is impossible under NCAA rules) to creating a new conference. Your proposal would require schools to pay exit fees to join the Great 8 conference because no conference would let its top four schools just leave for free. Moreover, a better and similar proposal like yours was already tried and failed—the former Big East. It tried to add the best schools the MWC had, but couldn’t get the commitment from the schools. Nevertheless, a more improved version of your proposal does exist; It’s called the AAC. None of the schools that are in your proposal were once in a BCS conference. However, the AAC has five: UCONN, UC, USF, Temple, and Tulane (was once in the SEC). Furthermore, the AAC added the best schools CUSA had to offer. Therefore, instead of the eight best schools currently in the MAC and CUSA forming a new conference as you've proposed, the best schools in CUSA formed a new conference with a former BCS conference—the Big East (now known as the AAC). Consequently, enlighten me on how the Great 8 would be a better conference than the AAC….

(05-21-2013 08:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  - Top two football schools from the MAC East, MAC West, CUSA East and CUSA West--8 total--secede to form new football-only conference, though one that remains in an "alliance" relationship with CUSA and MAC

(05-12-2013 08:51 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 03:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Football only FBS conferences are not allowed. Eight schools must play the required number of Olympic sports together in order to sponsor FBS football. Football only members are allowed, but only after the 8 all-sports member threshold has been met.

Requirement is 6 men's sports that include football and basketball, and 8 women's sports that include basketball. Overall, a conference must sponsor at least 12 championships; so, indeed, it wouldn't be a football-only situation. But that's okay. In fact, it's potentially even advantageous, placing an additional conference champion into the mix for March Madness.

(a) I'll commend you for your proposal because a lot of thought went into it. However, your proposal isn’t practical, which is why you changed it from a football only conference (which is impossible under NCAA rules) to creating a new conference.

(b) Your proposal would require schools to pay exit fees to join the Great 8 conference because no conference would let its top four schools just leave for free.

© Moreover, a better and similar proposal like yours was already tried and failed—the former Big East. It tried to add the best schools the MWC had, but couldn’t get the commitment from the schools.

(d) Nevertheless, a more improved version of your proposal does exist; It’s called the AAC. None of the schools that are in your proposal were once in a BCS conference. However, the AAC has five: UCONN, UC, USF, Temple, and Tulane (was once in the SEC). Furthermore, the AAC added the best schools CUSA had to offer. Therefore, instead of the eight best schools currently in the MAC and CUSA forming a new conference as you've proposed, the best schools in CUSA formed a new conference with a former BCS conference—the Big East (now known as the AAC).

(e) Consequently, enlighten me on how the Great 8 would be a better conference than the AAC….
[/quote]

(a) Thanks. It's true that I put thought into it, but without others' input, it wouldn't be as well-honed as it is now. In spite of their contentiousness, I have to credit a couple of other posters in the thread for that. As you suggest, there were some initial flaws, but no one builds a car based on the first set of plans... once flaws were identified, it was back to the proverbial drawing board, tinkering ensued, and a better product emerged.

(b) I think you realize there's nothing in NCAA rules that compels exit fees, so I'm left to think that I'm still not getting this across--the Great 8 is a cooperative venture. There is no need for exit fees because the TV money and any other revenues that would result still are funneled, after accounting for some minimal administrative expenses, to the... for lack of a better term... parent conferences, the MAC and CUSA.

That's why this is better considered a "cooperative" or an "alliance" or even a "subsidiary" relationship.

Further, it's not just the initial four teams that would be leaving... there would be, every year, one team ascending from either MAC or CUSA, and one Great 8 team descending... that would be a MAC or CUSA champion moving up, depending on what Great 8 team otherwise associated with the champions' divisions had the worse record in comparison.

One other relevant point, in case it was missed... the Great 8 teams' regular season consists of

• 3 conference games versus the other teams originating from their parent conference,
• 3 non-conference games versus three teams from their parent conference,
• 3 non-conference games with contracted opponents, and
• the 3 conference games that are the playoff that lead to a conference champion's emergence.
  

So, any given G8 team is still playing 6 games annually against the teams they're used to playing from their current conference... so, a strong relationship remains.

