Topic: Our weak, weak schedule

[BHFIOHIO]

What is it about UL opted out you don't get? We also have Purdue and Navy ahead...ditto ECU. Rome wasn't built in a day?

[_sturt_]

What is it about UL opted out you don't get? We also have Purdue and Navy ahead...ditto ECU. Rome wasn't built in a day?

Okay, look... are we having a serious conversation between two intelligent adults, or is this cat and mouse (again)?

This misdirection crap needs to stop if we both really care about this issue. I call it misdirection because you keep bringing up the current OOC schedule as-if that's what is the problem, when you know that's not the problem. The problem is the IN-CONFERENCE schedule that is now an ANNUAL display of former Sun Belt and lesser schools.

By the conference capping the number of required IN-CONFERENCE games at 6, it MAXIMIZES the number of games that ambitious ADs like Hamrick can schedule OOC TO HIS OWN DISCRETION for the good of his program.

Second. Who's building Rome? Are we really that much lower ALREADY than Houston, East Carolina, Cincy?... heck, we JUST GOT HERE... is our talent really THAT MUCH LESS that you think we're having to "build Rome?" Is it that Herculean a task you think for the talent on our roster today to ascend to playing in the dang PEACH BOWL when UCF just went to an access bowl last season and won?!?

I need some honest answers here, and don't go off in the weeds if you really care about this issue... I think you do, or I wouldn't bother to reply, by the way.

[BHFIOHIO]

No. And I think you are fibbing on this one. I have been up front since the conf re-configuration got finished..if it is. I believe with all my heart that CUSA 3 wont slow us a bit if we take a little riskier approach to the OOC. Winning and record is always number 1 and schedule #2. The 99 finish with MAC softies didn't prevent a #10 finish but we did have Clemson. A few yrs back we had the Pouties at home and VT here. I am not in favor of two but one mid level power conf team and see what that gets us. And unlike you I guess I don't feel like it would be shameful to win CUSA but wind up in Dallas and UCF, Fresno, BYU or Cincy take the access Bowl. They have money we can only dream about as in the 50000 enrollment etc. Shoot for the moon but the stars wouldn't be bad either.

[_sturt_]

Let's try to do this constructively this time. You charge, first, that I am "fibbing on this one." What does that mean? Fibbing in what way? Honestly. Don't know.

Second, you are correct that there was a time when we finished a season undefeated, in spite of playing in the Sun Belt of D1a of that time.

Our closest competitor?



Easy to gloss over it because it is the pinnacle of our success to-date, but consider who was right behind us... how many more games did they lose than us... was it 1?... no... 2?... no. So Miss lost THREE games. Three. And played in a conference that was essentially CUSA 2.0 with two teams that we bested when we got a chance, UL and UC.

What could we have accomplished if we had USM's schedule? #10 you think? Would that be all?

Perhaps just as equally easy to gloss over...

How many games did we win over top 30 opponents?... how many did they win?... and do you think that had they had JUST ONE LESS LOSS... two, instead of three, to our none... or... JUST ONE MORE TOP 30 WIN... one, instead of zero, to our two... that they wouldn't have leapfrogged us?

Please respond. The floor is yours.

[BHFIOHIO]

Whats wrong with just keeping it simple and answering what is wrong with just fixing it with OOC games?

Also I think you are assuming that UTSA, ODU, NT, LT, USM are forever losers. That is a big assumption.

But I'll admit to maybe having a slightly lower set of expectations about our possibilities than yourself.

And most on here consider me a supreme cool aid drinker.

I do think for access bowl consideration a schedule like this years is not nearly diff enough....I don't think all the other players will have two losses.

[_sturt_]

Whats wrong with just keeping it simple and answering what is wrong with just fixing it with OOC games?

Let me try to address that respectfully and without seeming condescending as I'm often accused of being...

