New BCS Qualifying Standards

[Spence]

Guys, the BCS is not about fairness, it's about correctness. And there's a bunch of interests and perspectives to consider to get it correct. Fair would be the easiest thing to do, but getting it correct is the difficult part.

That is exactly right. The BCS tries to get the best teams into the best games. Whether or not they achieve that goal is a matter of opinion, but they try. All teams know what the do to get in, ts just a matter of if they ccan get it done or not. That doesn't mean that if a team doesn't get in they aren't good enough, it means they didn't do what they had to do to get in.

Even Auburn going undefeated a couple of years ago didn't do what was necessary to make it. They played a 1-AA team and sunk their chances right there if two other teams went undefeated. If you decide to play a weaker schedule and no one else goes undefeated, you made a good decision. If it goes the other way it only takes one look in the mirror to find someone to blame.

[colorado_loves_football]

Guys, the BCS is not about fairness, it's about correctness. And there's a bunch of interests and perspectives to consider to get it correct. Fair would be the easiest thing to do, but getting it correct is the difficult part.

The BCS is about a set of tough and demanding standards and provides every D-1 team in college football an opportunity to meet them. Meet those standards and a team goes to a BCS bowl. Meet those standards and a team puts itself in a position to be selected to go to a BCS bowl. Meet those standards better than anybody else and you go to the title game.

BCS means Bowl Championship Series and the "Championship" part should mean something. Well, that's my two cents worth.

Mountainman, we agree on some things, but disagree on a lot, as well.
What do you think W. Virginia's chances would have been for making the BCS 'championship' game, had they not lost to Virginia Tech? Or TCU's?
That's not a trick question, my 'answer' is 'slim & none'.
Why? Not because the BCS doesn't 'like' W.Virginia, they probably do, love them might be an accurate description, because they assured the Sugar Bowl of a competitive pairing of teams. But, that was more luck than skill, really. Most people assumed Georgia would cakewalk to a 'W' and W. Virginia proved them wrong, including 'yours, truly'.
But, was the BCS 'fair' in pairing those teams together? Hardly.
They do what they think will make the most $. W. Virginia likely would have received a Fiesta Bowl invitation, in a 'typical' year, which this wasn't. The Fiesta Bowl, loves the Big East, which partly explains why Notre Dame was selected, as their 'priority' choice, over any other team, including W. Virginia.
Had TCU also been BCS 'eligible' it's fair to assume they would have been selected by the Fiesta Bowl, for competitive reasons. But they weren't so I have a hard time agreeing that the BCS is 'fair' in any respect. It's not. Not by a long shot.
It does do a pretty good job, in general, pairing teams together. This year was evidence of that, but it's unlikely succeeding years will be so 'easy' to organize. That being said, I enjoyed the pairings, by-and-large, and it made many bowl 'opponents' eat their words.
But my mission has never been to abandon the BCS. I simply would prefer the bowls themselves participate in the process through which a national champion is crowned, each year.
The BCS is in a position to make that a possibility. Invite a conference representative, in years they meet qualifying standards, is all I'm asking.
That's fair.
The Liberty Bowl already pairs C-USA vs. MWC-WAC, so having that bowl serve as a BCS bowl would be 'fair'. A similar arrangement with the Holiday Bowl, would serve a similar purpose. Not every invitee 'has' to be a conference champion, as was the case in this year's Fiesta Bowl.
However, in the event they aren't, I would prefer they not occupy one of the 'major' bowls. It was a competitive pairing of two 'at large' teams, in any respect, that's a fact.
With the 'fifth' bowl in place, the BCS has an opportunity to 'modify' its format to allow for a legitimate national championship game, every year.
It's not really a 'playoff' in the truest sense, it's a competitive way to select a national champion, in competitive pairings of established bowl games, so there is a difference.
Two semi-final BCS 'championship' pairings, followed by one BCS title game would select one team, every year, to represent the BCS, as 'official' national champions. That's fair, what the BCS has in place, is more like a political assortment of teams, paired competitively, only one game having any bearing on the BCS title. That's not fair, either.

[Spence]

Most people assumed Georgia would cakewalk to a 'W' and W. Virginia proved them wrong, including 'yours, truly'.

Not me, I called the WVU win over Georgia on this board. It didn't happen like I thought it would but I got the winner.

