(07-09-2014 02:33 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 01:56 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 01:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 01:23 PM)nert Wrote:  This comment made me laugh:

"The state of Ohio is by far the largest state with only a single P5 school"

Has he never heard of New York?

I don't fault him for that one. New York & Ohio are nothing alike college football wise. As much as i would like it to be this way, Syracuse & Ohio State have nothing in common.

If he would have said "Ohio is by far the largest 'college football crazy' state with only one P5 school" then I would have been OK with it - but he didn't say that.

Maybe it was just a slap at the ACC. Perhaps he is unimpressed by ACC FB.

His premise is correct in that statement, you are just giving him **** because of a technicality.

Actually, it's the other way around. He's incorrect, You're giving him credit for what he might have meant (assuming the technicality). That's generous of you - but it might be entirely the case that he never thought of Syracuse and New York at all. Regardless, it still made me laugh.

lemme rephrase

the point he was making about osu/OH is 100% correct, you are just giving him **** because of the technicality.

(07-09-2014 11:47 AM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 11:42 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Unfortunately, the P5 ship has sailed on UConn and probably Cincy. They're never going to look much more appealing than they did three years ago when they were bypassed. UCF and USF, however, have the potential to become more desirable, and BYU is already so.

I disagree. Cincinnati is just getting started in terms of "appeal." The renovated football stadium should be done by 2015 and there is looming speculation about a renovated/new basketball arena. Academics are on the rise and UC is a borderline AAU institution. The question is, will there be an opening???

I agree that UCF and USF have the potential to become more desirable.

However, UC does too. UC has gained 40 spots in the USNWR rankings in the past decade, and we've gained 20 spots in the last 5 years in the research output rankings. That's gigantic improvement, and USNWR still lists us as 3rd on the list of most improving colleges. We've set new records for freshman class sizes each of the past 4 years, and more importantly the quality of students (and hopefully as a result, graduation rates) is skyrocketing. Although UC has a huge alumni base (270,000, would be 2nd largest in the Big 12), much of it is disconnected from UC football. Before 2006, most students didn't care about UC football. But now, every year we graduate 5,000 more alums who spent their college years packing the house at Nippert.

Yes, in some ways we're in the shadow of OSU, but we're by far the biggest university in a region of 2.5 million people that has healthy growth. In that sense we're very similar to USF and UCF. They may very well grow faster than us (that remains to be seen), but we're starting at a much higher level on the desirability scale.

(07-09-2014 02:56 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 11:47 AM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 11:42 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Unfortunately, the P5 ship has sailed on UConn and probably Cincy. They're never going to look much more appealing than they did three years ago when they were bypassed. UCF and USF, however, have the potential to become more desirable, and BYU is already so.

I disagree. Cincinnati is just getting started in terms of "appeal." The renovated football stadium should be done by 2015 and there is looming speculation about a renovated/new basketball arena. Academics are on the rise and UC is a borderline AAU institution. The question is, will there be an opening???

I agree that UCF and USF have the potential to become more desirable.

However, UC does too. UC has gained 40 spots in the USNWR rankings in the past decade, and we've gained 20 spots in the last 5 years in the research output rankings. That's gigantic improvement, and USNWR still lists us as 3rd on the list of most improving colleges. We've set new records for freshman class sizes each of the past 4 years, and more importantly the quality of students (and hopefully as a result, graduation rates) is skyrocketing. Although UC has a huge alumni base (270,000, would be 2nd largest in the Big 12), much of it is disconnected from UC football. Before 2006, most students didn't care about UC football. But now, every year we graduate 5,000 more alums who spent their college years packing the house at Nippert.

Yes, in some ways we're in the shadow of OSU, but we're by far the biggest university in a region of 2.5 million people that has healthy growth. In that sense we're very similar to USF and UCF. They may very well grow faster than us (that remains to be seen), but we're starting at a much higher level on the desirability scale.

thats good & all, but this is b12 expansion where they have no regards for academics.

John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Am I cardinal jim now?

(07-09-2014 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Am I cardinal jim now?

What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

(07-09-2014 03:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Am I cardinal jim now?

