• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

The Illusion of FBS Opportunity: Fullerton

PlayerRep

Well-known member
This is a very good article on the current landscape of college football, actually ncaa football. It's built around a recent Q&A and follow up tweets by Big Sky commissioner Fullerton.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2013/06/straight-talk-from-doug-fullerton-about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Fullerton is such a quack. The Big Sky is as unlike the MWC, CUSA or MAC as those programs are like the SEC.
And those poor moves "fourth" quadrant FBS teams use to pay the bills are exactly what Big Sky members like EWU and PSU do to pay their bills. How great of a season is EWU in for after bodybag game with Oregon State and Toledo?
 
PlayerRep said:
This is a very good article on the current landscape of college football, actually ncaa football. It's built around a recent Q&A and follow up tweets by Big Sky commissioner Fullerton.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2013/06/straight-talk-from-doug-fullerton-about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just in the last week, many of these same notions of how the NCAA would be split-up have been attached to last month's request by Nick Saban that there be an end put to FBS-FCS match-ups. And, of course, this follows the same request made earlier in the year by the B1G.

Find it strange this wasn't mentioned in the Fullerton piece. If Saban were obliged, there would be no more money games or, at least, any that would cut substantially into the need for subsidy.
 
griz4life said:
Fullerton is such a quack.
Understated. I particularly like this Q&A:

Q: The last three years have been turbulent for conferences. The Big Sky added the likes of Southern Utah and North Dakota as full members, and Cal Poly and UC Davis as football affiliate members. Why do you think the Big Sky so far has been able to survive a raid by other conferences?

A: Our presidents have a deep understanding of the industry. They understand the difference between real opportunity and “the illusion of opportunity.” We have discussed the landscape at nearly every meeting we’ve had in recent years. When the opportunity came to move quickly to add affiliate football members and gain stability, the presidents were ready to move.

The interviewer is no different than the mainstream media interviewing Obama; don't ask the key questions or he won't interview you again. In this case, where is the following follow-up question: Really, Mr. Fullerton, if this is the case, then why did the Big Sky presidents decline the applications of NDSU and SDSU, programs superior those added?.

Another question that should be pursued with Mr. Fullerton's message goes like this: Mr. Fullerton, if life is so painful in the fourth quadrant of FBS as you describe and it is so good in FCS, why are these 4th quadrant FBS members not knocking on the door of FCS conferances to move down?

Never miss that he has personal vested interest, not unlike a politician. He is not an impartial observer.
 
RE Hammond said:
PlayerRep said:
This is a very good article on the current landscape of college football, actually ncaa football. It's built around a recent Q&A and follow up tweets by Big Sky commissioner Fullerton.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2013/06/straight-talk-from-doug-fullerton-about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just in the last week, many of these same notions of how the NCAA would be split-up have been attached to last month's request by Nick Saban that there be an end put to FBS-FCS match-ups. And, of course, this follows the same request made earlier in the year by the B1G.

Find it strange this wasn't mentioned in the Fullerton piece. If Saban were obliged, there would be no more money games or, at least, any that would cut substantially into the need for subsidy.

Sabin actually said that the top 5 FBS conferences should play only each other. He didn't say anything specifically about not playing FCS schools, other than by implication. He doesn't think the top FBS schools/conferences should play the lower quadrant teams. If this were the case, the bottom 5 FBS conferences, including the MWC, wouldn't have their big-money games against top teams.
 
It's pretty clear that some of you don't understand logic or reasoned analysis. Can you really not understand that the arguments and criteria for moving up are different than the arguments for moving down? The factors and analysis are quite different. It's like climbing a mountain. Climbing up is different than going down--sometimes very different.
 
PlayerRep said:
It's pretty clear that some of you don't understand logic or reasoned analysis. Can you really not understand that the arguments and criteria for moving up are different than the arguments for moving down? The factors and analysis are quite different. It's like climbing a mountain. Climbing up is different than going down--sometimes very different.

He said both. And, do you actually think the point that it is harder to move up than down was missed on anyone who reads above the third grade level:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22225609/nick-saban-is-in-favor-of-five-conferences-playing-each-other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you get on your arrogant high-horse concerning concepts like logic or "reasoned" analysis (how can any analysis this is to be taken seriously be anything other than reasoned?), understand who you are talking to.

