Factions in P5 conferences (2024)

Post: #21

(08-28-2013 07:10 AM)MJG Wrote: Boise State is often mentioned as being left out since they win 10 games every year.

BSU's 2013 schedule is its toughest in years maybe ever its ranked 91st .

BSU is ranked last in the MWC in academics and bottom five in FBS.

A traditional power like Texas looks at Boise as a Junior college.
Which it was 25 years ago they have come a long way just not far enough.

UCONN and Cincinnati have not been FBS very long but are otherwise good candidates.

Basically its impossible for any G5 school to prove itself competition wise .

The Big East schedule was week once the first ACC raid was over.
The MWC would have eventually been given some credit if the top three teams did not leave .

So even winning proves nothing

Cincinnati has been at the FBS level for basically their entire history. This is their 126th year of football.

I agree with you winning does not matter.

Post: #22

(08-28-2013 08:25 AM)nuftw Wrote:

(08-27-2013 11:37 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: But if there was a college football czar who declared all conference memberships and contracts null and void, the bottom 15 or 20 P5 schools would never make the cut to a Division 4. They'd be replaced by the top 15 or 20 G5 schools.

15 or 20? Really? Who are these schools, and why don't they form their own conference then?

The only non-g5 school taken in the top 60 would be BYU. UConn is in a small state that does not care for CFB. ECU is at best the 4th most popular school in its own state (same for USF\UCF). Boise State is a junior college in a tiny state.

Who are the 14 other schools? Fresno State? Northern Illinois? UAB? I genuinely have no idea.

If you look at some major criteria (academics, FB, BB, market), UConn compares very well with the P5.

1) In academics, UConn is the #29 FBS school per U.S. News. That's in the top half of the P5. We would also be right in the middle of the Big 10, with seven schools above us and seven schools below us.

2) In football, UConn has been a mid-level FBS program the last decade, after moving up from 1-AA. That puts them ahead of at least 10 or 15 P5 schools.

3) In BB, we have three national championships since 1999. That's the best in the nation.

4) Our market includes #30 Hartford/New Haven, the largest market in the U.S. without a pro team. That market would be #25 if you include western Massachusetts, which it should. And we are also in the NYC market as part of the NY/NJ/CT "tri-state area".

There are many P5 programs that would kill for that resume. There are plenty of G5 schools that have solid resumes, but I can't write up a summary for all of them.

(This post was last modified: 08-28-2013 09:27 AM by UConn-SMU.)

Post: #23

(08-28-2013 08:42 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:

(08-28-2013 08:25 AM)nuftw Wrote:

(08-27-2013 11:37 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: But if there was a college football czar who declared all conference memberships and contracts null and void, the bottom 15 or 20 P5 schools would never make the cut to a Division 4. They'd be replaced by the top 15 or 20 G5 schools.

15 or 20? Really? Who are these schools, and why don't they form their own conference then?

The only non-g5 school taken in the top 60 would be BYU. UConn is in a small state that does not care for CFB. ECU is at best the 4th most popular school in its own state (same for USF\UCF). Boise State is a junior college in a tiny state.

Who are the 14 other schools? Fresno State? Northern Illinois? UAB? I genuinely have no idea.

If you look at some major criteria (academics, FB, BB, market), UConn compares very well with the P5.

1) In academics, UConn is the #29 FBS school per U.S. News. That's in the top half of the P5. We would also be right in the middle of the Big 10, with seven schools above us and seven schools below us.

2) In football, UConn has been a mid-level FBS program the last decade, after moving up from 1-AA. That puts them ahead of at least 10 or 15 P5 schools.

3) In BB, we have three national championships since 1999. That's the best in the nation.

4) Our market includes #30 Hartford/New Haven, the largest market in the U.S. without a pro team. That market would be #25 if you include western Massachusetts, which it should. And we are also in the NYC market as part of the NY/NJ/CT "tri-state area".

There are many P5 programs that would kill for that resume.

UConn has the best case of any school after BYU, and in 5 conferences of 14 teams they're in. The idea that there are "15 to 20" schools added is patently absurd, however.

Post: #24

(08-27-2013 02:50 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote: It seems to me that people treat the P5 as a single entity, or conferences within the P5 as a single entity. It seems to me that as the conferences get bigger, the splitting of the conference into factions becomes more apparent.