I'll agree. We could, in fact, do it that way. Instead of scheduling one contract conference team, two MAC teams, and a FCS team, ratchet that up... instead of one, two contract conference teams, replace a MAC with an AAC or MWC game, and replace the FCS with a MAC.

May I follow-up?

Why wouldn't we do that?

We've found it difficult enough just to schedule one contract conference team. At least part of the reason is logistical... calendar bingo... having dates that match-up for both sides.

What is so sacred then about keeping those two cross-division games in control of the conference office instead of giving the ADs that control?

That's the bottom-line.

You want to leave those two games and the calendar slots that go with them in the hands of the conference.

I want to remove those games from control of the conference and let Hamrick and his peers make those determinations for themselves.

And take note that I'm not even saying they can't schedule games with cross-division if any given pair of ADs decide they want to get their teams together. Thus, the discussion of whether CUSA schools will perpetually be locked into their current competitive level is moot.

But I'll admit to maybe having a slightly lower set of expectations about our possibilities than yourself.

With all due respect... again... I choke on the words earlier that you or anyone else would rather play in the Heart of Dallas Bowl... s'helpme... and win, rather than play in the Peach Bowl and lose.

Who's to say we couldn't win the Peach Bowl... more to the point, why would anyone automatically assume that? UCF fans certainly wouldn't assume that, so why are any of us talking like that?

Pardon the opinion, but to me, any previous reputation you allege that you've built as an optimist pretty much falls in on itself and implodes with that statement.

[_sturt_]

[iherdya]

By the conference capping the number of required IN-CONFERENCE games at 6, it MAXIMIZES the number of games that ambitious ADs like Hamrick can schedule OOC TO HIS OWN DISCRETION for the good of his program.

where are those extra OOC games going to come from if CUSA goes to 6 conference games? every FBS team already plays 12 games.

[fuzzy fillez]

 x

[fuzzy fillez]

I dont think youre thinking through the math.

[_sturt_]

Fuzz is right, herdya. If anything, it would merely squeeze out some Sun Belt and FCS schools from some better conferences' teams' schedules. Besides that, as I keep repeating, there's still nothing to keep Marshall and UTSA from playing each other if they want. All this does is give us (and everyone else) more options.

[lovetheherd2]

I dont think youre thinking through the math.

Nope, thinking through the METH... ::)

[MarshallGrad]

Status quo rules unless a compelling, notable option is made available that would be perceived as a significant benefit across the board. To get a schedule rule change, or any of the other options, would require the administrations of perrennial average programs to actively buy into this. What of significance is in it for them? What compelling reason would there be for any program, with almost no chance ever to reach a one loss season or better to buy into the ideas?

[_sturt_]

So, you're taking the other side of what most posters seem to be saying when Banowsky brought all the newbies into the fold... whereas they were all talking about how ambitious these new schools were, you're suggesting almost none of them actually care to be in a position some day to gain a major bowl invite.

Okay. I suppose.

But to answer your question... what's in it for them?

I know you're an intelligent fan who knows this, so I'm not even sure why it was asked. When one conference champ wins, the whole conference wins. Bowl payouts go to the conference, which then distributes the funds to the member schools. Clearly there is self-interest in creating an environment where the best of your conference can excel.

And then, there's even a second answer, which is merely the opposite of "why would they"... what is the compelling reason why they wouldn't? As repeated numerous times by now, this doesn't prevent schools from scheduling cross-division if that's what they ultimately decide to do.

[MarshallGrad]

So, you're taking the other side of what most posters seem to be saying when Banowsky brought all the newbies into the fold... whereas they were all talking about how ambitious these new schools were, you're suggesting almost none of them actually care to be in a position some day to gain a major bowl invite.

Okay. I suppose.

But to answer your question... what's in it for them?

I know you're an intelligent fan who knows this, so I'm not even sure why it was asked. When one conference champ wins, the whole conference wins. Bowl payouts go to the conference, which then distributes the funds to the member schools. Clearly there is self-interest in creating an environment where the best of your conference can excel.

