From 71202.3230@CompuServe.COM Tue May 28 08:52:07 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23767 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 08:52:02 -0500 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21938 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 08:52:01 -0500 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA04784; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:51:59 -0400 Date: 28 May 96 09:50:12 EDT From: Jonathan Newlander <71202.3230@CompuServe.COM> To: Bucky Followers Subject: Rose Bowl Message-ID: <960528135012_71202.3230_GHL76-1@CompuServe.COM> The latest thing I've heard about about the Rose Bowl linking up with the Bowl Coalition would allow a team from the Big 10 or Pac 10 that is ranked #1 or 2 in the final coalition poll before the bowl games to opt out to play for the national championship. Sounds innocent enough, right? Maybe not. The price would be that that team would have to be replaced, and the most likely option would not be for the second place B10/P10 to fill in as appropriate. Rather, a team would come from the coalition. At least to me, the thought of Auburn, Florida State, Nebraska, Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee or any of the rest of them, playing in the Rose Bowl is somewhat nauseating. Can you see an Alabama-UCLA Rose Bowl? Or a Wisconsin-Colorado one? Or Michigan-Auburn? Or Florida State-USC? (I know I wouldn't watch that one) Call me stuffy and traditionalist (on this count at least), but I think finding a real 'national champion' isn't as important as the traditions that would be disrupted in order to accommodate it. jonathan newlander From DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu Tue May 28 09:21:32 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24068 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:21:28 -0500 Received: from INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (indst.indstate.edu [139.102.4.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22286 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:21:26 -0500 Received: from amber.indstate.edu by INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Tue, 28 May 96 09:21:33 EST Received: from AMBER/SpoolDir by amber.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.21); 28 May 96 09:23:57 GMT-5 Received: from SpoolDir by AMBER (Mercury 1.22 beta); 28 May 96 09:23:48 GMT-5 From: "Jonathan C. Enslin" Organization: Indiana State University To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:23:43 GMT-5 Subject: Re: Rose Bowl Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-ID: <122A13D1BBB@amber.indstate.edu> Actually, that sounds kind of interesting to me. I wouldn't mind some bowl diversity in the Rose Bowl. Jon > The latest thing I've heard about about the Rose Bowl linking up with the Bowl > Coalition would allow a team from the Big 10 or Pac 10 that is ranked #1 or 2 in > the final coalition poll before the bowl games to opt out to play for the > national championship. Sounds innocent enough, right? Maybe not. The price > would be that that team would have to be replaced, and the most likely option > would not be for the second place B10/P10 to fill in as appropriate. Rather, a > team would come from the coalition. At least to me, the thought of Auburn, > Florida State, Nebraska, Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee or any of the rest of > them, playing in the Rose Bowl is somewhat nauseating. Can you see an > Alabama-UCLA Rose Bowl? Or a Wisconsin-Colorado one? Or Michigan-Auburn? Or > Florida State-USC? (I know I wouldn't watch that one) Call me stuffy and > traditionalist (on this count at least), but I think finding a real 'national > champion' isn't as important as the traditions that would be disrupted in order > to accommodate it. > > jonathan newlander > > *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From jadopke@students.wisc.edu Tue May 28 09:50:41 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24373 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:50:36 -0500 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22551 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:50:35 -0500 Received: from [144.92.91.245] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id JAA105569; 8.6.9W/42; Tue, 28 May 1996 09:50:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199605281450.JAA105569@audumla.students.wisc.edu> Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:47:30 -0600 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: jadopke@students.wisc.edu (Joel A. Dopke) Subject: Rose Bowl pollution I think the thing about January 1 that has the greatest appeal to me is the tradition and enthusiasm that goes with the bowl games. I could care less who the "National Champion" turns out to be since most people will argue with the choice anyhow. The point is that a bowl game should be a reward to a team that has a good/great season. Personally, I think a 6-5 team doesn't necessarily merit a post-season game. Why reward a team that probably couldn't handle the competition within its own conference, but beat up on pansies in the nonconference portion of its schedule and thus managed to keep its head above water? Even for the UW, 6-5 would've meant a bowl berth last year, but what kind of reward would that be? Congratulations, welcome to the Sneezy Bowl and your opportunity to be crowned mediocre team of the year...but only if you tie. All this finaggaling (spelling, ouch) to try to determine a national champion gnaws at the tradition and spirit of the bowl games. It is all just marketing, hype, and $$$. I like the certainty...win the Big 11 go to the Rose Bowl. A deal with the coalition means that if you finish #2 in the Big 11, you start rooting for the top team to finish #1-2 in the country so YOU can go to the Rose Bowl. There's something cheesy about that. If you finish #2 in the conference, you SHOULD be pulling for the #1 team in the Big 11 to do well because it makes the conference and YOU look much better to outsiders. Enough ranting. Big 11, stay true to your roots and stick to the "Grandaddy of them All". Joel From johne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Tue May 28 10:34:36 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25327 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:34:31 -0500 Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (casbah.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.52]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23262 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:34:30 -0500 From: johne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Received: by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (1.40.112.4/20.4) id AA207817642; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:34:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199605281534.AA207817642@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Subject: Re: Rose Bowl pollution To: jadopke@students.wisc.edu Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:34:02 -0500 (CDT) Cc: bucky@cs.wisc.edu In-Reply-To: <199605281450.JAA105569@audumla.students.wisc.edu> from "Joel A. Dopke" at May 28, 96 09:47:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 654 Actually, the latest proposition I saw goes like this: If a Big10 or Pac10 team isn't ranked #1 or #2, they play in the Rose Bowl as usual, and the MNC goes on w/o the Big10 and Pac10. If a Big10 or Pac10 team is ranked #2 in the polls, that Big10 or Pac10 team plays in the coalition MNC game. If a Big10 or Pac10 team is ranked #1 in the polls, the #2 ranked team visits the Rose Bowl to play the #1 ranked team. If the Big10 and/or Pac10 have teams ranked #1 and #2, they both play in the Rose Bowl (fat chance). John Tsau. Internet Address : johne@nwu.edu Internet Address 2, the Reawakening : tsauj@cpdmfg.cig.mot.com From jadopke@students.wisc.edu Tue May 28 10:42:30 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25353 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:42:25 -0500 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23330 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:42:24 -0500 Received: from [144.92.91.245] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id KAA78439; 8.6.9W/42; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:42:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199605281542.KAA78439@audumla.students.wisc.edu> Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:39:19 -0600 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: jadopke@students.wisc.edu (Joel A. Dopke) On May 28, John Tsau wrote... >Actually, the latest proposition I saw goes like this: > >If a Big10 or Pac10 team isn't ranked #1 or #2, they play in the Rose Bowl >as usual, and the MNC goes on w/o the Big10 and Pac10. > >If a Big10 or Pac10 team is ranked #2 in the polls, that Big10 or Pac10 team >plays in the coalition MNC game. > >If a Big10 or Pac10 team is ranked #1 in the polls, the #2 ranked team visits >the Rose Bowl to play the #1 ranked team. > >If the Big10 and/or Pac10 have teams ranked #1 and #2, they both play in the >Rose Bowl (fat chance). Thanks for the update (and to those who posted earlier). It doesn't do anything for my conscience, though. Now it just seems like the coalition is trying to weasel in on one of the most (if not THE most) profitable Bowls of them all. Obviously, I'm biased. Joel From morse@globaldialog.com Tue May 28 20:32:13 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA06205 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 20:32:07 -0500 Received: from msn.globaldialog.com (msn.globaldialog.com [156.46.122.