Topic: When did we all come to the realization that anything except #1 is failure???...

[banker]

My expectation is to be the 2014 CUSA champion, winning it on our home field because we had the best record in the conference.

As I have said before, it is extremely difficult to go undefeated no matter who you are and who you play, but as a G5 team it is even harder. Since 1990, 24 seasons, only 5 G5 teams have achieved a perfect season, Marshall, TCU, Utah, Tulane, and Boise (twice). There have been an average of about 60 G5 schools, so that means there have been about 1,440 opportunities for a perfect season and it has happened 6 times.

I, of course, want 14-0, but would be fine with 13-1 or 12-2 provided one of,those losses isn't the CUSA championship game.

[_sturt_]

banker, what's up with this? You looked up numbers to support your point. Are you feeling okay?

Only a little more seriously...

Name for me any conference since 1990 that has experienced the football-equivalent of dumbing down the way CUSA has, and maybe those numbers could become meaningful.

[banker]

The WAC conference for the majority of the 2000s. Take Boise out of their numbers and see what Boise had to overcome to dominate that conference.  For example, in 2009 the average Sagarin rating for the 8 teams in the WAC not named Boise was 100. Fresno State was the second highest rated team in the conference at 59.  In 2006 the average rating for the other 8 teams was even worse although they did have a #23 rated Hawaii to play in conference that year.

And sturt, I know numbers better than you ever will.  You're problem is that you stop at the numbers and don't develop a deeper understanding of what drove them.  Your analysis is always too shallow and then you build a plan based off that shallow analysis.

Also, just for the record, I quit looking for your posts in case you didn't notice. So at this point, you are the one instigating.

[_sturt_]

The WAC conference for the majority of the 2000s. Take Boise out of their numbers and see what Boise had to overcome to dominate that conference.  For example, in 2009 the average Sagarin rating for the 8 teams in the WAC not named Boise was 100. Fresno State was the second highest rated team in the conference at 59.  In 2006 the average rating for the other 8 teams was even worse although they did have a #23 rated Hawaii to play in conference that year.

And sturt, I know numbers better than you ever will.  You're problem is that you stop at the numbers and don't develop a deeper understanding of what drove them.  Your analysis is always too shallow and then you build a plan based off that shallow analysis.

Also, just for the record, I quit looking for your posts in case you didn't notice. So at this point, you are the one instigating.

I see that perhaps I should have explained what "dumbing down" means.

Did the WAC have some monumental shift in their membership? No. Boise authentically just raised their game above that of their peers. That's not what is happening with CUSA 3.0.

Sidebar.

As to my jab at your previous record, it's no secret that you've always been one to make grandiose statements, then when asked to defend them, just allude to your own general Moses-like perception from on-high. So, for you to bring numbers to a conversation is, indeed, new. Or, at least, more typically, you've asked me to look up things for you, and being the nice guy I am, I've typically done just that... only to find that when the numbers didn't back you up, you decided to change the parameters of the request.

Such a put-on. Such a pretender. Not that you don't have some intelligence. It's just too bad it's not put to better use.

I know I can come-off as self-assured in my arguments, and that sometimes gets interpreted as egotistical, but I always keep some humility in reserve and leave room for being persuaded otherwise even if I've investigated a topic from every conceivable perspective before I ever lay myself out there. And even in disagreement, I take shots at others' rationale, not at them personally. If I'm critical of people, it's plural, not singular. I don't single anyone out and label them. You, obviously, have recently become the exception to that rule. You've just stepped so far and so consistently over the line with your disingenuous nature, you are singled out. You are labeled. To the contrary, you have proved yourself shallow. And in so doing, you have made yourself irrelevant.

And... instigating? Um. I believe the record shows I was already participating in this conversation. You inserted yourself and offered a comment in the vein of that conversation. No problem with that. But then, don't pretend that I came looking for you. You made an observation you thought was salient. Though it turned out that it wasn't, the more interesting thing was that it seemed to suddenly strike you that it might not be good enough to pronounce your assertions as-if reading off tablets of stone brought down from the mountain... as has always been your nature. You actually looked up numbers. That's progress. So, take it like I was just complimenting you on arriving at that realization. Congrats.

[banker]

Sorry sturt, you're just a pompous...  I'll let you finish the comment. You just don't like to be questioned and I happened to be the one to consistently point out the inane nature of your ramblings.

