Topic: HZ: Herd Fans Should Embrace `New' C-USA

[_sturt_]

What's the point in it all when past performance and reasonable inference from the facts suggests that there is no power to make any of what you want to happen, happen?

Empirical data does not create opportunity where it was never going to exist anyway.

Fatalist.

If we listened to you, there would be no 3-point shot... no two-point conversion... no DH...

...wait... no DH?!?....

...hmmmm...

Viva la fatalists!

But seriously.

We live in an age where the internet provides us with forums where good ideas can be chiseled into better ideas, which can be shaped into great ideas.... and those of us who subscribe to the principle that great ideas that address clear problems eventually gain traction... we oppose that fatalistic perspective for good reason. Grassroots ideas have always flourished eventually, but their ability to compete with each other and to morph into increaingly-more-robust ideas has never been more efficient and prominent (ie, because of the internet and just this kind of forum).

[iherdya]

"Strong" has to be measured in comparison to the other non-AQ conferences.
 
It doesn't matter how weak the MWC is in comparison to SEC.... doesn't matter how strong they are, either... the SEC schools are not in competition with the MWC schools for being the #1 non-AQ because?... Because they're AQ, not non-AQ.

2012, take NIU's rating out of the MAC and the league's Sagarin average is 61.17, which would place the MAC LAST of the non-AQ conferences.

2010, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 67.19, which would place them 3rd best non-AQ conferences.

2009, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 63.11, which would place them 4th best non-AQ conference

2009, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 69.15, which would place them 2nd best non-AQ conference.

2007, take Hawaii's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 59.67, which would place them 4th best non-AQ conference.

2006, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 62.52, which would place them 4th best non-AQ conference.

Under the current BCS rules, not once was the "BCS buster" in the best non-AQ conference, only once was it in the top 2.

[MarshallGrad]

We live in an age where the internet provides us with forums where good ideas can be chiseled into better ideas, which can be shaped into great ideas....

We also live in an age where the internet provides us with videos of monkeys that fart on queue. What internet forums are able to do with ideas more often ends up smelling like monkey farts, and less like the transformation to greatness you referenced. As witnessed by the responses to said "good" idea.

Just to stay on point, I'm anything but a fatalist. Fate has nothing to do with where we go and how we get there. Where we are and how we got here, or get there, is very much the result if specific actions taken by the few.

[IM4DHERD]

*whew*... and to think, it only took me about 138 posts to get to this point... hehe.

Thank you. Sincerely, IM4. Finally. Someone who's been on the other side of this fence acknowledges those premises as a group. Good to see that.

[/quote]

Was never on the other side of the fence...The argument makes its own point.  If you are in a strong conference, beat a top 25 team each year and lose no more than one game, you certainly will be in the top 25.  And most likely invited into a BCS conference.  The argument is that it is also possible, and historically shown, that 2 out of 3, if not 1 out of 3 that being losing only one game, will get you there as well.

Because people understand where we are and why does not mean that they are reaching for rock bottom, only that it is what it is, there is nothing you and I and most others can do about it except give to the cause to help our admin build a better product and remain behind our teams.

[_sturt_]

2012, take NIU's rating out of the MAC and the league's Sagarin average is 61.17, which would place the MAC LAST of the non-AQ conferences.

2010, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 67.19, which would place them 3rd best non-AQ conferences.

Do you get extra points for raising the same question twice?

If yes, do I get extra points for posting the same answer twice?

1. MWC was last, not MAC.

2a. And regardless, all of the conferences finished within 2 points of each other, which putting that into a little context if you're familiar with the Sagarins, is even less than what a team receives as a home field advantage.

2b. The standard is that you must play in a strong conference. And relative to all of the other conferences, MAC was as strong as any for 2012.

2009, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 63.11, which would place them 4th best non-AQ conference.

2009 MWC (minus champ): 69 (#1)
2009 WAC (minus champ): 63 (#2)
2009 MAC (minus champ): 58 (#3)
2009 CUSA (minus champ): 58 (#4)
2009 SBC (minus champ): 56 (#5)

2007, take Hawaii's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 59.67, which would place them 4th best non-AQ conference.

