FCS: Either you're in or you're out!

[Retro]

Now that we are now called the Football Championship Subdivision, should
we be a division strictly of teams that are willing to compete for that
championship?

This is not smack nor any intended demeaning of any current FCS schools.. In order to make this a very strong and competitive division from top to bottom and eliminate any of the woulda, coulda, shoulda talk that floods this forum, is best to have everyone commit or not?

I realize there are a few conferences that don't currently receive automatic bids and a few who voluntarily choose not to participate in the playoffs or at least participate unless jupiter changes places with saturn, but should we begin an effort to establish this truly as a championship conference where thos who are in it must participate or be considered something else?

The first thing that mightneed to happen is some smaller conferences like the Big South or NEC either have merge or move to other conferences to build stronger conferences that might enable them to get an autobid or at least be in a conference that, if they win in, will earn their chance.. That's not to say some of these smaller less competitive teams and conferences can't stay like they are and just get at large bids like in the past.. Some will have to give up current post-season games per NCAA rules.


At the same time conferences like the IVY and SWAC have to commit in full or not.. There is no point in having teams at this level or in this subdivision who don't want to compete for the title every year. For the IVY's, their route is easy. They can simply say they will participate and its done..

For the SWAC, they have to make some sacrifices and/or schedule changes (traditional or not).. The swac championship is clearly something that won't be missed. The bayou classic is the tough one, but we can't change the whole division playoff schedule for 2 teams who may or may not even make it in each year.. For some swac teams, maybe their route is to join another conference. For others the administration feels that neutral site classics and money are more important than playing to be crowned the best.. What do the player's want and what will they remember most: Money made or a Championship run?

Whatever the case, this is the championship subdivision and i'd like to see every team in it able to win it and most on here will agree that our team plays for a championship, not money or law school supremecy.. So i ask you: Are you in or are you out?

[gram4life]

You know if thw SWAC championship game ends then the SWAC would be eligible for the playoffs right. Grambling/Southern/Bama St. isn't stopping any of the other teams from representing the SWAC, just ask Jackson St.

[crunifan]

To be completely honest, even though they don't compete in the playoffs, I am glad The Ivies are in FCS. I think they add to the reputation of our division. Let's be honest, when I have to explain FCS to Hawkeye and Cyclone fans they don't think too highly of Montana, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Delaware, and UNI. We are just "small schools" to them not known for athletics. But when they hear Harvard, Princeton, and Yale I think it opens their eyes just a little.

[Maverick]

How long before BS Bison shows up to talk about those that are in having to offer at least 63 scholarships?

It doesn't matter about the Ivies or SWAC. For those schools to be division I and have football there are only two options. After that it is up to the conference to determine how they will participate or not. From what I see the FCS is pretty competitive without them, if they want to join in fine, if they don't fine. I don't see any less of a champion coming out of the FCS with or without them.

This kind of purist stuff doesn't matter. The reality is that there is enough competition for a true champion to be crowned after four rounds of competition.

[DFW HOYA]

So i ask you: Are you in or are you out?

Unfortunately, the NCAA has already made this decision for us. If you are competing at the requirements set for the I-A level, you are "in". Everyone else is "out".

[UNHWildCats]

hmmm.

[813Jag]

I agree with gram4life, the SWAC championship game keeps the SWAC out. If there was no Championship game then AAMU would be elgible. Just like in the 90's Jackson State made the playoffs when Southern won the SWAC.

[OL FU]

I have mixed emotions about the Ivies. I agree with the above that their reputation is a plus. But on the other hand, it seems obvious that their administrations want no part of the FCS division. That seems to be a slap in the face that offsets the reputation aspect. :(

[SoCon48]

Being they didn't ask to be moved down to I-AA..FCS, they have every right to participate in the play-offs or not. I respect the fact that ttehy they feel exam time and end of the semester are more important to academics than playing 4 extra games on a week's notice with no financial return to the schools.
Having said that, I'm glad my alma mater does participate. But I'm surprised that so many schools who like to lord their academics over other schools still participate.

[OL FU]

Being they didn't ask to be moved down to I-AA..FCS, they have every right to participate in the play-offs or not. I respect the fact that ttehy they feel exam time and end of the semester are more important to academics than playing 4 extra games on a week's notice with no financial return to the schools.
Having said that, I'm glad my alma mater does participate. But I'm surprised that so many schools who like to lord their academics over other schools still participate.

