(01-23-2014 01:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I stopped reading when I got to "MAC". C-USA is just better than the MAC in every respect, and always will be. Football results in one season or even a decade of seasons can't change this. C-USA just has more fans, more budget, better schools, more history, etcetera. Can anyone imagine a school leaving C-USA for the MAC? Wouldn't that be like flushing money down the toilet?

I'm no C-USA fan... there are schools in C-USA that I don't think USM should ever play at home; schools that make me want to go back to playing 4 or 5 games at home and 2 or 3 at SEC opponents; etc.

But the MAC is better than C-USA? Come on. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

you haven't been paying attention then. Its not 2005 any more.

(01-23-2014 02:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 01:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I stopped reading when I got to "MAC". C-USA is just better than the MAC in every respect, and always will be. Football results in one season or even a decade of seasons can't change this. C-USA just has more fans, more budget, better schools, more history, etcetera. Can anyone imagine a school leaving C-USA for the MAC? Wouldn't that be like flushing money down the toilet?

I'm no C-USA fan... there are schools in C-USA that I don't think USM should ever play at home; schools that make me want to go back to playing 4 or 5 games at home and 2 or 3 at SEC opponents; etc.

But the MAC is better than C-USA? Come on. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

you haven't been paying attention then. Its not 2005 any more.

I believe the article was meaning competitiveness in football. I believe the MAC probably was more competitive this year. The next few years, who knows, it could go either way. I think what the USM fan meant, though, was that C-USA is in better shape in financial terms and media. I'm not ragging on the MAC, but that is the reason Marshall will never go back. Look at it in terms of bowls. C-USA had 6 bowls compared to the MAC's 3. This added on to the bowl payouts, tv contracts, and overall exposure, boosts C-USA in my opinion. Again, I like the MAC, but if I got to pick between it and C-USA, there would be no contest.

(01-23-2014 08:57 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 06:53 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 08:14 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 05:36 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Even Idaho and New Mexico State finished ahead of three CUSA teams, and their other two additions will surpass all but the top 1-2 CUSA teams from the start.

Oh, that explains why UTEP (CUSA's bottom team), totally dominated NMSU 42-21....

Smells like SunBelter trolling to me

That the SBC finished ahead of CUSA is a matter of fact.

The BCS standings (which takes all the variables into consideration) and how they distribute the money are what matters.

Think the SBC finished 2nd last year.

We discussed this when CUSA decided to deemphasized football. Why they did is unknown.

De-emphasized football ? What a crock. CUSA a larger conference and yes with 3 or 4 teams struggling to win in '13. That said, Arkansas State would be middle of the pack at best in the CUSA. Show me any different in the BCS or any other season ending poll.

Glad you mentioned them.

Arkansas State has a goal of being the best Non-AQ team in America. They know for a fact that being in the SBC does not hurt them at all, and may in fact help. The key of course is winning the conference championship most years and then doing well in the OC.

My thought when I saw their goals was they have a shot.

I also though there are a couple of other SBC teams with a shot and of course some well established winners scattered among the Non-AQ land scape.

Don't think many people would have a problem picking schools in the other G5 Conferences that are already solid candidates based on how they have performed, but when it came to CUSA I think we are all at a loss.

Up until recently I would have said probably Southern Mississippi, but now there appears to be several schools that look capable.

Is there a CUSA team in position right now to get on a roll. A team that can string together a few Championships, or are you guys going to spend 4-5 years sorting this thing out.

(01-23-2014 04:21 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:57 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 06:53 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 08:14 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 05:36 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Even Idaho and New Mexico State finished ahead of three CUSA teams, and their other two additions will surpass all but the top 1-2 CUSA teams from the start.

Oh, that explains why UTEP (CUSA's bottom team), totally dominated NMSU 42-21....

Smells like SunBelter trolling to me

That the SBC finished ahead of CUSA is a matter of fact.

The BCS standings (which takes all the variables into consideration) and how they distribute the money are what matters.