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02063 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 20:32:06 -0500 Received: from s09a.globaldialog.com (s09a.globaldialog.com [156.46.122.73]) by msn.globaldialog.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA15730 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 20:32:08 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 20:32:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199605290132.UAA15730@msn.globaldialog.com> X-Sender: morse@pop.globaldialog.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: morse@globaldialog.com (Bob Morse) Subject: Re: Big 10 predictions >Something called "Football: College and Pro Newsweekly" is out with its >predictions.... > > 8. UW [8th in Big 10/11) I've been getting properly indignant at a few of these Bucky-dissin' predictions, but actually I kinda like the low expectations. Reminds me of '93, and how much fun it was to be the upsetting underdog week after week. However, I've seen a couple of preseason rankings that show Wisc in the 18-25 range nationally. The contributors to rec.sport.- football.college spit these out as quick as they get published. ======================================================================== Bob Morse : morse@globaldialog.com : Badger SoftWerks : Mt. Horeb, Wisc. ======================================================================== Badger SoftWerks: http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/bsw.htm InfoJunkies Anonymous: http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/ija.htm From BadgerRoy@aol.com Tue May 28 21:29:40 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07241 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 21:29:34 -0500 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02695 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 21:29:32 -0500 From: BadgerRoy@aol.com Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13396; Tue, 28 May 1996 22:29:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:29:20 -0400 Message-ID: <960528222918_205783514@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: avd3@psu.edu cc: Bucky@cs.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Big 10 predictions 1. NW 2. Ohio St. 3. Iowa 4. Mich. 5. Penn St. 6. Mich. St. 7. Purdue 8. UW 9. Ill. 10. Minn. 11. Ind. Yeah right. I will give anyone a 1,000,000:1 odds that NU doesnt win the conference again. They will be lucky to finish in the top 5. Furthermmore, McCullough has a better chance (but not much better) of winning the Heisman. Also, UW will not finish in 8th place. 5th is about as low as they will fall. If they finish 8th this year with this talent then we need to start looking for some new coaches. From MSONNEBO@lans.mha.org Wed May 29 13:21:35 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA23583 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:21:12 -0500 Received: from vixa.voyager.net (vixa.voyager.net [198.109.136.2]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA11150 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:21:10 -0500 Received: from mailgtwy.mha.org (mailgtwy.mha.org [198.109.138.3]) by vixa.voyager.net (8.7.3/CICNet) with SMTP id OAA03420 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 14:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mailgtwy.mha.org with Microsoft Mail id <31AC957C@mailgtwy.mha.org>; Wed, 29 May 96 14:20:44 EDT From: Mark Sonneborn To: "'Bucky list'" Subject: Bowl vs playoff Date: Wed, 29 May 96 14:19:00 EDT Message-ID: <31AC957C@mailgtwy.mha.org> Encoding: 31 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Snipping from a couple of posts: Lastly bowls are fun. A week long party for 32 teams? (how many bowl teams are there?) More teams means more fans watching games during bowl week. Fans go on vacation and spend a lot of money. Win or lose it is a blast. Do you think a playoff would accomplish that?< Yeah, that Freedom Bowl missed selling out by oh 75% of the seats. And so do most of the other Bowls. And nobody watches them. How excited do you get about Mississipi St. vs. Virginia Tech in the Alamo Carquest Bowl? However, if it were the first round of the NCAA playoffs, would you watch? I would. I'm all for going on vacation, but that could happen in a playoff, too. From JBAAS@leviathan.calvin.edu Wed May 29 14:24:29 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA24794 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 14:24:24 -0500 Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (ursa.calvin.edu [153.106.4.1]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA12150 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 14:24:23 -0500 Received: from leviathan.calvin.edu (leviathan.calvin.edu [153.106.4.71]) by ursa.calvin.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA25698 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 15:24:21 -0400 Received: from LEVIATHAN/SpoolDir by leviathan.calvin.edu (Mercury 1.21); 29 May 96 15:23:21 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by LEVIATHAN (Mercury 1.21); 29 May 96 15:23:12 EST5EDT From: "John Baas" X-Real-Sender: JBAAS.Development.calvin To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 15:23:05 EST5EDT Subject: Big 10 predictions Reply-to: jbaas@calvin.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-ID: <3F7AE6A6EF2@leviathan.calvin.edu> > Also, UW will not finish in 8th place. 5th is about as low as they will > fall. If they finish 8th this year with this talent then we need to start > looking for some new coaches. Actually, the way Alvarez's name floats around anytime there's an NFL or big time college football coaching vacancy, if we finish any higher than 5th we might need to look for some new coaches as well. As for the Rose Bowl vs. the Coalition....I hope we stay out of it. The MNC is a myth. And even if a school thinks they got screwed ala PSU a couple of years ago, what have they lost? Maybe a blip in booster $ but certainly not enough to cripple the program. For sure nothing that would hamper the *educational* mission of the university (pardon the sarcasm). A playoff would generate some huge $$, very little of it filtering down to any teams other than the top 3 or 4. You think we have a problem with cheating and overemphasis on winning in college football now? Wait till they scrap the bowls in favor of a playoff. Sure, a playoff would work and the 14 game argument is lame, but I don't believe it would improve what already exists. JB From DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu Wed May 29 14:57:58 1996 Received: from cs.wisc.edu (cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.6]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA25575 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 14:57:47 -0500 Received: from INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (indst.indstate.edu [139.102.4.10]) by cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19793 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 14:57:31 -0500 Received: from amber.indstate.edu by INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Wed, 29 May 96 14:49:15 EST Received: from AMBER/SpoolDir by amber.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.21); 29 May 96 14:51:40 GMT-5 Received: from SpoolDir by AMBER (Mercury 1.22 beta); 29 May 96 14:51:17 GMT-5 From: "Jonathan C. Enslin" Organization: Indiana State University To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 14:51:07 GMT-5 Subject: Re: Big 10 predictions Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <1401722034D@amber.indstate.edu> > > Also, UW will not finish in 8th place. 