(05-05-2012 02:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:14 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could definitely see UTEP moving out west to the MWC since these two conferences are supposedly cooperating. If they cannot do a merger they might as well both just push to 16 and then get those NCAA rule waivers given to both conferences instead of just an alliance.

If the people at the top want to see the conference playoffs happening then CUSA and MWC can push for their own individually with a collective effort between them.

I agree with the poster that said an opportunity was missed at not getting FAU. They still could if they are moving to 16. MTSU is definitely on that short list as well.

While a two division set up may not be to the liking of ECU fans if that comes with a seperation from USM but what if you had four pod divisions? How would some of you see four divisions set up?

4 div. suck. 2 groups of 8. 7 and 1 cross over or 7 and 2 cross over.

You have got to be kidding. Four divisions allows for three in division games then two against each other division for a 9 game conference schedule. That allows you to play every team in the conference in a two year period. Three years if you have protected cross division rivals.

16 teams two divisions with the 2 cross overs means it takes four years to play every team. If you have protected cross division rivals it takes an absolutely rediculous amount of time to play every team in the conference.

I do not see how in the hell you would say four divisions suck. CUSA and MWC talked about a merger in order to have their own internal playoff. If CUSA can get it on their own through the NCAA then four divisions makes for an easy decision as to who makes the conference playoff.

Four divisions suck......its like you havnt ever done the math.

Have you been a part of the WAC 16? I was. NCAA makes it so 2 pods are in 1 div. 2 in the other and you have to play everyone in your div. that year. then you can rotate 2 of them. Then the ECU pod would get pissed when its playing the UTEP pod and not being able to play S.Miss. Same w/ UTEP not playing Tulsa. Ask BYU, Utah, AFA, CSU, Wyoming is pods are awesome. Yeah the pods and merger worked so well that we aren't merging and having pods.

NCAA doesn't allow a semi final, read the bylaws. Don't get all butthurt just because I say pods suck. I don't care if you paid me to like them. i wouldn't. There would be no need to have a protected xover this aint the B1G

(05-05-2012 02:46 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:14 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could definitely see UTEP moving out west to the MWC since these two conferences are supposedly cooperating. If they cannot do a merger they might as well both just push to 16 and then get those NCAA rule waivers given to both conferences instead of just an alliance.

If the people at the top want to see the conference playoffs happening then CUSA and MWC can push for their own individually with a collective effort between them.

I agree with the poster that said an opportunity was missed at not getting FAU. They still could if they are moving to 16. MTSU is definitely on that short list as well.

While a two division set up may not be to the liking of ECU fans if that comes with a seperation from USM but what if you had four pod divisions? How would some of you see four divisions set up?

4 div. suck. 2 groups of 8. 7 and 1 cross over or 7 and 2 cross over.

You have got to be kidding. Four divisions allows for three in division games then two against each other division for a 9 game conference schedule. That allows you to play every team in the conference in a two year period. Three years if you have protected cross division rivals.

16 teams two divisions with the 2 cross overs means it takes four years to play every team. If you have protected cross division rivals it takes an absolutely rediculous amount of time to play every team in the conference.

I do not see how in the hell you would say four divisions suck. CUSA and MWC talked about a merger in order to have their own internal playoff. If CUSA can get it on their own through the NCAA then four divisions makes for an easy decision as to who makes the conference playoff.

Four divisions suck......its like you havnt ever done the math.

Have you been a part of the WAC 16? I was. NCAA makes it so 2 pods are in 1 div. 2 in the other and you have to play everyone in your div. that year. then you can rotate 2 of them. Then the ECU pod would get pissed when its playing the UTEP pod and not being able to play S.Miss. Same w/ UTEP not playing Tulsa. Ask BYU, Utah, AFA, CSU, Wyoming is pods are awesome. Yeah the pods and merger worked so well that we aren't merging and having pods.

