Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
Author Message
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
On the issue of conference champions (and independents) only in the semi-finals and national championship I am all for it. I was all for it during the BCS era and am in the CFP era. In my opinion, if you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be called national champs over someone else in your conference who was able to win it.

That said, that's not at all how the powers-that-be will see it. The SEC leadership especially wants the chance to get 2 teams in it and they will fight hard to keep that. Beyond that, the larger point of nationally important games continues to mean 4 automatic teams is not a good thing for TV. I maintain that 10 years after going to 4 automatics, the regular season biggest games will have substantially fewer viewers. I might be wrong, but I suspect that the conference commissioners think a lot more about that than your average fan.

On the issue of a Big 12 break-up, it's the most likely to collapse in the next two decades, but I don't see the forces pushing us there at this moment. Conference realignment is a zero sum game and the Big Ten, SEC, PAC-12, and ACC will do nothing that they know will help someone else substantially more than themselves.
08-26-2014 10:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #62
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-26-2014 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 06:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 06:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What I would appreciate for football has no bearing about what I would appreciate for basketball. Do try to cease making statements for me, thank you.

It was already proven that a National viewership did not want to watch an Alabama vs LSU match up. And after the fact there were plenty of polls done to see whether folks would have rather seen Oklahoma State in the game and those polls showed that they would have.

You are asking a question that all relevant evidence shows to be not true. It should be determined through the season and conference post season whether Alabama or Florida is the better team. Do not use National Post season as a method of finding out what should have been determined within the conference.

If your problem is that you would rather just watch SEC match ups then stop watching college football after the conference post season ends. You fail to understand what NATIONAL means. There are plenty of people that want to see how other conferences' champions stack up.

The fact that Alabama vs LSU got such low ratings is proof of that. People don't want to see conference rematch's during the National Championship game. Trying to say "what if it was Florida instead of LSU" doesn't change anything.

I didn't make any statements for you, I asked a question, one that you dodged completely. Go ahead and explain how your "the conference season and post-season proves who the best team in the conference is" logic applies to football but not for basketball. Good luck with that.

As for Alabama - LSU, yes it got a low rating, but it beat out USC - Oklahoma in 2005, about as "national" as you can get. And LSU - Alabama proved to be a massive dud of a game so it's no surprise that "after the fact" polls showed that OKST would have been preferred. Before the fact polls would be much more compelling evidence. I seriously doubt that LSU - Oklahoma State would beaten the LSU - Alabama rating but we will never know.

Why would I bother to explain it for basketball? Basketball is a huge gigantic mess that is not going to be bothered with so that the small schools continue to not block what the big schools want to do with football.

Why do I even need to explain that? That is not dodging, that was just me assuming you have a lick of sense in this regard. You are trying to create arguments out of thin air here. I am talking about football and you are trying to say I am talking about football and basketball when that is not true. How does that make any sense?

I am not talking about what I think is fair, or what I Think makes the most sense or what is for the best competition. I am talking about money issues and how that could affect things because money is the number one motivator now in realignment.

Why would a before the fact poll matter as much as an after the fact poll? The after the fact poll better portrays what the Mentality of people is now than what a poll taken before the match up would show. I honestly thought you were better than this Quo. This is quite shocking to me to see you reaching so far for this argument that you are starting.

You want to bring up 2005 as a comparison? You really think viewership as a whole hasn't risen since then? You think that is a fair comparison? Go for it. Right now it seems you are just reaching for things to grab on to in order to have an argument. Go ahead and knock yourself out. You are already boring me tonight.

It is a complete and total dodge. Your argument - as much as I can gather when untangling the mess of it - seems to be that viewers prefer to see conference champs play rather than see rematches between conference teams because the conference schedule has already sorted out who the best team in that conference is, thus, football will adopt a system that includes conference champs only because that will maximize viewership and hence their money.

That is an argument that should apply to both football and basketball. But apparently you aren't making it for basketball, which makes no sense, since obviously, schools prefer to maximize basketball revenue as well as football revenue.

And it's rather astonishing that you would question why an after-the-fact poll would have less validity than a before-the-fact poll. The issue (as you've framed it) is one of general preference: Generally speaking, people prefer to see conference champs play rather than rematches between conference teams. An after-the-fact poll is tainted because it is almost certainly the case that the experience of watching the rematch game will influence how people evaluate its desirability. Alabama's dull, grinding, 21-0 shutout of LSU was boring to anyone not a Bama fan, and so it is natural that after watching it, many would think "Yeah, rematches suck". In contrast, had LSU-Alabama been a 38-35 classic, then the bias would go the other way.

In contrast, before-the-fact polls have the virtue of tapping viewer mindsets that are unblemished by the results of the game.

As for LSU - Alabama vs USC - Oklahoma, ratings are based on percentages, so it doesn't matter that the population of viewers has gone up since 2005. If anything, LSU - Alabama was at a disadvantage because it was on ESPN while USC - Oklahoma was on ABC.

You are talking about comparing a tournament that has 68 teams and always takes multiple teams from all the major conferences to a tournament that currently has room for FOUR teams. It is a terrible comparison and to try to make it is to be desperately reaching in an attempt to try to attack me for whatever reason. I am not dodging, your point sucks, period.

The reason you think my point sucks is because it undermines your argument completely. It doesn't matter if the NCAA tournament currently takes 68 or 150 teams. If your logic about what people want to watch (conference champions playing each other) is correct than it should apply to basketball as well.