Were you at the meeting last week in San Angelo where he (Saban) presented? Didn't think so.
 
RE Hammond said:
PlayerRep said:
It's pretty clear that some of you don't understand logic or reasoned analysis. Can you really not understand that the arguments and criteria for moving up are different than the arguments for moving down? The factors and analysis are quite different. It's like climbing a mountain. Climbing up is different than going down--sometimes very different.

He said both. And, do you actually think the point that it is harder to move up than down was missed on anyone who reads above the third grade level:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22225609/nick-saban-is-in-favor-of-five-conferences-playing-each-other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you get on your arrogant high-horse concerning concepts like logic or "reasoned" analysis (how can any analysis this is to be taken seriously be anything other than reasoned?), understand who you are talking to.

Were you at the meeting last week in San Angelo where he (Saban) presented? Didn't think so.

Nope, Saban did not say anything specifically about FCS. According to the article, he said this:

"I'm for five conferences -- everybody playing everybody in those five conferences," Saban told AL.com. "That's what I'm for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody's got to play 'em."

Saban also went on to say that he's in favor of the SEC adding a ninth conference game for the fans.

"Don't they want to see good games and all that."

According to the article, Sabin talked to al.com. Here's the al.com article and what Saban said. He said nothing specifically about FCS, only by implication. That's what the al.com article says.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2013/05/nick_sabans_5-conference_trial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the most powerful coach in the nation suggests that the most powerful programs take their ball and keep it to themselves, it should send shock waves from UAB to Boise State and beyond.

"I'm for five conferences," Saban said. He didn’t elaborate, but presumably he meant the SEC, Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC. That would leave C-USA, the Sun Belt, the Big East, the Mountain West, the MAC and the WAC on the outside looking in.

The Alabama coach didn’t stop there. He said he wants to see “everybody playing everybody in those five conferences.” Again, he didn’t dive into details, but do the math.

His suggestion implies going beyond the Big Ten’s discussion of a ban on playing teams from the Football Championship Subdivision to shutting out the lesser half of the Football Bowl Subdivision, too.

That would mean, say, Louisville instead of Western Kentucky on SEC non-conference schedules. Miami rather than Florida Atlantic or Florida International. North Texas? No. TCU, Texas Tech or Texas? Yes.

Saban’s not the first person to hint at a handful of superconferences breaking away from their mortal conference brothers in some way, shape or form. His is one of the most prominent voices to chime in on the subject.

Combine Saban’s five-conference suggestion with Mike Slive's recent thinly veiled threat about what could happen if the SEC and other major conferences don’t get their way in their desire to provide a full cost-of-attendance stipend for their student-athletes.

How soon before these heavyweights turn their saber rattling into civil war?

Saban’s scheduling proposal would force the members of these superconferences to radically alter their non-conference schedules. The prevailing attitude at the moment is to challenge yourself by playing one prominent team from another major league and then reward yourself by lining up three dogs with different fleas."
 
kemajic said:
griz4life said:
Fullerton is such a quack.
Understated. I particularly like this Q&A:

Q: The last three years have been turbulent for conferences. The Big Sky added the likes of Southern Utah and North Dakota as full members, and Cal Poly and UC Davis as football affiliate members. Why do you think the Big Sky so far has been able to survive a raid by other conferences?

A: Our presidents have a deep understanding of the industry. They understand the difference between real opportunity and “the illusion of opportunity.” We have discussed the landscape at nearly every meeting we’ve had in recent years. When the opportunity came to move quickly to add affiliate football members and gain stability, the presidents were ready to move.

The interviewer is no different than the mainstream media interviewing Obama; don't ask the key questions or he won't interview you again. In this case, where is the following follow-up question: Really, Mr. Fullerton, if this is the case, then why did the Big Sky presidents decline the applications of NDSU and SDSU, programs superior those added?.

Another question that should be pursued with Mr. Fullerton's message goes like this: Mr. Fullerton, if life is so painful in the fourth quadrant of FBS as you describe and it is so good in FCS, why are these 4th quadrant FBS members not knocking on the door of FCS conferances to move down?

Never miss that he has personal vested interest, not unlike a politician. He is not an impartial observer.
n.d.s.u. and s.d.s.u. are only superior to so. utah. cal poly, davis are superior to everyone in the b.s.c. and und is on a par with everyone.
 