Also WVU has the same chance of making a BCS bowl as any other team from a BCS conference. WVU also travels very well so that isn't an issue with them like it is from some mid-majors. Not many empty seats in Morgantown on gameday.

[mountainman]

C'mon colorado. Surely you don't think you can soft sell me something by making a hypothetical circumstance where the Mountaineers beat the Hokies and are denied the title game while tagging on TCU.

Fact is if the Mountaineers had beaten Virginia Tech they would not have been in the title game. "Why not?" one may ask. Because USC and Texas were better teams and in my mind that's who should play for the title. The two best teams as determined over the course of the regular season. Not a couple of teams that make it through some concocted playoff bracket.

Again, the BCS makes no mention of awarding anything for an undefeated season. Imaginary scenarios and hypothetical what if's just don't matter. Drawing conclusions from these is foolish and trying to make an argument with them is even more foolish.

Good grief. If someone goes out in the rain, they are going to get wet. They can pretend it's not raining or they can pretend they aren't wet, but it is and they are. And for heaven's sake don't try to convince anyone else that's it's not raining or they won't get wet.

The BCS has a tough and demanding set of standards that promotes and rewards excellence while defying mediocrity. I realized there are many people that don't like those standards and would like the BCS to lower them. I'm just not one of those.

[Spence]

The BCS main goal is to pit #1 and #2. Who ever that may be. They always accomplish that goal. The other games that make up the Bowl Championship Series are put togetther for entertainment purposes and they try to get the best match ups possible. That is why last year they had Utah play Pittsburgh instead of Auburn. The BCS thought Utah-Pittsburgh was the better match up. It really is that simple.

[mountainman]

Hey, Spence.

You did call that win, didn't you.

Me too, but it wouldn't surprise me if everybody thought I was just being a homer.

True is the Mountaineers should have won that game by an even larger margin. The Mountaineers stopped themselves twice with unforced mistakes (illegal procedure before the snap on linemen) and let the Dawgs score two TD's ... once when they had the running back stopped in the backfield and he broke it around the right side and another when the safety hung a cleat on a stop and go pattern.

How's that for being a HOMER?

[Spence]

I thought it would be more of a defensive game though, I guess the turnovers means it was a defensive game, but it certainally didn't have that feel. I thought it would be more of a grinding game then it would be about breakout running.

[colorado_loves_football]

The BCS main goal is to pit #1 and #2. Who ever that may be. They always accomplish that goal. The other games that make up the Bowl Championship Series are put togetther for entertainment purposes and they try to get the best match ups possible. That is why last year they had Utah play Pittsburgh instead of Auburn. The BCS thought Utah-Pittsburgh was the better match up. It really is that simple.

