How does Congrove do this?

[Spence]

Most computer polls don't bias their polls knowingly if they are bias at all. If there is bias it comes from what they think is important when writing the formula. Anyone who "frontloaded" the numbers would be "found out" right away. It would be obvious. Besides what would a guy who created a fixed poll get out of it? He would know what he did and that his system is bogus. It wouldn't makes sense. If he didn't have a good track record, no one would pay attention to it.

[Eric]

Right. Why would it matter to the formula maker where his team ends up? All that should matter is the accuracy of the formula.

[Spence]

Exactly! That is where the money is going to be made if there ever is money. I could create a poll that put Ohio State tops on the list every year, but no one would care.

[mountainman]

LOL...more of "it's a dark conspiracy against Wext Virginia", etc.

Yep...writers, pollsters, rankers, all line up to conspire to drag down WVU....mention WVU's weak schedule and it's an attack on WVU...rank WVU based on perceived power in the national rank, rather than on predicteded number of wins, and it's a conspiracy.

Here's the 1st half of your post I am referencing by saying I don't know where you came up with this, based on what was posted by BlackpowerEER.

I do not think that ranking algorithimns are designed to "assist" some schools and to "devalue" others...although the basic philosphy behind the logic sequences may incidentally do so (such as some systems put more value on the total number of predicted wins others value more highly wins vs value of opponents).

The seasons have a way of sorting themselves out...

Here's the 2nd half of the same post where I said I thought you were correct and right on point.

[Cane from the Bend]

There are so many veriabls that go into poll ranking problems.

Back in 2001, the widely debated BCS was a standingargument from both sides:

Computer Poll Supporters
Human Poll Supporters

We, as frequent participants of the site, wereasked to give our argument in favor of the Human poll.

Actally, I believe the question dawned on us, was;

Do the Human Polls have too much Say in Determining the Rankings?

Members were asked to e-mail their thoughts on the subject, and the site creaters were oing to choose one response to post up on the site.

It was my reponse that was posted, and, reminents of that topic have appeared, here, in this thread.

Let's look at some of the factors that influence judgement, and se if you agree with this context.

1.) The computers are flawed, do to human imput.
a.) a computer can only decipher what a human programs into it
b.) computers can not guage things such as; moion, heart, teamwork, individule efforts, coaching adjustments, appreciation of a well executed play, momentum shifts, tams getting rattled and losing focus, teams playing down to the wire and stepping up when it count, ect, ect...
c.) computers only filter statistics, numbers, analytical data

2.) Human polls are flawed because of bias opinions and inefficiant information.
a.) media preseason polls rank teams by who garners the most attention, ie. ND being ranked #3 simply because they played usc so close last year, Louisille being ranked so high due to a favorable schedule, ect...- which in effect harms a team who is unranked in the preseason because of an understanding by pollsters to not drop a ranked team too far down after a loss, ie. ND umping from ranked 42 to #10 after beating Michigan in their opening game, then dropping to #14 after losing to Michigan St in South Bend the next week
b.) caoches poll during the season, because there is no way a coach preparing for the next game has time enough to watch every taam they use in their rankings to accurately postion them accordingly
c.) a coach might rank a team higher so that when his team plays them it will benefit his own interest, people tend to vote in favor of their own favorite teams
d.) one poll may rank teams deliberately in contradictory to another poll in an effort to sway viewer opinion, and show lack of credibility to the rival poll
e.) teams being ranke by the strength of their schedules before they even play one game, based on what conference a team is in

In truth, there is no way to incur an unbias ranking system.

Someone is always going to feel left out.
And someone is always going to say their poll is more credble than someone else's.

My biggest complaint has been the preseason polls.

Too much confussion, and an unfair advantage for those ranked teams.

Take Colorado Loves Football's exhuasting rantings for example.

Let's say their were no Preseason polls.
Instead, the first polls would be released after every teams has played their first game.

TCU would have been in the top 15 following their first game, in that for instance.

Now, if we were fair, then, we would have no set number of positions ateam could drop after one loss.

So, in affect, TCU would have still dropped out of the top 25 following their loss to SMU.

However, that ins't the case.

And, for those human polls that are calculated into the BCS equation, after week 8, the computer has an already predetermined analysis.

And when adding the compiled formula, the typical viewer is likely to be confused, because his or her favorite team, that was once ranked #12, is now ranked #22, without even losing a game.