What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

If you look at one of the links, it wasn't posted until AFTER the Sports Politico article was published. It is very clear in the 1st page of that thread.

as for Fifth Third, my statement was that cincys stadium had no luxury boxes at all and you even corrected me on that and i admitted I was wrong. and as you said this was several months ago.

(07-09-2014 03:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Am I cardinal jim now?

What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

The author there uses the exact same "technically" argument to my comment that John uses here - so is that another coincidence?

(07-09-2014 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:27 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:26 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I've actually read this guy from time to time and like most of his stuff. with that being said this is clearly not his best work. I liked the BYU piece and the USF/UCF piece was okay, didn't like this one though.

as melkey said you really need to read the BYU, & USF/UCF part two and even the comments to get the proper premise of what he was going for.

two of the issues that were mentioned on csnbbs he already addressed in the comments section.

It’s not a question of OSU/Big Ten preventing the Big 12 from doing what they want to do, but how the Big Ten will respond. The Big 12 stayed intact in the last round of realignment in large part because the Big Ten was content with the prospect of a ten team Big 12 over a 16 team Pac-16. If the Big Ten starts to feel that the Big 12 is encroaching on them, make no mistake they will respond in a way that weakens the Big 12.
-on the OSU/Big Ten affecting the Big 12

This is a hypothetical expansion scenario (as described in part II) where the Big 12 is forced to expand in order to reach the minimum amount of teams for a conference championship game. I did not cite market stats because 1) they are not relevant to this scenario and 2) the Big 12 didn’t put a whole lot of emphasis on that the last time around when they added TCU/WVU.
-on why he didn't include market stats

The B10 had nothing to do with the PAC 12 screwing itself and not taking OU and OSU. Texas and Mini Me would have followed. The B10 screwed up by not taking KU and Mizzou because it was too focused on eastern expansion (where were Rutgers and Maryland going)....

They coulda taken KU/Mizz destabilized the conference and cleaned up on UMD & Rutgers late (neither of which were going to the SEC or Pac16)

I agree with you john to a certain extent. If the B10 had taken KU and Mizzou, it could have added Rutgers and Maryland any time after that because those two schools weren’t going anywhere. However, the part of your post that I disagree with is: “They coulda taken KU/Mizz destabilized the conference”. The B12 subsequently lost A&M and MIZZOU; however, it survived (barely). Consequently, although I think very highly of KU bball (which belongs in the B10), I don’t think the loss of KU (with MIZZOU) would have destabilized the B12. Losing A&M and almost losing OU is what really destabilized the B12 in my opinion. Dodds actually admitted at a press conference (which you probably saw) that the B12 would have died without OU, and he also considered placing Texas in the ACC if OU and OSU were accepted into the PAC 12.

As a result, I must say that I was surprised to hear Dodds (a man who said that he helped build the B12 and Texas would be in it forever) imply that he thought at one point the B12 was dead and Texas had considered joining the ACC. Nevertheless, if the B10 had taken KU (along with MIZZOU), I think Louisville would have taken its place in the B12 (WV still takes MIZZOU's place). Furthermore, if the B10 had added Maryland later, the ACC would have taken Cinci in my opinion because it's better balanced in fball and bball than UCONN.....

(07-09-2014 03:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Am I cardinal jim now?

What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

The author there uses the exact same "technically" argument to my comment that John uses here - so is that another coincidence?

ah so simply agreeing with the concept he was getting at means I am him. got it

(07-09-2014 03:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:27 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:26 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I've actually read this guy from time to time and like most of his stuff. with that being said this is clearly not his best work. I liked the BYU piece and the USF/UCF piece was okay, didn't like this one though.

as melkey said you really need to read the BYU, & USF/UCF part two and even the comments to get the proper premise of what he was going for.

two of the issues that were mentioned on csnbbs he already addressed in the comments section.