The problem with that argument for the Ivies, in my opinion, is that football seems to be the only sport where that logic is applied and football is the only sport that is related to FCS.

The rules are what they are with respect to who participates in FCS and I am fine with the rules. Since the question is hypothetical, my hypothetical answer is that their administration's attitudes toward FCS bothers me.

[89Hen]

1. As OL pointed out, the Ivies decision to not participate is complete BS. The allow all their other student athletes to participate in post-season. IMO they will actually change their minds SOON. IIRC the vote to not participate in football is something like 5-3 opposed, so it's not like they need to sway too many schools to see their hypocracy.

2. The SWAC will not do away with thier CG or their Thanksgiving classics so it's really a moot point. However, if they were to get rid of the CG and have only the classics to overcome, IMO the playoff committee still can't give them an auto because the conference cannot guarantee it's champion. Therefore, they would only be eligible for an at-large, but it would have to be someone other than Grambling or Southern who have won six of the last seven SWAC titles. Not likely that the SWAC would give up their CG to have a 1 in 7 chance of getting a team in the playoffs.

3. It's neither conference's fault that they are here... it's the NCAA's.

[813Jag]

1. As OL pointed out, the Ivies decision to not participate is complete BS. The allow all their other student athletes to participate in post-season. IMO they will actually change their minds SOON. IIRC the vote to not participate in football is something like 5-3 opposed, so it's not like they need to sway too many schools to see their hypocracy.

2. The SWAC will not do away with thier CG or their Thanksgiving classics so it's really a moot point. However, if they were to get rid of the CG and have only the classics to overcome, IMO the playoff committee still can't give them an auto because the conference cannot guarantee it's champion. Therefore, they would only be eligible for an at-large, but it would have to be someone other than Grambling or Southern who have won six of the last seven SWAC titles. Not likely that the SWAC would give up their CG to have a 1 in 7 chance of getting a team in the playoffs.3. It's neither conference's fault that they are here... it's the NCAA's.
During the 90's Jackson State made the playoffs with at least 9 wins, but getting an at large now would be tough. But JSU is beefing up their schedule due to the end of the nine game mandate. A 9 or 10 win JSU with good non conference wins would have a shot, if there was no Championship game.

[89Hen]

A 9 or 10 win JSU with good non conference wins would have a shot, if there was no Championship game.
Yes, but I don't think the SWAC will give up the CG for that chance.

[McTailGator]

Now that we are now called the Football Championship Subdivision, should
we be a division strictly of teams that are willing to compete for that
championship?

This is not smack nor any intended demeaning of any current FCS schools.. In order to make this a very strong and competitive division from top to bottom and eliminate any of the woulda, coulda, shoulda talk that floods this forum, is best to have everyone commit or not?

I realize there are a few conferences that don't currently receive automatic bids and a few who voluntarily choose not to participate in the playoffs or at least participate unless jupiter changes places with saturn, but should we begin an effort to establish this truly as a championship conference where thos who are in it must participate or be considered something else?

The first thing that mightneed to happen is some smaller conferences like the Big South or NEC either have merge or move to other conferences to build stronger conferences that might enable them to get an autobid or at least be in a conference that, if they win in, will earn their chance.. That's not to say some of these smaller less competitive teams and conferences can't stay like they are and just get at large bids like in the past.. Some will have to give up current post-season games per NCAA rules.


At the same time conferences like the IVY and SWAC have to commit in full or not.. There is no point in having teams at this level or in this subdivision who don't want to compete for the title every year. For the IVY's, their route is easy. They can simply say they will participate and its done..

For the SWAC, they have to make some sacrifices and/or schedule changes (traditional or not).. The swac championship is clearly something that won't be missed. The bayou classic is the tough one, but we can't change the whole division playoff schedule for 2 teams who may or may not even make it in each year.. For some swac teams, maybe their route is to join another conference. For others the administration feels that neutral site classics and money are more important than playing to be crowned the best.. What do the player's want and what will they remember most: Money made or a Championship run?

Whatever the case, this is the championship subdivision and i'd like to see every team in it able to win it and most on here will agree that our team plays for a championship, not money or law school supremecy.. So i ask you: Are you in or are you out?

I agree with you.

I think the NCAA needs to do more to tighten the rules for participation and for inclusion, but at the sametime, they need to do MUCH more to make room for teams that could participate (i.e., the SWAC) be able to participate. Like moving the playoffs back a (week or two) and allowing the Bayou Classic to be played and their SWAC championship game. Now I think the SWAC should ask GSU and SU to move the BC up one weekend, so that it's give and take, but that's probably just me.