5th is about as low as they will > > fall. If they finish 8th this year with this talent then we need to start > > looking for some new coaches. > > Actually, the way Alvarez's name floats around anytime there's an NFL > or big time college football coaching vacancy, if we finish any > higher than 5th we might need to look for some new coaches as well. Well, no offense but why do we believe the Badgers will be much better than last year? The running game was inconsistant last year, we have a new QB, we have a questionable defense with two of it's leaders graduating.... I mean there are many positives, and IMO eighth is a tad low, but I see no better than fifth. (Behind Michigan, OSU, PSU, and some other team like NW or Iowa.) > A playoff would generate some huge $$, very little of it > filtering down to any teams other than the top 3 or 4. You think we > have a problem with cheating and overemphasis on winning in college > football now? Wait till they scrap the bowls in favor of a playoff. Why don't we have a bowl type system for basketball then? There is nothing wrong with a playoff, and if more schools cheat, then toughen the penalties. And I agree with an earlier poster anyway - a playoff would bring more fan attendance and more $$$. I advocate a 16 team playoff with the ten conference winners (Big 10, big 12, Pac 10, WAC, Big West, CUSA, MAC, SEC, ACC, Big East), and six at large teams. Have the higher seeded team playing at home for the first two rounds and hold the semis and finals at neutral sites. It would take four weeks - all of December with the semis on Christmas and the championship on new year's. In fact they could still keep some of the bowls around to host the semis, championship, and even consolation games to pack up Jan. 1 as usual. I mean, have the losers in the round of 8 and the semis play games earlier in the day on the 1st to lead up to the championship later in the day. (I should write a letter or something!) Another thing. A playoff would IMO generate better non-conference games because strength of schedule would be a determinant in choosing the at-large teams. Jon *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From johne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Wed May 29 16:05:46 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA26925 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:05:41 -0500 Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (casbah.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.52]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA13908 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:05:39 -0500 From: johne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Received: by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (1.40.112.4/20.4) id AA038243908; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:05:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199605292105.AA038243908@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff To: MSONNEBO@lans.mha.org Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:05:08 -0500 (CDT) Cc: bucky@cs.wisc.edu In-Reply-To: <31AC957C@mailgtwy.mha.org> from "Mark Sonneborn" at May 29, 96 02:19:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1454 > Snipping from a couple of posts: > > realities of real life. How do you get the Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, etc to > agree to it?< > > Why do the Bowls hold any clout at all? The money? Playoffs would generate > MORE advertising dollars. The only thing they got is the tradition of > playing Bowl games and it doesn't have to be that way. I don't disagree with you at all. Playoffs would generate more money (and assuming that teams not in the top echelon of 4-16 teams would still play in bowl games). My point wasn't which generates more money, but who gets that money. Would the Rose Bowl reps accept being the non-final game? Would the coalition allow the Rose Bowl to always feature the final game? One of those two is going to be very hesitant about changing their contract, and the playoffs need support from both those groups to be successful. As I said last time, its doable, but you have to tempt those bowl reps with something... this isn't to mention those bowls that aren't a part of the playoffs system (because their can only be so many playoff teams) probably won't be ecstatic about a playoff system because they become more insignificant. But you're right, playoffs would most likely generate more money overall. John Tsau. Internet Address : johne@nwu.edu Internet Address 2, the Reawakening : tsauj@cpdmfg.cig.mot.com From morse@globaldialog.com Wed May 29 16:37:06 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA27411 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:37:01 -0500 Received: from msn.globaldialog.com (msn.globaldialog.com [156.46.122.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA14378 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:36:59 -0500 Received: from s20g.globaldialog.com (s20g.globaldialog.com [156.46.217.116]) by msn.globaldialog.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09449 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:36:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:36:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199605292136.QAA09449@msn.globaldialog.com> X-Sender: morse@pop.globaldialog.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: morse@globaldialog.com (Bob Morse) Subject: Re: Big 10 predictions >Well, no offense ... Pun intended? >... but why do we believe the Badgers will be much >better than last year? Don't you think Bucky was an underachiever (differential between on-paper talent and on-field performance) last year? I do. Even allowing for injuries and the inexperienced DBs, I still think they should have gone AT LEAST 6-5. And I place the lion's share of the blame on the lines (both of 'em) and on the not-so-special teams. I was VERY pleased to hear Alvarez identify "intensity" and "urgency" (and, by extension, "leader- ship") as missing elements in last year's line play, and I'm mightily encouraged to see his efforts at restoring those intangible yet critical qualities. >The running game was inconsistant last year, we have a new QB, .... The new QB makes me nervous, but he's certainly got better tools (arm and footspeed) than Bevell, and if he can just keep his head on straight and play within the system for a while I think we'll all forget about Bevell by October. The RBs are a year older and wiser, and should have the benefit of an improved line to run behind. And, as another poster so poetically noted here not long ago, the addition of Ron Dayne behind the beefed-up line conjures images of him "smashing through linebackers like a bowling ball through fine china" (or words to that effect). We're not so deep at WR, but Hayes and Simmons--if they stay healthy--may well be the cream of the league. And the up-and-coming TEs seem eminently qualified to fill Nyquist's shoes. Summary: IF Alvarez succeeds in his declared intention to juice up the O-line (and I believe he will), and IF Samuel can build some confidence in the first three non-conf games (and I believe he will), and IF Hayes and Simmons stay healthy (got me there--who knows?), I expect the Bucky O to be back in business--racking up 500+ yds and 30+ pts per game, and producing two 1000-yd RBs by the end of the year. >... we have a questionable defense with two of it's leaders graduating.... Yeah, but with nine others returning (including Monty, the finest LB in the conf), and a pretty slick DB depth chart. Seems to me that the new 8-man I-dare-ya-to-throw front is likely to pay immediate and season-long dividends with the experience, speed and depth we now have in the DBs. Last year we didn't have that luxury due to the DBs' inexperience. I look at last year's PSU and tOSU games as examples of what last year's D was capable of when they approached a game with the proper intensity, and again I expect Alvarez will succeed in his declared mission to juice up the D-line intensity. (Yeah, we lost to tOSU, but had held one of the nation's most potent offenses to just 3 pts until late in the game.) ======================================================================== Bob Morse : morse@globaldialog.com : Badger SoftWerks : Mt. Horeb, Wisc. ======================================================================== Badger SoftWerks: http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/bsw.htm InfoJunkies Anonymous: http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/ija.htm From toberman@earth.inwave.com Wed May 29 19:31:53 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29515 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 19:31:48 -0500 Received: from earth.inwave.com (earth.inwave.com [206.101.238.1]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA16700 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 19:31:47 -0500 Received: from port04.inwave.com (port04.inwave.com [206.101.238.104]) by earth.inwave.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27211 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 19:33:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199605300033.TAA27211@earth.inwave.com> X-Sender: toberman@inwave.