It has happened.

If the BCS wants to have an even field to start ith, then, all of the poll component should not be allowed a ranking list until week 5.

Week 8 is too long to wait for most viewers. People are impatient.

And weeks 1-4 are too soon to build a concise evaluation of team accomplishment & progress.

And, if all BCS component were released at the same time, then, there would be no controversy due to position changes. As, all of the data would be released at the same time.

This would also slap the mdia in the face, as, they would be "Oh So" exposed for their bias opinions, and rating manipulations.

Remember:

There are 119 NCAA D-1A College Football Teams.

At the beginning of each season, the field, statistically is even -
0 = Offense
0 = Defense
0 = Special Teams
0 = Wins
0 = Losses

Giving a team a preseason ranking, is giving them an unfair advantage.

If a team is ranked #1 in the preseason polls, it will be difficult (next to impossible) to catch them as a team who was not given a preseason ranking.

This is also why, preseason Heisman hype is unair.

To say someone is a candidate for the heisman trophy before the season even starts is taking away the chance of winning the award from the numerous other players who maybe even better.

All players start the same way as their respective team does -

0 = Yards
0 = Tackles
0 = Sacks
0 = Touchdowns
0 = Receptions
0 = Interceptions
0 = Blocks
0 = Deflections
0 = Fieldgoals
0 = Extra Points
0 = Punts
0 = Fumbles
0 = Performance

To base a player's heisman candidacy off of his previous years performances is to neglct the above.

It also prelists that player's name into a heisman voters mind.

Essentially, what I'm saying is:

"Preseason Favoritism = Unfair Bias"

[mountainman]

Hey, Cane .... thanks for taking the time and putting in the effort ... hopefully folks will read and think about it.

Hey, BlackpowerEER .... thanks for the acknowledgement, but I really want you to understand I wasn't taking sides in my posting. I was arguing purely on the merits of the argument and what was posted by both you and billybud.

[billybud]

Maybe, Blackpowder, I didn't understand your post...but it sure looked like you said that Steele "artificially boosted VT" in his rankings...an accusation of deliberate misranking by a pollster based on (since you mentioned it, his geographic location and team affinity)...That is exactly what I read your post to say. And I said bullfeathers!

You than went on to mention EA had a guy who was a Louisville grad...etc. etc.

If you didn't mean that these guys "artificially boosted" teams in their ranking system maybe it was just your unfortunate use of the language...Again...I do not think any computer system ranker "artificially boosts" an individual team and I think that people who actually think that are off base.

Pollsters, the human kind, I do agree with you wholeheartedly...it has been proven.

[colorado_loves_football]

There are so many veriabls that go into poll ranking problems.

An infinite number of them, in my opinion.

Back in 2001, the widely debated BCS was a standingargument from both sides:

Computer Poll Supporters
Human Poll Supporters

Actually, as I recall there were more 'camps' than those two, but you are vaguely correct.

We, as frequent participants of the site, wereasked to give our argument in favor of the Human poll.

Actally, I believe the question dawned on us, was;

Do the Human Polls have too much Say in Determining the Rankings?

Certainly.

Members were asked to e-mail their thoughts on the subject, and the site creaters were oing to choose one response to post up on the site.

It was my reponse that was posted, and, reminents of that topic have appeared, here, in this thread.

Let's look at some of the factors that influence judgement, and se if you agree with this context.

1.) The computers are flawed, do to human imput.
a.) a computer can only decipher what a human programs into it
b.) computers can not guage things such as; moion, heart, teamwork, individule efforts, coaching adjustments, appreciation of a well executed play, momentum shifts, tams getting rattled and losing focus, teams playing down to the wire and stepping up when it count, ect, ect...
c.) computers only filter statistics, numbers, analytical data

2.) Human polls are flawed because of bias opinions and inefficiant information.
a.) media preseason polls rank teams by who garners the most attention, ie. ND being ranked #3 simply because they played usc so close last year, Louisille being ranked so high due to a favorable schedule, ect...- which in effect harms a team who is unranked in the preseason because of an understanding by pollsters to not drop a ranked team too far down after a loss, ie. ND umping from ranked 42 to #10 after beating Michigan in their opening game, then dropping to #14 after losing to Michigan St in South Bend the next week
b.) caoches poll during the season, because there is no way a coach preparing for the next game has time enough to watch every taam they use in their rankings to accurately postion them accordingly
c.) a coach might rank a team higher so that when his team plays them it will benefit his own interest, people tend to vote in favor of their own favorite teams
d.) one poll may rank teams deliberately in contradictory to another poll in an effort to sway viewer opinion, and show lack of credibility to the rival poll
e.) teams being ranke by the strength of their schedules before they even play one game, based on what conference a team is in

In truth, there is no way to incur an unbias ranking system.