I also think the NCAA should set minimum scholarship levels at 53 or 55 over a 4 or 5 year period for inclusion. xcoffeex

[McTailGator]

1. As OL pointed out, the Ivies decision to not participate is complete BS. The allow all their other student athletes to participate in post-season. IMO they will actually change their minds SOON. IIRC the vote to not participate in football is something like 5-3 opposed, so it's not like they need to sway too many schools to see their hypocracy.

2. The SWAC will not do away with thier CG or their Thanksgiving classics so it's really a moot point. However, if they were to get rid of the CG and have only the classics to overcome, IMO the playoff committee still can't give them an auto because the conference cannot guarantee it's champion. Therefore, they would only be eligible for an at-large, but it would have to be someone other than Grambling or Southern who have won six of the last seven SWAC titles. Not likely that the SWAC would give up their CG to have a 1 in 7 chance of getting a team in the playoffs.

3. It's neither conference's fault that they are here... it's the NCAA's.



I say we should move the playoffs back 2 weeks, which would do 4 things.

1. Give the SWAC time to play their CG, AND their Turkey week Classics;

2. Allow time for those or us who want to play a 12 game scedule to do so and still get a bye week in the middle of our season;

3. It would increase the attendance at first round games (big plus) because the students will be back from their Turkey day breaks; and

4. Enable the NC game to be played between Chrismas and New Years when more people or on vacation or off for the holidays making it possible for more of us to plan on going to the game regardless of which team is playing. I won't take time off of work to go see two teams that aren't mine play.

[OL FU]

I agree with you.

I think the NCAA needs to do more to tighten the rules for participation and for inclusion, but at the sametime, they need to do MUCH more to make room for teams that could participate (i.e., the SWAC) be able to participate. Like moving the playoffs back a (week or two) and allowing the Bayou Classic to be played and their SWAC championship game. Now I think the SWAC should ask GSU and SU to move the BC up one weekend, so that it's give and take, but that's probably just me.

I also think the NCAA should set minimum scholarship levels at 53 or 55 over a 4 or 5 year period for inclusion. xcoffeex

Unfortunately that is impossible. If the playoffs are expanded (and almost even if they are not) the national championship game would be in Januaryxnonono2x

[McTailGator]

How long before BS Bison shows up to talk about those that are in having to offer at least 63 scholarships?

It doesn't matter about the Ivies or SWAC. For those schools to be division I and have football there are only two options. After that it is up to the conference to determine how they will participate or not. From what I see the FCS is pretty competitive without them, if they want to join in fine, if they don't fine. I don't see any less of a champion coming out of the FCS with or without them.

This kind of purist stuff doesn't matter. The reality is that there is enough competition for a true champion to be crowned after four rounds of competition.



He doesn't have to, I'll do it for him. Almost.

I do think a minimum limit should be set. But not 63, because MOST teams don't do that now. I would think that an average of 53 to 55 over a 4 or 5 year peiord would be about right though.

We need to keep our quality up.

[SoCon48]

Football is more time consuming than many sports and the timing of the play-offs coinciding with exams, etc is horrible. 4 straight week-ends of play-offs is a good argument. It's an extra 1/3 + of a season for a successful champion and runner up.
Plus you're talking about a player/entourage of close to 100 rahter than a few basketball players, etc.
I think they have a great argument especially since the NCAA keeps the dough.

[89Hen]

3. It would increase the attendance at first round games (big plus) because the students will be back from their Turkey day breaks.
Not necessarily. At least at UD, student attendance is 10% of the overall attendance and I can tell you I love having a game to go to on Turkey Saturday. xnodx But if you want to take students into account, students would be gone for the semester for the quarters and semis.

[OL FU]

Not necessarily. At least at UD, student attendance is 10% of the overall attendance and I can tell you I love having a game to go to on Turkey Saturday. xnodx But if you want to take students into account, students would be gone for the semester for the quarters and semis.

I also think there are just too many other factors involved in moving the playoffs back two weeks.