I think the underlying reason for this contradiction is that you probably realize that viewers do not, in fact, care all that much about football conference championships, and for a good reason: Not all conferences are equal. A game between #1, 13-0 Oklahoma and #3, 12-1 Texas is likely to draw more viewers than a game between #1 Oklahoma and #14, 10-3 (but B1G champion) Wisconsin. Nine out of ten fans would rather see the former because they aren't fooled by the "conference champion" label on Wisconsin. All that means is they were the best of a mediocre lot of 13 teams out of 120. Not very impressive credentials.

And, if we compare college football to college basketball, the latter produces a far more legitimate conference champion than the former. In football conferences, teams either play each other only once or sometimes not at all. Even when they play once, you get a weak test of who the best is. E.g., if Stanford goes 9-1 in the PAC and Oregon goes 10-0, and Oregon beat Stanford 28 - 21 in Oregon, that's not a real good indicator that Oregon is really better, because they had the obvious advantage of playing their one game at home. A much better test would be if Stanford got to host Oregon as well, but football doesn't permit that. Thus, saying Stanford was proven to be inferior to Oregon and doesn't deserve a shot at a national playoff is pretty weak coffee.

But basketball provides a much stronger test for conference supremacy. In all the major conferences, each team plays all the others home and away, such that the team that has the best record at the end of the year has really proved themselves to be "best" and that runners-up don't belong in a national playoffs.

So if anything, a far stronger argument can be made that the NCAA basketball tourney should be conference champs only than that a football playoff should be.

And yet you seem to think it's A-OK if not just the runner-up but often six or seven schools from the same conference play in the NCAA basketball tourney (and viewers LOVE this, btw), but that lots more money can be made in college football if only conference champs are allowed to play.

Not very rational.
08-26-2014 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #63
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-26-2014 07:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is in the SEC's best interests because you are Not getting anyone from the ACC.

It is in the SEC's best interests because the implosion of the Big 12 first must come with the serving of Texas. I know folks will hate that but it is the reality of the situation.

I have never once said that it is a better deal for the SEC in terms of comparing the two duo's. Expansion with those two teams is a better deal for the SEC than not expanding at all because of the Opportunity Cost of what will be missed out upon.

If you wish to continue to brand it as a Southern vs Northern thing then you shall continue to show how folks such as yourself are stuck in the past and the history of the War.

Both Kansas and Oklahoma would rather be in the Big Ten. So either accept the reality of the situation or hold up boosting profits.

If the B1G is more desirable to Kansas than the SEC (highly likely) and to Oklahoma than the SEC (highly doubtful), then of course the SEC won't get those schools.

But the idea that the SEC would be stronger with WVU and Oklahoma State than without them simply beggars belief. Those schools add nothing academically, athletically, or financially. There is no interest in SEC country in viewing those schools, there brand value is less than the cost to feed them.

And whereas I never ever put words in your mouth about basketball (anyone can see I asked a question), you absolutely tried to put words in my mouth here by claiming I have "branded" the issue as northern/southern when I have never said anything like that. E.g., Notre Dame would be a huge boon to the SEC even though it is in the north, whereas Tulane would add nothing to the SEC even though it is in the Deep South.

You seem entirely incapable of understanding what I am talking about. You are stuck in a mindset much different than my own.

If the Big 12 is to be parceled out, it will be a massive compromise across the board. You want to take it personally in terms of how I surmise it would play out? Go right ahead. Be the great defender of the SEC. I honestly don't give a damn.

We shall see how it plays out, but I will ask you this. What exactly are you trying to get out of this conversation?

You want to say that Oklahoma State and WVU are terrible for the SEC? Great go for it. I don't care, I have stated my opinion and it is my opinion. Doesn't matter to me if you agree.

You want to think Oklahoma as an Institution would prefer the SEC to the Big Ten? You are welcome to think that and I am welcome to laugh at you for thinking that. Have at it.

I think we are done though.

What does anyone try to get out of a conversation? You offered ideas that struck me as not sound, so I've tried to explain why. It's called debate and discussion, an effort to learn more and also be entertained.

You declare that WVU and OKST have value to the SEC, even though virtually nobody in the SEC is likely to agree with you.

You think that if the Big 12 breaks up there is going to be some big "compromise" or cooperation among the other four majors? Why on earth when they have never compromised on realignment and membership before? And you think the SEC would agree to a "compromise" that allocates it a far inferior duo of schools to what the B1G will get? Sheesh.

You have a confused mind about what you are trying to impart to others in this thread, and a closed mind about what others are trying to impart to you. If that works for you, more power to you.
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2014 11:56 PM by quo vadis.)
08-26-2014 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #64
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-26-2014 10:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  On the issue of conference champions (and independents) only in the semi-finals and national championship I am all for it. I was all for it during the BCS era and am in the CFP era. In my opinion, if you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be called national champs over someone else in your conference who was able to win it.

Just curious: Do you apply that same logic to the NCAA basketball tournament? E.g., Louisville was clearly the AAC champion in basketball this past season, they won the conference title and beat UConn three times, once at home, once on the road, and once at a neutral site. If that isn't proving you were better in the conference what else would? It's far stronger proof than football conference play provides, since in football conferences teams only play once in the regular season, giving the team that happens to have the home field an obvious edge.

And yet UConn won the national title anyway. Does that concern you in the same way?
08-26-2014 11:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #65
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-26-2014 11:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is in the SEC's best interests because you are Not getting anyone from the ACC.

It is in the SEC's best interests because the implosion of the Big 12 first must come with the serving of Texas. I know folks will hate that but it is the reality of the situation.