2007 MWC (minus champ): 69 (#1)
2007 WAC (minus champ): 59 (#2)
2007 CUSA (minus champ): 58 (#3)
2007 MAC (minus champ): 57 (#4)
2007 SBC (minus champ): 57 (#5)

(I'll give you this... 2007 was mighty close.)

2006, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 62.52, which would place them 4th best non-AQ conference.

2006 MWC (minus champ): 70 (#1)
2006 CUSA (minus champ): 63 (#2)
2006 WAC (minus champ): 62 (#3)
2006 MAC (minus champ): 61 (#4)
2006 SBC (minus champ): 55 (#5)

3rd best. Only year that the top non-AQ team competed in something less than the first or second best conference.

Under the current BCS rules, not once was the "BCS buster" in the best non-AQ conference, only once was it in the top 2.

False.

Top non-AQ team came from the best non-AQ conference in 4 of 8 years... and from one of the top two non-AQ conferences in 7 of 8 years.

[iherdya]

Do you get extra points for raising the same question twice?

If yes, do I get extra points for posting the same answer twice?
2009 MWC (minus champ): 69 (#1)
2009 WAC (minus champ): 63 (#2)
2009 MAC (minus champ): 58 (#3)
2009 CUSA (minus champ): 58 (#4)
2009 SBC (minus champ): 56 (#5)

2007 MWC (minus champ): 69 (#1)
2007 WAC (minus champ): 59 (#2)
2007 CUSA (minus champ): 58 (#3)
2007 MAC (minus champ): 57 (#4)
2007 SBC (minus champ): 57 (#5)

(I'll give you this... 2007 was mighty close.)

2006 MWC (minus champ): 70 (#1)
2006 CUSA (minus champ): 63 (#2)
2006 WAC (minus champ): 62 (#3)
2006 MAC (minus champ): 61 (#4)
2006 SBC (minus champ): 55 (#5)

3rd best. Only year that the top non-AQ team competed in something less than the first or second best conference.

False.

Top non-AQ team came from the best non-AQ conference in 4 of 8 years... and from one of the top two non-AQ conferences in 7 of 8 years.

Why would you take out the champ in every conference? That's arguably the most ignorant thing you've done.

You take out the team in question, because you can't judge the strength of the teams they played if you include them in the calculation. Also, you need to include independents since they (other than ND) play by the same rules as teams in a conference.

[_sturt_]

We also live in an age where the internet provides us with videos of monkeys that fart on queue. What internet forums are able to do with ideas more often ends up smelling like monkey farts, and less like the transformation to greatness you referenced. As witnessed by the responses to said "good" idea.

Humorously put, but that's all this is... the relevance of videos of monkey farts to discussion/debate is specious.

Said responses? Said responses come from people who admit that they stopped at the letters M, A and C, and did not bother to try to grasp anything beyond that. So their assessment is about like... yeah... about like said monkey fart... irrelevant.

Just to stay on point, I'm anything but a fatalist. Fate has nothing to do with where we go and how we get there. Where we are and how we got here, or get there, is very much the result if specific actions taken by the few.

Just to stay on point, when you said...

What's the point in it all when past performance and reasonable inference from the facts suggests that there is no power to make any of what you want to happen, happen?

Empirical data does not create opportunity where it was never going to exist anyway.

that sounds an awful lot like...

the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable

...which is... coincidentally enough... the definition of a fatalist.

And the actions of those few? They can be influenced by outside sources... reference how the popularity of something like the 3 point shot grew over time. Decision-makers do not always operate in silos... in fact, that's almost never the case.

[_sturt_]

Why would you take out the champ in every conference? That's arguably the most ignorant thing you've done.

Nah. Stats is not my only job, but it's one of my major jobs. If you're analyzing data, you have to treat all the data the same if you're going to reach valid conclusions... no cherry-picking allowed.

