Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2547 Location: The Zoo 2287 eGriz Bucks
Everyone knows the poll is imperfect and doesn't represent the 20k plus that show up every day but it is a sizeable chunk of the diehards, people who are, on average, more informed on UM football and care a lot about the direction of the program.
I'm amused by the poll and the attitude the anti move guys have towards it.
It's unscientific.
It only represents 124 people.
It doesn't really represent the fans that don't read eGriz.
The people that vote in that poll are football fanatics and don't represent the everyday fan.
What's funny is that these same posters were saying "what a good measurement the poll was of the pulse of the Griz Nation" when the anti move sentiment was 65% against. They loved the polls then.
I remember the pro move guys never poo pooing the poll like this but taking it seriously even when we were way behind. As each poll would conclude we would say "look out we're growing stonger." We wouldn't say it didn't count because it was a stupid message board poll.
You saved the best for last. If you think message board polls are the measureing stick for that the average Griz fan think, you may want to consider some profesional help. Your "anti-move guys" claim is more hyperbole. I bet you can't name 10 of them. If you start with me, you already have one strike against you.
You see, this is what's amusing.
You weren't singing that tune when it was 65% TO 35% AGAINST.
I'm amused by the poll and the attitude the anti move guys have towards it.
It's unscientific.
It only represents 124 people.
It doesn't really represent the fans that don't read eGriz.
The people that vote in that poll are football fanatics and don't represent the everyday fan.
What's funny is that these same posters were saying "what a good measurement the poll was of the pulse of the Griz Nation" when the anti move sentiment was 65% against. They loved the polls then.
I remember the pro move guys never poo pooing the poll like this but taking it seriously even when we were way behind. As each poll would conclude we would say "look out we're growing stonger." We wouldn't say it didn't count because it was a stupid message board poll.
You saved the best for last. If you think message board polls are the measureing stick for that the average Griz fan think, you may want to consider some profesional help. Your "anti-move guys" claim is more hyperbole. I bet you can't name 10 of them. If you start with me, you already have one strike against you.
You see, this is what's amusing.
You weren't singing that tune when it was 65% TO 35% AGAINST.
You are a hypocrite.
Prove it! That is an out right LIE, and you know it. I have posted ad nauseum that I am not against a move up, but I also don't think anyone has answered the question of how it is going to be paid for. To just say the money is there doesn't cut it.
Spanky, you are as big of a move up proponent as there is. Please tell the "reading impaired ronbo" that I have been very clear I am not against it.
Didn't say you were against the move up. I just say I don't recall you poo pooing the poll when there was a great majority against. You show me the post where you discounted the poll as meaningless when the anti move up was 60-65%. I don't recall any anti move up guys poo pooing the poll then.
The stange thing about this whole poll thing is that the poll was relavant when the majority was against and now it's meaningless and you need professional help if you believe the results because the move up % has surpassed the anti move up.
Didn't say you were against the move up. I just say I don't recall you poo pooing the poll when there was a great majority against. You show me the post where you discounted the poll as meaningless when the anti move up was 60-65%. I don't recall any anti move up guys poo pooing the poll then.
The stange thing about this whole poll thing is that the poll was relavant when the majority was against and now it's meaningless and you need professional help if you believe the results because the move up % has surpassed the anti move up.
That's hypocritical.
Not so fast. Yo made the claim so you post the proof. Nice try ronbo. Just admit you made it up and move on. Or better yet, spend the whole day looking for something that doesn't exist.
If I remember correctly, GB1 has previously said that he likes to play devil's advocate to the majority of fans who want to join the WAC. To be a source of reason and level-headedness for the pro-WAC fans who seemingly ignore the facts.
While I respect that and think it is important to acknowledge the cons as well as the pros and to be conservative in one's views, I think that there is a fine line between offering contrast and reason to the forum and being completely destructive and negative to people's opinions and dreams for the future of the program that fall under a certain "progressive" mindset.
GB1, I'm not saying that you've crossed that line, but sometimes it seems like you flirt with it.
If I remember correctly, GB1 has previously said that he likes to play devil's advocate to the majority of fans who want to join the WAC. To be a source of reason and level-headedness for the pro-WAC fans who seemingly ignore the facts.
While I respect that and think it is important to acknowledge the cons as well as the pros and to be conservative in one's views, I think that there is a fine line between offering contrast and reason to the forum and being completely destructive and negative to people's opinions and dreams for the future of the program that fall under a certain "progressive" mindset.
GB1, I'm not saying that you've crossed that line, but sometimes it seems like you flirt with it.
I guess that depends on which particular post you are referring to. If someone puts a little effort and thought into their post, then I think I give it the respect it deserves. On the other hand, there are some outlandish claims made on this board about moving up that have absolutely no basis in fact. If posters want to be taken seriously on the topic they should do their homework. I don't think that is asking too much.
Case in point. Posters that claim the WAC has expressed interest in UM, but cannnot provide that info when asked. Posters that think UM can pick and choose which sports they will have to add, when the Championships offerred by the WAC are readily available at www.wacsports.com. One poster has said UM could elevate the Lacrosse team from club status. That's great, the only problem is none of the WAC schools have a Lacrosse team either. Yet another poster suggest bringing wrestling back. That would be wonderful, except the WAC doesn't have wrestling either. That is an example of what I mean by not doing homework. How can one take people serious when they just throw out a bunch of stuff just to see if something sticks?