I have never once said that it is a better deal for the SEC in terms of comparing the two duo's. Expansion with those two teams is a better deal for the SEC than not expanding at all because of the Opportunity Cost of what will be missed out upon.

If you wish to continue to brand it as a Southern vs Northern thing then you shall continue to show how folks such as yourself are stuck in the past and the history of the War.

Both Kansas and Oklahoma would rather be in the Big Ten. So either accept the reality of the situation or hold up boosting profits.

If the B1G is more desirable to Kansas than the SEC (highly likely) and to Oklahoma than the SEC (highly doubtful), then of course the SEC won't get those schools.

But the idea that the SEC would be stronger with WVU and Oklahoma State than without them simply beggars belief. Those schools add nothing academically, athletically, or financially. There is no interest in SEC country in viewing those schools, there brand value is less than the cost to feed them.

And whereas I never ever put words in your mouth about basketball (anyone can see I asked a question), you absolutely tried to put words in my mouth here by claiming I have "branded" the issue as northern/southern when I have never said anything like that. E.g., Notre Dame would be a huge boon to the SEC even though it is in the north, whereas Tulane would add nothing to the SEC even though it is in the Deep South.

You seem entirely incapable of understanding what I am talking about. You are stuck in a mindset much different than my own.

If the Big 12 is to be parceled out, it will be a massive compromise across the board. You want to take it personally in terms of how I surmise it would play out? Go right ahead. Be the great defender of the SEC. I honestly don't give a damn.

We shall see how it plays out, but I will ask you this. What exactly are you trying to get out of this conversation?

You want to say that Oklahoma State and WVU are terrible for the SEC? Great go for it. I don't care, I have stated my opinion and it is my opinion. Doesn't matter to me if you agree.

You want to think Oklahoma as an Institution would prefer the SEC to the Big Ten? You are welcome to think that and I am welcome to laugh at you for thinking that. Have at it.

I think we are done though.

What does anyone try to get out of a conversation? You offered ideas that struck me as not sound, so I've tried to explain why. It's called debate and discussion, an effort to learn more and also be entertained.

You declare that WVU and OKST have value to the SEC, even though virtually nobody in the SEC is likely to agree with you.

You think that if the Big 12 breaks up there is going to be some big "compromise" or cooperation among the other four majors? Why on earth when they have never compromised on realignment and membership before? And you think the SEC would agree to a "compromise" that allocates it a far inferior duo of schools to what the B1G will get? Sheesh.

You have a confused mind about what you are trying to impart to others in this thread, and a closed mind about what others are trying to impart to you. If that works for you, more power to you.

Wrong, my point has been clear, concise and unmoving. Persons such as yourself try to misrepresent it. When I say WVU and OK State to the SEC, it is not because the SEC has open arms and a big F'n smile on their face about it.

But hey, go ahead and try to present it however you want. You seem to think conversations here are a "debate"? You aren't that new, you can stop trying to present that kind of garbage. They are arguments, no one ever changes their mind and I can assure you, a dude from Louisiana is the last person on this planet I care to change the mind of.

I have lived there and I am glad to be gone.

The basis of my hypothesis is not about the conferences getting what they want and being in full control themselves. They have brought themselves to whore status for the Networks. When this all happens, it wont be because the Conferences ran the situation.

The Networks will give them what they need and then the Networks will get what they want. Period.
08-27-2014 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #66
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-26-2014 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 06:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I didn't make any statements for you, I asked a question, one that you dodged completely. Go ahead and explain how your "the conference season and post-season proves who the best team in the conference is" logic applies to football but not for basketball. Good luck with that.

As for Alabama - LSU, yes it got a low rating, but it beat out USC - Oklahoma in 2005, about as "national" as you can get. And LSU - Alabama proved to be a massive dud of a game so it's no surprise that "after the fact" polls showed that OKST would have been preferred. Before the fact polls would be much more compelling evidence. I seriously doubt that LSU - Oklahoma State would beaten the LSU - Alabama rating but we will never know.

Why would I bother to explain it for basketball? Basketball is a huge gigantic mess that is not going to be bothered with so that the small schools continue to not block what the big schools want to do with football.

Why do I even need to explain that? That is not dodging, that was just me assuming you have a lick of sense in this regard. You are trying to create arguments out of thin air here. I am talking about football and you are trying to say I am talking about football and basketball when that is not true. How does that make any sense?

I am not talking about what I think is fair, or what I Think makes the most sense or what is for the best competition. I am talking about money issues and how that could affect things because money is the number one motivator now in realignment.

Why would a before the fact poll matter as much as an after the fact poll? The after the fact poll better portrays what the Mentality of people is now than what a poll taken before the match up would show. I honestly thought you were better than this Quo. This is quite shocking to me to see you reaching so far for this argument that you are starting.

You want to bring up 2005 as a comparison? You really think viewership as a whole hasn't risen since then? You think that is a fair comparison? Go for it. Right now it seems you are just reaching for things to grab on to in order to have an argument. Go ahead and knock yourself out. You are already boring me tonight.

It is a complete and total dodge. Your argument - as much as I can gather when untangling the mess of it - seems to be that viewers prefer to see conference champs play rather than see rematches between conference teams because the conference schedule has already sorted out who the best team in that conference is, thus, football will adopt a system that includes conference champs only because that will maximize viewership and hence their money.

That is an argument that should apply to both football and basketball. But apparently you aren't making it for basketball, which makes no sense, since obviously, schools prefer to maximize basketball revenue as well as football revenue.

