08-05-2002, 10:28 AM
08-05-2002, 12:58 PM
Coach DeBord: I have a tremendous amount of optimism this year. For the first time in my three years here, I believe in this team.
That ought to win some fans and stir some loyalty among the alumni. Way to talk up your program. I said DeBord was a mistake from the beginning. When they fail this year too, I hope the Chips make a change. That being said, BG had the same "4th qtr blues" in 2000 and did well in 2001. It is a meaningful stat, but I think DeBord will blow it.
Coach Amstutz: I
That ought to win some fans and stir some loyalty among the alumni. Way to talk up your program. I said DeBord was a mistake from the beginning. When they fail this year too, I hope the Chips make a change. That being said, BG had the same "4th qtr blues" in 2000 and did well in 2001. It is a meaningful stat, but I think DeBord will blow it.
Coach Amstutz: I
08-05-2002, 01:08 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrTorch:
Coach DeBord: I have a tremendous amount of optimism this year. For the first time in my three years here, I believe in this team.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hilarious. I caught that right away. You have to love a coach who's job it is is to make a team his own reflection. I guess we can translate this into "For the first time in three years, I believe I can coach."
Coach DeBord: I have a tremendous amount of optimism this year. For the first time in my three years here, I believe in this team.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hilarious. I caught that right away. You have to love a coach who's job it is is to make a team his own reflection. I guess we can translate this into "For the first time in three years, I believe I can coach."
08-05-2002, 01:18 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Coach Amstutz: I’m glad BG is in our division now, they always should have been.
Envy. Doesn't matter if it's good for the conference, we just want to see what's bad for BGSU. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dr, I don't get it. What did he say to make you think that? Stutz loves the rivalry. Where's the problem?
Envy. Doesn't matter if it's good for the conference, we just want to see what's bad for BGSU. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dr, I don't get it. What did he say to make you think that? Stutz loves the rivalry. Where's the problem?
08-05-2002, 01:41 PM
DR...why are you against the move to the West?
The way I read it, Stutz feels that the move is great for the rivalry.
The way I read it, Stutz feels that the move is great for the rivalry.
08-05-2002, 03:31 PM
The rivalry was a protected game, so it was always played regardless of being in separate divisions. Therefore there was no need to move BG to the west. I realize w/ more teams, scheduling different MAC-W teams would have been sparse for BG, but I could live with it because...
BG in the east makes far more sense for BG and other MAC programs. BG has long histories with Kent (sister school), Miami and OU. Many Ohio students end up at these 4 schools, and thus the "rivalries" are kept intact because of this.
This is the sort of thing that allegiance is all about. It's what college sports are built on.(!) It is also all but destroyed by this move. Now I do think there are good games to be had w/ BSU, NIU, WMU and CMU, but it won't be the same as before.
I say Amstutz was envious b/c Toledo was in the West away from the other Ohio schools (although a strong argument could be made that Toledo is actually in MI.) However, that really wasn't as big a deal for Toledo b/c (correct me if I'm wrong) but Toledo has a significant commuter enrollment. Thus the rivalry of classmates from Cleveland, Dayton and Columbus HS's going there vs Miami, OU, Kent and Akron is less probable.
Ideally I always proposed (and wrote to the MAC office) that UCF join the MAC-W, b/c travel expenses really wouldn't vary. Give them a protected rivalry with Marshall, and everyone is happy.
BG in the east makes far more sense for BG and other MAC programs. BG has long histories with Kent (sister school), Miami and OU. Many Ohio students end up at these 4 schools, and thus the "rivalries" are kept intact because of this.
This is the sort of thing that allegiance is all about. It's what college sports are built on.(!) It is also all but destroyed by this move. Now I do think there are good games to be had w/ BSU, NIU, WMU and CMU, but it won't be the same as before.
I say Amstutz was envious b/c Toledo was in the West away from the other Ohio schools (although a strong argument could be made that Toledo is actually in MI.) However, that really wasn't as big a deal for Toledo b/c (correct me if I'm wrong) but Toledo has a significant commuter enrollment. Thus the rivalry of classmates from Cleveland, Dayton and Columbus HS's going there vs Miami, OU, Kent and Akron is less probable.