If we're saying, we need to remove Boise from the WAC equation because they skew the results, then... if we're attempting to compare conferences, and we are doing just that... then we have to also remove the conference champs from those other conferences... otherwise, you're giving the other conferences the benefit of their strongest team while crippling the rating for one conference.

Also, you need to include independents since they (other than ND) play by the same rules as teams in a conference.

Independents are irrelevant... if for no other reason than there was no non-AQ independent that was ranked in BCS rankings... but also because the point of the discussion is whether playing in a strong conference is important... and by definition, they do not play in a conference at all, so all you're actually evaluating by bringing that into the equation is whether we might be better to just be an independent.

[iherdya]

Nah. Stats is not my only job, but it's one of my major jobs. If you're analyzing data, you have to treat all the data the same if you're going to reach valid conclusions... no cherry-picking allowed.

If we're saying, we need to remove Boise from the WAC equation because they skew the results, then... if we're attempting to compare conferences, and we are doing just that... then we have to also remove the conference champs from those other conferences... otherwise, you're giving the other conferences the benefit of their strongest team while crippling the rating for one conference.

Independents are irrelevant... if for no other reason than there was no non-AQ independent that was ranked in BCS rankings... but also because the point of the discussion is whether playing in a strong conference is important... and by definition, they do not play in a conference at all, so all you're actually evaluating by bringing that into the equation is whether we might be better to just be an independent.

You're not removing Boise because they skew the results, you're removing Boise because you can't consider them when determining the strength of their opponents within the conference. If spring games counted, then sure, count them, but otherwise you'd leave them out.

[2xBison]

Yes

Sturt is full of %^&*

[_sturt_]

You're not removing Boise because they skew the results, you're removing Boise because you can't consider them when determining the strength of their opponents within the conference. If spring games counted, then sure, count them, but otherwise you'd leave them out.

Nope.

Back up.

Before any of that, ultimately, you're trying to evaluate the strength of conferences compared to one another.

So you either have to include Boise et al, or not include Boise et al... to treat the data differently is to end up with skewed results and skewed conclusions.

[_sturt_]

Yes

Sturt is full of %^&*

Slacker. Can't you do better than that by now? Where's the imagination? You disappoint me.

[MarshallGrad]

Humorously put, but that's all this is... the relevance of videos of monkey farts to discussion/debate is specious.

Said responses? Said responses come from people who admit that they stopped at the letters M, A and C, and did not bother to try to grasp anything beyond that. So their assessment is about like... yeah... about like said monkey fart... irrelevant.

Just to stay on point, when you said...
that sounds an awful lot like...

...which is... coincidentally enough... the definition of a fatalist.

Regardless of what things can sound like other things, it bears no relationship to what I said. You did a good job of posting the definition of "fatalist". The operative word in that definition is:

all things and events as inevitable

Fatalists look at all things resulting from fate.

I made clear that I am certain we are not in the hands of fate, rather in the hands of the few decision makers. Nothing at all like what sounds like something else.

When this thread is as dead as those that came before......it will be as they are. If the intent is to influence decision makers or transform ideas, this is an unusual place to execute on that intent. It has a very bad record of providing a vehicle to achieve either.

[ZackUSAF82]

If the intent is to influence decision makers or transform ideas, this is an unusual place to execute on that intent. It has a very bad record of providing a vehicle to achieve either.

Bingo.  sturt, if you're so concerned then you should do more bleacherreport articles, reach out to the administration, open your wallet more.  We're all well aware of how you feel and I'd dare to say the vast majority of us all agree with what you're saying....we're just tired of seeing it over and over again in a forum where it's not doing any good.  Most of the people on this board are die hard fans that will support the team no matter what, through thick and thin and want nothing but the best for the HERD...thus your thoughts are falling on deaf ears rather than reaching out to folks that might want to listen.

[_sturt_]

1. Regardless of what things can sound like other things, it bears no relationship to what I said. You did a good job of posting the definition of "fatalist". The operative word in that definition is:

Fatalists look at all things resulting from fate.