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 19:28:44 -0500 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: Brad Edward Toberman Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff You have to basic ways of doing a playoff. Working with the established bowls (who have great power, influence, and $$$) or setting up a system like the NFL. A bowl playoff would be something like Outback and Sun in the first round, Cotton and Citrus in the second, and the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange fighting it out for the top spots. So your favorite team will play in Florida one weekend, Texas the next, Florida, and Then California. How many fans can afford that? This has turned from a nice week long vacation into expensive weekend jaunts. What kind of attendance will a first round game between Colorado and UCLA have in Florida? Instead of a week long pomp and pageantry of a bowl, you now have another road game. Profits to be determined by the NCAA. A NFL style playoff would kill off the bowls all together (a very hard thing to do). All games expect the Championship would be played at home sites, thus guaranteeing good crowds. Then you would see Miami (not of Ohio) going to Colorado, Ohio State, or some other tropical stadium. The Championship would rotate sites just like the Super Bowl (tm). Profits would be determined by the almighty NCAA. You could then turn this into the circus that is the NCAA men's basketball tournament. A circus that has not improved the TV rating for the Championship game. The highest rated Championship game was the MSU (Magic Johnson) vs. Indiana State (Larry Bryd) game long before the 64 team bracket idea. I don't like the NCAA basketball tournament. Even if you do like, there are a lot of problems with it (especially the seeding process). I don't think it is the kind of thing we need to turn college football into. Money. First off the Big Ten isn't hurting in the money area. Only the N(d)BC conference has a better TV deal. Maybe a playoff would create more money, but you would be sharing it with a lot more schools. How long do you think the coalition will be the big payout, with the kind of ratings it got this year? It was the dream season for you MNC types. Two undefeated teams face off on the field. Winner takes all, yet the Rose Bowl had more viewers. Then you say a playoff would be a better build up to it. It hasn't helped basketball ratings. Yes, more people watch the first rounds, but the championship game has gone down in ratings over the years. I have attended both of Wisconsin past two bowls and several NCAA hockey and women's basketball tournaments. Bowls are a lot more fun. I love hockey. I watch all the college hockey I can, but bowls are more fun. Fun for fans, Fun for players, and the Big Ten makes big bucks from it. More than any playoff could offer us. Why do we need a National Champion? We haven't had one for 126 years. I don't think a MNC would beat the feeling of seeing the Badgers win the Rose Bowl in 1994. I don't think Nebraska (or any school for that matter) had the kind of excitement we had here in Madison over the Rose Bowl, when they won their MNC. Why mess with a good thing? What would a playoff do to improve Badger football? Brad and On Wisconsin! WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Brad Edward Toberman Songs to thee Wisconsin 608-758-3570 Ever let us sing toberman@inwave.com Praise to alma mater Big Ten Champs 1993 Ever let us bring Rose Bowl Champs 1994 Queen of all the West Hall of Fame Bowl Champs 1995 College we love best WCHA Tournament Champs 1995 Queen of all the West College we love best. WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW From DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu Thu May 30 07:48:03 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA09522 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 07:47:58 -0500 Received: from INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (indst.indstate.edu [139.102.4.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22411 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 07:47:56 -0500 Received: from amber.indstate.edu by INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Thu, 30 May 96 07:48:02 EST Received: from AMBER/SpoolDir by amber.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.21); 30 May 96 07:50:29 GMT-5 Received: from SpoolDir by AMBER (Mercury 1.22 beta); 30 May 96 07:50:18 GMT-5 From: "Jonathan C. Enslin" Organization: Indiana State University To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 07:50:15 GMT-5 Subject: Re: Big 10 predictions Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-ID: <15113505210@amber.indstate.edu> > Don't you think Bucky was an underachiever (differential between on-paper > talent and on-field performance) last year? I do. Even allowing for > injuries and the inexperienced DBs, I still think they should have gone > AT LEAST 6-5. Well, 4-5-2 isn't far from 6-5 frankly. (Two Hall missed FGs to be exact.) Did they underperform? With a new OL with new RBs and a new secondary? Maybe last year's team simply wasn't that good. (I'm kind of playing devil's advocate.) > And I place the lion's share of the blame on the lines > (both of 'em) and on the not-so-special teams. I was VERY pleased to hear > Alvarez identify "intensity" and "urgency" (and, by extension, "leader- > ship") as missing elements in last year's line play, and I'm mightily > encouraged to see his efforts at restoring those intangible yet critical > qualities. > See that is stuff that WE hear, but national publications that come out with this stuff don't. Every coach says something similar. (stuff deleted) Look, you are probably right, but from the perspective of a grocery-store-rack type publication, there are more questions than answers. Jon *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu Thu May 30 08:00:04 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA09588 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 07:59:55 -0500 Received: from INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (indst.indstate.edu [139.102.4.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22478 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 07:59:52 -0500 Received: from amber.indstate.edu by INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Thu, 30 May 96 07:59:57 EST Received: from AMBER/SpoolDir by amber.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.21); 30 May 96 08:02:23 GMT-5 Received: from SpoolDir by AMBER (Mercury 1.22 beta); 30 May 96 08:02:05 GMT-5 From: "Jonathan C. Enslin" Organization: Indiana State University To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 08:01:56 GMT-5 Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-ID: <15145967A13@amber.indstate.edu> > A bowl playoff would be something like Outback and Sun in the first round, > Cotton and Citrus in the second, and the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange > fighting it out for the top spots. So your favorite team will play in > Florida one weekend, Texas the next, Florida, and Then California. How many > fans can afford that? > This has turned from a nice week long vacation into > expensive weekend jaunts. What kind of attendance will a first round game > between Colorado and UCLA have in Florida? Instead of a week long pomp and > pageantry of a bowl, you now have another road game. > > A NFL style playoff would kill off the bowls all together (a very hard thing > to do). YIPEE!!!! >All games expect the Championship would be played at home sites, > thus guaranteeing good crowds. Then you would see Miami (not of Ohio) going > to Colorado, Ohio State, or some other tropical stadium. The Championship > would rotate sites just like the Super Bowl (tm). This is done at every level of college football and hasn't been a problem. I don't see why you constantly harass the NCAA. If all conference winners are guaranteed a spot, and you only have six at-large teams, there isn't much room for funny business. > > You could then turn this into the circus that is the NCAA men's basketball > tournament. A circus that has not improved the TV rating for the > Championship game. The highest rated Championship game was the MSU (Magic > Johnson) vs. Indiana State (Larry Bryd) game long before the 64 team bracket > idea. I don't like the NCAA basketball tournament. Even if you do like, > there are a lot of problems with it (especially the seeding >process). How would you improve the NCAA selection and seeding process? Would you create bunch of bowls for college basketball. Also, when MSU beat ISU, there were 48 teams in the tournament. They have only added a half a round since. The