Reading your respones, one might conclude you both (Spence & Mountainman) work for the BCS. You have a right to your opinions, but that doesn't mean I agree with them on principle.
I think I already understand the 'focus' of the BCS, it's to create 'attractive' bowl pairings, and in general they succeed, but I think you are wrong about the Fiesta Bowl, in 2004. Utah 'earned' their BCS bid, were pretty much paired against an inferior opponent, that wasn't an 'attractive' pairing by anyone's standards, and you try to justify it by implying somehow you would have done better, pairing Auburn & Utah together, give me a break! That's a flat out lie, in my opinion, you modify your opinion to suit the situation. You maybe ought to run for public office, on that kind of platform. President would suit you nicely.
As for you, Mountainman, I didn't 'tag' TCU on to W. Virginia. I simply told the truth, neither would likey have been considered for a national championship pairing, although it's very posssible, if both had finished the year undefeated, they would have been paired together in the Fiesta Bowl.
The Fiesta Bowl has a long tradition with the Big East Conference, and a TCU 'at large' pairing would likely have benefitted them most, financially.
Notre Dame, probably would have played in the Sugar Bowl, against Georgia. OSU, likely would have been paired against another 'at large' perhaps Oregon, had TCU 'earned' their way into the BCS.
I don't necessarily blame the BCS for anything. I simply wish they would follow through on their 'promise' to pair teams of comparable talent and ability together, across the board. You guys don't consider the 'non-BCS' bowls as part of the BCS, but the reality is they all pretty much 'connect', almost like a jigsaw puzzle, so it shouldn't be too hard to 'match' teams even if they aren't selected in the BCS, for sake of competition.
In other words, there's no excuse for not pairing TCU and Oregon together, other than the Holiday Bowl likely stood to benefit from a OU vs. UO pairing. Money talks.
But, no matter how you slice it, TCU was an 'at large' candidate, as deserving as W. Virginia was, in my opinion, and a pairing of them together might have been a comparable pairing of teams.
I admit I thought W. Virginia was going to get their lunch handed to them, but they came out strong, and held on, to win a game many thought they would lose. I take nothing away from them, from OSU, either, they played, they won, they 'earned' their BCS bid, but I feel that TCU also did.
Frankly, I'm tired of arguing the merits of a playoff, they should be obvious by now.
Sure, some teams likely wouldn't play as well against 'superior' competition. But something tells me there would be a 'leveling' off, and before long the Akrons, and Tulsas of the world would be winning BCS games. I don't really care if you don't like my opinion, that's inconsequential to my position, anyway.
There really is that huge a difference between those who you refer to as 'major' and those I refer to as 'non-BCS'. They play by the same rulebook, just not in the same location. If the BCS was 'fair', every team would have a 'place' in the BCS, not the select 6 conferneces, that occupy it now, 'dominate' it would be a better description.
It's not just about Pittsburgh going in 2004, they 'earned' their bid by the rules. They sucked, but they were the most deserving team, record-wise.
Similarly, W. Virginia 'earned' their bid this year, but mostly because they were challenged, by Louisville. Where were they in 2004? They were worse than Pittsburgh, and they were the pre-season favorite to win, and last year many predicted they would be terrible. But they weren't.
But that doesn't necessarily mean they were good. Beating Georgia in Georgia was impressive, but I think maybe the reason Mountainman is so 'proud' of them is they weren't embarrassed by the SEC champions, in their own backyard. They also squandered a 28-point advantage, but I don't quantify their win, they won, and won on a level playing field.
But they never played TCU. So they can't be that good.

[mountainman]

Let's see here .....

No, I don't work for the BCS, don't know about Spence, kinda doubt that he does. Surely you are talking to Spence in the first paragraph .... especially about running for office. Also, I've never know Spence to lie.

The BCS makes no promise to pair any teams except #1 and #2 in their final standings in the title game. The BCS provides a set of standards by which teams qualify to be selected by the bowl selection committees.

No, TCU was not a candidate. The Horned Frogs won nine games, but did not finish in the top 12 of the Final BCS Standings.

The merits of a playoff versus the current BCS arrangement are, to me anyway, not obvious now.

The BCS does not have a "place" for any D-1 team. What the BCS has is 10 places and a set of tough standards that all D-1 teams, in some form or fashion, are eligible to qualify for by meeting those standards.

Beating Louisville was key. That's true. As it will be again this season.

Right again, I am proud of the Mountaineers, but not for the reason you suggest. As for losing the 28 point lead, D.J. Shockley and the Georgia Bulldogs had something to do with it. A good team that showed character and class along with good playing skills. That's the kind of teams I like to see the Mountaineers play.

As for not playing TCU, ....... well, we didn't play Texas, Southern Cal, Penn State, Ohio State, Florida State or Notre Dame either, but we did play Georgia.

[Spence]

I have to many skeletons in my closet to run for anything.

I never said that Utah didn't earn their way into the BCS. They did. The BCS paired them against an inferior opponent because when the teams are picked Utah and Pitt were the last two teams. No one else wanted them. That is how it works.

The last group of BCS pairings were dream pairings for the bowls and TV. It proved that they were dream pairings for the fans also because every game was a great game.

There are times when I may be wrong about this fact or that fact, but I don't lie. I don't lie about the important stuff and this isn't the important stuff in my life, believe it or not. There is no reason for me to lie. My opinion or yours, for that matter, has no bearing on college football. They aren't listening to any of us.