I made clear that I am certain we are not in the hands of fate, rather in the hands of the few decision makers. Nothing at all like what sounds like something else.

2. When this thread is as dead as those that came before......it will be as they are. If the intent is to influence decision makers or transform ideas, this is an unusual place to execute on that intent. It has a very bad record of providing a vehicle to achieve either.

1. Semantic weeds.

2. It's unusual but only in the point that it's a group who is generally antagonistic toward yours truly (... that is, those who bother to post... generally those who aren't antagonistic are friends who figure I don't really need anyone rushing to my defense). 

But I think you have to invite and even covet criticism in this kind of thing so that you learn where the rough edges are, and later, and moreover, if a few can be persuaded to examine the idea closely enough and can be convinced that there is merit, then your prototype is ready for consumption at another level... and eventually to actual decision-makers.

Optimally, my idea isn't even needed... optimally, Banowsky has, indeed, been able to push forward his out-of-the-box ideas.

By the way... what would you say if I knew for a fact that Banowsky has been here on this very board and has floated ideas of one kind and another under a fairly well-known username, and has been shot down with only slightly less acrimony than my own?

[_sturt_]

Bingo.  sturt, if you're so concerned then you should do more bleacherreport articles, reach out to the administration, open your wallet more.  We're all well aware of how you feel and I'd dare to say the vast majority of us all agree with what you're saying....we're just tired of seeing it over and over again in a forum where it's not doing any good.  Most of the people on this board are die hard fans that will support the team no matter what, through thick and thin and want nothing but the best for the HERD...thus your thoughts are falling on deaf ears rather than reaching out to folks that might want to listen.

Excuse me? Open my wallet more? Zack, are you friends with Snowden? Or, Cincinnati-based IRS agents? What do you possibly know about my wallet? (*nervous laugh*)

More seriously... it'd be wonderful to discover that there is more widespread support for what I've advocated, but judging from this thread or any other, it's hard to conclude that "the vast majority of us all agree with what you're saying."

If there's agreement, then one would think there would those who would join the proverbial choir and begin singing from the same proverbial hymnal, if not going outside the four walls of the proverbial church to preach the proverbial good news to others.

Instead, what we find mostly are posters who deny that there's even a problem (ie, embracers of a MAC fan sort of mentality)... and among those who acknowledge there's a problem, we find posters who deny that there's any plausible solution (ie, the fatalists).

Unfortunate. Not good.

Of course, I get it that there is some number who could both acknowledge the problem and who could openly and honestly consider solutions if not for the polarizing reaction they have whenever they see the username "_sturt_" attached to a post. Message subordinate to the messenger kinda thing.

But that's okay to me. If anything, it just makes it that much more valid when you read someone like IM4... who has contested this stuff with such regularity throughout... acknowledge even the most elementary stuff as he did earlier in this thread... crossing the fence and agreeing with me for what is probably the first time about anything I've ever asserted.

Moreover, it has to be okay with me... I'm not going to stop advocating the things I'm passionate about (primarily what I consider to be the big issues that frame MU's future), and I'm not going to play games with new usernames. All I'm going to do is continue to encourage people who don't want to read my stuff to let their mouse follow their heart, and resist clicking when they see my username associated with a thread. It's not hard to avoid me... not like I'm participating in more than one or two threads at a time ordinarily.

One more thing... if I'm a broken record, don't just blame it all on me... look, anytime this general topic is brought up, I end up getting routinely barraged with responses from this poster and that one who makes claims that have been brought up before... and so, naturally, I respond similarly to what I did before. That they didn't catch it the first time or second or third isn't anyone's fault. But I should have the latitude to reply just as much as ever.

[IM4DHERD]

Take this for what is is worth, but you would get a lot more respect and acceptance if you came here to report "I sent my ideas to the CUSA commissioner and here is what he said in response in our meeting in Irving" or "I went to Huntington and met with Hamrick and Kopp and outlined what I think they could do to better the position of MU and they agreed" rather than coming here and berating others for not falling into lockstep and for not constantly complaining about the situation and beating up on those who do not agree with you.  Otherwise, who is it that really isn't "going outside the four walls of the proverbial church to preach the proverbial good news to others."