1. Whether you are for or against, expansion of the playoffs would be a non-issue. The NC game would be in january and that isn't happening.
2. IF the Ivies were ever to decide to participate, they would not under this scenario.
3. The remaining 110 schools are scheduling around one conference for a one week delay and two teams for a two week delayxnonono2x
4. The NCAA does not allow 12 games and even if they did, many schools would choose not to add the extra game. I have always thought one of the big problems with the bowls is that many teams sit out football for three or four weeks to play that one final game. I don't think it would be good for the rest of the schools to sit and wait two weeks waiting for the SWAC to finish.
5. The the final two teams would have somewhere between a 18 or 19 week seasonxeekx (and not for just one additional game like the FBS)

Two much to consider to accomodate basically two schools.

Now with all that said, I totally understand the importance of the Bayou classic and why it will not change dates.

[McTailGator]

Unfortunately that is impossible. If the playoffs are expanded (and almost even if they are not) the national championship game would be in Januaryxnonono2x


If you moved it back 2 weeks this year, the game would be played on December 28th or 29th depending on if it were a Friday or a Saturday (but hopefully a Saturday).

True that starting next year it would be on the 3rd in 08, the 2nd in 09, and the 1st in 2010, which would be cool (or even NY Eve), but after that it would fall between Christmas and NY for another 5 years.

IF the SWAC would be willing to move their Turkey week classics up one week during those 3 year periods (every 5 years), than it would be do able. OR, we could live with a game on the Saturday or Friday after New Years.

We would need to find some playoff sponsorship to compete with the bowls and satisfy ESPN's revenue hunger however. And by then more people will have ESPN-U, the NFL network (which will start airing bowl games).

[OL FU]

If you moved it back 2 weeks this year, the game would be played on December 28th or 29th depending on if it were a Friday or a Saturday (but hopefully a Saturday).

True that starting next year it would be on the 3rd in 08, the 2nd in 09, and the 1st in 2010, which would be cool (or even NY Eve), but after that it would fall between Christmas and NY for another 5 years.

IF the SWAC would be willing to move their Turkey week classics up one week during those 3 year periods (every 5 years), than it would be do able. OR, we could live with a game on the Saturday or Friday after New Years.

We would need to find some playoff sponsorship to compete with the bowls and satisfy ESPN's revenue hunger however. And by then more people will have ESPN-U, the NFL network (which will start airing bowl games).

The Bayou Classic is not moving from Turkey day

[McTailGator]

Not necessarily. At least at UD, student attendance is 10% of the overall attendance and I can tell you I love having a game to go to on Turkey Saturday. xnodx But if you want to take students into account, students would be gone for the semester for the quarters and semis.

It is more than students. It's PEOPLE who might be traveling out of town to grandma's, or just getting away on a vacation.

There is a reason attendance is always down in week one for everyone. Those or a couple of the reasons IMO.

[OL FU]

Football is more time consuming than many sports and the timing of the play-offs coinciding with exams, etc is horrible. 4 straight week-ends of play-offs is a good argument. It's an extra 1/3 + of a season for a successful champion and runner up.
Plus you're talking about a player/entourage of close to 100 rahter than a few basketball players, etc.
I think they have a great argument especially since the NCAA keeps the dough.

Good to see the Ivy propaganda has worked on some peoplexsmiley_wix

[McTailGator]

The Bayou Classic is not moving from Turkey day

It's not on Turkey day. It's on the Saturday AFTER turkey day.

And they would only have to move that game 3 year out of every 8, during 12 game seasons, when they have extra playing dates.

If their conference ever hopes to compete witht he rest of the division, they need to play with the big dogs.

[NE MT GRIZZ]

If you don't participate in the playoffs move up or move down. JMO

[813Jag]

If you don't participate in the playoffs move up or move down. JMO
For most schools moving up is not an option, so you're saying get rid of scholarships and go D2?

[OL FU]

It's not on Turkey day. It's on the Saturday AFTER turkey day.

And they would only have to move that game 3 year out of every 8, during 12 game seasons, when they have extra playing dates.

If their conference ever hopes to compete witht he rest of the division, they need to play with the big dogs.

I'll give on that one but I still say 120+teams don't schedule around one conference or two teams. especially when it means lengthening the season

[89Hen]

It is more than students. It's PEOPLE who might be traveling out of town to grandma's, or just getting away on a vacation.
People also travel TO the areas where the games are being played.

[SoCon48]

Good to see the Ivy propaganda has worked on some peoplexsmiley_wix

Hell, I'd be in agreement whether the Ivies said it or not. Just surprised that the Furmans and Woffords don't say it since they're always waving the "we're so much more academic" flag.