PlayerRep said:
RE Hammond said:
PlayerRep said:
It's pretty clear that some of you don't understand logic or reasoned analysis. Can you really not understand that the arguments and criteria for moving up are different than the arguments for moving down? The factors and analysis are quite different. It's like climbing a mountain. Climbing up is different than going down--sometimes very different.

He said both. And, do you actually think the point that it is harder to move up than down was missed on anyone who reads above the third grade level:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22225609/nick-saban-is-in-favor-of-five-conferences-playing-each-other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you get on your arrogant high-horse concerning concepts like logic or "reasoned" analysis (how can any analysis this is to be taken seriously be anything other than reasoned?), understand who you are talking to.

Were you at the meeting last week in San Angelo where he (Saban) presented? Didn't think so.

Nope, Saban did not say anything specifically about FCS. According to the article, he said this:

"I'm for five conferences -- everybody playing everybody in those five conferences," Saban told AL.com. "That's what I'm for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody's got to play 'em."

Saban also went on to say that he's in favor of the SEC adding a ninth conference game for the fans.

"Don't they want to see good games and all that."

According to the article, Sabin talked to al.com. Here's the al.com article and what Saban said. He said nothing specifically about FCS, only by implication. That's what the al.com article says.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2013/05/nick_sabans_5-conference_trial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the most powerful coach in the nation suggests that the most powerful programs take their ball and keep it to themselves, it should send shock waves from UAB to Boise State and beyond.

"I'm for five conferences," Saban said. He didn’t elaborate, but presumably he meant the SEC, Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC. That would leave C-USA, the Sun Belt, the Big East, the Mountain West, the MAC and the WAC on the outside looking in.

The Alabama coach didn’t stop there. He said he wants to see “everybody playing everybody in those five conferences.” Again, he didn’t dive into details, but do the math.

His suggestion implies going beyond the Big Ten’s discussion of a ban on playing teams from the Football Championship Subdivision to shutting out the lesser half of the Football Bowl Subdivision, too.

That would mean, say, Louisville instead of Western Kentucky on SEC non-conference schedules. Miami rather than Florida Atlantic or Florida International. North Texas? No. TCU, Texas Tech or Texas? Yes.

Saban’s not the first person to hint at a handful of superconferences breaking away from their mortal conference brothers in some way, shape or form. His is one of the most prominent voices to chime in on the subject.

Combine Saban’s five-conference suggestion with Mike Slive's recent thinly veiled threat about what could happen if the SEC and other major conferences don’t get their way in their desire to provide a full cost-of-attendance stipend for their student-athletes.

How soon before these heavyweights turn their saber rattling into civil war?

Saban’s scheduling proposal would force the members of these superconferences to radically alter their non-conference schedules. The prevailing attitude at the moment is to challenge yourself by playing one prominent team from another major league and then reward yourself by lining up three dogs with different fleas."

Yep. Yup.

"It's an idea that Alabama coach Nick Saban seems to be behind given his answer to a question about the Big Ten, saying it's no longer going to schedule FCS opponents. Saban not only likes the idea, but he'd take it a step further."

Another piece is entitled "B1G finds an ally in Nick Saban." B1G only talked no FCS. There is more than implication here.
 
From the al.com article quoted above.

"His suggestion IMPLIES going beyond the Big Ten’s discussion of a ban on playing teams from the Football Championship Subdivision to shutting out the lesser half of the Football Bowl Subdivision, too."
 
PlayerRep said:
RE Hammond said:
PlayerRep said:
It's pretty clear that some of you don't understand logic or reasoned analysis. Can you really not understand that the arguments and criteria for moving up are different than the arguments for moving down? The factors and analysis are quite different. It's like climbing a mountain. Climbing up is different than going down--sometimes very different.

He said both. And, do you actually think the point that it is harder to move up than down was missed on anyone who reads above the third grade level:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22225609/nick-saban-is-in-favor-of-five-conferences-playing-each-other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you get on your arrogant high-horse concerning concepts like logic or "reasoned" analysis (how can any analysis this is to be taken seriously be anything other than reasoned?), understand who you are talking to.