(c ) As just outlined, this has no precedent. It is not accurate in almost any respect to compare this to what the BE was trying to become, and here's the main reason why: the Big East was not in a cooperative relationship with any other conference, or was that a stated goal (... though, it has been my suspicion from the time that Banowsky and Thompson were in New York to try to meet with Marinatto that something like this was likely being developed). At the core of this is a progression/relegation platform from which to keep the best teams percolating to the top. The Big East had no such mechanism. See what I'm getting at?

(d) I largely agree with this, but not entirely--noting, again, that there is no progression/relegation mechanism that will, over the years, keep an influx of better teams in the mix. And that wouldn't happen regardless because AAC, by its own admission, was formed less on the basis of competitive achievement and more on the basis of capturing TV markets. Only the addition of ECU could be considered an action based purely on competitive achievement. Nothing wrong with that.

I would add this... that if one is persuaded that the normal distribution (bell curve) eventually rules the day, then the AAC is going to see some serious settling... right now, it is top heavy in terms of a normal distribution, and that we're likely to see 3-4 schools see some regression in their success, thus forming a more definitive middle... and thus, drawing down the overall conference somewhat, and emerging as something closer to MWC-level... which isn't a bad place to be anyhow.

(e) The most convenient-to-access objective measure is the 5-year Sagarin average ranking.



So, I'm trying to look at this with as little subjectivity as a Marshall fan can bring to the topic... the Excel spreadsheet was constructed using what seemed to be rational criteria without attempting to prescribe any particular end-game...

And what we find is this:

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
87.3 = Great 8 schools' (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
19.5 = Great 8 (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools

So, the numbers... not me... suggest that the G8 would be right there with AAC and MWC in any given year.

What's more, compare the G8 with what otherwise would be the case if status quo remains...

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
113.3 = MAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (25% below MWC)
118.7 = CUSA schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (31% below MWC)

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
35.3 = MAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (40% below MWC)
38.2 = CUSA average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (52% below MWC)

So, status quo says that sometimes but probably not often, CUSA and MAC can expect to compete with AAC and MWC for the major bowl slot.

But set up a Great 8 paradigm, and the numbers support that it would be an annual expectation that either a CUSA or MAC school would be in the mix.

Thank you for the enlightenment Sturt….. You are obviously very analytical. Although your alternative alliance concept may seem impractical, it does merit contemplation. Consequently, instead of using your analytical skills to create a MAC and CUSA alliance (which is improbable), I suggest that you consider creating a more realistic conference alliance for the WAC. If the WAC had someone with your creativity and unique insight, it may still have college football today. Therefore, don’t waste you talents on getting trashed. Instead, trash the improbable and construct a probable plan for the WAC to once again offer football. Furthermore, refine your proposal through various sports boards until you feel confident to approach the WAC with your idea.

In closing, may you be successful in improving a game that I really enjoy but is $lowly getting destroyed—college football…..

I appreciate the thoughts, Udog.

I operate from a couple of principles... (a) the biggest, most important changes all, at one time, were considered improbable if not impossible... but we have a DH today because it seemed to be a smart solution to an evident problem... we have the 3-point line today because it seemed to be a smart solution to an evident problem... and I could go on, of course... once it begins to register with CUSA and MAC fans that their situation is disadvantaged, there's at least a chance that they'll begin to look for innovations that could mitigate that disadvantage. And the other principle is (b) that the best ideas normally go through many rounds of tinkering, but that the marketplace of ideas dictates that eventually the best rise to the top, and enough consensus emerges that they get adopted.

It's grandiose at this stage to be so bold as to predict that either of those will hold true with regard to this particular conundrum... first, again, that fans perceive the problem, and second, again, that of the options on the table, that consensus (initially among fans, and later, among those who are actually decision-makers) would form around this idea I've put forward. I get that. But there's satisfaction in merely knowing that I contributed something salient to the process.

Context for that: Three years ago, I began using internet platforms--message boards and blogs-- to rail against the fact that baseball has one championship, but two different ways of playing the game that give what amounts to the same statistical advantage as a home-field one for the AL champion. Further, I set out to shine a light on the point that, for too long, we've looked at the DH issue as a binary proposition--either abolish it or make it universal. Well, since democracy first took hold, we've lived in what some call an enlightened age where we understand the art of compromise, and the necessity of it. And I've made it my business as I could to push for a compromise rule that would allow for both DH proponents and DH detractors to get enough of what they want--ostensibly, for the former, more offense in the game, and for the latter, the retention of managerial strategy.