[ZackUSAF82]

All I'm saying is you want all this stuff to happen but it's not going to happen without donations and we have an extremely small donor base.  That's all I meant with the open your wallet comment.  As far as my comment about almost everyone being die hard fans that want nothing but the best for Marshall, I stand by that.  Most of them won't respond to you because they're sick and tired of reading the same old crap over and over again or because they know if they do engage you you will debate them that they are wrong until they just concede or stop posting.  Your posting style, they way you debate and deal with things is far better served on a political board than on a sports forum.  I honestly don't know very many people (actually, I'm not sure I have seen any like you) on the variety of sports boards I post on that go to the lengths you do, using a vocabulary that Rhode scholars would have a hard time interpreting and just overall being, well, an @#*^! a lot of the time.  Again, just my opinion and of course, you don't have to read it or respond but I'm sure you will... ;)

[_sturt_]

Take this for what is is worth, but you would get a lot more respect and acceptance if you came here to report "I sent my ideas to the CUSA commissioner and here is what he said in response in our meeting in Irving" or "I went to Huntington and met with Hamrick and Kopp and outlined what I think they could do to better the position of MU and they agreed" rather than coming here and berating others for not falling into lockstep and for not constantly complaining about the situation and beating up on those who do not agree with you.  Otherwise, who is it that really isn't "going outside the four walls of the proverbial church to preach the proverbial good news to others."

Okay.

IM4, if the goal was personal respect and acceptance on its own merits, then okay.

That's... clearly... not the goal, though.

The goal is, instead, to entertain objections, and... optimally?... optimally to begin some groundswell of agreement that is fundamental to any grassroots endeavor... Banowsky, Hamrick and Kopp are just as interested as you are in knowing that there is already some group of people who have united behind a given idea as you are to know that they received it well... but, can't have it both ways, and the more logical approach to me is to let people take their shots at this level, and go from there.

[_sturt_]

All I'm saying is you want all this stuff to happen but it's not going to happen without donations and we have an extremely small donor base.  That's all I meant with the open your wallet comment. 

(*Tim-the-Tool-Man-Taylor-like perplexed vocalization*)

What have I proposed that costs money?

I don't mean to call you out... but that's just not coherent with anything I've been saying, old friend.

As far as my comment about almost everyone being die hard fans that want nothing but the best for Marshall, I stand by that.  Most of them won't respond to you because they're sick and tired of reading the same old crap over and over again or because they know if they do engage you you will debate them that they are wrong until they just concede or stop posting.  Your posting style, they way you debate and deal with things is far better served on a political board than on a sports forum.  I honestly don't know very many people (actually, I'm not sure I have seen any like you) on the variety of sports boards I post on that go to the lengths you do, using a vocabulary that Rhode scholars would have a hard time interpreting and just overall being, well, an @#*^! a lot of the time.  Again, just my opinion and of course, you don't have to read it or respond but I'm sure you will... ;)

[IM4DHERD]

But that's okay to me. If anything, it just makes it that much more valid when you read someone like IM4... who has contested this stuff with such regularity throughout... acknowledge even the most elementary stuff as he did earlier in this thread... crossing the fence and agreeing with me for what is probably the first time about anything I've ever asserted.

I'll say again that I do agree that the three-pronged premise to perpetual inclusion into a major bowl makes sens, but that is like saying it makes sense that if I jump in the air, I will return to the ground.  No one is going to meet those requirements every year.  Where I argue is for the most part that you do not have to be in the strongest conference to get there, and that has been proven, and that we can reach many of our goals by simply winning.  We do not have to go to a major bowl to be happy...playing for conference championships, getting notice by the media for success, increasing attendance and donations by putting an exciting product on the field, etc.  Even within the "BCS" conferences, there are few who make it to the major bowls.  I can accept that we are not there based on the reality of our size, location (including economic factors of the area), etc.