Joined: 23 Dec 2002 Posts: 3324 Location: Somewhere between angry and catatonic... 3074 eGriz Bucks
I've seen GB1 as pretty open to the argument as long as the cost justification is addressed.
That and he tracks the number of threads that revert into some kind of "move up" action and that number is now approaching the average weight of the girls that Scapegoat used to chase...
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."-second baseman Tito Fuentes
GB1 has the best interests of UM at heart always and has told me many times that he isn't against moving to The WAC, but has several concerns, one of which is financial. I share that concern, but feel strongly that we will never know if we can justify the conference change unless we do a feasibility study. Thus far, Dennison has opposed the study and states that the fans are happy with The Big Sky Conference. I was shocked by O'Day's statement that he refers to feasibility studies from other schools instead of one for UM athletics. The time has come for Dennison to be advised that he doesn't own UM, rather that he is an employee of UM and The State of Montana and the concerns, requests and views of UM graduates and fans should be taken seriously. As for GB1, hopefully, one day we will be able to provide him with credible information which will justify a move to The WAC Conference. In the meantime, please give his views your respect.
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 3709 Location: Ferndale (Bellingham), WA 1494 eGriz Bucks
ronbo wrote:
That's the funny thing to me regarding this subject. Idaho fans ran a Poll on thier message board a couple years ago. The poll asked "Should Idaho consider moving back to the Big Sky?" It ended up 95% to 5% against.
ronbo wrote:
I'm amused by the poll and the attitude the anti move guys have towards it.
It's unscientific.
It only represents 124 people.
It doesn't really represent the fans that don't read eGriz.
The people that vote in that poll are football fanatics and don't represent the everyday fan.
What's funny is that these same posters were saying "what a good measurement the poll was of the pulse of the Griz Nation" when the anti move sentiment was 65% against. They loved the polls then.
I remember the pro move guys never poo pooing the poll like this but taking it seriously even when we were way behind. As each poll would conclude we would say "look out we're growing stonger." We wouldn't say it didn't count because it was a stupid message board poll.
Are you laughing at yourself here????
I do not recall anybody thinking that eGriz polls are anything but extremely unscientific - particularly Backer. How could anybody think anything different - eventhough AtHome brings up a good point about the pulse of passionate fans/fanatics.
ronbo wrote:
What's funny is that these same posters were saying "what a good measurement the poll was of the pulse of the Griz Nation" when the anti move sentiment was 65% against.
Since it is so easy to post a link, please post links to these post of which you refer...
GB1 has the best interests of UM at heart always and has told me many times that he isn't against moving to The WAC, but has several concerns, one of which is financial. I share that concern, but feel strongly that we will never know if we can justify the conference change unless we do a feasibility study. Thus far, Dennison has opposed the study and states that the fans are happy with The Big Sky Conference. I was shocked by O'Day's statement that he refers to feasibility studies from other schools instead of one for UM athletics. The time has come for Dennison to be advised that he doesn't own UM, rather that he is an employee of UM and The State of Montana and the concerns, requests and views of UM graduates and fans should be taken seriously. As for GB1, hopefully, one day we will be able to provide him with credible information which will justify a move to The WAC Conference. In the meantime, please give his views your respect.
What, specifically, do you think a feasibility study will show that UM doesn't know, or have a good idea about, already?
Note that O'Day and the App St AD, I believe, were recently quoted as saying moving up would take an additional $5 million per year in the athletic budget? That would indicate that they have done some level of analysis of costs. O'Day has stated he has looked at feasibility studies of other schools.
Joined: 23 Dec 2002 Posts: 3324 Location: Somewhere between angry and catatonic... 3074 eGriz Bucks
I'll bet if O'Day and the other bigs at UM made a statement in the media to the effect of "we have done a feasability statement and it would cost us X dollars to move to the X level so we have decided to do X," that most of this conjecture would disappear.
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."-second baseman Tito Fuentes
I'll bet if O'Day and the other bigs at UM made a statement in the media to the effect of "we have done a feasability statement and it would cost us X dollars to move to the X level so we have decided to do X," that most of this conjecture would disappear.
Not a chance. The "smarty pants" posters know more than O' Day don't ya know. If you don't believe it, you don't even have to ask they will tell anyone listening.
He has already said that they haven't done a feasibility study, but they use those studies done by other schools. Dennison is the one that refuses to request a study from the Board of Regents because, in his view, the fans are happy with The Big Sky Conference. O'Day follows his direction because he runs the show.
He has already said that they haven't done a feasibility study, but they use those studies done by other schools. Dennison is the one that refuses to request a study from the Board of Regents because, in his view, the fans are happy with The Big Sky Conference. O'Day follows his direction because he runs the show.
O'Day is no different than any other employee, you do what the Boss tells you to do. Of course there are some posters who think Jim should be more assertive, like they know what goes on in closed door meetings between O'Day and George.
Joined: 23 Dec 2002 Posts: 3324 Location: Somewhere between angry and catatonic... 3074 eGriz Bucks
There's not much doubt about who calls ALL the shots...After Hogan left, there was no way that King George would install another media friendly, flashy AD. And, George doesn't give a crap what anybody else thinks...It's all about him-
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."-second baseman Tito Fuentes
Pay checks are nice, but I would think Jim O'Day finds it very difficult working for Dennison.
Jim O'Day has told me on more than once occaision he would rather work for me. So now instead of taking over UM Athletics I am gonna have to run the whole enchilada.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