I don't know if I agree with that, I think there is a way to incur an unbiased ranking system but it would require a lot of 'work'. Those other points you make, I think have some basis in fact, but you can't really 'ignore' polls, altogether.

Someone is always going to feel left out.
And someone is always going to say their poll is more credble than someone else's.

My biggest complaint has been the preseason polls.

Too much confussion, and an unfair advantage for those ranked teams.

Take Colorado Loves Football's exhuasting rantings for example.

Takes one to know one.

Let's say their were no Preseason polls.
Instead, the first polls would be released after every teams has played their first game.

TCU would have been in the top 15 following their first game, in that for instance.

Now, if we were fair, then, we would have no set number of positions ateam could drop after one loss.

So, in affect, TCU would have still dropped out of the top 25 following their loss to SMU.

No, I dont' think they necessarily drop out after losing to SMU, a team that eventually came within an OT of qualifying for a bowl (1st one since 1982).

However, that ins't the case.

Thank God.

And, for those human polls that are calculated into the BCS equation, after week 8, the computer has an already predetermined analysis.

And when adding the compiled formula, the typical viewer is likely to be confused, because his or her favorite team, that was once ranked #12, is now ranked #22, without even losing a game.

That's not how it works, those figures are 'calculated' in advance, the teams themselves determine where they end up, not a computer. You are misinterpreting the 'results' to suit your position.

It has happened.

If the BCS wants to have an even field to start ith, then, all of the poll component should not be allowed a ranking list until week 5.

Week 8 is too long to wait for most viewers. People are impatient.

And weeks 1-4 are too soon to build a concise evaluation of team accomplishment & progress.

I dont' think so.

Teams establish themselves far in advance of the regular season. To suggest otherwise I think is a mistake, especially when we have 'evidence' in the bowls for how teams likely 'stack-up' relative to each other. No, those aren't the same teams, but they are the same programs.

And, if all BCS component were released at the same time, then, there would be no controversy due to position changes. As, all of the data would be released at the same time.

I doubt there would be no controversy, at all, guess again.

This would also slap the mdia in the face, as, they would be "Oh So" exposed for their bias opinions, and rating manipulations.

Remember:

There are 119 NCAA D-1A College Football Teams.

At the beginning of each season, the field, statistically is even -
0 = Offense
0 = Defense
0 = Special Teams
0 = Wins
0 = Losses

Giving a team a preseason ranking, is giving them an unfair advantage.

I don't think so, it's a 'valid' way of assessing a team, based on information, available to the media. If they are 'wrong' in how they 'size up' a team, it will become apparent, very quickly, in short order.

If a team is ranked #1 in the preseason polls, it will be difficult (next to impossible) to catch them as a team who was not given a preseason ranking.

No team I can think of is 'unfairly' ranked #1.

This is also why, preseason Heisman hype is unair.

Untrue, all pre-season Heisman 'hopeful's still have to play good, otherwise they are 'dropped'. Sure, there is some advantage to playing on a good team, but Brady Quinn won't win the Heisman all by himself, neither for that matter, has any other Heisman trophy winner.

To say someone is a candidate for the heisman trophy before the season even starts is taking away the chance of winning the award from the numerous other players who maybe even better.

No, I think a player 'earns' the right to be reprsented through his play, throughout the year. Same applies to any candidate, regardless of where they play.

All players start the same way as their respective team does -

0 = Yards
0 = Tackles
0 = Sacks
0 = Touchdowns
0 = Receptions
0 = Interceptions
0 = Blocks
0 = Deflections
0 = Fieldgoals
0 = Extra Points
0 = Punts
0 = Fumbles
0 = Performance

To base a player's heisman candidacy off of his previous years performances is to neglct the above.

I disagree, I think what you've done, over your career has a huge influence on the minds of the voters, and should. Vince Young should have won the Heisman Trophy, due in no small part to how he played in the 2005 Rose Bowl. It matters.

It also prelists that player's name into a heisman voters mind.

And for good reason.