[colorado_loves_football]

First of all I should apologize to you both for being 'mad' when I wrote the last post, but I was angry partly because I was being told I was stupid, or at least that's how I interpreted it.
Secondly, Spence, I do believe you change your position to suit the situation, but you won't admit it. That's ok, but I think it's valid, regardless, that being said, you are probably correct, the Fiesta Bowl was dealt something of a 'lemon' in 2005. I watched the game, and I believe it was a sell-out, but from an entertainment standpoint it wasn't very good.
And truth be told, I don't much like Utah, so it's not like I really care one way or another, about it, less probably than you do.
Now, Mountainman. I agree the BCS is organized at least partly to secure a #1 vs. #2 arrangement. That's because that has the most 'draw' and all I"m doing is trying to 'help' the BCS in that respect, believe it or not. You don't have to agree with me, maybe it's best you don't. But it does surprise me somewhat, as a 'playoff' which really isn't what it is as much as it is a 'championship' grouping of ten teams, that are allowed to advance in a single-elimination format, would in fact accomplish that same result. But I'm not going to 'force' it into your psyche, you obviously don't agree with me that it would be a better arrangement than what is in place now.
Louisville lost the Big East to a 'superior' team, and that in fact is partly why I prefer the 'championship' with respect to pairing teams together.
"mid-major" doesn't fly, I don't classify teams that way. But, a 6 conference 'priorty' to the BCS would allow those conferneces the preferred status they desire, if implemented. I don't propose the BCS be abandoned in favor of a playoff, that's your misinterpretation.
What a 'single-elimination' format would accomplish, however, is a 9 game BCS, that would end with a 'championship' game, not that unlike what is in place now, other than two 'preliminary' games, and two 'semi-final's to make the BCS 'bigger' on both ends.
I don't even necessarily propose the BCS solely include confernece champions, that's just what I would do if I was the coordinator. I just want the ten teams admitted to have a 'fair' opportunity to 'earn' a national championship. I alreadly showed it could work. It would be fair, and one team would be selected, every year, as BCS champions.
You don't have to like it, but it would be a better arrangement than what's in place, regardless.

[Spence]

You could take the top ten teams and play them off and that would be fair to some and unfair to others. You could take all the conference champions and play them off and that would be considered fair to some and unfair to others. Nothing will be considered fair to everybody.

The bowl system allows every conference a chance to share in the money that funds CFB. It allows 56 teams a chance at a post season game. (even though 54 of those are really just playing exhibition games) It allows 28 teams and their fans to feel they have "won" something at the end of the season. it gives 56 teams an extra month of practice for the next season. which is very important to CFB because of the high turnover rate due to graduation.

Play-offs would allow less then half of those teams to play or practice that extra month. They would take away the "neutal field aspect" of the bowls, because to make them economically viable they would have to be done with a host team. Playoffs would make a lot of money for the networks and for some teams, but it would hurt alot of teams that would not share the wealth. Even if conferences shared the money as they do now, there wouldn't be any money for conferences who didn't get in at all.

Play-off would decide a "more" undisputed champion, but at what price?


Finally, there is nothing wrong with arguing your opinion here. It is no more right or wrong then mine or anyone else's opinion. Your point for a while has been that playoffs would work. You are right that they would work, I just don't think they would work as well as the system being used now. I also don't feel the need for an undisputed NC. Unless they could come up with a way to "round robin" every conference and then play them off you won't have a truly even playing field and so the system will always be leaving someone out.

When I suggested dropping all conferences down to eight teams I was pulling your chain a little, but if there were going to be a truly even, fair system in determining the champion, you would have to cut the size of division I-A to be able for all conference teams to play each other so that you could determine a true champion. Having the "best" team in the nation isn't the goal of college athletics anyhow. It is about competition and sportsmanship. That is the cool thing about amateur athletics. The "Championship" or being the best is something for the athletes to strive for and something for the fans to revel in.

[colorado_loves_football]

You could take the top ten teams and play them off and that would be fair to some and unfair to others. You could take all the conference champions and play them off and that would be considered fair to some and unfair to others. Nothing will be considered fair to everybody.

The bowl system allows every conference a chance to share in the money that funds CFB. It allows 56 teams a chance at a post season game. (even though 54 of those are really just playing exhibition games) It allows 28 teams and their fans to feel they have "won" something at the end of the season. it gives 56 teams an extra month of practice for the next season. which is very important to CFB because of the high turnover rate due to graduation.

Play-off would decide a "more" undisputed champion, but at what price?