Ideally I always proposed (and wrote to the MAC office) that UCF join the MAC-W, b/c travel expenses really wouldn't vary. Give them a protected rivalry with Marshall, and everyone is happy.
Guest
08-05-2002, 04:15 PM
As Amstutz pointed out, the UT/BUGS rivalry will mean something now. Toledo had rivalries with East teams prior to the split, too. The only logical move was the one that was made. There is nothing even slightly resembling envy going on here.
<small>[ August 05, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Oddball ]</small>
<small>[ August 05, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Oddball ]</small>
08-05-2002, 05:02 PM
Torch: With respect to the DeBord quote, I think you're taking it the wrong way. The team had a piss-poor attitude (and was in equally bad physical shape) when DeBord took over, and he's been consistently frank about the team's shortcomings. Most of those responsible for those problems are out of Mt. Pleasant now, one way or the other. One of the things I've heard -- from folks closer to the program than myself -- is that DeBord is always telling the team to make him believe and make themselves believe. Taken in that context, 'tis a bit different, no?
<small>[ August 05, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: CMichFan ]</small>
<small>[ August 05, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: CMichFan ]</small>
08-05-2002, 08:57 PM
In my mind, BG and Miami should play each other every year. I think it's a travesty that BG was moved to the West. Actually, all the "old" MAC Ohio schools should play each other. Why not keep all the Ohio schools together?
Of course, I also think Miami should not have lost it's traditional game with Western. Those freakin' bastages still have our Peace Pipe! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad-flaming.gif" />
Of course, I also think Miami should not have lost it's traditional game with Western. Those freakin' bastages still have our Peace Pipe! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad-flaming.gif" />
Guest
08-06-2002, 06:01 AM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dodo:
In my mind, BG and Miami should play each other every year. I think it's a travesty that BG was moved to the West. Actually, all the "old" MAC Ohio schools should play each other. Why not keep all the Ohio schools together?
Of course, I also think Miami should not have lost it's traditional game with Western. Those freakin' bastages still have our Peace Pipe! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad-flaming.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's my point...no matter how they divide this conference up, traditional rivalries suffer. BG was allowed to keep all of theirs during the original split. Now they're about to have the same thing that happened to the rest of us happen to them. I don't see that as a reason to cry foul or to claim that some other coach is envious of them.
In my mind, BG and Miami should play each other every year. I think it's a travesty that BG was moved to the West. Actually, all the "old" MAC Ohio schools should play each other. Why not keep all the Ohio schools together?
Of course, I also think Miami should not have lost it's traditional game with Western. Those freakin' bastages still have our Peace Pipe! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad-flaming.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's my point...no matter how they divide this conference up, traditional rivalries suffer. BG was allowed to keep all of theirs during the original split. Now they're about to have the same thing that happened to the rest of us happen to them. I don't see that as a reason to cry foul or to claim that some other coach is envious of them.
08-06-2002, 07:06 AM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's my point...no matter how they divide this conference up, traditional rivalries suffer. BG was allowed to keep all of theirs during the original split. Now they're about to have the same thing that happened to the rest of us happen to them. I don't see that as a reason to cry foul or to claim that some other coach is envious of them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, my point exactly. Blue and yellow make green.
<small>[ August 06, 2002, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: DrTorch ]</small>
<small>[ August 06, 2002, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: DrTorch ]</small>
Guest
08-06-2002, 12:29 PM
Oh, okay...I see now. Because BG thinks they should be allowed to keep ALL of their rivalries intact, when no one else could, Amstutz didn't really mean what he said. He's not happy that the game will have meaning again, he's just gloating? Gotcha! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" />
08-06-2002, 12:51 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Oddball:
Oh, okay...I see now. Because BG thinks they should be allowed to keep ALL of their rivalries intact, when no one else could, Amstutz didn't really mean what he said. He's not happy that the game will have meaning again, he's just gloating? Gotcha! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since when did the rivalry not have meaning? That's your sentiment, but it makes no sense. Does Ohio St not hate Michigan when the Big 10 title is not on the line?
Perhaps it's another excuse for the 56-21 ass-whooping ut endured? I guess the rivalry meant something to BG, if not to ut.