Think the SBC finished 2nd last year.

We discussed this when CUSA decided to deemphasized football. Why they did is unknown.

De-emphasized football ? What a crock. CUSA a larger conference and yes with 3 or 4 teams struggling to win in '13. That said, Arkansas State would be middle of the pack at best in the CUSA. Show me any different in the BCS or any other season ending poll.

Glad you mentioned them.

Arkansas State has a goal of being the best Non-AQ team in America. They know for a fact that being in the SBC does not hurt them at all, and may in fact help. The key of course is winning the conference championship most years and then doing well in the OC.

My thought when I saw their goals was they have a shot.

I also though there are a couple of other SBC teams with a shot and of course some well established winners scattered among the Non-AQ land scape.

Don't think many people would have a problem picking schools in the other G5 Conferences that are already solid candidates based on how they have performed, but when it came to CUSA I think we are all at a loss.

Up until recently I would have said probably Southern Mississippi, but now there appears to be several schools that look capable.

Is there a CUSA team in position right now to get on a roll. A team that can string together a few Championships, or are you guys going to spend 4-5 years sorting this thing out.

Goals are nice. Everyone should have at least one. IF is the biggest little dictionary in the world. Sorry you are all at a loss....bummer.

(01-23-2014 02:56 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 02:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 01:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I stopped reading when I got to "MAC". C-USA is just better than the MAC in every respect, and always will be. Football results in one season or even a decade of seasons can't change this. C-USA just has more fans, more budget, better schools, more history, etcetera. Can anyone imagine a school leaving C-USA for the MAC? Wouldn't that be like flushing money down the toilet?

I'm no C-USA fan... there are schools in C-USA that I don't think USM should ever play at home; schools that make me want to go back to playing 4 or 5 games at home and 2 or 3 at SEC opponents; etc.

But the MAC is better than C-USA? Come on. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

you haven't been paying attention then. Its not 2005 any more.

I believe the article was meaning competitiveness in football. I believe the MAC probably was more competitive this year. The next few years, who knows, it could go either way. I think what the USM fan meant, though, was that C-USA is in better shape in financial terms and media. I'm not ragging on the MAC, but that is the reason Marshall will never go back. Look at it in terms of bowls. C-USA had 6 bowls compared to the MAC's 3. This added on to the bowl payouts, tv contracts, and overall exposure, boosts C-USA in my opinion. Again, I like the MAC, but if I got to pick between it and C-USA, there would be no contest.

the MAC did not have 3 bowls this year, it had 5. Last year the MAC had 7, CUSA had 5. That's 11 in two years for CUSA vs 12 for the MAC, and one of those was a BCS Bowl which dwarfs all of the other bowls' payouts. and I'm not ragging on CUSA either but his claim that CUSA is better than the MAC now and forever is not a claim I agree with. The author of the article agrees with me as well. That is why the USM fan stopped reading, he's unwilling to accept the reality that things change.

I agree with the article for the most part. However, things could change from one season to the next. Many of the best schools got their coaches snatched from them and good teams may be mediocre next year and visa versa.

(01-23-2014 05:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 02:56 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 02:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 01:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I stopped reading when I got to "MAC". C-USA is just better than the MAC in every respect, and always will be. Football results in one season or even a decade of seasons can't change this. C-USA just has more fans, more budget, better schools, more history, etcetera. Can anyone imagine a school leaving C-USA for the MAC? Wouldn't that be like flushing money down the toilet?

I'm no C-USA fan... there are schools in C-USA that I don't think USM should ever play at home; schools that make me want to go back to playing 4 or 5 games at home and 2 or 3 at SEC opponents; etc.

But the MAC is better than C-USA? Come on. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

you haven't been paying attention then. Its not 2005 any more.