It’s not a question of OSU/Big Ten preventing the Big 12 from doing what they want to do, but how the Big Ten will respond. The Big 12 stayed intact in the last round of realignment in large part because the Big Ten was content with the prospect of a ten team Big 12 over a 16 team Pac-16. If the Big Ten starts to feel that the Big 12 is encroaching on them, make no mistake they will respond in a way that weakens the Big 12.
-on the OSU/Big Ten affecting the Big 12

This is a hypothetical expansion scenario (as described in part II) where the Big 12 is forced to expand in order to reach the minimum amount of teams for a conference championship game. I did not cite market stats because 1) they are not relevant to this scenario and 2) the Big 12 didn’t put a whole lot of emphasis on that the last time around when they added TCU/WVU.
-on why he didn't include market stats

The B10 had nothing to do with the PAC 12 screwing itself and not taking OU and OSU. Texas and Mini Me would have followed. The B10 screwed up by not taking KU and Mizzou because it was too focused on eastern expansion (where were Rutgers and Maryland going)....

They coulda taken KU/Mizz destabilized the conference and cleaned up on UMD & Rutgers late (neither of which were going to the SEC or Pac16)

I agree with you john to a certain extent. If the B10 had taken KU and Mizzou, it could have added Rutgers and Maryland any time after that because those two schools weren’t going anywhere. However, the part of your post that I disagree with is: “They coulda taken KU/Mizz destabilized the conference”. The B12 subsequently lost A&M and MIZZOU; however, it survived (barely). Consequently, although I think very highly of KU bball (which belongs in the B10), I don’t think the loss of KU (with MIZZOU) would have destabilized the B12. Losing A&M and almost losing OU is what really destabilized the B12 in my opinion. Dodds actually admitted at a press conference (which you probably saw) that the B12 would have died without OU, and he also considered placing Texas in the ACC if OU and OSU were accepted into the PAC 12.

As a result, I must say that I was surprised to hear Dodds (a man who said that he helped build the B12 and Texas would be in it forever) imply that he thought at one point the B12 was dead and Texas had considered joining the ACC. Nevertheless, if the B10 had taken KU (along with MIZZOU), I think Louisville would have taken its place in the B12 (WV still takes MIZZOU's place). Furthermore, if the B10 had added Maryland later, the ACC would have taken Cinci in my opinion because it's better balanced in fball and bball than UCONN.....

when they were at 8 teams one more lose would of been enough to finally do them in IMO.

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Great call stxrunner. I was thinking the same thing myself the other day when I first saw this blog posting.

There are some people out there that just bend over backwards to discredit UC and John has been one of them on this board for the last couple years.

I have heard all the arguments thrown around, mostly by people are not in the area (and frankly I don't know if they have ever been here) ....

Facilities....
Academics...
fan base...
being a "commuter school" (which is not true anymore btw)
OSU's presence in the state...

(07-09-2014 03:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:59 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  John, are you sure you didn't have anything to do with this piece??

Not only did I have a specific discussion with you about Fifth Third Arena less than 2 months ago where you stated the EXACT incorrect facts in this article, but you posted two specific threads on the AAC board asking for information about the EXACT two main points that were made in this article (One being Gee's quote, the other being the stadium expansion issue).

I don't think it's farfetched to say you clearly either wrote this article, or collaborated to write it. I think the coincidences are a little much. At least own it and don't come on here acting like you aren't clearly entwined with this article. That's messed up man.

Here's John's threads he posted for reference to those who hadn't seen them:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-694346.html

http://csnbbs.com/thread-693513.html

Am I cardinal jim now?

What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

The author there uses the exact same "technically" argument to my comment that John uses here - so is that another coincidence?

ah so simply agreeing with the concept he was getting at means I am him. got it

Posters under two names using the same incorrect argument - with the same term, to the same comment, by itself might be a coincidence. When you are already being asked about other coincidences, it does seem to add credence to the argument.

(07-09-2014 03:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:27 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:26 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I've actually read this guy from time to time and like most of his stuff. with that being said this is clearly not his best work. I liked the BYU piece and the USF/UCF piece was okay, didn't like this one though.

as melkey said you really need to read the BYU, & USF/UCF part two and even the comments to get the proper premise of what he was going for.

two of the issues that were mentioned on csnbbs he already addressed in the comments section.