problems basketball is going through have to do with over-exposure during the regular season and stars leaving early. BTW, it's Larry Bird (no "y") > Money. First off the Big Ten isn't hurting in the money area. Only the > N(d)BC conference has a better TV deal. Maybe a playoff would create more > money, but you would be sharing it with a lot more schools. How long do you > think the coalition will be the big payout, with the kind of ratings it got > this year? It was the dream season for you MNC types. Two undefeated teams > face off on the field. Winner takes all, yet the Rose Bowl had more > viewers. Well, one of the reasons the Rose had more viewers was because of Northwestern and the fact that a team from greater Chicago and a team from LA were playing. >Then you say a playoff would be a better build up to it. It > hasn't helped basketball ratings. How can you say that? There has always been a basketball playoff! You have nothing to compare it to. You want to see ratings plummet even further, start basketball bowls. > I have attended both of Wisconsin past two bowls and several NCAA hockey and > women's basketball tournaments. Bowls are a lot more fun. I love hockey. > I watch all the college hockey I can, but bowls are more fun. Fun for fans, > Fun for players, and the Big Ten makes big bucks from it. More than any > playoff could offer us. Why do we need a National Champion? We haven't had > one for 126 years. I don't think a MNC would beat the feeling of seeing the > Badgers win the Rose Bowl in 1994. I don't think Nebraska (or any school > for that matter) had the kind of excitement we had here in Madison over the > Rose Bowl, when they won their MNC. Why mess with a good thing? What would > a playoff do to improve Badger football? That's the first good reason you've had in your post. Jon *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From Dave_Neperud-CDN004@email.mot.com Thu May 30 09:05:51 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10643 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:05:46 -0500 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (motgate2.mot.com [129.188.136.20]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23177 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:05:44 -0500 From: Dave_Neperud-CDN004@email.mot.com Received: from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with ESMTP id OAA09688 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:04:06 GMT Received: from ilbx.mot.com (ilbx.mot.com [129.188.137.185]) by pobox.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with SMTP id JAA27081 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:05:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ilbx.mot.com (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA20347; Thu, 30 May 96 09:05:41 -0500 Received: by email.mot.com via Worldtalk with X400 (3.0.4/1.64) id WT18984.113; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:05:40 CDT Date: 30 May 96 09:03:50 -0500 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Subject: RE: Big 10 predictions Message-Id: <"Macintosh */PRMD=MOT/ADMD=MOT/C=US/"@MHS> I'd agree in the statement that last year's team wasn't that good. But everybody's expectations were too high to begin with. After all they had to replace a large portion of a starting lineup that had been together for several years. No matter how talented the replacements are they have to play together before results occur. Look at the season before the Rose Bowl, the offense was pitiful (very similar to last years). But these same players set records the next year. That is why there is hope for this year, the significant offensive players (minus Bevell) return and Bevell never struck fear into the opposing teams. A comment about Ron Dayne. I think people need to cool off a bit about expecting great things from him from day 1. The history of Parade All-Americans is 1/3 become stars, 1/3 contribute, and 1/3 never see the playing field. I hope he is a star but you can't plan on him being a large chunk of your offense even before his first practice. ________________________________________________________ To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu@INTERNET From: DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu@INTERNET on Thu, May 30, 1996 8:24 AM Subject: Re: Big 10 predictions Precedence: bulk X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN > Don't you think Bucky was an underachiever (differential between on-paper > talent and on-field performance) last year? I do. Even allowing for > injuries and the inexperienced DBs, I still think they should have gone > AT LEAST 6-5. Well, 4-5-2 isn't far from 6-5 frankly. (Two Hall missed FGs to be exact.) Did they underperform? With a new OL with new RBs and a new secondary? Maybe last year's team simply wasn't that good. (I'm kind of playing devil's advocate.) > And I place the lion's share of the blame on the lines > (both of 'em) and on the not-so-special teams. I was VERY pleased to hear > Alvarez identify "intensity" and "urgency" (and, by extension, "leader- > ship") as missing elements in last year's line play, and I'm mightily > encouraged to see his efforts at restoring those intangible yet critical > qualities. > See that is stuff that WE hear, but national publications that come out with this stuff don't. Every coach says something similar. (stuff deleted) Look, you are probably right, but from the perspective of a grocery-store-rack type publication, there are more questions than answers. Jon *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From jadopke@students.wisc.edu Thu May 30 09:29:17 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10899 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:29:13 -0500 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23464 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:29:12 -0500 Received: from [144.92.91.245] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id JAA17614; 8.6.9W/42; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:29:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199605301429.JAA17614@audumla.students.wisc.edu> Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:26:03 -0600 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: jadopke@students.wisc.edu (Joel A. Dopke) Subject: playoff on 5/29 Brad wrote... I have attended both of Wisconsin past two bowls and several NCAA hockey and women's basketball tournaments. Bowls are a lot more fun. I love hockey. I watch all the college hockey I can, but bowls are more fun. Fun for fans, Fun for players, and the Big Ten makes big bucks from it. More than any playoff could offer us. Why do we need a National Champion? We haven't had one for 126 years. I don't think a MNC would beat the feeling of seeing the Badgers win the Rose Bowl in 1994. I don't think Nebraska (or any school for that matter) had the kind of excitement we had here in Madison over the Rose Bowl, when they won their MNC. Why mess with a good thing? What would a playoff do to improve Badger football? Hear Hear!! Joel From jadopke@students.wisc.edu Thu May 30 09:41:30 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10961 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:41:25 -0500 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23585 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:41:24 -0500 Received: from [144.92.91.245] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id JAA100468; 8.6.9W/42; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:41:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199605301441.JAA100468@audumla.students.wisc.edu> Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:38:15 -0600 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: jadopke@students.wisc.edu (Joel A. Dopke) Subject: Parade A.A.'s On 5/29, Dave Neprud wrote... >A comment about Ron Dayne. I think people need to cool off a bit about >expecting great things from him from day 1. The history of Parade >All-Americans is 1/3 become stars, 1/3 contribute, and 1/3 never see the >playing field. I hope he is a star but you can't plan on him being a large >chunk of your offense even before his first practice. Its a point well taken. But when I posted the original "Bowling ball through..." comment that was based largely on high school FB footage. Keeping in mind that the average Wisconsin HS linebacker is probably 6-0, 210 lbs (just a guess), a 250 lb. running back (we had one at East Troy HS in the late '80s) will wreak havoc with most defenses if he has any skill at all. Dayne probably played against teams that sported lineups more bulked up than your average Wisconsin HS team, but the fact remains that he still hasn't played a college game. I am very curious to see what happens on the college level since he supposedly has such great athleticism for a man his size. But in all truth (and I may get some flak for this), the best thing for Ron Dayne and the UW might be to redshirt a year. The RB rotation is established and experienced. McCullough has caught some flak here, but he still was the workhorse last year and Alvarez is loyal to his standbys (unless they put the ball on the ground). The only advantage of playing Dayne is that he may push the veterans. If he does turn out to be something special right away, more power to him. Joel From DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu Thu May 30 10:13:24 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA11577 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 10:13:16 -0500 Received: from INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (indst.indstate.edu [139.102.4.