I believe the article was meaning competitiveness in football. I believe the MAC probably was more competitive this year. The next few years, who knows, it could go either way. I think what the USM fan meant, though, was that C-USA is in better shape in financial terms and media. I'm not ragging on the MAC, but that is the reason Marshall will never go back. Look at it in terms of bowls. C-USA had 6 bowls compared to the MAC's 3. This added on to the bowl payouts, tv contracts, and overall exposure, boosts C-USA in my opinion. Again, I like the MAC, but if I got to pick between it and C-USA, there would be no contest.

the MAC did not have 3 bowls this year, it had 5. Last year the MAC had 7, CUSA had 5. That's 11 in two years for CUSA vs 12 for the MAC, and one of those was a BCS Bowl which dwarfs all of the other bowls' payouts. and I'm not ragging on CUSA either but his claim that CUSA is better than the MAC now and forever is not a claim I agree with. The author of the article agrees with me as well. That is why the USM fan stopped reading, he's unwilling to accept the reality that things change.

12 bowls in 2 years and a grand total of 2 wins....

CUSA has had 11 and won 7. Perhaps the USM fan has a point.

(01-23-2014 05:37 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 04:21 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:57 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 06:53 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 08:14 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  Oh, that explains why UTEP (CUSA's bottom team), totally dominated NMSU 42-21....

Smells like SunBelter trolling to me

That the SBC finished ahead of CUSA is a matter of fact.

The BCS standings (which takes all the variables into consideration) and how they distribute the money are what matters.

Think the SBC finished 2nd last year.

We discussed this when CUSA decided to deemphasized football. Why they did is unknown.

De-emphasized football ? What a crock. CUSA a larger conference and yes with 3 or 4 teams struggling to win in '13. That said, Arkansas State would be middle of the pack at best in the CUSA. Show me any different in the BCS or any other season ending poll.

Glad you mentioned them.

Arkansas State has a goal of being the best Non-AQ team in America. They know for a fact that being in the SBC does not hurt them at all, and may in fact help. The key of course is winning the conference championship most years and then doing well in the OC.

My thought when I saw their goals was they have a shot.

I also though there are a couple of other SBC teams with a shot and of course some well established winners scattered among the Non-AQ land scape.

Don't think many people would have a problem picking schools in the other G5 Conferences that are already solid candidates based on how they have performed, but when it came to CUSA I think we are all at a loss.

Up until recently I would have said probably Southern Mississippi, but now there appears to be several schools that look capable.

Is there a CUSA team in position right now to get on a roll. A team that can string together a few Championships, or are you guys going to spend 4-5 years sorting this thing out.

Goals are nice. Everyone should have at least one. IF is the biggest little dictionary in the world. Sorry you are all at a loss....bummer.

Not a bummer at all, you guys have 4-5-6 teams bunched together that could become special, and maybe the very best Non-AQ team. I've always admired Southern Mississippi, and would never put a cap on them.

Parity can cloudy the picture but all college football fans will enjoy watching you guys sort it out. Might not be as much fun for you guys because parity can be hard on fans.

(01-23-2014 01:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I stopped reading when I got to "MAC". C-USA is just better than the MAC in every respect, and always will be. Football results in one season or even a decade of seasons can't change this. C-USA just has more fans, more budget, better schools, more history, etcetera. Can anyone imagine a school leaving C-USA for the MAC? Wouldn't that be like flushing money down the toilet?

I'm no C-USA fan... there are schools in C-USA that I don't think USM should ever play at home; schools that make me want to go back to playing 4 or 5 games at home and 2 or 3 at SEC opponents; etc.

