FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[BoBo]

How anyone can rank Wesley ahead of us is unfathomable.   How many times to do we have to monkey stomp them?      So far I haven't seen a Wesley team that could play .500 in the WIAC.

KABOOM

bw, I should have placed these        after saying Wesley was part of my Stagg Bowl predictions for 2008.  I was only poking fun at the pre-season all-american list from that shady outfit a few pages back.  I think someone got offended and dinged me for it!!

[Pat Coleman]

I think Justin Beaver being on the list changes things. Sure, Colin Burns and Chad Wurth were top-notch backs as well, but Justin Beaver probably deserves a little more respect.

[Pat Coleman]

And for those who don't know -- I created the USA Today Sports Weekly ranking. If you buy a copy of the publication that is abundantly clear.

Someone out there making those rankings must still think a little somthing is left in the tank or they wouldn't have made such a decision.

[BoBo]

And for those who don't know -- I created the USA Today Sports Weekly ranking. If you buy a copy of the publication that is abundantly clear.

Someone out there making those rankings must still think a little somthing is left in the tank or they wouldn't have made such a decision.

I was aware of that fact - actually saw it on the Iowa board when you chastised that poor guy for getting the name of the publication wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what factors led you to place UWW 3rd and not lower.  I might be mistaken, but didn't the D3 pre-season poll last year have the warhawks 5th or something - and that was with Beaver returning, but questions at QB?  No Beaver this year and even bigger questions at QB, but 3rd in this ranking. Obviously, many other voters make up the D3 poll, but was it your opinion last year that the warhawks should've been higher in the pre-season poll or in other words, that 5th was to low for the 2 time Stagg runner-ups last year?  (please don't tell me to go out and buy the thing to find out your answer!)

[retagent]

I recall reading here the rebuttal that prior year's success has no bearing on what is happening now when we Johnnies pointed out our 40+ years of stellar play. Now that UWW has had 3 good years, all of a sudden, you're using that same argument that you Pooh poohed not so long ago. Logic should really be a requirement in the WIAC

[Pat Coleman]

Whitewater was No. 2 in our preseason poll, actually.

http://www.d3football.com/top25/2007/week-0

[Ralph Turner]

And for those who don't know -- I created the USA Today Sports Weekly ranking. If you buy a copy of the publication that is abundantly clear.

Someone out there making those rankings must still think a little somthing is left in the tank or they wouldn't have made such a decision.

I was aware of that fact - actually saw it on the Iowa board when you chastised that poor guy for getting the name of the publication wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what factors led you to place UWW 3rd and not lower.  I might be mistaken, but didn't the D3 pre-season poll last year have the warhawks 5th or something - and that was with Beaver returning, but questions at QB?  No Beaver this year and even bigger questions at QB, but 3rd in this ranking. Obviously, many other voters make up the D3 poll, but was it your opinion last year that the warhawks should've been higher in the pre-season poll or in other words, that 5th was to low for the 2 time Stagg runner-ups last year?  (please don't tell me to go out and buy the thing to find out your answer!)

Maybe he will publish his reasoning in the 2008 edition of Kickoff!   

[BoBo]

Whitewater was No. 2 in our preseason poll, actually.

http://www.d3football.com/top25/2007/week-0

Yes, thanks for the correction.  That 5th ranking was by one of those opportunistic outfits that seem to come out this time of year and we all quote until the end of time.

[BoBo]

I recall reading here the rebuttal that prior year's success has no bearing on what is happening now when we Johnnies pointed out our 40+ years of stellar play. Now that UWW has had 3 good years, all of a sudden, you're using that same argument that you Pooh poohed not so long ago. Logic should really be a requirement in the WIAC

The difference being stated here is that for the past 3 seasons, Whitewater has consistently beaten down the two other teams in question - same teams, same players (read: never lost)...pulling out the 40+ year old hammer, again,  to pound out your point has even less relevance - anything to take a jab at the WIAC (i.e. Whitewater), I guess.      

[OzJohnnie]

I recall reading here the rebuttal that prior year's success has no bearing on what is happening now when we Johnnies pointed out our 40+ years of stellar play. Now that UWW has had 3 good years, all of a sudden, you're using that same argument that you Pooh poohed not so long ago. Logic should really be a requirement in the WIAC

The difference being stated here is that for the past 3 seasons, Whitewater has consistently beaten down the two other teams in question - same teams, same players (read: never lost)...pulling out the 40 year old hammer, again,  to pound out your point has even less relevance - anything to take a jab at the WIAC (i.e. Whitewater), I guess.      

Ahh... I see the difference.  The difference is that when making the argument in favor of UWW then exceptions can be made.  Yes, yes, your exceptions are all perfectly valid.  Obviously, because you made them.

EDIT: And to be even more clear, you just spent the last page back-and-forthing with PC about the turnover at UWW.  Those posts, not a day old, pretty much invalidate your "same team, same players" reasoning, don't they?  Isn't that the point retagent was making?  That you have no need for logical consistency?  In the end, what do we Johnnies care about your consistency or lack thereof?  Not much.  But for a board that rabidly polices itself to talk only smart football talk, I find it humorous.  Apparently smart football talk is anything that 1) talks up UWW regardless of the reasoning, 2) Rabbits the WIAC is king of the conferences and everyone is afraid uf us meme, 3) offers a few morsels to the poor plebes of the WIAC that are only there to make UWW look good in comparison.

I suspect you don't see that we write all this with smiles on our faces.

[BoBo]

In the end, what do we Johnnies care about your consistency or lack thereof?  Not much.

Save yourself the time, start at the end all the time.  Why go into a 189 word essay telling "us" you don't care?

[OzJohnnie]

To just make one last point:  History and tradition do matter.  And they matter greatly.  We Johnnies actually back your arguments in favor of UWW's performance (although feel them to be a bit premature with a 'mere' three seasons of history to build them on).  We also find it quite entertaining that in your efforts to deny any other team (other than MUC, of course) a place on this pedestal you have built for the Warhawks, you will contort better than Houdini to maintain that untenable position.

In fact, you set yourself and the team up for disappointment with your one-eyed boosterism.  You argue that the J's 40+ year history of success is just that - old history - while UWW's three year ride at the top is evidence of eternal dominance is ludicrous from an argumentative standpoint.  As we are well aware, a team's fortunes wax and wane.  Let us see UWW slide for a season or two and see if they come back in strong national contention after that.  Let us see UWW show resilience in the face of fading fortunes and then we'll know if you have a dynasty or were able to enjoy just a couple good years.

[OzJohnnie]

In the end, what do we Johnnies care about your consistency or lack thereof?  Not much.

Save yourself the time, start at the end all the time.  Why go into a 189 word essay telling "us" you don't care?

Game, set and match, is it?  Ok.  I thank you for the easy victory.

(And less you think I grant your argument above, be clear: As to whether you are consistent or not we (or at least I, as I can't speak for the others) really don't care.  But as to whether you are able to argue your point, yes I do care.  And I see that you concede you cannot.)

[Klopenhiemer]

This is very reminicent of when UWW won the national title and then started blowing hot air about the amount of All Americans that they were awarded. 

Lets face it, winning a national title was not good enough for you people.  You needed the national title and have your whole team granted first team all american honors. 

Why dont we just break out the Cadillac, expensive booze, and give a toast to UWW.  They deserve the benefit of the doubt, while other school with rich historic traditions should be viewed as old fuddy duds, playing off past performances. 

[retagent]

It's just soooo easy.