Well, whether directly due to anything I've done or not, regardless, we're finally seeing some national dialogue (see a couple of links below)... and where three years ago, there was no traction whatsoever to expect change, today, there is legit reason to suspect that something could break in a few years.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=...4&c_id=mlb

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on...compromise

So yeah... we all like to consider ourselves just the "right" mix of "realist" and "idealist"... I'm no different. I'm not an engineer by profession, but those genetics run in my family, and so I get some personal gratification in problem-solving, whether others find my work worthwhile or not... but yes, on the other hand, it's nice when someone like yourself does step forward and grants a verbal pat on the back. Good of you to study this alongside me.

Had some additional discretionary time over the weekend, and gave some thought to a legitimate objection that hasn't yet been raised...



...which is this: these schools would not only be part of the same football conference, but would be required to function as a conference for other sports as well.

It works for football. But does it work for basketball? And what about non-revenue sports?

The regulations say that you've got to have at least six members that remain static in any two-year period.

That would be satisfied under this arrangement, since there would only be two of the eight schools being relegated and replaced in any two year period.

But the bigger question is does Rice want to be having to play Northern Illinois in all of these basketball and non-revenue contests?

Surely not.

Well, they wouldn't.

Instead, for non-revenue team sports, the 8-team conference would have 4-team subdivisions aligned according to whether their parent conference is CUSA or MAC. And unless I missed something (the manual is 416 pages, but it's not difficult to search a PDF, of course), those 4 schools are only required to play each other home and away, and then for the 8 to have a post-season tournament.

For non-revenue individual sports, there is latitude to determine the conference champion through whatever means a conference desires to do so... ostensibly, that could be a single conference meet.

For basketball, the requirement is to either play double round-robin with all schools or a minimum of 14 contests. The latter is more ideal than the former in order to limit travel costs, so this is where a little more creativity gets employed.

So after football season, the Great Eight of football morphs into the Great Twelve of basketball.



Here's why.

By instituting automatic additions--ostensibly, the MAC West, MAC East, CUSA West and CUSA East champs from the previous year--to the new conference, scheduling becomes a piece of cake for all involved... teams continue to play conference mates with whom they're more geographically and/or historically tied:

Great Twelve regular season format
- 10 (5h/5a) former-MAC vs. former MAC, and 10 (5h/5a) former CUSA vs. former CUSA
- 4 (2h/2a) former-MACs vs. former CUSAs

MAC and CUSA regular season formats
- 8 (4h/4a) intradivision
- 6 interdivision: 1 h&a + 2h + 2a

Someone might say, "Yeah, that might work for CUSA where the relationships aren't developed to the degree that you're putting into jeopardy some rivalries, but in the MAC, some schools do have that: Ohio/Miami for instance. If Ohio is in the Great Eight/Twelve, and Miami in the MAC, that's a problem."

But wait. On the other hand, you have 14 conference games, whereas as things are currently constituted, I believe they are committed to 16.

So... you schedule Ohio/Miami home and away, and it nets out to be 16 games overall either way you do it. And so... it ends up... the problem isn't actually a problem.

And that leads to another advantage to this structure...

That is, every conference has a few games for which there's no particularly palpable interest... and so another thing that's great about this arrangement is that, assuming one is in the G12 and the other in the MAC, Akron doesn't absolutely have to play NIU in basketball.

Closer to home and more importantly to all of us Herd fans... Marshall doesn't absolutely have to play, for instance, UTSA in basketball. Rice doesn't absolutely have to play Old Dominion. Florida Atlantic doesn't absolutely have to play Louisiana Tech. They might. But they don't have to. There's more room for building a schedule that you want.

(Of course, that's a bigger deal to us in the widespread CUSA than it would be to the MAC side.)

Advantage, new alliance.

But here's another objection:

What about the tournament?.. you just aren't going to be able to find a good mid-point location for a tournament that is potentially attempting to attract fans from Buffalo to El Paso.

True.

Simple and easy resolution to that...

The Great Twelve Tournament, except for the championship (which I address below), would take place in two locations... the six former-MAC schools would be seeded 1 through 6 and would play their games in Cleveland (MAC tourney location)... same for the former-CUSA schools, playing their games in whatever city the tournament ends up being in (for now, El Paso). On the calendar, those would precede the MAC and CUSA tournaments.