Were you at the meeting last week in San Angelo where he (Saban) presented? Didn't think so.

Nope, Saban did not say anything specifically about FCS. According to the article, he said this:

"I'm for five conferences -- everybody playing everybody in those five conferences," Saban told AL.com. "That's what I'm for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody's got to play 'em."

Saban also went on to say that he's in favor of the SEC adding a ninth conference game for the fans.

"Don't they want to see good games and all that."

According to the article, Sabin talked to al.com. Here's the al.com article and what Saban said. He said nothing specifically about FCS, only by implication. That's what the al.com article says.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2013/05/nick_sabans_5-conference_trial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the most powerful coach in the nation suggests that the most powerful programs take their ball and keep it to themselves, it should send shock waves from UAB to Boise State and beyond.

"I'm for five conferences," Saban said. He didn’t elaborate, but presumably he meant the SEC, Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC. That would leave C-USA, the Sun Belt, the Big East, the Mountain West, the MAC and the WAC on the outside looking in.

The Alabama coach didn’t stop there. He said he wants to see “everybody playing everybody in those five conferences.” Again, he didn’t dive into details, but do the math.

His suggestion implies going beyond the Big Ten’s discussion of a ban on playing teams from the Football Championship Subdivision to shutting out the lesser half of the Football Bowl Subdivision, too.

That would mean, say, Louisville instead of Western Kentucky on SEC non-conference schedules. Miami rather than Florida Atlantic or Florida International. North Texas? No. TCU, Texas Tech or Texas? Yes.

Saban’s not the first person to hint at a handful of superconferences breaking away from their mortal conference brothers in some way, shape or form. His is one of the most prominent voices to chime in on the subject.

Combine Saban’s five-conference suggestion with Mike Slive's recent thinly veiled threat about what could happen if the SEC and other major conferences don’t get their way in their desire to provide a full cost-of-attendance stipend for their student-athletes.

How soon before these heavyweights turn their saber rattling into civil war?

Saban’s scheduling proposal would force the members of these superconferences to radically alter their non-conference schedules. The prevailing attitude at the moment is to challenge yourself by playing one prominent team from another major league and then reward yourself by lining up three dogs with different fleas."

Get back on point.

Fullerton's position is founded in plagiarism. His whole Nostradamus-esque vision is last month's or even last quarter's news. Division IV was mentioned independent of the piece, as it predates it.

It doesn't matter who implicitly or explicitly said no FCS. If no FCS happens, it will be "Quadrant 1" and some overlap from "Quadrant 2" that will no longer be available. The fact that none of this was mentioned in his ramblings is irresponsible. How can you talk money games without this as part of your illogic or unreasoned analysis?

The more important discussion goes back to the prediction that FCS football will no longer exist by 2020.
 
RE Hammond said:
PlayerRep said:
RE Hammond said:
PlayerRep said:
It's pretty clear that some of you don't understand logic or reasoned analysis. Can you really not understand that the arguments and criteria for moving up are different than the arguments for moving down? The factors and analysis are quite different. It's like climbing a mountain. Climbing up is different than going down--sometimes very different.

He said both. And, do you actually think the point that it is harder to move up than down was missed on anyone who reads above the third grade level:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22225609/nick-saban-is-in-favor-of-five-conferences-playing-each-other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Before you get on your arrogant high-horse concerning concepts like logic or "reasoned" analysis (how can any analysis this is to be taken seriously be anything other than reasoned?), understand who you are talking to.

Were you at the meeting last week in San Angelo where he (Saban) presented? Didn't think so.

Nope, Saban did not say anything specifically about FCS. According to the article, he said this:

"I'm for five conferences -- everybody playing everybody in those five conferences," Saban told AL.com. "That's what I'm for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody's got to play 'em."

Saban also went on to say that he's in favor of the SEC adding a ninth conference game for the fans.

"Don't they want to see good games and all that."

According to the article, Sabin talked to al.com. Here's the al.com article and what Saban said. He said nothing specifically about FCS, only by implication. That's what the al.com article says.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2013/05/nick_sabans_5-conference_trial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the most powerful coach in the nation suggests that the most powerful programs take their ball and keep it to themselves, it should send shock waves from UAB to Boise State and beyond.