Faction 1: the Big Boys. Texas is sitting on the top of the heap. The other heavies would be Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, and perhaps 10-12 other programs. These guys are set. As near as I can tell, their motivation is the fighting at the top. They want playoffs, and want to call the shots. They want to break away, but at the same time would also be happy to dominate in the current system. They don't like NIU in a big bowl game, and hate how interlopers like Boise, Miami, and BYU have intruded on their traditions. However, they also don't like weak teams like Illinois, VT or UConn in BCS games, as they are not as scared of the competition. In favor of expanding conferences (so they have control over a larger empire) as long as it doesn't cost too much.

Faction 2: The mid-level teams, most of the P5. Iowa, Auburn, Arizona/ASU, Okie State. The big boys may hate interlopers bothering them, but these are the teams actively working against the interests of all other football teams. They know the only difference between them and several other universities is conference affiliation. They need conference expansion so that they can survive if a Big Boy or two leaves their conference, but they also need to break away into a Div 4 so that other teams can't take their place. They know it would be 50/50 if a "Big East" situation would happen to their conference, thus they champion the grant of rights. Finally, they want bowl access for conference champs so when teams like Stanford are awful but conference champs, they make the Rose Bowl, and get credit for their "special year." This is opposed to the big boys who want more merit-based bowl criteria.

Faction 3: Lower level P5 teams. Half the ACC (including Miami which has terrible attendance), a good chunk of the Big 12, Wazzu, Oregon St, Cal with their financial troubles, and Vandy. Generally, smaller schools with less financial resources who take their lumps competing against bigger schools with better resources. Often, these teams were included in the P5 for historical reasons. They know that if a "Big East" situation happens where the Big Boys leave their conference, they are likely being left out. The bigger team in their media market will be taken, and they will be left. They are insistent on media rights. However, unlike the mid-level teams, I think these teams prefer the current situation, as it gives them a chance to get bowl-eligible. They like the influx of bowls, and are probably not in favor of a playoff as it will minimize their prestige when they make a BCS bowl - like Wake Forest.

Faction 4 - New Arrivals. Utah, LVille, Syracuse, WVU, Pitt. These teams have a vested interest in no more teams coming up. If there is a P5, these teams will be voting for P5 only with no independent teams. Generally, don't want to expand their conference.

Maybe I'm out to lunch on this, but I see these three general factions in the P5 conferences. I think this is also controlling some of the somewhat crazy re-alignments that have occurred, some seemingly driven by panic as opposed to thought.

I think Notre Dame is its own "faction".

I am not sure that ND "wants playoffs" and "wants to break away" based upon Jack Swarbrick's comments.

I don't think that ND favors paying a stipend, either.

I think that ND wants to be included in these things but is not one of the schools seriously pushing them or even greatly in favor of these items.

Post: #25

Post: #26

(08-28-2013 10:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: UConn has 6 winning season in FBS. Total. UConn needs to get back to the end of the line where they belong.

+1

Post: #27

Post: #28

(08-27-2013 08:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote: The g5 seem to have this odd idea that every member of a P5 conference should be going 8-0 or 9-0 in conference play or else they dont deserve their spot and should vacate for a much more deserving G5 team.

Now last I checked the math, thats impossible to do because no matter who is in your conference, there a minimum of wins and losses that must be distributed every weekend.

IOW, if all of the biggest names like Michigan, Ohio State and Alabama got together and formed their own conference, somebody would still be finishing LAST!...Lets say Michigan was the unlucky team that was going 2-10 in the new league...according to the G5, that PROVES that Michigan is worthless as a program to have and needs to clear out to make room for Boise State or Northern Illinois who WIN football games in the mighty MAC and WAC!

But only an idiot would truly believe that they would be better off trading Michigan for Northern Illinois or Boise State no matter how many games a year they lost because Michigan is still MORE VALUABLE.

In the same vein, Duke is more valuable. WF is more valuable. NW is more valuable.

It has nothing to do with the W/L column which is something the G5 just seem to not get..or more likley are purposefully blind to.

This is undoubtedly true. The people who argue that Miami (OH) deserves to be in the P5 are being ridiculous.

However, there is no denying that there are a handful of G5 schools that are more "valuable" in nearly every way than a few P5 schools. WSU, Mississippi State, Wake, and KSU are well below UC, UConn, and BYU in just about every way.

Post: #29

(08-28-2013 10:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: UConn has 6 winning season in FBS. Total. UConn needs to get back to the end of the line where they belong.

It doesn't matter what you did in 1947 or 1984. What matters is your current and future value.