I further feel that we are in a great position and would not trade it for an AAC membership.

[IM4DHERD]

The goal is, instead, to entertain objections, and... optimally?... optimally to begin some groundswell of agreement that is fundamental to any grassroots endeavor... Banowsky, Hamrick and Kopp are just as interested as you are in knowing that there is already some group of people who have united behind a given idea as you are to know that they received it well... but, can't have it both ways, and the more logical approach to me is to let people take their shots at this level, and go from there.

Like the rabble rouser who stays on the fringe of the crowd cajoling them to riot?  If the leader is not going to present their ideas to the decision makers, why should we?

Bottom line is that if the concepts and ideas have merit, they do not need a groundswell of support for them to be accepted, they would be accepted due on their own merit and so should be presented to the decision makers.

In response to your response to Zack - $$$ is a huge difference maker.  When we were in 1-AA, we had better facilities and more money than most, if not all.  When we were in the MAC, we had better facilities and more money than most, if not all.  One huge reason we did not get a sniff from the AAC or other leagues is our lack of facilities (now being addressed, but still falling behind many others) and the lack of even a suitable hotel in the area to host visiting teams.  We are not where we are because of myself, Zack and others who may not agree with all you say, we are where we are due to circumstances beyond our control in many respects.

[_sturt_]

Like the rabble rouser who stays on the fringe of the crowd cajoling them to riot?  If the leader is not going to present their ideas to the decision makers, why should we?

Surely you don't mistake me for someone who is shy and looks for others to carry the torch...?

For what it's worth, I sent Bob Kustra a priority mail package last year. Yes, that Bob Kustra... president of Boise State University. And yes, it contained some thoughts for his consideration. Who knows if he ever even read what I sent. But the point is, I'm anything but shy. Though I'd also hedge away from the term "rabble rouser," and prefer "passionate fan."

In response to your response to Zack - $$$ is a huge difference maker.  When we were in 1-AA, we had better facilities and more money than most, if not all.  When we were in the MAC, we had better facilities and more money than most, if not all.  One huge reason we did not get a sniff from the AAC or other leagues is our lack of facilities (now being addressed, but still falling behind many others) and the lack of even a suitable hotel in the area to host visiting teams.  We are not where we are because of myself, Zack and others who may not agree with all you say, we are where we are due to circumstances beyond our control in many respects.

Ummm... but.... I HAVEN'T BEEN TALKING ABOUT A MOVE TO AAC IN THREE MONTHS... so... what the heck are you talking about? No $$$ involved in what I'm advocating. Yikes. Sounds like I still have work to do even now.

[ZackUSAF82]

Ummm... but.... I HAVEN'T BEEN TALKING ABOUT A MOVE TO AAC IN THREE MONTHS... so... what the heck are you talking about? No $$$ involved in what I'm advocating. Yikes. Sounds like I still have work to do even now.

No you haven't but we won't be able to get where we need to be without the financial backing.  I haven't looked into it, but I'm curious to what Boise St's budget/donation/booster level is compared to ours?  I'm sure you have posted it before and I probably missed it but it would be interesting to see what the difference is.  It would also be interesting to see what NIUs is compared to ours, I imagine it wouldn't be astronomically different as Boise's is to ours but that's just a guess.  I love Marshall through and through brother, but I just don't think we're ever going to get there unless something drastic changes...and that forecast is well, gloomy to say the least.  We have fans that want more but won't give and we have an administration that is happy so long as we are not going 0-12 every year plus not being to far in the hole at the end of the year.  It's going to take more than all of us on a message board to fix that...hell it'll take a miracle.

[IM4DHERD]

  We have fans that want more but won't give and we have an administration that is happy so long as we are not going 0-12 every year plus not being to far in the hole at the end of the year.

I'll argue this point.  Hamrick and the entire AD are working hard to get us to where we need to be.  Just because they don't fire a coach after every loss, does not mean they don't see the big picture.  These guys recognize just what a hole we were in and what it takes to get us out of it.