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA24040 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 10:13:14 -0500 Received: from amber.indstate.edu by INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Thu, 30 May 96 10:13:21 EST Received: from AMBER/SpoolDir by amber.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.21); 30 May 96 10:15:48 GMT-5 Received: from SpoolDir by AMBER (Mercury 1.22 beta); 30 May 96 10:15:47 GMT-5 From: "Jonathan C. Enslin" Organization: Indiana State University To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:15:43 GMT-5 Subject: Interesting Trivia Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-ID: <1538018735E@amber.indstate.edu> I just heard this on the radio today: D. Wayne Lukas, the famous horse trainer, was an assistant basketball coach at the University of Wisconsin, and the head coach at UW-La Crosse, before he started training horses full-time. Jon *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From Lls52@aol.com Thu May 30 10:57:37 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12297 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 10:57:31 -0500 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24686 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 10:57:29 -0500 From: Lls52@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29029 for bucky@cs.wisc.edu; Thu, 30 May 1996 11:57:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 11:57:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960530115724_123950515@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Subject: Ron Dayne There have been a couple of posts recently about what to expect or not expect from Ron this year. A fellow posted the following on AOL's Wisconsin Football Sports Board - Track & Field News has reported that Ron Dayne achieved the 8th best prep shot put in the country - just over 64 ft. Sounds like Ron has the potential to be the real thing. From mike.kilbey@ces.clemson.edu Thu May 30 12:43:44 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14399 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 12:43:38 -0500 Received: from eng.clemson.edu (eng.clemson.edu [130.127.200.5]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26309 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 12:43:36 -0500 Received: from [130.127.222.110] by eng.clemson.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1) id NAA04001; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:42:44 -0400 X-Sender: mkilbey@ces.clemson.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:44:33 -0400 To: Lls52@aol.com From: mike.kilbey@ces.clemson.edu (Michael Kilbey) Subject: Re: Ron Dayne Cc: Bucky Badger s Followers At 11:57 AM 5/30/96, Lls52@aol.com wrote: >There have been a couple of posts recently about what to expect or not expect >from Ron this year. A fellow posted the following on AOL's Wisconsin Football >Sports Board - Track & Field News has reported that Ron Dayne achieved the >8th best prep shot put in the country - just over 64 ft. Sounds like Ron has >the potential to be the real thing. As a back or shot-putter? Perhaps another Renaldo Neihemiah (sp) - type . . . : ) Mike From 71202.3230@CompuServe.COM Thu May 30 12:46:34 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14432 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 12:46:28 -0500 Received: from hil-img-4.compuserve.com (hil-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.215.204]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26353 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 12:46:27 -0500 Received: by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA26222; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:46:26 -0400 Date: 30 May 96 13:45:04 EDT From: Jonathan Newlander <71202.3230@CompuServe.COM> To: Bucky Followers Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff Message-ID: <960530174504_71202.3230_GHL124-1@CompuServe.COM> One thing that always bothers me about some of the reasons used to justify a play-off system is this. Almost invariably, you hear the comparisons with basketball...oh, basketball does it, so what's the big deal? Well, basketball games are played in arenas that hold generally under 30,000 fans. And most are well under that, generally in the 18,000 to 24,000 range. Granted, sometimes they'll play playoff games at the Hoosier Dome or Metro Dome, so big-time crowds can fit in there, but those are more the exception. But when you're talking NCAA basketball playoffs, it's important to remember that those who buy their tickets generally see more than just one game a night, unless it's a regional final, championship game, or the something like that. It doesn't strike me as all too hard to sell out when each night of a play-off there are fans for 4 teams to sell tickets to, and oh by the way, you only need to sell 20,000 of them. Every city in the country has some people who are big enough sports fans to go see March Madness in person just because it's March Madness. Then there are the local alumni groups, maybe some friends or families of players on the team who happen to be playing their games back in their hometowns, maybe some really devoted fans who follow the team around site to site. But you're still talking about 4 teams and only 20,000 tickets to sell at each arena per night. But football games would be much harder to fill. Would 80,000 people go watch Virginia Tech play Kansas in a first round game in Tempe, Shreveport or Tampa? I doubt it. But anyway, my opposition to a playoff system for football isn't rooted in it's practicality or impracticality. I think traditions such as New Year's Day Bowl games, and the Rose Bowl in particular, are too important to be trampled for something as trivial as determining a 'true' national champion. From JBAAS@leviathan.calvin.edu Thu May 30 13:51:56 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16112 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:51:51 -0500 Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (ursa.calvin.edu [153.106.4.1]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA27430 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:51:49 -0500 Received: from leviathan.calvin.edu (leviathan.calvin.edu [153.106.4.71]) by ursa.calvin.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA23356 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:51:47 -0400 Received: from LEVIATHAN/SpoolDir by leviathan.calvin.edu (Mercury 1.21); 30 May 96 14:50:47 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by LEVIATHAN (Mercury 1.21); 30 May 96 14:50:20 EST5EDT From: "John Baas" X-Real-Sender: JBAAS.Development.calvin To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:50:11 EST5EDT Subject: Football vs Basketball (was Bowls vs Playoffs) Reply-to: jbaas@calvin.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Message-ID: <40F239F02D9@leviathan.calvin.edu> The arguments for or against a football playoff based on the NC$$ basketball dance are really apples vs oranges. Each NC$$ football game in an event. Alumni and boosters road tripping from everywhere to spend the day at the stadium; the tail-gate party, the band etc. NC$$ basketball games are just games. Big games, not so important games...nothing even comes close to the nature of a football weekend until the final 4. That's why the bowls work so well...parades, pep rallies, marching bands...it's hard to imagine a playoff system improving on that (particularly if Nebraksa or Michigan is playing a home game in December). Maybe a playoff would work. Heck, I might even like it after a year or two. But the only up-side I can see (especially in the Big 10) is that you get to crown a playoff champion (and NOT necessarily the undisputed best team in the land). I don't think the loss of the tradition and pageantry of the Bowls would be worth it. JB From MSONNEBO@lans.mha.org Thu May 30 13:56:23 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16251 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:56:02 -0500 Received: from vixa.voyager.net (vixa.voyager.net [198.109.136.2]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA27486 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:55:59 -0500 Received: from mailgtwy.mha.org (mailgtwy.mha.org [198.109.138.3]) by vixa.voyager.net (8.7.3/CICNet) with SMTP id OAA10967; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mailgtwy.mha.org with Microsoft Mail id <31ADEF24@mailgtwy.mha.org>; Thu, 30 May 96 14:55:32 EDT From: Mark Sonneborn To: johne Cc: "'Bucky list'" Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff Date: Thu, 30 May 96 14:54:00 EDT Message-ID: <31ADEF24@mailgtwy.mha.org> Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 >As I said last time, its doable, but you have to tempt those bowl reps with something... this isn't to mention those bowls that aren't a part of the playoffs system (because their can only be so many playoff teams) probably won't be ecstatic about a playoff system because they become more insignificant.