Essentially, what I'm saying is:

"Preseason Favoritism = Unfair Bias"

And I disagree with your position.

Consider Pittsburgh, 1984. Was there 'bias', in putting them #3? or did they 'earn' it through competitve play?

I'm not basing my position on how Pittsburgh played, they obviously didn't live up to the 'hype' but was it 'unfair' to put them #3 overall?

I don't know, but they weren't a bad team, to begin the year. That's why I think your argument is flawed. Rankings aren't supposed to be 'fair'.

If they were, there wouldn't be a need to play any games at all. We could simply put Texas and Notre Dame (or whoever is #2), in a game let the results speak for themselves.

Thank heavens that isn't how it works. I like how we select a NC with one exception, no playoff.

[billybud]

CLF Wrote

Rankings aren't supposed to be 'fair'.

Rankings, when they do not bear a resemblance to the actual strength of teams are faulty. Preseason ranking is a lot of educated guess work...and sometimes a team doesn't pan out like you would expect.

Penn State had an infamous dive from top ranked preseason to unranked...Arizona State was another team with such a dive.

But, the final champ almost always begins the season in the rankings.

The final AP champion has begun the season ranked for the last 21 seasons (it would be exceedingly difficult to make a climb from NR to #1).

Seventeen of the last twenty-one AP NC's were ranked in the Top 10 to start the season.

[colorado_loves_football]

But, the final champ almost always begins the season in the rankings.

The final AP champion has begun the season ranked for the last 21 seasons (it would be exceedingly difficult to make a climb from NR to #1).

Seventeen of the last twenty-one AP NC's were ranked in the Top 10 to start the season.

Brigham Young wasn't ranked, to begin the year, 1984. That's been my point, all along. No, you dont' have to be ranked to be good, nor do you have to 'rely' on it to get you to the top.

In the case of BYU, they did end their season (1983) with a win, over Missouri, in the Holiday Bowl. It's called 'momentum', and that's something they likely had over Pitt, who lost to Ohio St (28-23).

Personally, I don't really care how high Pittsburgh was ranked, but the fact remains, they were a 'pre-season' Cinderella, who unfortunately fell off her white horse, just in time for BYU to assume their role as 'princess to the ball'.

I think we've covered this topic enough, myself. Any second-guessers can watch the Holiday Bowl for themselves (CSTV) tonight. It was an outstanding performance by one player (Bosco). BYU won the NC by beating Michigan, who incidentally was #2 overall, 1985 (to Oklahoma).

[billybud]

Yeah...but a BYU will never again win the NC playing very weak schedule and a non ranked, six win team in the bowl....the 1984 BYU NC was such an aberration that steps were taken to not let it happen again. Twenty two years have passed and the record says that it is more likely that a preseason topm 10 team will prevail...that's the record.

[Derek]

Again...my last post on the matter...since you only want to post half the post...

He is saying that certain programmers design their algorithimn to favor a team that they like....that is the jist of his argument...(and if I know that you read well enough to figure out his point)...I cry Bullfeathers...

A human poll is much more likely to be subject to such a bias than a series of mathmatical equations. Now, I am not privy to Steele's seven power equations, nor am I privy to Sagarin, Congrove, etc. But, I think it is absurd to think that the math is designed to favor a specific team.

I, for instance, do not like Congrove as well as some because I think that his math does not count for SOS as stringently as some..(and I freely admit that this is a casual observation based on his rankings, not an analysis), but I do not believe that Congrove has coded his system solely to let him rank Fresno State #12 as he has. I think that the Coaches don't rank Fresno State because they know Fresno is not a Top 25 team...Congrove ranks Fresno #12 because his computer algorithmn is designed that way...I don't think that Congrove is a fan of Fresno, I just think that his algorithmn ranks Fresno much higher than most will. It's just the math.

I know what the point of his post was....The reason they drop the highest and the last is to correct for these things. Maybe not the only reason, but it's a good balancer for the difference in formulas used in the BCS.

DO NOT insult my intelligence again!! I can read as well as anyone.

[Cane from the Bend]

I don't even believe you actually feel that way.

Nothing you typed is supportive of an even playing field, in the least bit.

I honestly believe you only disagree with me, to deliberately (and unsuccessfully) contradict whatever it is I post.

Nothing you post is valid.

The difference between your rantings and my articles, are plain and clear.

You ignore 'facts' and debate issues using emotion & opinion.