As for BG keeping "all" their rivalries, it's no coincidence that ut people bring it up; over and over, whining about what another school got that they didn't.
envy- painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage
BTW, the other schools (OU, Miami and Kent) kept their rivalries w/ BG too...uh guess that slipped your mind? So it benefitted those programs and the entire MAC by keeping interest up. But ut's opinion is that it's better that the BG and the conference suffer so that things can be equitable for ut. That would be envy.(see above) BG in the east didn't affect ut, ergo the concern expressed by you and Amstutz can be attributed to one thing: envy.
Oh, okay...I see now. Because BG thinks they should be allowed to keep ALL of their rivalries intact, when no one else could, Amstutz didn't really mean what he said. He's not happy that the game will have meaning again, he's just gloating? Gotcha! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since when did the rivalry not have meaning? That's your sentiment, but it makes no sense. Does Ohio St not hate Michigan when the Big 10 title is not on the line?
Perhaps it's another excuse for the 56-21 ass-whooping ut endured? I guess the rivalry meant something to BG, if not to ut.
As for BG keeping "all" their rivalries, it's no coincidence that ut people bring it up; over and over, whining about what another school got that they didn't.
envy- painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage
BTW, the other schools (OU, Miami and Kent) kept their rivalries w/ BG too...uh guess that slipped your mind? So it benefitted those programs and the entire MAC by keeping interest up. But ut's opinion is that it's better that the BG and the conference suffer so that things can be equitable for ut. That would be envy.(see above) BG in the east didn't affect ut, ergo the concern expressed by you and Amstutz can be attributed to one thing: envy.
Guest
08-06-2002, 01:51 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrTorch:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Oddball:
Oh, okay...I see now. Because BG thinks they should be allowed to keep ALL of their rivalries intact, when no one else could, Amstutz didn't really mean what he said. He's not happy that the game will have meaning again, he's just gloating? Gotcha! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since when did the rivalry not have meaning? That's your sentiment, but it makes no sense. Does Ohio St not hate Michigan when the Big 10 title is not on the line?
Perhaps it's another excuse for the 56-21 ass-whooping ut endured? I guess the rivalry meant something to BG, if not to ut.
As for BG keeping "all" their rivalries, it's no coincidence that ut people bring it up; over and over, whining about what another school got that they didn't.
envy- painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage
BTW, the other schools (OU, Miami and Kent) kept their rivalries w/ BG too...uh guess that slipped your mind? So it benefitted those programs and the entire MAC by keeping interest up. But ut's opinion is that it's better that the BG and the conference suffer so that things can be equitable for ut. That would be envy.(see above) BG in the east didn't affect ut, ergo the concern expressed by you and Amstutz can be attributed to one thing: envy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The game hasn't had the same meaning since the split. It's pretty silly to try and claim otherwise. As for UT folks repeating that over and over, this is the first time I've seen it mentioned at all...and only in the context of this discussion and to rebut BGSUcks folks claiming they should have special treatment. Marshall is the only team entitled to that. The rest of your post is just complete BS. The conference doesn't suffer at all by the move, it is improved...hence Amstutz's comments. The best rivalry in the MAC can return to being exactly that. As for your unsupported claims of envy, Toledo has no reason to envy BGSUcks. Never has, never will. I certainly don't have any reason, nor does Amstutz.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Oddball:
Oh, okay...I see now. Because BG thinks they should be allowed to keep ALL of their rivalries intact, when no one else could, Amstutz didn't really mean what he said. He's not happy that the game will have meaning again, he's just gloating? Gotcha! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since when did the rivalry not have meaning? That's your sentiment, but it makes no sense. Does Ohio St not hate Michigan when the Big 10 title is not on the line?
Perhaps it's another excuse for the 56-21 ass-whooping ut endured? I guess the rivalry meant something to BG, if not to ut.