< Again, why do you have to involve the bowl reps at all? IMO, they are in a weak position to do any negotiating. From toberman@earth.inwave.com Thu May 30 14:09:11 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16551 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:09:05 -0500 Received: from earth.inwave.com (earth.inwave.com [206.101.238.1]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA27720 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:09:04 -0500 Received: from port05.inwave.com (port05.inwave.com [206.101.238.105]) by earth.inwave.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA21995 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:11:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199605301911.OAA21995@earth.inwave.com> X-Sender: toberman@inwave.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:05:58 -0500 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: Brad Edward Toberman Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff At 08:01 30/5/96 GMT-5, you wrote: >>All games expect the Championship would be played at home sites, >> thus guaranteeing good crowds. Then you would see Miami (not of Ohio) going >> to Colorado, Ohio State, or some other tropical stadium. The Championship >> would rotate sites just like the Super Bowl (tm). > >This is done at every level of college football and hasn't been a >problem. I don't see why you constantly harass the NCAA. If all >conference winners are guaranteed a spot, and you only have six >at-large teams, there isn't much room for funny business. I prefer the NFL method of playoff over a bowl related one. The problem I see is one, killing off the bowls and two, getting schools to agree on playing at home sites. I don't see how you can kill the bowls and I don't see the SEC or ACC agreeing to a playoff game up north. >How would you improve the NCAA selection and seeding process? Would >you create bunch of bowls for college basketball. Also, when MSU beat ISU, >there were 48 teams in the tournament. They have >only added a half a round since. The problems basketball is going >through have to do with over-exposure during the regular season and stars >leaving early. > >BTW, it's Larry Bird (no "y") I would let all teams in. If you are going to let teams in with a losing record simply because they won some stupid three game conference tournament, then let them all in. Set up the seeding process ahead of time. Take the human element out of it. I don't care what kind of computer program you use, but every coach would be happier knowing exactly what he or she has to do to get a certain seed. They shouldn't be this guessing in the seeding process. I think it was crap that Purdue got a number 1 seed, that UWGB might not of made the tournament simply because they lost one game in there conference tournament, and why is Central Florida playing basketball in March. I think bowls for basketball would be a pretty dumb idea. Sorry about the Larry Bird misspelling. >Well, one of the reasons the Rose had more viewers was because of >Northwestern and the fact that a team from greater Chicago and a team >from LA were playing. Another reason was because Northwestern was a better story than, who won the MNC. People care more about a good story than who is the best. >>Then you say a playoff would be a better build up to it. It >> hasn't helped basketball ratings. > >How can you say that? There has always been a basketball playoff! >You have nothing to compare it to. You want to see ratings plummet >even further, start basketball bowls. I am saying that expanding the field to 64 did not improve ratings for the championship game. I don't believe creating a football playoff will create better ratings for a championship game. People will choose a great story, like a Northwestern season, over a game between the two best teams in the nation. They already have. Brad and On Wisconsin! WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Brad Edward Toberman Songs to thee Wisconsin 608-758-3570 Ever let us sing toberman@inwave.com Praise to alma mater Big Ten Champs 1993 Ever let us bring Rose Bowl Champs 1994 Queen of all the West Hall of Fame Bowl Champs 1995 College we love best WCHA Tournament Champs 1995 Queen of all the West College we love best. WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW From johne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Fri May 31 00:29:42 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA00673 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 00:29:25 -0500 Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu (casbah.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.52]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04263 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 23:24:29 -0500 From: johne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Received: by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (1.40.112.4/20.4) id AA091606637; Thu, 30 May 1996 23:23:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199605310423.AA091606637@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff To: MSONNEBO@lans.mha.org (Mark Sonneborn) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 23:23:57 -0500 (CDT) Cc: BUCKY@cs.wisc.edu In-Reply-To: <31ADEF24@mailgtwy.mha.org> from "Mark Sonneborn" at May 30, 96 02:54:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 852 > >As I said last time, its doable, but you have to tempt those bowl reps with > something... this isn't to mention those bowls that aren't a part of the > playoffs system (because their can only be so many playoff teams) probably > won't be ecstatic about a playoff system because they become more > insignificant.< > > Again, why do you have to involve the bowl reps at all? IMO, they are in a > weak position to do any negotiating. Hardly. The Big10 and Pac10 have a contract with the Rose Bowl through the year 2000 at least. You either wait or you tempt them with something. I don't know how long other bowl contracts are written out for... are there contracts with the coalition bowls (fiesta, sugar, etc?) John Tsau. Internet Address : johne@nwu.edu Internet Address 2, the Reawakening : tsauj@cpdmfg.cig.mot.com From MSONNEBO@lans.mha.org Fri May 31 06:52:07 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06406 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from vixa.voyager.net (vixa.voyager.net [198.109.136.2]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07192 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:51:59 -0500 Received: from mailgtwy.mha.org (mailgtwy.mha.org [198.109.138.3]) by vixa.voyager.net (8.7.3/CICNet) with SMTP id HAA04011; Fri, 31 May 1996 07:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mailgtwy.mha.org with Microsoft Mail id <31AEDD44@mailgtwy.mha.org>; Fri, 31 May 96 07:51:32 EDT From: Mark Sonneborn To: johne Cc: "'Bucky list'" Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff Date: Fri, 31 May 96 07:51:00 EDT Message-ID: <31AEDD44@mailgtwy.mha.org> Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 >The Big10 and Pac10 have a contract with the Rose Bowl through the year 2000 at least. You either wait or you tempt them with something.