NCAA doesn't allow a semi final, read the bylaws. Don't get all butthurt just because I say pods suck. I don't care if you paid me to like them. i wouldn't. There would be no need to have a protected xover this aint the B1G

No one butthurt over here on this end. Perhaps you just dont like me telling you that you are stuck in the past, perhaps even traumatized by your experiences in the WAC. The future isn't rotating pods. The future is four standing divisions. That was the point of The Alliance. Unfortunately some money issues popped up, CUSA and MWC tried to find a way to maintain that championship game between them. That would have turned their individual championships into semifinals. Thus creating the new rules of having conference playoffs. I highly doubt they would have been so public about it if they did not have some back room approval to go forward with the plan.

Since contractual obligations and money got in the way, they may now have the backing and support to go ahead and just go to 16 themselves. The funny thing about rules is that they can always be changed. They are not written in stone.

If there is no need for protected cross overs than how is playing everyone in the 16 team conferences in a two year span such a horrible concept? It is not a horrible concept, plain and simple.

Also the Big Ten is not the only conference that has protected cross overs. Try harder if you are attempting to take personal jabs. The truth is plain to see that a 16 team conference with four TRUE divisions works better than a 16 team conference with two divisions.

Here you go since you haven't visualized your incorrect math of playing a couple from each pod
year 1 a&b must play all the schools in their pods and only 1 to 2 total game vs c&d. year 2 pod a&d are together must play everyone leaving 1 to 2 games vs b&c and the rotation continues. No one in the east will be happy about having to be in the same div. w/ the Tx schools and ECU miss out on play S.Miss. Same w/ Tulane not being able to play Rice and the Tx schools same w/ Tulsa not being able to play the Tx schools every year like they are used to.
Pod A
ECU
Charlotte
ODU
Marshall
Pod B
FAU
S.Miss
UAB
FIU


Pod C
La Tech
Tulsa
Tulane
MTSU
Pod D
UNT
UTSA
UTEP
Rice

(05-05-2012 03:03 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:46 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:14 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 02:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I could definitely see UTEP moving out west to the MWC since these two conferences are supposedly cooperating. If they cannot do a merger they might as well both just push to 16 and then get those NCAA rule waivers given to both conferences instead of just an alliance.

If the people at the top want to see the conference playoffs happening then CUSA and MWC can push for their own individually with a collective effort between them.

I agree with the poster that said an opportunity was missed at not getting FAU. They still could if they are moving to 16. MTSU is definitely on that short list as well.

While a two division set up may not be to the liking of ECU fans if that comes with a seperation from USM but what if you had four pod divisions? How would some of you see four divisions set up?

4 div. suck. 2 groups of 8. 7 and 1 cross over or 7 and 2 cross over.

You have got to be kidding. Four divisions allows for three in division games then two against each other division for a 9 game conference schedule. That allows you to play every team in the conference in a two year period. Three years if you have protected cross division rivals.

16 teams two divisions with the 2 cross overs means it takes four years to play every team. If you have protected cross division rivals it takes an absolutely rediculous amount of time to play every team in the conference.

I do not see how in the hell you would say four divisions suck. CUSA and MWC talked about a merger in order to have their own internal playoff. If CUSA can get it on their own through the NCAA then four divisions makes for an easy decision as to who makes the conference playoff.

Four divisions suck......its like you havnt ever done the math.

Have you been a part of the WAC 16? I was. NCAA makes it so 2 pods are in 1 div. 2 in the other and you have to play everyone in your div. that year. then you can rotate 2 of them. Then the ECU pod would get pissed when its playing the UTEP pod and not being able to play S.Miss. Same w/ UTEP not playing Tulsa. Ask BYU, Utah, AFA, CSU, Wyoming is pods are awesome. Yeah the pods and merger worked so well that we aren't merging and having pods.

NCAA doesn't allow a semi final, read the bylaws. Don't get all butthurt just because I say pods suck. I don't care if you paid me to like them. i wouldn't. There would be no need to have a protected xover this aint the B1G

No one butthurt over here on this end. Perhaps you just dont like me telling you that you are stuck in the past, perhaps even traumatized by your experiences in the WAC. The future isn't rotating pods. The future is four standing divisions. That was the point of The Alliance. Unfortunately some money issues popped up, CUSA and MWC tried to find a way to maintain that championship game between them. That would have turned their individual championships into semifinals. Thus creating the new rules of having conference playoffs. I highly doubt they would have been so public about it if they did not have some back room approval to go forward with the plan.