But the MAC is better than C-USA? Come on. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

how can you say the CUSA has better budgets when it is simply not true

$34,375,037 Old Dominion
$29,465,734 Massachusetts
$27,832,911 Miami Ohio
$27,817,159 Western Michigan
$27,798,118 Eastern Michigan
$27,478,169 Buffalo
$27,428,271 Florida International
$27,412,637 Alabama at Birmingham
$27,225,730 Akron
$27,092,238 Texas-El Paso
$26,816,730 Marshall
$26,542,476 North Texas
$26,450,723 Middle Tennessee State
$25,770,262 Western Kentucky
$25,738,861 Central Michigan
$24,408,346 Ohio
$23,863,877 Northern Illinois
$22,735,640 Kent State
$22,381,963 Toledo
$21,914,136 Southern Mississippi
$21,223,077 Texas-San Antonio
$20,265,479 North Carolina Charlotte
$20,174,709 Ball State
$20,020,133 Florida Atlantic
$18,687,576 Louisiana Tech
$18,387,277 Bowling Green

the MAC clearly has more teams at the very top and the CUSA clearly has more teams at the very bottom

and if you compare actual athletic program revenues it is slightly better for the CUSA at the top. but worse at the bottom

Old Dominion $35,247,421

Massachusetts $29,762,217

Marshall $29,203,535

Eastern Michigan $29,062,905

Ohio $28,671,520

Miami Ohio $28,121,483

Alabama at Birmingham $28,114,179

Western Michigan $27,899,949

Buffalo $27,480,211

Texas-El Paso $27,230,937

Akron $27,217,473

Middle Tennessee State $26,555,473

Western Kentucky $25,770,262

Central Michigan $25,738,861

Florida International $25,201,564

Northern Illinois $23,504,505

Florida Atlantic $23,226,481

Kent State $22,903,668

Texas-San Antonio $22,308,205

Southern Mississippi $21,526,695

Toledo $21,265,873

Ball State $21,129,858

Bowling Green $20,731,957

North Carolina Charlotte $20,573,594

North Texas $19,029,641

Louisiana Tech $18,734,197

Budgets, like market's, are for loser anyway. Most of those teams will never be any good in football, and every one knows it. Louisiana Tech will be good, and Arkansas State better yet.

That thought process is why some pretty good football teams, have managed to get stuck with some pretty bad ones. At some point in the future look for there to be an adjustment.

(01-23-2014 01:50 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:01 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 09:56 PM)winston70 Wrote:  Which FB programs is CUSA do you think that ULL or ASU are better than and why?

Not sure why you asked that particular question, because I didn't make any such specific claim in the comments of mine that you originally quoted.

However, IF what has been claimed elsewhere is indeed fact, then it appears that in the eyes of the BCS honchos, the Belt performed better on the football field overall in 2013 than C-USA. I don't know if that is indeed the case nor what criteria they might use. I'm just stating what other forum posters have said, posters who are connected with the athletic departments of the teams they support.

Since the beginning of 2011, there have been 22 football games between C-USA teams and Belt teams. Belt teams won 16 of those games. Of the 6 won by C-USA teams, 5 were won by a combination of Houston, Memphis, Tulsa, and Tulane who are no longer in C-USA and one-half of those wins were against North Texas State which now resides in C-USA! The only remaining win by a current C-USA member was by Marshall over FIU, which is also now a C-USA member.

Both C-USA and the Belt were ravaged by realignment. I think we can agree on that.

My personal opinion is that when the dust settles, it will be evident that the Belt faired better overall in football. i also believe that in head-to-head matchups, the Belt will likely win the majority of football games against C-USA competition.

Time will tell.

No doubt whatsoever about that.

Again whatever was driving CUSA decisions making during realignment had nothing to do with enhancing football.

Had every chance challenge for the top G5 Conference and simply walked away from it. Why they did is a mystery, the consequences going forward are not.

The sun will be setting soon for your so call great Belt football. Your best programs, for the long haul, have migrated to CUSA.

(01-22-2014 10:32 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I think The American may have the same problem C-USA 2.0 had. All the teams beat up on each other in conference allowing a team from a weaker league (example: Boise State, the WAC years) to grab the Access Bowl. 2011 was the only year C-USA 2.0 legititmately had a chance to send a team to a BCS game; but Southern Miss said "Not so fast my friend." Every other year we just beat each other up.