From those two, then, a former-MAC team and a former-CUSA team would emerge to play in a championship game. Both the MAC and CUSA tournaments currently conclude on Saturdays. The G12 championship would take place on Sunday, in the tournament city of the higher-seeded team (based first on conference record, then on tie-breakers)--e.g., if Southern Miss emerges from the CUSA side, and Akron emerges from the MAC side, the championship would be played in Cleveland if Akron has the higher seeding, and in El Paso or whatever new site is chosen, if Southern Miss has it.

So, the G12 Championship ends up just being an additional one-game nominal money maker pitting a former CUSA school versus a former MAC school.

Which highlights again the important advantage to this structure that is embedded in the subject header...

Currently, the MAC has 13 schools, CUSA 14 schools. Between them, those two conferences yield TWO champions. (Of course.)

Adding 3 schools to MAC and 2 schools to CUSA provides sufficient membership to carve out and establish this third "co-op" conference of their most elite. And besides satisfying its primary purpose in making it substantially more likely to put one of their schools in a major bowl year-in-year-out, adding just five schools between them makes it possible to award a THIRD school a championship... and... in doing so, also makes the MAC and CUSA championship more reachable from top-to-bottom in the regular conferences.

I know it's a lot to think about, and seemingly is too out-of-the-box to comprehend actually occurring. Some, no doubt, have skipped all the way to the bottom and this very paragraph, muttering to themselves, "I can't believe he thought all this out, and then wrote all of this." (Yep. I did, and I did... again... more discretionary time right now than normal.)

The point, for now, is that we in CUSA have a problem... we are in the second tier of the second tier of NCAA D1 FBS football...

And we're not alone... the MAC is in the same position.

If we cooperate together, I've demonstrated we can resolve the problem, and do so in both an innovative and an NCAA-compliant way.

If we refuse that and are content to operate in silos, it doesn't bode well for our future, likely ensuring AAC and MWC's advancement and our own regression.

(05-12-2013 08:50 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 04:34 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Please don't feed the troll.

Why is the concept so difficult... if I bother you, SIMPLY don't click on the thread. No one appointed you to Nanny in Chief, to my knowledge.

hehe... never ceases to amaze me... people who take the time to reply to threads to complain, in essence, that the thread isn't worth their time.

And yet... I'm the fool.

Right.

*smiling, nodding head in disbelief*

If we don't reply to complain you just resurrect the damn foolish post anyway. Almost a month after nobody replies to this you not only bring it back to life but run over to the MAC board and bring it back to life there as well.. Im assuming you've also tried to resurrect it on the CUSA board..

It's a plain stupid idea that neither conference, or any of the schools in them, or any of the fans of those schools would ever go for.

He posted an image calling you out, I spent 3 minutes to agree... You've spent hours pushing this.... Yes you're the fool..

Not going to happen. End O' Subject.

(06-17-2013 01:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not going to happen. End O' Subject.

Thanks for the brilliant contribution, but already addressed that.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=632...pid9344985

This isn't really for the kind of poster who wades into the shallow end of the pool and feels the need to announce to the world that he's turning back. That's fine, of course... your decision... but it's just a bit self-important to think anyone actually cares. If you want to engage the substance of the topic in the deeper end, then great, let's have that discussion... even if you disagree with the idea, I'm more than happy to listen to your "whys." But if you don't want to engage it, at least be a grown-up, and resist playing policeman. Such objections are shallow and whiny.

(06-17-2013 01:54 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 01:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not going to happen. End O' Subject.

Thanks for the brilliant contribution, but already addressed that.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=632...pid9344985

This isn't really for the kind of poster who wades into the shallow end of the pool and feels the need to announce to the world that he's turning back. That's fine, of course... your decision... but it's just a bit self-important to think anyone actually cares. If you want to engage the substance of the topic in the deeper end, then great, let's have that discussion... even if you disagree with the idea, I'm more than happy to listen to your "whys." But if you don't want to engage it, at least be a grown-up, and resist playing policeman. Such objections are shallow and whiny.

We couldn't get anybody to play us in Detroit. What makes you think they'd want to play us in Cleveland?