Since contractual obligations and money got in the way, they may now have the backing and support to go ahead and just go to 16 themselves. The funny thing about rules is that they can always be changed. They are not written in stone.

If there is no need for protected cross overs than how is playing everyone in the 16 team conferences in a two year span such a horrible concept? It is not a horrible concept, plain and simple.

Also the Big Ten is not the only conference that has protected cross overs. Try harder if you are attempting to take personal jabs. The truth is plain to see that a 16 team conference with four TRUE divisions works better than a 16 team conference with two divisions.

If the NCAA changes the rule then sure 4 div. can work until then you have either 2 div. or 4 rotating pods that act as 2 div each year. NCAA made the rule, it's current. You should know what you're getting into before talking sh*t to me. Uh they already tried talking to NCAA about it, news flash MWC/CUSA aren't important enough for the NCAA to change the rule to have 4 div. that don't make rotating pods. They didn't get the 2 aq they wanted either. Shocking?

I used the big 10 because you like Iowa. If you liked Ark I would have said SEC. it's personal in that you'd know what I'm saying. WAC didn't have it neither would CUSA

I know exactly what I am getting into. Pods are the old way, true divisions are the new. The Alliance was going to be the method of pigeon holing the new rule through. They will find another way.

So yes I will talk **** to you because obviously it is not part of your reality that the NCAA can actually write new rules. They need a reason to though, thus they need a guinea pig and it needs to be a lesser conference.

So feel free to not worry about this at all. I was more interested in what the CUSA guys would like to see as far as teams divided up in a 4 division set up. I really did not care about the jaded views of an ex WACer that saw how the pod system fails. We all know it fails, thanks for the tip.

In this case CUSA has a whole lot more options for getting to 16 than the MWC does. Thus they are more relevant to those of us who follow the major conferences. Sucks you guys couldnt do the Alliance, the MWC is going to fall behind.

(05-05-2012 03:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I know exactly what I am getting into. Pods are the old way, true divisions are the new. The Alliance was going to be the method of pigeon holing the new rule through. They will find another way.

So yes I will talk **** to you because obviously it is not part of your reality that the NCAA can actually write new rules. They need a reason to though, thus they need a guinea pig and it needs to be a lesser conference.

So feel free to not worry about this at all. I was more interested in what the CUSA guys would like to see as far as teams divided up in a 4 division set up. I really did not care about the jaded views of an ex WACer that saw how the pod system fails. We all know it fails, thanks for the tip.

In this case CUSA has a whole lot more options for getting to 16 than the MWC does. Thus they are more relevant to those of us who follow the major conferences. Sucks you guys couldnt do the Alliance, the MWC is going to fall behind.

We are in the same boat as CUSA, guess you don't watch football. Answer this question DOES THE NCAA ALLOW SEMI FINALS for a conference? YOU DON'T WRITE THE NCAA RULE, you have no clue if or when they'll ever change that one.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows who Fresno St. is. I'm not worried if you think that no one knows us. I'm not like some CUSA, MWC homer. I know that MWC & CUSA aren't power conferences and never will be. So?

(05-05-2012 03:16 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 03:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I know exactly what I am getting into. Pods are the old way, true divisions are the new. The Alliance was going to be the method of pigeon holing the new rule through. They will find another way.

So yes I will talk **** to you because obviously it is not part of your reality that the NCAA can actually write new rules. They need a reason to though, thus they need a guinea pig and it needs to be a lesser conference.

So feel free to not worry about this at all. I was more interested in what the CUSA guys would like to see as far as teams divided up in a 4 division set up. I really did not care about the jaded views of an ex WACer that saw how the pod system fails. We all know it fails, thanks for the tip.

In this case CUSA has a whole lot more options for getting to 16 than the MWC does. Thus they are more relevant to those of us who follow the major conferences. Sucks you guys couldnt do the Alliance, the MWC is going to fall behind.

We are in the same boat as CUSA, guess you don't watch football. Answer this question DOES THE NCAA ALLOW SEMI FINALS for a conference? YOU DON'T WRITE THE NCAA RULE, you have no clue if or when they'll ever change that one.

Were you pounding on your desk while writing this?