I use facts that 'you' twist the wordage of and deliberately misinterperet to say what you want it to say.

I am not suggesting to 'ignore' the polls.

I am suggesting the polls predetermine a team's ranking before the season begins.

You have stated in your argument for TCU, that Oklahoma had just as much time to prepare for the opening game that the horned fogs did.

If that were truely taken into account in the preseason polls, then Oklahoma would not have been ranked so highly to open last year.

Instead, Oklahoma had been preseason favorites, because 'of how the program performed in 2004'.

As a result.

Oklahoma was overrated going into last year.

That is not my opinion, that is historical evidence.

Because, that 'is' what happened.

'facts'

Yeah, preseason polls are 'unfair', and a terrible way to judge a new season's performance.

What part of "Predetermined" did you not understand?

If the analysis calculated into the BCS is prefigured into the equation prior to week 8, then that is exactly how it works. And what I said is correct. Which 'infact', again, proves you are picking my posts apart, and arguing with your deliberate misquotation of what I typed.

Teams do infact establish themselves before the start of a season.

But that does not mean they should be ranked.

It is impossible to have a 'valid' prognosis of any team in the preseason, because you have nothing to base your up-to-date analysis on.

You simply can not have an accurate ranking system before these preseason teams have performed.

Take into account, that teams also address issues regarding their past season's weaknesses during their preseason adjustments. And there is no way to determine who fixed the problems, or who still needs to spend a little more time, smoothing out the rough edges.

You have not yet witness a single on field competition.

Therefore, you have no basis to establish your ratings of these teams.

'None'

Again, 'facts' over 'opinions'.

If a team's game plan fails in their season opener, then they established themselves, either poorly, or insufficiently.

If said team who loses were a preseason national contender, then the analysis on them was also inaccurate.

How is that a misinterperatation of things?

There is no 'evidence' to the contrary. Just 'opinions'.

By waiting until after week 4, you have seen all of the teams play at least twice.

Many teams have bi-weeks at the start of a season.

At least by waiting until all teams (or at least, most) have played 2 games, we can judge how a team will respond after a big win (ie. TCU losing to SMU), or how they react to an upset (ie. Oklahoma losing to UCLA in their second game).

Without this kind of information, the analysis is incomplete at best.

To predetermine a teams ranking due to their program, as opposed to waiting until they have establish current success, is to base your ratings off of 'opnions', which also assumes one is basing their 'opinions' off of probable bias (whether that bias is personal or indirect is upto idividual perception)(indirect bias, meaning a team's unfounded potential).

A program does not a team make.

A team effort, however, does.

And, since we are dicussing preseason analysis, we have no effort, other than the wouldbe persuasive 'opinions' fed to us by analysists & pollsters.

Yep, that is another 'fact'.

The only controversy we would endure, by not having preseason polls, would be the heavy handed nonsense the media would repetitively implant into our heads, simply because the BCS system would work, and the media polls would become worthless, and in affect, insignificant

The media would need the common viewer on their side in order to be credible.

And, (the media) as a whole, most of us agree they are not.

No way to cut it. If you are assessing at team's value on how the 'program' faired in the previous season, you are in no way assessng the 'program' as it stands right now.

If a team has lost many players to graduation/the nfl draft/injury/suspention/transfer/ect.. then you are rating them without the players who did well in the previous season.

You are ranking a program on who they 'use to be' and not on 'who they are'.

No short order game play can take a preseason advantage away from a team who started ranked in the top 5.

Hypothetically speaking (now I'm talking your language):

Who would fair better at the end of a season -

Team (a.) who was ranked #22 in the preseason poll, then loses 2 games throughout the course of a season.

or

Team (b.) who was ranked #3 in the preseaon poll, then loses 2 games thoughout the course of a season.

And to be unbias objectors, let's assume both teams played equally difficult schedules, and suffered their losses during the same weeks.

Not hard to see who is going to fall into a better position, now is it?

I do not see the fairness in that.

And, yes, credible polls should be designed to be 'fair'.

That is 'infact' the reason why the BCS was created.

To establish an 'undesputed' #1 and #2 team, who would then play for the National title.

Yeah, it is a 'fact'.

And that is why these polls should be 'fair'.

I know it has not worked out that way in many seasons, though, in every season we have had a preranking system before the start of the competitive year.

Without a preseason ranking system, those two 'programs' (from the above example) would be on a level playing field.