And it's rather astonishing that you would question why an after-the-fact poll would have less validity than a before-the-fact poll. The issue (as you've framed it) is one of general preference: Generally speaking, people prefer to see conference champs play rather than rematches between conference teams. An after-the-fact poll is tainted because it is almost certainly the case that the experience of watching the rematch game will influence how people evaluate its desirability. Alabama's dull, grinding, 21-0 shutout of LSU was boring to anyone not a Bama fan, and so it is natural that after watching it, many would think "Yeah, rematches suck". In contrast, had LSU-Alabama been a 38-35 classic, then the bias would go the other way.

In contrast, before-the-fact polls have the virtue of tapping viewer mindsets that are unblemished by the results of the game.

As for LSU - Alabama vs USC - Oklahoma, ratings are based on percentages, so it doesn't matter that the population of viewers has gone up since 2005. If anything, LSU - Alabama was at a disadvantage because it was on ESPN while USC - Oklahoma was on ABC.

You are talking about comparing a tournament that has 68 teams and always takes multiple teams from all the major conferences to a tournament that currently has room for FOUR teams. It is a terrible comparison and to try to make it is to be desperately reaching in an attempt to try to attack me for whatever reason. I am not dodging, your point sucks, period.

The reason you think my point sucks is because it undermines your argument completely. It doesn't matter if the NCAA tournament currently takes 68 or 150 teams. If your logic about what people want to watch (conference champions playing each other) is correct than it should apply to basketball as well.

I think the underlying reason for this contradiction is that you probably realize that viewers do not, in fact, care all that much about football conference championships, and for a good reason: Not all conferences are equal. A game between #1, 13-0 Oklahoma and #3, 12-1 Texas is likely to draw more viewers than a game between #1 Oklahoma and #14, 10-3 (but B1G champion) Wisconsin. Nine out of ten fans would rather see the former because they aren't fooled by the "conference champion" label on Wisconsin. All that means is they were the best of a mediocre lot of 13 teams out of 120. Not very impressive credentials.

And, if we compare college football to college basketball, the latter produces a far more legitimate conference champion than the former. In football conferences, teams either play each other only once or sometimes not at all. Even when they play once, you get a weak test of who the best is. E.g., if Stanford goes 9-1 in the PAC and Oregon goes 10-0, and Oregon beat Stanford 28 - 21 in Oregon, that's not a real good indicator that Oregon is really better, because they had the obvious advantage of playing their one game at home. A much better test would be if Stanford got to host Oregon as well, but football doesn't permit that. Thus, saying Stanford was proven to be inferior to Oregon and doesn't deserve a shot at a national playoff is pretty weak coffee.

But basketball provides a much stronger test for conference supremacy. In all the major conferences, each team plays all the others home and away, such that the team that has the best record at the end of the year has really proved themselves to be "best" and that runners-up don't belong in a national playoffs.

So if anything, a far stronger argument can be made that the NCAA basketball tourney should be conference champs only than that a football playoff should be.

And yet you seem to think it's A-OK if not just the runner-up but often six or seven schools from the same conference play in the NCAA basketball tourney (and viewers LOVE this, btw), but that lots more money can be made in college football if only conference champs are allowed to play.

Not very rational.

The biggest reason why you are just far too incompetent to be in a conversation with me is because you cannot comprehend the difference between me talking about what I see happening and what I actually want to happen.

People like you argue your own selfish desires. I simply speak on what I see happening based on previous happenings. So go on thinking you are "debating" someone whom is just pushing their own personal desires and agenda but that is not the case.

If you cannot understand why the large Big Ten following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large PAC following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large ACC following would like to see their champion go forward then, as I said before, you need to get out of the South more often.


The conferences WILL want their championships to have meaning in Football BECAUSE they don't mean **** in basketball. They invest in them and more importantly....the Networks invest heavily in them.
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2014 12:19 AM by He1nousOne.)
08-27-2014 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,927
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
Post: #67
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/ucathlet.../10325391/

This is a great Article: In September 2011, the Big East was stunned by the departures of Pitt and Syracuse, and the Big 12 was in danger of losing four schools to the Pac-12.

"My favorite story that hasn't been written," Luck said. "After Syracuse and Pittsburgh (announced they were leaving for the ACC), that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess."

So Luck began cold-calling athletic directors at Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State with a proposal.
"I didn't know those guys from Adam," Luck said. "I knew the schools. I told them, 'Your conference may fall apart. You guys look like you might get left behind. Why don't we take all of you and TCU, which was kind of homeless."

Luck's plan, which also had the support of Louisville athletic Tom Jurich, was also to add UCF for a 12-team Big East divided into two divisions: West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Louisville; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and UCF.
"I remember thinking: 'That's not a bad conference,'" Luck said. "And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option."
08-27-2014 03:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,927
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
Post: #68
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
So based on the above information in 2027 the BIG 12 falls apart due to the poor longhorn TV network.

PAC-12 becomes PAC-16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

BIG takes Kansas & West Virginia

The AAC turns into a plausible power five:

WEST:

Baylor

Houston

Memphis

Navy

SMU

TCU

Tulane

Tulsa

EAST:

Central Florida

Cincinnati

Connecticut

East Carolina

Iowa State

Kansas State

South Florida

Temple

As a football conference, looks good. Navy a football-only member, the AAC will have to add an associate member to bring it to an even sixteen schools in basketball. One school that comes to mind would be St. Louis University. The Basketball Lineup would be P-5 worthy also.
08-27-2014 04:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #69
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-26-2014 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Both Kansas and Oklahoma would rather be in the Big Ten. So either accept the reality of the situation or hold up boosting profits.