And then, there's even a second answer, which is merely the opposite of "why would they"... what is the compelling reason why they wouldn't? As repeated numerous times by now, this doesn't prevent schools from scheduling cross-division if that's what they ultimately decide to do.

The program administrators and conference bureaucrats have to perceive an existing void that needs filled. A problem with the as-is state of things that needs fixing. It takes political capital and will to make a conference wide changes. Who other than forum fans see a compelling need for revised scheduling protocol? It would take a big buy in of many administrators to want this change. Who of influence is going to sell it to them?

[_sturt_]

(hehe... knew you were going there, so I was composing this... I might be predictable, but I'm not the only one... :) )

Status quo rules?

Yes. No argument. That is, until people begin to think there's got to be a better way... and then, taking the next step, begin to unite behind some better way, creating an active public dialogue... one that pushes decision-makers, ie, agents of change, to do their job and try to make things better.

Right now, the only consistent reason it seems for not uniting behind something appears to be a personality thing--individuals just don't want to agree with someone they just don't want to agree with, taking solace in spiting the collective face no matter the collective nose lying uselessly on the ground. It's a situation that begs for someone to step up and care more about the program's best interests.

"What can we really do? We're just fans." Funny thing. No one ever seems to ask that for the most part when they come to this board or they get together with friends during a tailgate or when they get into the stadium. I mean, no one ever asks, "Why did you bother to post this thing about how exciting it is to have Dan D'Antoni coaching at Marshall?"... or "What's the point in writing about Cato for Heisman? There's nothing any of us can do."

It feels even a little ridiculous to write those questions. It's a given. We're fans. We do what fans do. We talk up things that we think need to be brought to others' attention. We try to muster some consensus among ourselves within this board so that the wildfire of our spiritual beliefs in our alma mater's progress might spread beyond this board.

This is no different. What's more, though, this is actually something where the decision-makers share our common interest. They, too, want Marshall and CUSA to excel. So, unlike the Heisman voters or anyone without any motive to give a damn, this is an area where raising the volume through all means might actually provide some political muscle to push good ideas forward.

[mubowhunter]

If this team has half the heart of 1999 then yes we go undefeated!

[_sturt_]

Btw. Grad, I share your doubts that there's actually all that much optimism among the newbies. None of them have achieved the things our teams achieved at the I-AA level or even within the Sun Belt, so while, sure, they are hopeful, they don't have expectations.

(I should say "most," not all, of the newbies are without expectations. La Tech fans, actually, probably are the exception.)

But thinking what-if...

If one assume Marshall fans came together and began driving the bus on this issue, it's plausible that we could pick up some momentum on this from some fans at Southern Miss, in particular, ie, a school who has experienced success in a similar way to our own, and which until relatively recently, held similar expectations to ours. I feel like if there are at least two schools' fans pushing the public conversation, and again, given that we're all in this together and want the best for the conference, it's not too much to think that we would see some movement.

[MarshallGrad]

(hehe... knew you were going there, so I was composing this... I might be predictable, but I'm not the only one... :) )

Status quo rules?

Yes. No argument. That is, until people begin to think there's got to be a better way... and then, taking the next step, begin to unite behind some better way, creating an active public dialogue... one that pushes decision-makers, ie, agents of change, to do their job and try to make things better.

Right now, the only consistent reason it seems for not uniting behind something appears to be a personality thing--individuals just don't want to agree with someone they just don't want to agree with, taking solace in spiting the collective face no matter the collective nose lying uselessly on the ground.

I disagree with the shoot the messenger suggestion. I don't think it is personal. I think there is little interest in uniting and proactively creating dialog because people gauge the likelihood of success relative to where they put thier limited energies. People only have so much room for causes and options to champion. One has to believe that there is a good chance for results when expending thought and energy into persuasion. I don't think this one has anything to do with not taking up a cause because of the messenger. I think there is little expectation that taking up this cause would result in the proposed change.