< Ok, good point. I would rather wait until the contracts run out and cut the Bowls off completely with no say. If we keep them in the loop at all, they will ruin the tradition and we'll have the stupid Alliance and never a playoff. As for tempting them with something, I have heard the concept of keeping the Bowls as sites for playoff games, but this disadvantages northern teams (all the Bowls are in the South). The ONLY thing I would tempt them with is money for the remainder of their contract, but they're not likely to go for it. Nope, I say wait them out. From jadopke@students.wisc.edu Fri May 31 09:19:32 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10150 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 09:19:24 -0500 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08763 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 09:19:23 -0500 Received: from [144.92.91.245] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id JAA31738; 8.6.9W/42; Fri, 31 May 1996 09:19:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199605311419.JAA31738@audumla.students.wisc.edu> Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 09:16:12 -0600 To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: jadopke@students.wisc.edu (Joel A. Dopke) Subject: bowl... On 5/31 Mark S. wrote >Ok, good point. I would rather wait until the contracts run out and cut the >Bowls off completely with no say. If we keep them in the loop at all, they >will ruin the tradition and we'll have the stupid Alliance and never a >playoff. What do you think public reaction would be to the NCAA attempting to cut off the bowls altogether? I think there's enough pro-Bowl sentiment (probably more pro-Bowl than pro-playoff) that the NCAA would have a PR nightmare on their hands. They'd have to make it appear that there was an agreement/compromise reached or else it would appear that the "monopoly" on college sports was ruining a tradition that people have a soft spot for. Joel From 71202.3230@CompuServe.COM Fri May 31 11:25:04 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12835 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 11:24:42 -0500 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10734 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 11:24:39 -0500 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA07575; Fri, 31 May 1996 12:24:37 -0400 Date: 31 May 96 12:23:31 EDT From: Jonathan Newlander <71202.3230@CompuServe.COM> To: Bucky Followers Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff Message-ID: <960531162330_71202.3230_GHL82-1@CompuServe.COM> > Ok, good point. I would rather wait until the contracts run out and cut the > Bowls off completely with no say. If we keep them in the loop at all, they > will ruin the tradition and we'll have the stupid Alliance and never a > playoff. I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying here. On the one hand, you say that if we give the Bowls a say, that will ruin the tradition...but won't a playoff ruin the mystique of New Years Day bowl games, and in so doing, a lot of the pageantry and tradition of the game itself? Although I'm no fan of the Alliance, at least it doesn't rip out the existing structure in the name of progress. > As for tempting them with something, I have heard the concept of keeping the > Bowls as sites for playoff games, but this disadvantages northern teams (all > the Bowls are in the South). The ONLY thing I would tempt them with is > money for the remainder of their contract, but they're not likely to go for > it. Nope, I say wait them out. There's a problem with practicality here. Just like any other contracts, the Bowl contracts do not all expire at the same time. Rose goes through 2000 I think. A couple just recently reconfigured their arrangements...Holiday and Outback come to mind. I doubt they'll expire before the Rose does. There are also some that probably come due in the next year or two. The whole Alliance is a structure designed to work for a few years and then renegotiate. I just don't see how it's possible, given the non-uniform contract expirations, to 'wait them out.' From DEVENSLI@amber.indstate.edu Fri May 31 13:23:28 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16773 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 13:23:22 -0500 Received: from INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (indst.indstate.edu [139.102.4.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13020 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 13:23:20 -0500 Received: from amber.indstate.edu by INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 31 May 96 13:23:28 EST Received: from AMBER/SpoolDir by amber.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.21); 31 May 96 13:25:57 GMT-5 Received: from SpoolDir by AMBER (Mercury 1.22 beta); 31 May 96 13:25:37 GMT-5 From: "Jonathan C. Enslin" Organization: Indiana State University To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 13:25:34 GMT-5 Subject: Re: Bowl vs playoff Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <16EAAA23676@amber.indstate.edu> I think many of us are missing a point. A playoff would not eliminate the bowls. Think of it this way. If you had a 16 team playoff in early December, the teams that lost in the first or second round would still be eligible for bowls near the beginning of the year. They could also then work out an agreement between the four major bowls to host semifinal games, a consolation game, and the championship game on a rotating basis. The vast majority of teams would not be effected by this. Unless Wisconsin wins the Big Ten, they would still me able to go to the Citrus, Holiday, Outback...whatever. Most of the bowls would be unaffected by this. The advantage therefore is to uncomplicate the national championship picture, get more $$, and hopefully create something more entertaining. Jon *********************************************************************** Jonathan C. Enslin devensli@amber.indstate.edu Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations Indiana State University Telephone: (812) 237-7609 Terre Haute, IN 47809 FAX: (812) 237-7797 "O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!" *********************************************************************** From morse@globaldialog.com Fri May 31 14:49:12 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.11]) by sea.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA18416 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 14:48:55 -0500 Received: from msn.globaldialog.com (msn.globaldialog.com [156.46.122.10]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14329 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 14:48:53 -0500 Received: from s08a.globaldialog.com (s08a.globaldialog.com [156.46.122.72]) by msn.globaldialog.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01839 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 14:48:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 14:48:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199605311948.OAA01839@msn.globaldialog.com> X-Sender: morse@pop.globaldialog.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bucky@cs.wisc.edu From: morse@globaldialog.com (Bob Morse) Subject: BOWLS, PLAYOFFS AND THE MNC I posted this suggestion to r.s.f.c. last fall, and it was roundly ridiculed, so I'm only too proud to offer it up once again. (I still think it's a good idea.) Instead of a structured multi-team playoff (with or without bowls), all college teams simply begin juggling their schedules to shift one non-conf game to the last slot in the season. Then, in the school- to-school game contract, you insert one little escape clause, so that any team that is ranked in the top 5 (or 10) as of that last week may cancel the game to reschedule against another top-5 (or top-10) team. Presumably that would give us a "mini-super Saturday" (or perhaps Thanksgiving Day) of pre-bowl matchups that would settle most disputes (e.g., 94 PSU vs Nebraska) on the field, and yet still leave the entire traditional bowl system untouched. It'd be like having two New Years every year! And the orphaned schools could simply reschedule against each other for their final games. Between the existing bowls and this extra ad-hoc opportunity for top teams to play each other (independent of conference bowl commitments), I think a system like this would largely eliminate the "M" from "MNC." I think the most substantive complaint I saw about this idea last fall was that it would be chaotic trying to organize those final- week matchups (including accommodating the orphaned teams). (One guy ROTFL-ed at the thought of all those ADs scrambling to put games together within 48 hrs--like musical chairs.) But it would only affect a dozen or so teams, and not knowing where you're playing until a week beforehand is not without precedent in other sports' playoff systems. The worst of it would probably be the inability of traveling fans to make any plans in advance, but how many fans travel to regular-season away games anyway? ======================================================================== Bob Morse : morse@globaldialog.com : Badger SoftWerks : Mt. Horeb, Wisc. ======================================================================== Badger SoftWerks: http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/bsw.htm InfoJunkies Anonymous: http://www.globaldialog.com/~morse/ija.htm