If the B1G is more desirable to Kansas than the SEC (highly likely) and to Oklahoma than the SEC (highly doubtful), then of course the SEC won't get those schools.

Just an FYI, Oklahoma has all but made it clear that they do not prefer going to the SEC.

(08-26-2014 10:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  In my opinion, if you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be called national champs over someone else in your conference who was able to win it.

That said, that's not at all how the powers-that-be will see it. The SEC leadership especially wants the chance to get 2 teams in it and they will fight hard to keep that.

On the issue of a Big 12 break-up, it's the most likely to collapse in the next two decades, but I don't see the forces pushing us there at this moment.


The bolded part, IMO, is one reason why the SEC will not help break up the Big 12 or any other conference. As long as their are five conferences, there is no auto bid for conference champions and you can have multiple teams get in the playoffs. If you have only 4 conferences, you see a bigger push for automatic bids and champions only. Not in their best interest (or the Big Ten). Now if a team comes available they really want, different animal. But I don't see them destroying a conference for the sake of doing so.
08-27-2014 08:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #70
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-27-2014 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 11:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is in the SEC's best interests because you are Not getting anyone from the ACC.

It is in the SEC's best interests because the implosion of the Big 12 first must come with the serving of Texas. I know folks will hate that but it is the reality of the situation.

I have never once said that it is a better deal for the SEC in terms of comparing the two duo's. Expansion with those two teams is a better deal for the SEC than not expanding at all because of the Opportunity Cost of what will be missed out upon.

If you wish to continue to brand it as a Southern vs Northern thing then you shall continue to show how folks such as yourself are stuck in the past and the history of the War.

Both Kansas and Oklahoma would rather be in the Big Ten. So either accept the reality of the situation or hold up boosting profits.

If the B1G is more desirable to Kansas than the SEC (highly likely) and to Oklahoma than the SEC (highly doubtful), then of course the SEC won't get those schools.

But the idea that the SEC would be stronger with WVU and Oklahoma State than without them simply beggars belief. Those schools add nothing academically, athletically, or financially. There is no interest in SEC country in viewing those schools, there brand value is less than the cost to feed them.

And whereas I never ever put words in your mouth about basketball (anyone can see I asked a question), you absolutely tried to put words in my mouth here by claiming I have "branded" the issue as northern/southern when I have never said anything like that. E.g., Notre Dame would be a huge boon to the SEC even though it is in the north, whereas Tulane would add nothing to the SEC even though it is in the Deep South.

You seem entirely incapable of understanding what I am talking about. You are stuck in a mindset much different than my own.

If the Big 12 is to be parceled out, it will be a massive compromise across the board. You want to take it personally in terms of how I surmise it would play out? Go right ahead. Be the great defender of the SEC. I honestly don't give a damn.

We shall see how it plays out, but I will ask you this. What exactly are you trying to get out of this conversation?

You want to say that Oklahoma State and WVU are terrible for the SEC? Great go for it. I don't care, I have stated my opinion and it is my opinion. Doesn't matter to me if you agree.

You want to think Oklahoma as an Institution would prefer the SEC to the Big Ten? You are welcome to think that and I am welcome to laugh at you for thinking that. Have at it.

I think we are done though.

What does anyone try to get out of a conversation? You offered ideas that struck me as not sound, so I've tried to explain why. It's called debate and discussion, an effort to learn more and also be entertained.

You declare that WVU and OKST have value to the SEC, even though virtually nobody in the SEC is likely to agree with you.

You think that if the Big 12 breaks up there is going to be some big "compromise" or cooperation among the other four majors? Why on earth when they have never compromised on realignment and membership before? And you think the SEC would agree to a "compromise" that allocates it a far inferior duo of schools to what the B1G will get? Sheesh.

You have a confused mind about what you are trying to impart to others in this thread, and a closed mind about what others are trying to impart to you. If that works for you, more power to you.

Wrong, my point has been clear, concise and unmoving. Persons such as yourself try to misrepresent it. When I say WVU and OK State to the SEC, it is not because the SEC has open arms and a big F'n smile on their face about it.

But hey, go ahead and try to present it however you want. You seem to think conversations here are a "debate"? You aren't that new, you can stop trying to present that kind of garbage. They are arguments, no one ever changes their mind and I can assure you, a dude from Louisiana is the last person on this planet I care to change the mind of.

I have lived there and I am glad to be gone.

The basis of my hypothesis is not about the conferences getting what they want and being in full control themselves. They have brought themselves to whore status for the Networks. When this all happens, it wont be because the Conferences ran the situation.

The Networks will give them what they need and then the Networks will get what they want. Period.

Your point has been unclear and unconsise, and because of that, you have repeatedly and falsely claimed that others (e.g., me) have misrepresented it. As I pointed out, the only misrepresentation in this exchange has been on your part when you imputed to me some north/south bias.

As an example of how your ideas haven't been firm, earlier you claimed that the SEC would enter in to a Big 12 parceling 'compromise' that would allow the B1G two much more desirable schools than the SEC would get because they are not childish and understand that more money would be made nationally if the B1G was shored up to parity-level with the SEC than if the SEC stayed stronger. This was a very strange idea on a number of counts but it was an idea.

Now, however, you are claiming that it isn't the SEC's will that will drive this 'compromise', it is TV networks that will impose OKST and WVU on them. That is also a strange idea, as it strikes me as highly unlikely that any TV network would regard the SEC as more valuable with OKST and WVU than without them. OKST and WVU seem to be net costs to the SEC from anyone's perspective, the conference's or the TV networks.

