(08-22-2020 11:58 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: (08-22-2020 01:55 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote: (08-22-2020 12:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: (08-18-2020 05:08 PM)emu steve Wrote: Re-adding Marshall would be like re-marrying your ex-wife.
Which would make re-re-adding Marshal like re-re-marrying your ex-ex-wife.
Sometimes the third time is NOT charmed: rather, sometimes the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over and expecting a different result THIS time.
C’mon, you all can’t blame us for leaving for a far better (at the time) conference. More bowls, more money (again, at the time), more aligned with us culturally... etc... There is a big part of me that wished we hadnt moved, and a part of me that is glad we did. Ultimately was it the correct move? Eh, probably. But everything eventually regresses to the means and the g5 if it isn’t now, soon will be held all in the same regard.
You’d be surprised regarding the cultural differences from Huntington to Athens. I live in Huntington but work in Gallipolis and Chillicothe, OH. The difference is amazing.
Every argument Bruce has made against Marshall is emotion-based. Bitter feelings, divorces, ex-wives, etc.
You can't seriously lay the "divorce" and "ex-wife" at my feet, that was Steve Emu's analogy. I was just pointing out that it's not the first divorce.
My argument "against" Marshall, if you go actually looking for facts to back up the claim, is that people often over-state how big a deal the footprint of the CUSA is for Marshall, because in conference with eight conference games and seven team divisions, that's only one football away trip to the Western Division every year, and the Eastern Division is a pretty good home for Marshall, with ODU, WKU, MTSU and Charlotte a good cluster for Marshall and FIU/FAU giving Marshall an annual trip to South Florida recruiting grounds.
I understand how hard it is to start with the pigeonhole that I have never done anything but make emotional arguments against Marshall and then to recall the actual
details of that argument, which doesn't comfortably fit into the pigeonhole.
It certainly is a fact that Marshall proved to be footloose in their second try at the conference, only hanging around eight years, and since MAC Presidents would be making a fact based decision, it would not be surprising if some MAC Presidents were leery of making a permanent invitation to a #14 in order to accommodate a #13 that might prove to be footloose again.
But that is not an emotional argument, it's cold blooded risk management, and indeed it is not me saying that the Presidents
should reject Marshal for that reason, but just making the point that it's an issue they will certainly consider. And there is no telling how the balance of the risk assessment goes without a crystal ball to inform us of what other risks the conference faces at that hypothetical future date.