I agree. The American may become a blood bath with really good teams defeating each other as they try to become elite.

Southern Miss defeated their share of teams each year as they tried to run the table.

(01-22-2014 01:43 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I understand it's presumptuous to talk like this, given ODU has not beaten any C-USA teams and in fact only has one FBS win, but I believe we are positioned to take advantage of the model Boise ST, ECU and others have used to "play above" the conference.
"But it is also instructive to remember that it only takes one powerhouse to dominate the rest of its competition to open the eyeballs of the nation, and in any given year there is now an outlet for any mid-major" —

I agree. In addition, Old Dominion is 'most likely' going to build attendance numbers that many schools will envy.

(01-23-2014 06:48 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 01:50 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:01 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 09:56 PM)winston70 Wrote:  Which FB programs is CUSA do you think that ULL or ASU are better than and why?

Not sure why you asked that particular question, because I didn't make any such specific claim in the comments of mine that you originally quoted.

However, IF what has been claimed elsewhere is indeed fact, then it appears that in the eyes of the BCS honchos, the Belt performed better on the football field overall in 2013 than C-USA. I don't know if that is indeed the case nor what criteria they might use. I'm just stating what other forum posters have said, posters who are connected with the athletic departments of the teams they support.

Since the beginning of 2011, there have been 22 football games between C-USA teams and Belt teams. Belt teams won 16 of those games. Of the 6 won by C-USA teams, 5 were won by a combination of Houston, Memphis, Tulsa, and Tulane who are no longer in C-USA and one-half of those wins were against North Texas State which now resides in C-USA! The only remaining win by a current C-USA member was by Marshall over FIU, which is also now a C-USA member.

Both C-USA and the Belt were ravaged by realignment. I think we can agree on that.

My personal opinion is that when the dust settles, it will be evident that the Belt faired better overall in football. i also believe that in head-to-head matchups, the Belt will likely win the majority of football games against C-USA competition.

Time will tell.

No doubt whatsoever about that.

Again whatever was driving CUSA decisions making during realignment had nothing to do with enhancing football.

Had every chance challenge for the top G5 Conference and simply walked away from it. Why they did is a mystery, the consequences going forward are not.

The sun will be setting soon for your so call great Belt football. Your best programs, for the long haul, have migrated to CUSA.

First congratulations great season!

Again, in this morass you call P5 going forward, all that matters is your team winning.

WINNING CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS matters going forward, more than every. Athletic budgets, TV markets, conference RPI (among G5's) amounts to almost nothing.

ESPN just did a piece on Arkansas State because they have decided they are 'winners' and are going to win going forward, and for no other reason. And I can assure you winning is all that matters if you are a G5, not which conference you are in.

Again, congratulations for being a 'winner' this year.

(01-23-2014 07:06 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 06:48 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 01:50 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:01 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 09:56 PM)winston70 Wrote:  Which FB programs is CUSA do you think that ULL or ASU are better than and why?

Not sure why you asked that particular question, because I didn't make any such specific claim in the comments of mine that you originally quoted.

However, IF what has been claimed elsewhere is indeed fact, then it appears that in the eyes of the BCS honchos, the Belt performed better on the football field overall in 2013 than C-USA. I don't know if that is indeed the case nor what criteria they might use. I'm just stating what other forum posters have said, posters who are connected with the athletic departments of the teams they support.

Since the beginning of 2011, there have been 22 football games between C-USA teams and Belt teams. Belt teams won 16 of those games. Of the 6 won by C-USA teams, 5 were won by a combination of Houston, Memphis, Tulsa, and Tulane who are no longer in C-USA and one-half of those wins were against North Texas State which now resides in C-USA! The only remaining win by a current C-USA member was by Marshall over FIU, which is also now a C-USA member.

Both C-USA and the Belt were ravaged by realignment. I think we can agree on that.

My personal opinion is that when the dust settles, it will be evident that the Belt faired better overall in football. i also believe that in head-to-head matchups, the Belt will likely win the majority of football games against C-USA competition.