Your ideas are like amoebas, they ebb and flow and mutate in response to the latest post that pokes holes in them. I await with bated breathe your next iterations. Hey, it's entertaining, and there's always the chance your mind will come around. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2014 10:56 AM by quo vadis.)
08-27-2014 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #71
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-27-2014 12:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Why would I bother to explain it for basketball? Basketball is a huge gigantic mess that is not going to be bothered with so that the small schools continue to not block what the big schools want to do with football.

Why do I even need to explain that? That is not dodging, that was just me assuming you have a lick of sense in this regard. You are trying to create arguments out of thin air here. I am talking about football and you are trying to say I am talking about football and basketball when that is not true. How does that make any sense?

I am not talking about what I think is fair, or what I Think makes the most sense or what is for the best competition. I am talking about money issues and how that could affect things because money is the number one motivator now in realignment.

Why would a before the fact poll matter as much as an after the fact poll? The after the fact poll better portrays what the Mentality of people is now than what a poll taken before the match up would show. I honestly thought you were better than this Quo. This is quite shocking to me to see you reaching so far for this argument that you are starting.

You want to bring up 2005 as a comparison? You really think viewership as a whole hasn't risen since then? You think that is a fair comparison? Go for it. Right now it seems you are just reaching for things to grab on to in order to have an argument. Go ahead and knock yourself out. You are already boring me tonight.

It is a complete and total dodge. Your argument - as much as I can gather when untangling the mess of it - seems to be that viewers prefer to see conference champs play rather than see rematches between conference teams because the conference schedule has already sorted out who the best team in that conference is, thus, football will adopt a system that includes conference champs only because that will maximize viewership and hence their money.

That is an argument that should apply to both football and basketball. But apparently you aren't making it for basketball, which makes no sense, since obviously, schools prefer to maximize basketball revenue as well as football revenue.

And it's rather astonishing that you would question why an after-the-fact poll would have less validity than a before-the-fact poll. The issue (as you've framed it) is one of general preference: Generally speaking, people prefer to see conference champs play rather than rematches between conference teams. An after-the-fact poll is tainted because it is almost certainly the case that the experience of watching the rematch game will influence how people evaluate its desirability. Alabama's dull, grinding, 21-0 shutout of LSU was boring to anyone not a Bama fan, and so it is natural that after watching it, many would think "Yeah, rematches suck". In contrast, had LSU-Alabama been a 38-35 classic, then the bias would go the other way.

In contrast, before-the-fact polls have the virtue of tapping viewer mindsets that are unblemished by the results of the game.

As for LSU - Alabama vs USC - Oklahoma, ratings are based on percentages, so it doesn't matter that the population of viewers has gone up since 2005. If anything, LSU - Alabama was at a disadvantage because it was on ESPN while USC - Oklahoma was on ABC.

You are talking about comparing a tournament that has 68 teams and always takes multiple teams from all the major conferences to a tournament that currently has room for FOUR teams. It is a terrible comparison and to try to make it is to be desperately reaching in an attempt to try to attack me for whatever reason. I am not dodging, your point sucks, period.

The reason you think my point sucks is because it undermines your argument completely. It doesn't matter if the NCAA tournament currently takes 68 or 150 teams. If your logic about what people want to watch (conference champions playing each other) is correct than it should apply to basketball as well.

I think the underlying reason for this contradiction is that you probably realize that viewers do not, in fact, care all that much about football conference championships, and for a good reason: Not all conferences are equal. A game between #1, 13-0 Oklahoma and #3, 12-1 Texas is likely to draw more viewers than a game between #1 Oklahoma and #14, 10-3 (but B1G champion) Wisconsin. Nine out of ten fans would rather see the former because they aren't fooled by the "conference champion" label on Wisconsin. All that means is they were the best of a mediocre lot of 13 teams out of 120. Not very impressive credentials.

And, if we compare college football to college basketball, the latter produces a far more legitimate conference champion than the former. In football conferences, teams either play each other only once or sometimes not at all. Even when they play once, you get a weak test of who the best is. E.g., if Stanford goes 9-1 in the PAC and Oregon goes 10-0, and Oregon beat Stanford 28 - 21 in Oregon, that's not a real good indicator that Oregon is really better, because they had the obvious advantage of playing their one game at home. A much better test would be if Stanford got to host Oregon as well, but football doesn't permit that. Thus, saying Stanford was proven to be inferior to Oregon and doesn't deserve a shot at a national playoff is pretty weak coffee.

But basketball provides a much stronger test for conference supremacy. In all the major conferences, each team plays all the others home and away, such that the team that has the best record at the end of the year has really proved themselves to be "best" and that runners-up don't belong in a national playoffs.

So if anything, a far stronger argument can be made that the NCAA basketball tourney should be conference champs only than that a football playoff should be.

And yet you seem to think it's A-OK if not just the runner-up but often six or seven schools from the same conference play in the NCAA basketball tourney (and viewers LOVE this, btw), but that lots more money can be made in college football if only conference champs are allowed to play.

Not very rational.

The biggest reason why you are just far too incompetent to be in a conversation with me is because you cannot comprehend the difference between me talking about what I see happening and what I actually want to happen.

People like you argue your own selfish desires. I simply speak on what I see happening based on previous happenings. So go on thinking you are "debating" someone whom is just pushing their own personal desires and agenda but that is not the case.

If you cannot understand why the large Big Ten following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large PAC following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large ACC following would like to see their champion go forward then, as I said before, you need to get out of the South more often.