Supposedly the 12 game schedule was argued about because of the "student athlete" but yet we in the FCS play a possible 15 gasme schedule.

[OL FU]

Hell, I'd be in agreement whether the Ivies said it or not. Just surprised that the Furmans and Woffords don't say it since they're always waving the "we're so much more academic" flag.

Supposedly the 12 game schedule was argued about because of the "student athlete" but yet we in the FCS play a possible 15 gasme schedule.

WE don't say that because we are not being hypocritical. The Ivies would have no problem with starting basketball in November and playing until March if one of their teams made it to the final four. Or baseball in February ( I think ) until June. They play 10 games in football. Two and one-half months ( a very short season, I realize they practice much more)

This has nothing to do with the number of participants in the various sports. If extended seasons are bad for football players then they are equally bad for basketball players. It simply has to do with not liking the designation they are playing in. Now with that said, it is all ok. It is their choice. However, I was responding to a comment on feeling positive the Ivies participating in FCS being negated by their hypocritical position with respect to the playoffs which is little more than a snub. Regardless of their public policy, their actions in football compared to other sports leaves little room for doubt why they don't participate. If they dropped all post-season participation there would no longer be any discrepancy in their words and action.

[SoCon48]

WE don't say that because we are not being hypocritical. The Ivies would have no problem with starting basketball in November and playing until March if one of their teams made it to the final four. Or baseball in February ( I think ) until June. They play 10 games in football. Two and one-half months ( a very short season, I realize they practice much more)

This has nothing to do with the number of participants in the various sports. If extended seasons are bad for football players then they are equally bad for basketball players. It simply has to do with not liking the designation they are playing in. Now with that said, it is all ok. It is their choice. However, I was responding to a comment on feeling positive the Ivies participating in FCS being negated by their hypocritical position with respect to the playoffs which is little more than a snub. Regardless of their public policy, their actions in football compared to other sports leaves little room for doubt why they don't participate. If they dropped all post-season participation there would no longer be any discrepancy in their words and action.

I would imagine that if the season were suddenly increased by over 1/3 and no money in return (4 games played for free) (adding a whole month)that they would strongly consider not participating.
The season is longer than 2 1/2 months counting play-offs. As you said, they practice longer. Don't know about Furman, but ASU started practice the first week in August and went through December 15. That's 4 1/2 months.

[OL FU]

I would imagine that if the season were suddenly increased by over 1/3 and no money in return (4 games played for free) (adding a whole month)that they would strongly consider not participating.
The season is longer than 2 1/2 months counting play-offs. As you said, they practice longer. Don't know about Furman, but ASU started practice the first week in August and went through December 15. That's 4 1/2 months.

you are losing me. I know how long Furman might play. I am speaking of the Ivies. I suppose your point is the money. I don't believe that for a minute. How much money do they make in track or westling or what other sport they participate in. The Ivies do not state that lack of making money is they reason for not participating. They state academic reasons. Yet they do not have that concern in other sports.

The Ivies play a 2 and one half month football season. They woud be willing to play a four and one-half month basketball season. The impact on the athletes as students cannot be that different for football and basketball yet they treat the students differently. It is pretty clear.

[carney2]

This is the Ivy argument again - and again - and again - isn't it? Pardon me while I grab a nap.

[OL FU]

This is the Ivy argument again - and again - and again - isn't it? Pardon me while I grab a nap.

No need to nap just go back to your old tired discussion of should the Patriot league give scholarships:p xlolx

[GAD]

If the playoffs were moved back one week the SWAC champ game would be a thing of the past, no need to move back two weeks

[AppMan]

If a school decides to not participate in the playoffs they should not be included in the polls either.

[SoCon48]

you are losing me. I know how long Furman might play. I am speaking of the Ivies. I suppose your point is the money. I don't believe that for a minute. How much money do they make in track or westling or what other sport they participate in. The Ivies do not state that lack of making money is they reason for not participating. They state academic reasons. Yet they do not have that concern in other sports.

The Ivies play a 2 and one half month football season. They woud be willing to play a four and one-half month basketball season. The impact on the athletes as students cannot be that different for football and basketball yet they treat the students differently. It is pretty clear.

It's really nice to know that you can read the Ivy league admins minds. Besides, if it's about money partly. That's legit, too. Think about how much the bowl schools can reap off football and how much the NCAA tourney reaps the ACC basketball schools.