As for BG keeping "all" their rivalries, it's no coincidence that ut people bring it up; over and over, whining about what another school got that they didn't.
envy- painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage
BTW, the other schools (OU, Miami and Kent) kept their rivalries w/ BG too...uh guess that slipped your mind? So it benefitted those programs and the entire MAC by keeping interest up. But ut's opinion is that it's better that the BG and the conference suffer so that things can be equitable for ut. That would be envy.(see above) BG in the east didn't affect ut, ergo the concern expressed by you and Amstutz can be attributed to one thing: envy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The game hasn't had the same meaning since the split. It's pretty silly to try and claim otherwise. As for UT folks repeating that over and over, this is the first time I've seen it mentioned at all...and only in the context of this discussion and to rebut BGSUcks folks claiming they should have special treatment. Marshall is the only team entitled to that. The rest of your post is just complete BS. The conference doesn't suffer at all by the move, it is improved...hence Amstutz's comments. The best rivalry in the MAC can return to being exactly that. As for your unsupported claims of envy, Toledo has no reason to envy BGSUcks. Never has, never will. I certainly don't have any reason, nor does Amstutz.
Guest
08-06-2002, 01:52 PM
Also, regarding BG in the West...look at a freaking map.
08-06-2002, 02:00 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The game hasn't had the same meaning since the split. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can anyone explain this to me? I am, admittedly, one of the more ignorant readers of this board, but I just don't see how in the world it could possibly matter what division (or conference, for that matter) another team is in if you have a rivalry with them.
08-06-2002, 02:06 PM
Exactly Oddball, BG belongs in the West geographically. If the MAC ever expanded to 16 schools Miami would be in there with them.
I would think attendance would be better for BG generally speaking in the West. It has seemed to help Toledo's attendance playing WMU and CMU instead of Kent and Akron. WMU and CMU have fan bases that will travel to BG.
KC
I would think attendance would be better for BG generally speaking in the West. It has seemed to help Toledo's attendance playing WMU and CMU instead of Kent and Akron. WMU and CMU have fan bases that will travel to BG.
KC
08-06-2002, 02:09 PM
Playing the BG-UT game with the division title would make the game all that much bigger. Thats why its important to have two schools located 25 miles apart in the same division.
KC
KC
08-06-2002, 03:23 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kit-Cat:
Exactly Oddball, BG belongs in the West geographically. If the MAC ever expanded to 16 schools Miami would be in there with them.
I would think attendance would be better for BG generally speaking in the West. It has seemed to help Toledo's attendance playing WMU and CMU instead of Kent and Akron. WMU and CMU have fan bases that will travel to BG.
KC</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We'll see if attendance improves, but it will probably be skewed if BG is playing good ball. It won't be a fair comparison to the years that BG was not a good team, but played in the east.
Road Warrior, your comment makes the most sense. Hell, Fla State and UCG aren't even in the same conference but they have a fierce rivalry. Same w/ Colorado and CSU or Clemson and S. Carolina. If toledo needs a divisional rival for it to be meaningful, then it's not a true rivalry.
Oddball as for my post all being "BS", well that's your standard response to anything that overwhelms you logically. You're the one making the assertion, "and only in the context of this discussion and to rebut BGSUcks folks claiming they should have special treatment. " The words "special treatment" belie the envy that comes from the ut camp. Having good games for OU, Miami, Kent and BG is hardly BG looking for special treatment.
Exactly Oddball, BG belongs in the West geographically. If the MAC ever expanded to 16 schools Miami would be in there with them.
I would think attendance would be better for BG generally speaking in the West. It has seemed to help Toledo's attendance playing WMU and CMU instead of Kent and Akron. WMU and CMU have fan bases that will travel to BG.
KC</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We'll see if attendance improves, but it will probably be skewed if BG is playing good ball. It won't be a fair comparison to the years that BG was not a good team, but played in the east.
Road Warrior, your comment makes the most sense. Hell, Fla State and UCG aren't even in the same conference but they have a fierce rivalry. Same w/ Colorado and CSU or Clemson and S. Carolina. If toledo needs a divisional rival for it to be meaningful, then it's not a true rivalry.
Oddball as for my post all being "BS", well that's your standard response to anything that overwhelms you logically. You're the one making the assertion, "and only in the context of this discussion and to rebut BGSUcks folks claiming they should have special treatment. " The words "special treatment" belie the envy that comes from the ut camp. Having good games for OU, Miami, Kent and BG is hardly BG looking for special treatment.