The conferences WILL want their championships to have meaning in Football BECAUSE they don't mean **** in basketball. They invest in them and more importantly....the Networks invest heavily in them.

Another amoeba mutation. Not once in this exchange have I said that the conferences do not care if their champions make the playoffs, although so far, over the past 20 years, they have continuously agreed to playoff systems (first the BCS, now the CFP) that make playoff participation contingent on rankings, not conference championships. So if you really are "speaking based on previous happenings", you aren't very clued-in as to what those previous happenings have been, since those very same conferences with those very large, new media deals just signed on to a system that has a committee ranking the top 4 teams for the playoffs, and there is no requirement that the teams be conference champions. And they never have made that a requirement, dating all the way back to 1992 and the original Bowl Alliance.

Also, your distinction about me not comprehending the difference between what you want to happen and what you think will happen falls flat, because whether you are discussing one or the other, empirical reality still applies: E.g., you claimed that the reason we will have a champs-only playoffs is because TV networks understand that viewers would rather see champs play than see rematches. I debunked that pretty thoroughly by discussing the LSU-Alabama situation in relation to other past BCS title game matchups. There is little reason to think that "the people" would rather see a game between two conference champs than two other teams that are clearly higher-ranked and had better seasons. Being a conference champ just means you were the best of 13 or so teams, not very impressive credentials in the scheme of things if you otherwise weren't very good. Your notion is also belied by the NCAA tournament, in which the conferences produce FAR more defensible champions than in football, and yet the tournament is WILDLY popular with TV and viewers despite letting everyone and their grandmother in.

Logically and empirically, your ideas just don't stand up. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2014 12:36 PM by quo vadis.)
08-27-2014 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #72
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-27-2014 04:01 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  So based on the above information in 2027 the BIG 12 falls apart due to the poor longhorn TV network.

PAC-12 becomes PAC-16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

BIG takes Kansas & West Virginia

The AAC turns into a plausible power five:

The SEC has at least 7 schools with bigger football brand names than anyone in that AAC. No way in hell would they ever agree to allow that version of the AAC to share equally in playoff money, etc.
08-27-2014 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #73
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
(08-27-2014 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 12:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-26-2014 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is a complete and total dodge. Your argument - as much as I can gather when untangling the mess of it - seems to be that viewers prefer to see conference champs play rather than see rematches between conference teams because the conference schedule has already sorted out who the best team in that conference is, thus, football will adopt a system that includes conference champs only because that will maximize viewership and hence their money.

That is an argument that should apply to both football and basketball. But apparently you aren't making it for basketball, which makes no sense, since obviously, schools prefer to maximize basketball revenue as well as football revenue.

And it's rather astonishing that you would question why an after-the-fact poll would have less validity than a before-the-fact poll. The issue (as you've framed it) is one of general preference: Generally speaking, people prefer to see conference champs play rather than rematches between conference teams. An after-the-fact poll is tainted because it is almost certainly the case that the experience of watching the rematch game will influence how people evaluate its desirability. Alabama's dull, grinding, 21-0 shutout of LSU was boring to anyone not a Bama fan, and so it is natural that after watching it, many would think "Yeah, rematches suck". In contrast, had LSU-Alabama been a 38-35 classic, then the bias would go the other way.

In contrast, before-the-fact polls have the virtue of tapping viewer mindsets that are unblemished by the results of the game.

As for LSU - Alabama vs USC - Oklahoma, ratings are based on percentages, so it doesn't matter that the population of viewers has gone up since 2005. If anything, LSU - Alabama was at a disadvantage because it was on ESPN while USC - Oklahoma was on ABC.

You are talking about comparing a tournament that has 68 teams and always takes multiple teams from all the major conferences to a tournament that currently has room for FOUR teams. It is a terrible comparison and to try to make it is to be desperately reaching in an attempt to try to attack me for whatever reason. I am not dodging, your point sucks, period.

The reason you think my point sucks is because it undermines your argument completely. It doesn't matter if the NCAA tournament currently takes 68 or 150 teams. If your logic about what people want to watch (conference champions playing each other) is correct than it should apply to basketball as well.

I think the underlying reason for this contradiction is that you probably realize that viewers do not, in fact, care all that much about football conference championships, and for a good reason: Not all conferences are equal. A game between #1, 13-0 Oklahoma and #3, 12-1 Texas is likely to draw more viewers than a game between #1 Oklahoma and #14, 10-3 (but B1G champion) Wisconsin. Nine out of ten fans would rather see the former because they aren't fooled by the "conference champion" label on Wisconsin. All that means is they were the best of a mediocre lot of 13 teams out of 120. Not very impressive credentials.

And, if we compare college football to college basketball, the latter produces a far more legitimate conference champion than the former. In football conferences, teams either play each other only once or sometimes not at all. Even when they play once, you get a weak test of who the best is. E.g., if Stanford goes 9-1 in the PAC and Oregon goes 10-0, and Oregon beat Stanford 28 - 21 in Oregon, that's not a real good indicator that Oregon is really better, because they had the obvious advantage of playing their one game at home. A much better test would be if Stanford got to host Oregon as well, but football doesn't permit that. Thus, saying Stanford was proven to be inferior to Oregon and doesn't deserve a shot at a national playoff is pretty weak coffee.

But basketball provides a much stronger test for conference supremacy. In all the major conferences, each team plays all the others home and away, such that the team that has the best record at the end of the year has really proved themselves to be "best" and that runners-up don't belong in a national playoffs.