Is there precedent for this kind of change having emanated from a grass roots movement? I can't think of any of the conference changes over the last few years that weren't driven at a high level by money and power and politics.

[_sturt_]

I disagree with the shoot the messenger suggestion. I don't think it is personal... I don't think this one has anything to do with not taking up a cause because of the messenger.

You're welcome to that opinion but it flies in the face of too many posts to even begin to count.

Another strong clue? People disengage these discussions and leave counterpoints hanging. One is left to conclude that it's not a matter of reason and genuine pursuit of something good, but winning an argument.

...I think there is little interest in uniting and proactively creating dialog because people gauge the likelihood of success relative to where they put thier limited energies. People only have so much room for causes and options to champion. One has to believe that there is a good chance for results when expending thought and energy into persuasion... I think there is little expectation that taking up this cause would result in the proposed change.

Is there precedent for this kind of change having emanated from a grass roots movement? I can't think of any of the conference changes over the last few years that weren't driven at a high level by money and power and politics.

Honestly, no offense, but the degree of cynicism you embrace is kinda troubling to me, just as a positive, optimistic person. I can look back on history and see so very many cases of large governments and corporations making a difference... and yet... does that exclude the fact that there are also so very many cases of Joe and Jane Does making a difference? Heavens no. Hell no.

Can you see that, if everyone thought as you present yourself, there would never be a grassroots movement anywhere to take up any cause period? It seems you would shame them into silence for even thinking they could have influence, let alone voicing that they could, and far be it for them to put forth any actual effort--just incredibly naive foolishness on their part, if one asks you.

May I go further? Your presumption that you would have some mechanism for even knowing what changes have occurred as a result of one or a small group of genuine-hearted Joe Fans pushing some idea is a head-scratcher. I wouldn't pretend to know that it has happened, but you can't exactly pretend to know it hasn't. And again, it's not like partisan politics... all of us agree we want the best for our conference, so it's not like we aren't rowing toward the same direction. There's no obvious reason to discount a good idea when it arises.

Further still... you know what I just said above about dangling counterpoints?

We've had this same discussion, and you disengaged.


So, I see it in these conversations with you as well. There's always the reason/excuse that one lost interest... and that honestly happens, I know... I lose interest, too, sometimes when an issue isn't all that important to me. I'll make my case, and let it go. But I won't go back to it, then.

But you keep coming back, and... curiously... never seeming to pick up where we left off... not productive, but then, maybe you don't intend for it to be. I don't pretend to know, though you at least have at times seemed to have begrudgingly acknowledged a point here and there, so it's just not clear... unless, you are playing rhetorical hide-and-go-seek, putting up a front as-if it's all about the issue, when, in fact, like so many others, it's about the very thing you doth protest so much at the beginning of that last response.

[_sturt_]

(Decided to PM instead.)

*sigh*

Really?

Can some of us carry on a conversation that clearly is hell-bent on attempting to stay on the topic that the original poster introduced without intervention from someone who evidently just doesn't like the topic?

Pardon the observation, but mods are beginning to seem a little Herd Grapevine-like lately. Why? Who's served by that?

Polite way to censor, I suppose, but for the life of me, I'll never understand people who feel like they have to police threads that are clearly about the desired topic of the board and that do not mislead in their title but rather clearly announce to everyone, "if you click here, this is the topic."

Now, of course, having been in W0lf's role on another sports board, I get it that you don't want someone spamming every thread and detouring every discussion to force a pet topic down others' throats; but then, that's not going on here. And so, I don't get it that, out of maybe 50 threads, a topic contained in one thread gets sabotaged by someone with an agenda to shut down the discussion. It's just getting a little stupid out-of-hand in that way. Let us talk. You personally might not like the discussion. That's your call. But the psuedo-censorship that occurs by moving threads isn't right. My opinion.