As for the Heisman.

That is absolutely the kind of reasoning that contradicts the very essence of the award.

The Heisman trophy is supposed to be awarded to the best player in college football from the current year.

Giving a player credit for something he did not do during the season he is about to play in, is inexcusable.

Using your example;

Vince Young did not win the hiesman trophy, in no small part to the preseason hype Reggie Bush received before the start of the season.

Also, the heisman was awarded before the Rose Bowl took place, and many were predicting the Rose Bowl to be the Reggie Bush show.

(but it was cancled, and replaced with the Vince Young show)

No-one, regardless of who they are, should have any sort of advantage, what so ever, for something that has yet to take place.

It does not matter who one's teammates they are, or what they 'may' accomplish.

Several players are 'obLIVIously' overlooked by heisman voters, due to prerecognition from sports writers, toward the players of those sports writers' choosing.

It gos against the very tradition of the trophy.

It becomes commercial.

And it taints the basic fundementals of college football at its roots.

(Are you a media writer, because you sure do have that stench about you)

I have considered your argument on 1984 & Pitt.

They did not live upto the hype, because they were not good enough to live upto the hype.

Was it unfair to rank them #3 overall?

Obviously, they answered that question with a 3-7-1 final record.

Yeah, I'd say that was unfair to those teams who did play more competitively, but did not get a solid preseason ranking.

How could they have possibly earned a #3 ranking through competitive play?

In the preseason, there hasn't yet been any games played.

They were not given a chance to earn the #3 ranking before it was given to them.

And that is where your argument is flawed.

A team's success and failures can only be measured by their performance.

Your stance is that Pitt was not that bad of a team.

Okay, let the 'facts' speak for themselves.

3-7-1

Is that is your idea of a good record?

If it is, then, sure, they were not that bad.

But, that is why it is your 'opinion' you are debating with.

And it is historical 'facts' you are debating against.

You are rationalizing that Pitt was not that bad of a team, 'because' they had a preseason #3 ranking.

Had there been no preseason rankings, Pitt would not have had any hype to live up to.

You have previously stated that Oklahoma doesn't make excuses for their loss to TCU, and neither should there fans.

Then you should take a letter of your own advice, and stop making excuses for the 1984 Pitt team.

You say they were not that bad of a team, and yet, you have no foundation to establish that analysis.

And that is exactly the type of rationality that undermines the fabric of the sport itself. And only shows how flawed a preseason rating system can be.

Yep, you proved my point for me by using an example which shows your 'opinion' over 'facts' bias.

Thank you...

As for SMU,

They would not have gone to a bowl game, even if they had finished .500 on the year.

There were too many inconference competitors who had better records than the Mustangs. So, a 6-6 record would have given them nothing more than another lucky win.

(and I say lucky, because they did not win)

And, no, I do not consider 6-6 a good record.

That is the record of a team who did not get the job done.

A bad team performance (even for SMU).

.

Fairness is supposed to begin on the field.

As a fan of college football, we are asked to let the teams prove there worth out on the field.

So, why not let them do that.

Prove it on the field, not in the preseason.

Until we have witnessed a team's potential, we are only given glimpses of remenant possibilities on paper.

Past seasons' statistics do not help you win the game you are currently playing.

Especially if those players have moved on.

Until we are allowed to let the teams settle it on the field, and not in the preseaon, we are investing too much hersey into the sport.

Might of's, would of's, could of's, should of's; are all great conversation peices.

But none of them are dids, or did nots.

They are the differences between paper teams & performers.

Those who 'do' step out onto that field and perform, 'should' be the one's that are rewarded.

Those who could, but have 'not yet', stepped onto the field to perform, 'should not' be.

Put up, or shut up, is the name of the game.

Not having a preseason poll only magnifies the neccesity to go out and prove yourself.

And that is what college football is 'Supposed' to be about.

.

As for your blatant disregard for college football players' health, by refering to a playoff system...

Well...

That is an issue for a different thread.

(another topic you would lose, by the way)

[Spence]

How much money did you get for that post Cane? That had to be a hundred dollar post.

[Cane from the Bend]

LoL...

I actually meant to look during the loading process, but was temporarily distracted.

So, I do not know for sure.

But, I am fairly certain that I had under 500 bucks before the post.

(470ish-80ish I think)
(could've even had less)

Guess that is the advantage of typing everything, as opposed to just copy/paste/quote.