So if anything, a far stronger argument can be made that the NCAA basketball tourney should be conference champs only than that a football playoff should be.

And yet you seem to think it's A-OK if not just the runner-up but often six or seven schools from the same conference play in the NCAA basketball tourney (and viewers LOVE this, btw), but that lots more money can be made in college football if only conference champs are allowed to play.

Not very rational.

The biggest reason why you are just far too incompetent to be in a conversation with me is because you cannot comprehend the difference between me talking about what I see happening and what I actually want to happen.

People like you argue your own selfish desires. I simply speak on what I see happening based on previous happenings. So go on thinking you are "debating" someone whom is just pushing their own personal desires and agenda but that is not the case.

If you cannot understand why the large Big Ten following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large PAC following would care to see it's champion go forward and why the large ACC following would like to see their champion go forward then, as I said before, you need to get out of the South more often.


The conferences WILL want their championships to have meaning in Football BECAUSE they don't mean **** in basketball. They invest in them and more importantly....the Networks invest heavily in them.

Another amoeba mutation. Not once in this exchange have I said that the conferences do not care if their champions make the playoffs, although so far, over the past 20 years, they have continuously agreed to playoff systems (first the BCS, now the CFP) that make playoff participation contingent on rankings, not conference championships. So if you really are "speaking based on previous happenings", you aren't very clued-in as to what those previous happenings have been, since those very same conferences with those very large, new media deals just signed on to a system that has a committee ranking the top 4 teams for the playoffs, and there is no requirement that the teams be conference champions. And they never have made that a requirement, dating all the way back to 1992 and the original Bowl Alliance.

Also, your distinction about me not comprehending the difference between what you want to happen and what you think will happen falls flat, because whether you are discussing one or the other, empirical reality still applies: E.g., you claimed that the reason we will have a champs-only playoffs is because TV networks understand that viewers would rather see champs play than see rematches. I debunked that pretty thoroughly by discussing the LSU-Alabama situation in relation to other past BCS title game matchups. There is little reason to think that "the people" would rather see a game between two conference champs than two other teams that are clearly higher-ranked and had better seasons. Being a conference champ just means you were the best of 13 or so teams, not very impressive credentials in the scheme of things if you otherwise weren't very good. Your notion is also belied by the NCAA tournament, in which the conferences produce FAR more defensible champions than in football, and yet the tournament is WILDLY popular with TV and viewers despite letting everyone and their grandmother in.

Logically and empirically, your ideas just don't stand up. 07-coffee3

Logically and empirically you have created your own strawman and ran with it. Congrats I guess? 03-zzz

by all means, continue if you like but you are nothing more than an annoyance at this point that does not take part in conversations, instead you just talk to yourself.
08-27-2014 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #74
RE: Odd thought for AAC Expansion. It's all about numbers.
I really do not see what is so difficult in understand that Texas will be given first consideration. Oklahoma will be given second consideration. Texas will want a Notre Dame deal with the ACC. Oklahoma talked PAC because they thought Texas would accept the PAC. Everyone knows Texas could never choose the Big Ten and The Big Ten, up until this point as far as I know, have not given any beginnings of invitation to Oklahoma. If Oklahoma had the opportunity to join The Big Ten in the episode of the Big 12 ending then they would. They absolutely would prefer The Big Ten to the SEC. Pretty much everyone around here would think that EXCEPT you SEC folks.

So with Texas and Oklahoma choosing then it might come down to Kansas because they could easily leverage themselves some control over their own destiny due to being able to form a voting block with Kansas State and Iowa State to stop a dissolution vote. That means they will get their pick and go to the Big Ten as well.

That is how Oklahoma and Kansas go to the Big Ten. They choose to do so. All your SEC vs Big Ten blatherings are meaningless because at this point it would be the schools choosing if a Big 12 dissolution scenario happens.

Beyond that point though, it becomes a negotiation. Now first and foremost, to get Texas to sign on First they would have to be appeased and so it is likely that the other two Texas programs go with them to the ACC. That leaves Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech. Of those five, the two that make the most sense for the SEC are Oklahoma State and West Virginia. Kansas State and Tech might say they prefer the SEC as well but of those five I would say that the SEC would choose OSU and WVU since at this point it absolutely would be the SEC choice. Of course ESPN would have to offer up a pretty big payday increase for the SEC to go along with this. Some folks might be all childish about it and say that the SEC is not getting equivalent to the Big Ten but its not about Big Ten vs SEC. That would simply be how the domino's fell.

It would be up to the Networks to make this happen. If they see the value in it then they would have to pony up the cash. If they don't, this scenario could Never happen. I think they will and I think these placements would happen with enough money handed out to make it happen.

If anyone wants to think that the SEC would hold up things over the appearance of being slighted, well that is quite a defeatist attitude. I would say that you folks are terrible marketers. It doesn't take much to sell the quality of Oklahoma State football. West Virginia football was competitive with everyone when they had a strong recruiting pipeline to Florida. They annihilated Clemson, then they moved to the Big 12 and that caused some difficulties. With a strong southern pipeline again, WVU will be back to where they were in a couple years.


Now, feel free to write another paper in a foolish attempt to attack this idea. Such heavy usage of straw man arguments has lead me to not have a direct conversation. I have put the scenario out there. Love it, hate it, I really don't care. And by all means, do try to continue using basketball to somehow attack this idea in your mind. Once again, I am done having a direct conversation when all I am going to be is personally attacked and have my words twisted in endless straw man tactics.

Learn to have a conversation otherwise, learn to talk to yourself.
08-27-2014 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.