It’s not a question of OSU/Big Ten preventing the Big 12 from doing what they want to do, but how the Big Ten will respond. The Big 12 stayed intact in the last round of realignment in large part because the Big Ten was content with the prospect of a ten team Big 12 over a 16 team Pac-16. If the Big Ten starts to feel that the Big 12 is encroaching on them, make no mistake they will respond in a way that weakens the Big 12.
-on the OSU/Big Ten affecting the Big 12

This is a hypothetical expansion scenario (as described in part II) where the Big 12 is forced to expand in order to reach the minimum amount of teams for a conference championship game. I did not cite market stats because 1) they are not relevant to this scenario and 2) the Big 12 didn’t put a whole lot of emphasis on that the last time around when they added TCU/WVU.
-on why he didn't include market stats

The B10 had nothing to do with the PAC 12 screwing itself and not taking OU and OSU. Texas and Mini Me would have followed. The B10 screwed up by not taking KU and Mizzou because it was too focused on eastern expansion (where were Rutgers and Maryland going)....

They coulda taken KU/Mizz destabilized the conference and cleaned up on UMD & Rutgers late (neither of which were going to the SEC or Pac16)

I agree with you john to a certain extent. If the B10 had taken KU and Mizzou, it could have added Rutgers and Maryland any time after that because those two schools weren’t going anywhere. However, the part of your post that I disagree with is: “They coulda taken KU/Mizz destabilized the conference”. The B12 subsequently lost A&M and MIZZOU; however, it survived (barely). Consequently, although I think very highly of KU bball (which belongs in the B10), I don’t think the loss of KU (with MIZZOU) would have destabilized the B12. Losing A&M and almost losing OU is what really destabilized the B12 in my opinion. Dodds actually admitted at a press conference (which you probably saw) that the B12 would have died without OU, and he also considered placing Texas in the ACC if OU and OSU were accepted into the PAC 12.

As a result, I must say that I was surprised to hear Dodds (a man who said that he helped build the B12 and Texas would be in it forever) imply that he thought at one point the B12 was dead and Texas had considered joining the ACC. Nevertheless, if the B10 had taken KU (along with MIZZOU), I think Louisville would have taken its place in the B12 (WV still takes MIZZOU's place). Furthermore, if the B10 had added Maryland later, the ACC would have taken Cinci in my opinion because it's better balanced in fball and bball than UCONN.....

when they were at 8 teams one more lose would of been enough to finally do them in IMO.

Good point john... but consider that at seven (assume KU went to the B10), the B12 still had WV, Louisville, Cinci, BYU, and TCU to choose from to get back to ten or B12....

(07-09-2014 03:33 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Am I cardinal jim now?

What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

The author there uses the exact same "technically" argument to my comment that John uses here - so is that another coincidence?

ah so simply agreeing with the concept he was getting at means I am him. got it

Posters under two names using the same incorrect argument - with the same term, to the same comment, by itself might be a coincidence. When you are already being asked about other coincidences, it does seem to add credence to the argument.

Ohio State dominates it's own state better than anyone else including Texas/Texas and Syracuse/New York. That is what i am arguing and please tell me where I was wrong on that?

Big 12 doesn't want to add schools because none bring twenty million a year in value.

Simple solution add four pay them half shares for six to eight years. Once that period is over their value will have increased.
Works for the schools and the conference.

BYU
CINCINNATI
NEW MEXICO
UCLA

some West some East all bring new states and markets.

And if you want to talk about "credence" how about the fact that one of STXs threads he pointed to I didn't make until AFTER this article came out?

Central Florida is the fourth not UCLA damn phone.

(07-09-2014 03:39 PM)MJG Wrote:  Central Florida is the fourth not UCLA damn phone.

I was gonna say.

(07-09-2014 03:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:33 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  What? Mike Davis is listed as the author of the article. If that's CardinalJim, then I would have no way of knowing. And even if it is, it doesn't change my premise that you asking UC fans for specific information made in the article just days before it is released is quite the coincidence at best. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you collaborated on the article based on my argument.

If it's just a coincidence, explain yourself. Don't start getting all sarcastic defensive.

The author there uses the exact same "technically" argument to my comment that John uses here - so is that another coincidence?

ah so simply agreeing with the concept he was getting at means I am him. got it

Posters under two names using the same incorrect argument - with the same term, to the same comment, by itself might be a coincidence. When you are already being asked about other coincidences, it does seem to add credence to the argument.

Ohio State dominates it's own state better than anyone else including Texas/Texas and Syracuse/New York. That is what i am arguing and please tell me where I was wrong on that?

Can say the same thing for Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, etc..