Time will tell.

No doubt whatsoever about that.

Again whatever was driving CUSA decisions making during realignment had nothing to do with enhancing football.

Had every chance challenge for the top G5 Conference and simply walked away from it. Why they did is a mystery, the consequences going forward are not.

The sun will be setting soon for your so call great Belt football. Your best programs, for the long haul, have migrated to CUSA.

First congratulations great season!

Again, in this morass you call P5 going forward, all that matters is your team winning.

WINNING CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS matters going forward, more than every. Athletic budgets, TV markets, conference RPI (among G5's) amounts to almost nothing.

ESPN just did a piece on Arkansas State because they have decided they are 'winners' and are going to win going forward, and for no other reason. And I can assure you winning is all that matters if you are a G5, not which conference you are in.

Again, congratulations for being a 'winner' this year.

ESPN did a piece on FIU during the Christobol years, so I wouldn't read as much into it as you did.

(01-23-2014 05:47 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 05:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 02:56 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 02:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 01:58 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I stopped reading when I got to "MAC". C-USA is just better than the MAC in every respect, and always will be. Football results in one season or even a decade of seasons can't change this. C-USA just has more fans, more budget, better schools, more history, etcetera. Can anyone imagine a school leaving C-USA for the MAC? Wouldn't that be like flushing money down the toilet?

I'm no C-USA fan... there are schools in C-USA that I don't think USM should ever play at home; schools that make me want to go back to playing 4 or 5 games at home and 2 or 3 at SEC opponents; etc.

But the MAC is better than C-USA? Come on. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

you haven't been paying attention then. Its not 2005 any more.

I believe the article was meaning competitiveness in football. I believe the MAC probably was more competitive this year. The next few years, who knows, it could go either way. I think what the USM fan meant, though, was that C-USA is in better shape in financial terms and media. I'm not ragging on the MAC, but that is the reason Marshall will never go back. Look at it in terms of bowls. C-USA had 6 bowls compared to the MAC's 3. This added on to the bowl payouts, tv contracts, and overall exposure, boosts C-USA in my opinion. Again, I like the MAC, but if I got to pick between it and C-USA, there would be no contest.

the MAC did not have 3 bowls this year, it had 5. Last year the MAC had 7, CUSA had 5. That's 11 in two years for CUSA vs 12 for the MAC, and one of those was a BCS Bowl which dwarfs all of the other bowls' payouts. and I'm not ragging on CUSA either but his claim that CUSA is better than the MAC now and forever is not a claim I agree with. The author of the article agrees with me as well. That is why the USM fan stopped reading, he's unwilling to accept the reality that things change.

12 bowls in 2 years and a grand total of 2 wins....

CUSA has had 11 and won 7. Perhaps the USM fan has a point.

only if you believe what happens in a bowl is more important than the season that lead up to it. Notre Dame has only won 3 bowl games in the past 20 years.

It is difficult to make a compelling argument that the Belt is a better football league when any team in it would take a CUSA bid in an instance. The same relationship exists between CUSA and the AAC.

Now the counter argument that the conference doesn't matter as long as a team such as ASU continues to win, is flawed at best. All PS leagues aren't the same anymore than all PS teams are interchangeable.

Crazy 'belt fans are Crazy.

Its been said before, most college football fans and ESPN really don't care if your team is MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt and now AAC. Those conferences only get air time if they bust the BCS game bubble and even then, it is short lived. (NIU in Orange, Hawaii in Sugar). The only team that has gotten lots of pub is Boise because they sustained the success and knocked off some Giants along the way.

None of us get any exposure from beating one another. Nobody (besides us) cares who wins the head-to-head games between the conferences. They only care if you knock off one of the big teams

(01-23-2014 06:48 PM)MG61 Wrote:  The sun will be setting soon for your so call great Belt football. Your best programs, for the long haul, have migrated to CUSA.

You really should do stand-up.