I'm sorry Spence, but I disagree with you on principle. You have a right to believe, incorrectly, that somehow the bowls serve the collective good of the general public, but I heartily disagree with that statement.
Sure, 56 at present, are represented directly in some fashion. I maintain that's still a minority, and a 64 team 'field' would be preferable to that arrangement, so I have a difficult time 'digesting' that as a favorable arrangement, to a 64-team playoff.
So, what I propose, is a compromise, really. I never said the ten-team 'field' was without problems, it has many, including those you refer to, with respect to 'fairness'.
But, I do believe with ten potential bids in the 'till, that's something that would give 'fair' opportunity to those teams that legitimately qualify for the BCS. And what I propose really isn't a 'playoff' in the truest sense.
Ten teams, is hardly what I would call a 'field' in any respect.
But it's sufficient to select a national champion, using the rules initiated by the BCS, which is why I support it. It probably wouldn't satisfy everyone, but I think it would do an adequate job in terms of it's selection process, followed by a single-elimination 'playoff' of the winners.
Maybe there is a better solution, but I have yet to hear it, and I personally believe it's preferable to the BCS format, as adopted.
We haven't even seen how it's going to play itself out, and you're already crowning it as 'better'. You are being premature in your praise, I'm afraid. One game, following the four 'major' bowls, isn't sufficient to crown a 'unanimous' national champion. This year, it would likely have worked, but that was mostly because both Texas and USC were substantially better than every other team. The previous year, is sufficient to show you are wrong, in any respect.
Three undefeated teams, at the end of the year, doesn't select a unified champion. The three games following the 'traditional' BCS are sufficient to select a 'concensus' national champion. So I say, implement it.

[Spence]

This year, it would likely have worked, but that was mostly because both Texas and USC were substantially better than every other team. The previous year, is sufficient to show you are wrong, in any respect.

How can you say they were substantially better? Texas beat Ohio State by 3 point, including a TD pass and a safety in the last couple minutes of play. Texas was the best team in CFB this year, but not substantially better then a lot of teams.

There is no way a 5 or 6 week tourney would work in CFB. A 64 team field would take at least that long. A lot of student athletes have finals between the time the season ends and when the bowl games are played. It is hard to keep during a 12 week season and you would have a 18 week season. You have to remember after all that these guys don't get paid to do this. They trade their football ability for an education. There are over 10,000 kids who play D-1 football and not many go to the NFL. The rest need those degrees.

If a 10 team field is what you are advocating how do you propose they pay for it. If you use the Bowls for this you would be asking fans from the winning school to travel to at least 3 games. Some schools including TCU have a hard time filling a stadium for 1 game. It is an awful lot to ask fans to spend that much money (some people paid up to $1200 to see the ND-Ohio State game) 3 times. You would be talking $1800 minimum plus travel to 3 different cities to complete this playoff.

We haven't even seen how it's going to play itself out, and you're already crowning it as 'better'. You are being premature in your praise, I'm afraid. One game, following the four 'major' bowls, isn't sufficient to crown a 'unanimous' national champion.

I'm not "crowning it as better". They aren't going to pick two teams out of the four who play in the BCS bowls and then have them play it off a week later. They are just adding another bowl to the BCS. 1 vs. 2 at the end of the reg. season will be the two teams that play off for #1.

Adding another bowl gives a couple more teams a chance to play in the BCS, but mostly the extra bowl is to pacifyteams that were in Oregons position this year. It will provide easier access for mid majors, but not as much as it sounds like it will.

What you need to understand is that the six large conferences are the teams that generate the money in college football. They are the teams with the power. No matter what system is adopted, they will make sure that teams from those six conferences are the last to get slighted. They set up this system and if there were to ever be a play off, they would set up that system too. I promise you that the selection wouldn't be any better for the mid majors in a play off situation.

To play in the championship game you must be ranked 1 or 2. To get to be that highly ranked you must have a history of winning (at least 2 or 3 years) and you must beat teams that are ranked. That is the big problem for mid majors because their conferences don't come with very many "built in" ranked teams. So they must load their schedule with OOC games filled with ranked teams. That is how the system works.

[colorado_loves_football]

How can you say they were substantially better? Texas beat Ohio State by 3 point, including a TD pass and a safety in the last couple minutes of play. Texas was the best team in CFB this year, but not substantially better then a lot of teams.

I probably should have qualified my statement to read they were 'substantially' better than the majority of their opponents, I wasn't trying to slight Ohio St, in any respect, nor would I have slighted W. Virginia, Penn St., or any of the other BCS teams. And that's partly why I favor a 'playoff' of BCS-worthy teams, none (that I can think of) were substantially better than any other, and I think it showed in how the games were played. That being said, I do believe Texas would likely have won the national title, this year, irrespective of a playoff.