"I'm for five conferences," Saban said. He didn’t elaborate, but presumably he meant the SEC, Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC. That would leave C-USA, the Sun Belt, the Big East, the Mountain West, the MAC and the WAC on the outside looking in.

The Alabama coach didn’t stop there. He said he wants to see “everybody playing everybody in those five conferences.” Again, he didn’t dive into details, but do the math.

His suggestion implies going beyond the Big Ten’s discussion of a ban on playing teams from the Football Championship Subdivision to shutting out the lesser half of the Football Bowl Subdivision, too.

That would mean, say, Louisville instead of Western Kentucky on SEC non-conference schedules. Miami rather than Florida Atlantic or Florida International. North Texas? No. TCU, Texas Tech or Texas? Yes.

Saban’s not the first person to hint at a handful of superconferences breaking away from their mortal conference brothers in some way, shape or form. His is one of the most prominent voices to chime in on the subject.

Combine Saban’s five-conference suggestion with Mike Slive's recent thinly veiled threat about what could happen if the SEC and other major conferences don’t get their way in their desire to provide a full cost-of-attendance stipend for their student-athletes.

How soon before these heavyweights turn their saber rattling into civil war?

Saban’s scheduling proposal would force the members of these superconferences to radically alter their non-conference schedules. The prevailing attitude at the moment is to challenge yourself by playing one prominent team from another major league and then reward yourself by lining up three dogs with different fleas."

Get back on point.

Fullerton's position is founded in plagiarism. His whole Nostradamus-esque vision is last month's or even last quarter's news. Division IV was mentioned independent of the piece, as it predates it.

It doesn't matter who implicitly or explicitly said no FCS. If no FCS happens, it will be "Quadrant 1" and some overlap from "Quadrant 2" that will no longer be available. The fact that none of this was mentioned in his ramblings is irresponsible. How can you talk money games without this as part of your illogic or unreasoned analysis?

The more important discussion goes back to the prediction that FCS football will no longer exist by 2020.

It does matter who said FCS and who didn't. You said, twice, Sabin said it. He didn't. You really are an idiot. I hadn't paid any attention to your posts previously, but now I understand why some posters were commenting on your (dumb) statements.

As for Fullerton, he discussed all of this in his Q&A. See below quotes.

"Q: The Big Ten has announced plans to no longer schedule FCS teams in the non-conference. These guarantee games against the power conferences are lucrative for Big Sky schools. If other conferences such as the Pac-12 and Big 12 follow the Big Ten, what is the potential impact on Big Sky institutions?

A: We don’t live off the guarantee money; however, it is important to the programs in the Big Sky Conference. In recent years, we have been more and more successful on the field against those FBS programs. It would be a blow to all of FCS if all of the FBS conferences followed the lead of the Big Ten and refused to play FCS institutions. If FCS programs can’t find funding, they are tempted to move to FBS to take advantage of the game guarantees paid at that level. It does seem odd that FBS as a division has had a continuing interest in not allowing institutions to join them, but has basically encouraged programs to join FBS through these kinds of moves. Who knows, this issue may be one eventually solved by the antitrust attorneys.

Q: There has been a lot of speculation about the power conferences pulling away and forming a new level of Division I football. If that were to happen, where do you think the Big Sky would fit if the structures were to change in coming years?

A: One of the basic problems of governance within the NCAA has always been that the subdivisions as defined do not match the natural financial “break points” within the membership. Currently, there are some 20+ institutions making money in a net earned income sense. With the recently negotiated media contracts in the top five conferences soon to take full effect, that number will move to about 60 or 70 institutions. All of those institutions, save for a few independents, will be in those top five conferences. I actually encourage them to look at a new level for football (let’s call it Subdivision IV). It might add some sanity to our membership. They (Subdivision IV) could run an NFL-type schedule with divisional champions and a playoff at the end of the football season. Of course, there would be headaches for that top group as well, as they may very well not look much like an academic enterprise under that model. However, I don’t worry about them leaving the NCAA in all sports, as, the day after they depart, they would have to form a new NCAA. They would have to run some 80+ championships and implement some enforcement mechanisms. I don’t think they want any part of setting those up. Plus the basketball tournament - as well as some others such as baseball, ice hockey, and track and field - would lose much of the cache they have earned over the years, without the participation of the non- Subdivision IV leagues. However, I would argue that a football break has basically already occurred, why not codify it? As I’ve stated before, I believe the Big Sky is in a perfect position to compete at the second-highest level of Division I football, whatever that may be in the future."
 