Did I ever say I write the rules? I had a good laugh at that. Did I ever say I know when they will do it? Nope. Are there plenty of examples to show that college football is heading in that direction? There sure are and most importantly the money will be huge with those set ups so of course conferences will want to move in that direction.

Do you think that the NCAA is ran by board members that are seperate from the Universities? If it is in the best interests of the majority of institutions then the NCAA will pass it.

I never said that it would be passed for sure. I was asking folks what they thought some good four team divisions would be if CUSA made it to 16. How is that so hard for you to comprehend without raging?

(05-05-2012 03:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 03:16 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 03:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I know exactly what I am getting into. Pods are the old way, true divisions are the new. The Alliance was going to be the method of pigeon holing the new rule through. They will find another way.

So yes I will talk **** to you because obviously it is not part of your reality that the NCAA can actually write new rules. They need a reason to though, thus they need a guinea pig and it needs to be a lesser conference.

So feel free to not worry about this at all. I was more interested in what the CUSA guys would like to see as far as teams divided up in a 4 division set up. I really did not care about the jaded views of an ex WACer that saw how the pod system fails. We all know it fails, thanks for the tip.

In this case CUSA has a whole lot more options for getting to 16 than the MWC does. Thus they are more relevant to those of us who follow the major conferences. Sucks you guys couldnt do the Alliance, the MWC is going to fall behind.

We are in the same boat as CUSA, guess you don't watch football. Answer this question DOES THE NCAA ALLOW SEMI FINALS for a conference? YOU DON'T WRITE THE NCAA RULE, you have no clue if or when they'll ever change that one.

Were you pounding on your desk while writing this?

Did I ever say I write the rules? I had a good laugh at that. Did I ever say I know when they will do it? Nope. Are there plenty of examples to show that college football is heading in that direction? There sure are and most importantly the money will be huge with those set ups so of course conferences will want to move in that direction.

Do you think that the NCAA is ran by board members that are seperate from the Universities? If it is in the best interests of the majority of institutions then the NCAA will pass it.

I never said that it would be passed for sure. I was asking folks what they thought some good four team divisions would be if CUSA made it to 16. How is that so hard for you to comprehend without raging?

you're raging not me. EVEN WHEN I DO THIS. I'm not yelling I'm watching fallon and typing. If you check my post 2 or 3 posts ago, I said if the NCAA passes it, I'd be fine with it. You said the the rules are made to be changed yada yada, CUSA/MWC tried and it didn't work. I told you I don't like them. It's my opinion, yet you are trying to change it. I'm not trying to change yours. I just posted how the way you want it can't work under the current format and you got all irate plus you've been an a-hole to me about it. Are you a young guy or having a bad day or what?

If I was really mad I woulda neg repped you.

Oh no...neg reps, and you call me the young guy?

(05-05-2012 03:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh no...neg reps, and you call me the young guy?

because only young guys use neg reps(which I haven't on you yet)? Your attitude shows you're young.

(05-05-2012 03:43 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 03:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh no...neg reps, and you call me the young guy?

because only young guys use neg reps(which I haven't on you yet)? Your attitude shows you're young.

Your attitude shows you are a hypocrite. You say only young guys use neg reps but you said if I pissed you off you would have neg repped me. So you use neg reps thus by your own definition you are the young guy trying to project your own issues upon me.

Like I said, case of insomnia. Rage at this point is impossible for me. You resorted to insults when I quite clearly described why four divisions would not suck in comparison to two divisions which your failed response was to bring up how pods failed with the WAC. Well....duh.

(05-05-2012 03:48 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 03:43 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-05-2012 03:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh no...neg reps, and you call me the young guy?

because only young guys use neg reps(which I haven't on you yet)? Your attitude shows you're young.

Your attitude shows you are a hypocrite. You say only young guys use neg reps but you said if I pissed you off you would have neg repped me. So you use neg reps thus by your own definition you are the young guy trying to project your own issues upon me.

Like I said, case of insomnia. Rage at this point is impossible for me. You resorted to insults when I quite clearly described why four divisions would not suck in comparison to two divisions which your failed response was to bring up how pods failed with the WAC. Well....duh.

show me where I said only young guys use neg reps. I never said that. I asked it as a question, when you said it.

ENOUGH!!!