There is no way a 5 or 6 week tourney would work in CFB. A 64 team field would take at least that long. A lot of student athletes have finals between the time the season ends and when the bowl games are played. It is hard to keep during a 12 week season and you would have a 18 week season. You have to remember after all that these guys don't get paid to do this. They trade their football ability for an education. There are over 10,000 kids who play D-1 football and not many go to the NFL. The rest need those degrees.

One reason why I favor a playoff of BCS teams, but 6 weeks isn't that long. Each week, 1/2 of the teams would be eliminated, but you are right, it would affect their academics. So, I believe the BCS format is preferable.

If a 10 team field is what you are advocating how do you propose they pay for it. If you use the Bowls for this you would be asking fans from the winning school to travel to at least 3 games. Some schools including TCU have a hard time filling a stadium for 1 game. It is an awful lot to ask fans to spend that much money (some people paid up to $1200 to see the ND-Ohio State game) 3 times. You would be talking $1800 minimum plus travel to 3 different cities to complete this playoff.

Well, it might be possible to use TCU as a model in this case, they sold out Reliant Stadium, through their ticket allotment, (along with Iowa St.) and so it's reasonable to assume they would likely have done ok, and since each succeeding game carries more 'weight' toward the possiblity of a national championship, it's my 'opinion' they likely would have been sell-outs as well. But that's just my opinion, I don't have facts to support my thesis.

I'm not "crowning it as better". They aren't going to pick two teams out of the four who play in the BCS bowls and then have them play it off a week later. They are just adding another bowl to the BCS. 1 vs. 2 at the end of the reg. season will be the two teams that play off for #1.

I understand how the 'revised' BCS format is going to work, it's 5 games, under the BCS banner, giving them an additional game to promote to the public. I think it's insufficient, however in selecting a national champion, and that likely will be demonstrated in how the teams are selected, but I'm happy, generally that ten teams will be admitted, now if they would just implement a playoff format.

Adding another bowl gives a couple more teams a chance to play in the BCS, but mostly the extra bowl is to pacifyteams that were in Oregons position this year. It will provide easier access for mid majors, but not as much as it sounds like it will.

Well, an extra game will likely give 'at large' teams a better chance to be included, but you are right that it won't necessarily allow a 'non-BCS' team access every year. But, like it was with TCU this year, it will be at least an opportunity for those teams to be selected, if they are sufficiently good enough, which is ok. My only modification would be to make 9 wins 'sufficient' for BCS admission. And give priority to non-BCS teams. And, ranking could then be utilized for tie-breaking purposes. In other words, both TCU and Oregon would have been admitted through their regular season record (10 wins). Make sense?

What you need to understand is that the six large conferences are the teams that generate the money in college football. They are the teams with the power. No matter what system is adopted, they will make sure that teams from those six conferences are the last to get slighted. They set up this system and if there were to ever be a play off, they would set up that system too. I promise you that the selection wouldn't be any better for the mid majors in a play off situation.

I understand the the BCS conferences will occupy a place of 'preference' but that shouldn't mean that a deserving team not be selected. I wouldn't want a team to be denied a bid, because a 'non-BCS' team was also in the running. I simply want the standards to be fair, to every team, irrespective of where they play. But, I would prefer a conference champion be allowed some advantage in the BCS, if that's a possiblity, for sake of fairness in selection.

To play in the championship game you must be ranked 1 or 2. To get to be that highly ranked you must have a history of winning (at least 2 or 3 years) and you must beat teams that are ranked. That is the big problem for mid majors because their conferences don't come with very many "built in" ranked teams. So they must load their schedule with OOC games filled with ranked teams. That is how the system works.

WEll, I don't know about that, myself. Every team has to play whichever schedule they are dealt. I wouldn't punish a team for not playing a 'top-10' schedule, and I personally think it's secondary to how a team plays, in general. If they don't have a very tough schedule, it's likely the team is'nt very good, and so a ranking (of teams) would probably address that fairly. But remember we are talking about I-A, here, in ohter words, every team is supposed to meet a certain standard, for competitive play. But I agree, that there should be a way to assure that the BCS doesn't get a 'turkey'. And i'm not sure what the best way to address that is, myself.