[MUther]

Who's to say we couldn't win the Peach Bowl... more to the point, why would anyone automatically assume that? UCF fans certainly wouldn't assume that, so why are any of us talking like that?

If we're good enough to get to the Peach Bowl, I'd imagine we'd destroy any opponent.  We'll have to earn it by being the best team every game the whole season.  Our opponent will be some P5 also ran, who will be good but not top ten, battle-tested good.  I don't think they'll understand the hurricane they were caught up in till it's way too late,  like the following season too late.

[MarshallGrad]

One is left to conclude that it's not a matter of reason and genuine pursuit of something good, but winning an argument.

I think you are on target there. Many do not see internet sports forums as more than entertainment and a distraction to other things in life. I would guess most are not on the forum to engage in formulating actionable ideas and then taking action on those ideas. It just isn't the nature of this or most other sports forums. It's not a cynical view, it is how it is.

Honestly, no offense, but the degree of cynicism you embrace is kinda troubling to me, just as a positive, optimistic person. I can look back on history and see so very many cases of large governments and corporations making a difference... and yet... does that exclude the fact that there are also so very many cases of Joe and Jane Does making a difference? Heavens no. Hell no.

No offense taken, as I'm not at all cynical about your idea. You are an odds person. You have used the "past performance is an indicator of possible future results" argument often and on many subjects. Some that have argued opposing views may have considered your past performance argument as cynical relative to the attachment they have to their own hopes. But, your past performance premise has been valid. And it applies here. This is as much an odds thing as those other topics where you embraced the concept. You may choose to see it different.

Can you see that, if everyone thought as you present yourself, there would never be a grassroots movement anywhere to take up any cause period?

What I present on this topic is relative only to this topic. I have been involved in several grass roots movements. People embrace grass roots movements when they are passionate about the cause and are willing to expend energy and effort towards hoped for change. There is no movement here to be cynical about. There is no embracing.  It is a good idea of a forum poster. A lack of others willing to take action based on it does not equate to cynicism or translate to a personal affront.

There's no obvious reason to discount a good idea when it arises.

I have been among those that have affirmed the reasonableness of this idea, and other ideas you have offered. This is not about cynicism or problems with the messenger.

I'm not engaging or disengaging; I'm just internet forum rambling and buying time until kickoff.

[lexkyherdfan]

I can't believe so many people constanting want to discuss the schedule yet there is not one thing anyone can do about it.  we are less than 60 days before the first game and all can worry about is "maybe" getting to a big bowl game. 

Well it doens't matter what happens...our goal is to win them all.  If we do that...the chips will fall where they should fall.  The facts are our schedule is weak.  We can't help it that UofL wanted to move our game.  We can't help it that a once proud decent Miami OH team has dropped off the face of the earth.  With UofL still on our schedule, the chances are we would have still had to win them all to get to a big bowl.

Quite frankly... I just want to win and we have that chance.  I hate that UofL requested the change but again...I don't know everything that went on nor do I care on July 2nd.  All I care about is we come out and win each and every week.  Win big and move to the next game.  1999 sure was fun and we didn't have anybody other than Clemson on the schedule and they went 6-6.  It didn't dampen my excitement over going undefeated and finishing #10.  Just like then...I will celebrate and be happy this year as well.  If we manage to make it to the Peach Bowl...it will be fun and we will celebrate.  If we don't...we will celebrate whereever we are.

GO HERD!!!

[_sturt_]

Okay, look... are we having a serious conversation between two intelligent adults, or is this cat and mouse (again)?

BHFI, you are intelligent. But you aren't serious. You've had quite awhile now to respond. This might be the 3rd or 4th time in our exchanges that you left counterpoints hanging, and thus, left the conversation at self-servingly (if that's a word) convenient times.

It is consistent with someone who isn't so much interested in having productive discussion about advancing the cause/program as he is poking at the messenger and seeing if he can win rhetorical superiority.