If I'm irrelevant, assuming anyone is actually relevant on an internet message board, what exactly does that make you?  You're the guy who spends countless hours researching and devising scenarios that have no basis in reality and that could never be implemented.  And yes, those are definitive statements because the plans you put forth are simply impractical. To try and diffuse your train of thought with hard numbers only gives the impression that hard evidence is needed to rebuke your theories. It would add false validity to your arguments. It would be like you saying the sky is green and grass is blue and then me wasted hours posting detailed scientific data to disprove your assertion.  It's not needed because your assertion is blatantly incorrect on its face.

[_sturt_]

Sorry sturt, you're just a pompous...  I'll let you finish the comment. You just don't like to be questioned and I happened to be the one to consistently point out the inane nature of your ramblings.

Oh geezlouise. Get over yourself you pompous... oh... well... you know.

You're just clueless if you think I don't like to be questioned. Absolutely off-the-charts fail. I embrace questions. Check the record. I respect practically every person who poses one. Might not agree... but then again, sometimes I do. Why avoid them? I value questions.

That is.... when questions come from someone who isn't just playing games... which you acknowledged recently is all you're actually doing when you engage me.

Hence the words, patience extinguished, line drawn. Before it was just a suspicion, but like anyone else, I gave you the benefit of a doubt. Once you openly confessed it, I'm a patient man, but I'm not that patient.

If I'm irrelevant, assuming anyone is actually relevant on an internet message board, what exactly does that make you?  You're the guy who spends countless hours researching and devising scenarios that have no basis in reality and that could never be implemented.  And yes, those are definitive statements because the plans you put forth are simply impractical. To try and diffuse your train of thought with hard numbers only gives the impression that hard evidence is needed to rebuke your theories. It would add false validity to your arguments. It would be like you saying the sky is green and grass is blue and then me wasted hours posting detailed scientific data to disprove your assertion.  It's not needed because your assertion is blatantly incorrect on its face.

Thanks, Moses.

And apologies... should've acknowledged those stone tablets you were carrying around must be legit when you told us all that Boise would never ever ever join the Big East...

When will you ever get it.

It's easy to be a cynic. It fuels your ego. You can be right so much of the time that way. It's the best kind of cop-out because no one calls you on it. And you love problem solvers like me because it gives you an opportunity to be critical and seem so reasonable.

I get your act. Some don't, I'm sure. But I despise people like you because your primary interest is just that--fueling your own ego. It's not about problem solving. That's dangerous to you. People like me are just crazy stupid to people like you because we're willing to take fire.

We don't really give a flip about popularity. For you? It's your world... you'll even propose the occasional poll in order to affirm yourself.

Weak. Cowardly. Valuing your own ego over the progress of the school that you claim to care about. Such a pretender. Repulsive.

[_sturt_]

*End of sidebar*

========================================

Getting back to the topic, the WAC had no monumental shift in their membership. Boise authentically just raised their game above that of their peers. Overall, during the time CUSA 2.0 existed, WAC graded out in the Sagarins to be a virtual equal.

In other words, what Boise did would have been the same as what ECU might have done if they'd been able to raise their game to Boise's level. They didn't do that. Boise did. They deserve credit.

What happened for Boise in WAC is not equivalent to what would be happening for us in CUSA 3.0 if we re-surface and become an annual threat to go undefeated again.

The WAC membership/competition level did not take a significant downward turn. Boise just took all of the momentum they entered I-A football with, and just continued to charge up the ranks (... *sigh*... exactly what we envisioned doing).

The reason for the enthusiasm that's existed... notably, this isn't me saying it, it's all those who've been posting their glee at CUSA 3.0 having been dumbed down... is just that... CUSA 3.0 is a dumbed-down version of CUSA 2.0, giving many the perception of that we've   gained the fortunate circumstance that the tide has lowered, leaving us as the big fish in the pond among several smaller ones who entered from an even smaller pond.

They're right, of course.

And without some willingness on our part to do some things differently, we're always going to have to get some help from some others to even keep ourselves in the national major bowl conversation.

Wish I could say I'm preaching to the choir. Speaking of fish... you church-goers can appreciate what I'm saying... sure feel like Jonah sometimes... in that, this board seems like it's made up of Ninevah residents.

[ought-three]

If you have a terminal goal, and reach it, you succeeded.

What is our terminal goal?

Did we reach it?

If yes, success.
If no, failure.