Remember, the season is not 2 1/2 months long. That's just the game schedule. Like I said, ASU's season was 4 1/2 months long the last two years.
But as to academics, they have a major case for non participation in the play-offs. Especially, as they have noted, the timing of exams and the play-offs.
And as to: The impact on the athletes as students cannot be that different for football and basketball yet they treat the students differently. It is pretty clear.


I'm guessing you haven't played or coached football and realize what a toll it takes for the duration. Last ime I checked, basketball players didn't hit or get hit by 300 pounders dozens of times a practice or game. Too, you must never had to kept a log of all the injuries, med visits, doctor's notes, treatments, etc for a football team. Or had to rush players to the hospital with a rectal thermomenter up their butt while trying to treat them for a heat stroke. (just a note, 1/3 of heat stroke victims die or suffer permanent damage). Or have to make a decision on whether to remove a helmet and risk spinal damage to an unconcious player? Check the % of former football players who have permanent knee damage.
Played and coached both. There's a world of difference.

[OL FU]

It's really nice to know that you can read the Ivy league admins minds. Besides, if it's about money partly. That's legit, too. Think about how much the bowl schools can reap off football and how much the NCAA tourney reaps the ACC basketball schools.

Remember, the season is not 2 1/2 months long. That's just the game schedule. Like I said, ASU's season was 4 1/2 months long the last two years.
But as to academics, they have a major case for non participation in the play-offs. Especially, as they have noted, the timing of exams and the play-offs.
And as to: The impact on the athletes as students cannot be that different for football and basketball yet they treat the students differently. It is pretty clear.


I'm guessing you haven't played or coached football and realize what a toll it takes for the duration. Last ime I checked, basketball players didn't hit or get hit by 300 pounders dozens of times a practice or game. Too, you must never had to kept a log of all the injuries, med visits, doctor's notes, treatments, etc for a football team. Or had to rush players to the hospital with a rectal thermomenter up their butt while trying to treat them for a heat stroke. (just a note, 1/3 of heat stroke victims die or suffer permanent damage). Or have to make a decision on whether to remove a helmet and risk spinal damage to an unconcious player? Check the % of former football players who have permanent knee damage.
Played and coached both. There's a world of difference.

Sure I can read their minds. You think you can read mine:p

[SoCon48]

If a school decides to not participate in the playoffs they should not be included in the polls either.

Agree with that statement 100% But readership in the NE would suffer drastically.

[SoCon48]

Sure I can read their minds. You think you can read mine:p

Wrong. I just read what you wrote but can't help but wonder how you get your comparison to basketball or the minor sports..

[OL FU]

Wrong. I just read what you wrote but can't help but wonder how you get your comparison to basketball or the minor sports..

Sorry I was referring to an earlier discussion on Marshall where I clearly stated why I did not like Marshall but you entered my brain and said that was not the case.

I understand that football takes a larger toll on the body.

As to what the Ivies said is that the reason they do not participate in the playoffs is academic. I assume one could read that to mean that injuries could take away from academics. But generally they have referred to time, not injuries. Additionally, my reference to other sports dealt with time, not injuries. I can't read their minds but I can interpret what they are saying which is the only sport we will not participate in post-season play is the one sport that is not the top level of division one.

Now, that is fine. Would I like for the Ivies to participate, yes. If they don't is it a big deal. no. However, it is my opinion (right or wrong), that the Ivy Admin's do not want to participate in FCS football because the "prestige" factor is not there. I freely admit it is an opinion. However, I do think it is opinion that is appropriately justified based the Ivies actions.

Now to the originator of the entire discussion. I agreed that I had pride in the fact that the Ives are a part of FCS however that pride is diminished because while they are a part of FCS they choose not to participate.

[SoCon48]

Sorry I was referring to an earlier discussion on Marshall where I clearly stated why I did not like Marshall but you entered my brain and said that was not the case

Oh, you mean the 7 out 8 last games Marshal won over the Furms quip? I see.

And I wasn't talking in the least about how much time injuries take from academics, I was talking about the total physical and mental toll that football takes on the player over a 4 1/2 month season.

[OL FU]

Sorry I was referring to an earlier discussion on Marshall where I clearly stated why I did not like Marshall but you entered my brain and said that was not the case

Oh, you mean the 7 out 8 last games Marshal won over the Furms quip? I see.

Yes the thread where you insinuated I was a liarxrolleyesx