End of the line.

Post: #30

(08-28-2013 03:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: A lot of this is about the Johnny-come-latelies like UConn, USF, UCF, etc versus schools that have poured money into their football stadiums for the past 80 or so years. On the one hand you have to respect the more recent commitments to football, but how do you compare them to the sunk costs that others have made over the last 6, 7, and 8 decades.

As I just said, it doesn't matter that a program built a shiny, new stadium in 1928. What matters is what they are doing now and how they compare on some key criteria:

1) academics
2) athletic budget
3) market size
4) endowment
5) the number of sports sponsored
6) success in FB (this century)
7) success in BB (this century)
8) attendance
9) facilities

By those criteria, BYU, UConn, and Cincinnati are probably at the top of the G5, and they are ahead of several P5 schools. There are also many G5 schools (mainly in the AAC & MWC) that are really close.

(This post was last modified: 08-28-2013 05:41 PM by UConn-SMU.)

Post: #31

(08-28-2013 03:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: A lot of this is about the Johnny-come-latelies like UConn, USF, UCF, etc versus schools that have poured money into their football stadiums for the past 80 or so years. On the one hand you have to respect the more recent commitments to football, but how do you compare them to the sunk costs that others have made over the last 6, 7, and 8 decades.

Even then, you have schools like BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, Army, Navy, etc who have been making those investments just as long.

Cincinnati has been playing football at the highest level since 1885. We have the 2nd oldest playing field in D-1 football, and are starting our 5th major renovation of our stadium since the current version was built in 1915.

Are you going to say that we've invested less than a school like Illinois, who actually removed 10,000 seats in 2009? Or Miami, who has always rented professional stadiums? Or Purdue, who doesn't even have permanent lights in their stadium? Those schools have made less investments than we have, despite receiving tens of millions more in revenue due to their conference association (not to mention the revenue of annually hosting teams that bring 10,000 paying customers to road games)

(This post was last modified: 08-28-2013 05:48 PM by Captain Bearcat.)

Post: #32

(08-28-2013 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:

(08-28-2013 10:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: UConn has 6 winning season in FBS. Total. UConn needs to get back to the end of the line where they belong.

It doesn't matter what you did in 1947 or 1984. What matters is your current and future value.

End of the line.

ok, since joining FBS in 2000 UConn is 80-77. I see no special value in barely .500 ball.

Post: #33

(08-28-2013 05:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:

(08-28-2013 03:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: A lot of this is about the Johnny-come-latelies like UConn, USF, UCF, etc versus schools that have poured money into their football stadiums for the past 80 or so years. On the one hand you have to respect the more recent commitments to football, but how do you compare them to the sunk costs that others have made over the last 6, 7, and 8 decades.

Even then, you have schools like BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, Army, Navy, etc who have been making those investments just as long.

Cincinnati has been playing football at the highest level since 1885. We have the 2nd oldest playing field in D-1 football, and are starting our 5th major renovation of our stadium since the current version was built in 1915.

Are you going to say that we've invested less than a school like Illinois, who actually removed 10,000 seats in 2009? Or Miami, who has always rented professional stadiums? Or Purdue, who doesn't even have permanent lights in their stadium? Those schools have made less investments than we have, despite receiving tens of millions more in revenue due to their conference association (not to mention the revenue of annually hosting teams that bring 10,000 paying customers to road games)

ucf uconn & usf are new to the top level of cfb. in fact id argue that since so many of uconns rivals are FCS schools they should stay FCS and be like montana.

schools like cincy & miami ohio have a lot of old football history. but look at schools out west like colorado state, byu, utah state, new mexico, wyoming who all have equal amounts of football history if not more. plus a lot of these schools have some very old rivalries with some p5 schools or g5 schools with a good chance of getting in. I think based on history/tradition those schools should get the nod.

im not ruling out miami-cincy nd i will admit they have very good history, however they dont have the history with any p5 schools and thats their downfall

Post: #34

(08-28-2013 06:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:

(08-28-2013 05:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:

(08-28-2013 03:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: A lot of this is about the Johnny-come-latelies like UConn, USF, UCF, etc versus schools that have poured money into their football stadiums for the past 80 or so years. On the one hand you have to respect the more recent commitments to football, but how do you compare them to the sunk costs that others have made over the last 6, 7, and 8 decades.

Even then, you have schools like BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, Army, Navy, etc who have been making those investments just as long.