RE Hammond said:
Yep. Yup.

"It's an idea that Alabama coach Nick Saban seems to be behind given his answer to a question about the Big Ten, saying it's no longer going to schedule FCS opponents. Saban not only likes the idea, but he'd take it a step further."

Another piece is entitled "B1G finds an ally in Nick Saban." B1G only talked no FCS. There is more than implication here.
Saban doesn't mention FCS because it's not even on his radar screen. It's even below high school, since he recruits from high schools.
 
kemajic said:
RE Hammond said:
Yep. Yup.

"It's an idea that Alabama coach Nick Saban seems to be behind given his answer to a question about the Big Ten, saying it's no longer going to schedule FCS opponents. Saban not only likes the idea, but he'd take it a step further."

Another piece is entitled "B1G finds an ally in Nick Saban." B1G only talked no FCS. There is more than implication here.
Saban doesn't mention FCS because it's not even on his radar screen. It's even below high school, since he recruits from high schools.

Perhaps, but, nevertheless, he didn't mention it. Mike Slive, the SEC commissioner, is well aware of FCS football. He's going to propose and take actions in the best interests of the SEC, but he knows and appreciates FCS. Slive was instrumental in formulating the upcoming FBS playoff system.
 
CORNHOLIO: "the sky is not green"
HAMMOND: "the sky is blue"
PLAYEREP: "Hammond, you are incorrect. Cornholio did not say that, he said it is not green."

Hammond looks up.

images
 
Two other points concerning Fullerton:

1. Taking money games destroys programs. This is not a logical cause and effect conclusion. Fullerton offers no explanation of the phenomenon. The program is already severely ill by the time money games are taken, in many cases. Best or worst example I've been witness to in this respect is the University of the Pacific and their 1995 season.

Medical analogy. Hispanic diabetic patients (some) are deathly afraid of going on insulin. Yet, they routinely and aggressively seek "injectionistas" for other conditions. The perception is that insulin kills you, but the real relationship is they are severely diseased and complicated by the time they are instructed to go on insulin.

2. The NAIA puts out statements, including statistics, declaring that a move from NAIA to DII is likely a "don't wish too hard, you just may get it" scenario. An extra million dollars in cost annually (and this may be to a program that had maybe $2-3M as an entire NAIA budget), with the likelihood of no extra revenue to show for it, coupled with the reality that it may take years to establish yourself as a playoff program when you were already that in a likewise (competitive-wise) situation in the NAIA.

So, the difficulties of moving up are independent of division or "governing body," but it is recognized that it can be magnitudes more severe moving from FCS to FBS. ODU was a great example.
 
grizindabox said:
CORNHOLIO: "the sky is not green"
HAMMOND: "the sky is blue"
PLAYEREP: "Hammond, you are incorrect. Cornholio did not say that, he said it is not green."

Hammond looks up.

images

Tiene mas papel por su culo...
 
grizindabox said:
CORNHOLIO: "the sky is not green"
HAMMOND: "the sky is blue"
PLAYEREP: "Hammond, you are incorrect. Cornholio did not say that, he said it is not green."

Hammond looks up.

images

Grizindabox, I see you more as Dick Nixon on da wall: "Are you threatening me?"
 
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
RE Hammond said:
Yep. Yup.

"It's an idea that Alabama coach Nick Saban seems to be behind given his answer to a question about the Big Ten, saying it's no longer going to schedule FCS opponents. Saban not only likes the idea, but he'd take it a step further."

Another piece is entitled "B1G finds an ally in Nick Saban." B1G only talked no FCS. There is more than implication here.
Saban doesn't mention FCS because it's not even on his radar screen. It's even below high school, since he recruits from high schools.

Perhaps, but, nevertheless, he didn't mention it. Mike Slive, the SEC commissioner, is well aware of FCS football. He's going to propose and take actions in the best interests of the SEC, but he knows and appreciates FCS. Slive was instrumental in formulating the upcoming FBS playoff system.

He recruits JUCO's. Again trust me. I'm looking from the inside out, not the opposite.
 
Back
Top