Cincinnati has been playing football at the highest level since 1885. We have the 2nd oldest playing field in D-1 football, and are starting our 5th major renovation of our stadium since the current version was built in 1915.

Are you going to say that we've invested less than a school like Illinois, who actually removed 10,000 seats in 2009? Or Miami, who has always rented professional stadiums? Or Purdue, who doesn't even have permanent lights in their stadium? Those schools have made less investments than we have, despite receiving tens of millions more in revenue due to their conference association (not to mention the revenue of annually hosting teams that bring 10,000 paying customers to road games)

ucf uconn & usf are new to the top level of cfb. in fact id argue that since so many of uconns rivals are FCS schools they should stay FCS and be like montana.

schools like cincy & miami ohio have a lot of old football history. but look at schools out west like colorado state, byu, utah state, new mexico, wyoming who all have equal amounts of football history if not more. plus a lot of these schools have some very old rivalries with some p5 schools or g5 schools with a good chance of getting in. I think based on history/tradition those schools should get the nod.

im not ruling out miami-cincy nd i will admit they have very good history, however they dont have the history with any p5 schools and thats their downfall

Are you new to college football? You're grasp of the subject isn't very firm.

Post: #35

(08-28-2013 05:59 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:

(08-28-2013 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:

(08-28-2013 10:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: UConn has 6 winning season in FBS. Total. UConn needs to get back to the end of the line where they belong.

It doesn't matter what you did in 1947 or 1984. What matters is your current and future value.

End of the line.

ok, since joining FBS in 2000 UConn is 80-77. I see no special value in barely .500 ball.

We've been bowl eligible since 2004 and we've been to 5 bowls. Ohio has been bowl eligible since when? 1915? An you've been to 7.

I'd say we're doing ok.

(This post was last modified: 08-28-2013 06:23 PM by UConn-SMU.)

Post: #36

(08-28-2013 05:59 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:

(08-28-2013 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:

(08-28-2013 10:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: UConn has 6 winning season in FBS. Total. UConn needs to get back to the end of the line where they belong.

It doesn't matter what you did in 1947 or 1984. What matters is your current and future value.

End of the line.

ok, since joining FBS in 2000 UConn is 80-77. I see no special value in barely .500 ball.

Compare UConn & Ohio using this list:

1) academics
2) athletic budget
3) market size
4) endowment
5) the number of sports sponsored
6) success in FB (this century)
7) success in BB (this century)
8) attendance
9) facilities

Post: #37

uconn is such an outlier in the FBS. they have a 100 year old rivalry with umass (who just turned fbs last year). gtown villanova, & providence are all at the FCS level.

in the last two years they were

5-7 (2-5 in BE play)
5-7 (3-4 in BE play)

how is this a p5/d4 team? historically they are an FCS program thats where they fit in culturally. if umass ever make the drop back to FCS, uconn should follow suit

Post: #38

(08-28-2013 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:

(08-28-2013 05:59 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:

(08-28-2013 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:

(08-28-2013 10:36 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: UConn has 6 winning season in FBS. Total. UConn needs to get back to the end of the line where they belong.

It doesn't matter what you did in 1947 or 1984. What matters is your current and future value.

End of the line.

ok, since joining FBS in 2000 UConn is 80-77. I see no special value in barely .500 ball.

Compare UConn & Ohio using this list:

1) academics
2) athletic budget
3) market size
4) endowment
5) the number of sports sponsored
6) success in FB (this century)
7) success in BB (this century)
8) attendance
9) facilities

What's Ohio have to do with UConn not being worthy of being in P5?

p.s. Ohio is better in 1-9 listed above. FACT.

Post: #39

(08-28-2013 05:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:

(08-28-2013 03:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: A lot of this is about the Johnny-come-latelies like UConn, USF, UCF, etc versus schools that have poured money into their football stadiums for the past 80 or so years. On the one hand you have to respect the more recent commitments to football, but how do you compare them to the sunk costs that others have made over the last 6, 7, and 8 decades.

Even then, you have schools like BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, Army, Navy, etc who have been making those investments just as long.

Cincinnati has been playing football at the highest level since 1885. We have the 2nd oldest playing field in D-1 football, and are starting our 5th major renovation of our stadium since the current version was built in 1915.

Are you going to say that we've invested less than a school like Illinois, who actually removed 10,000 seats in 2009? Or Miami, who has always rented professional stadiums? Or Purdue, who doesn't even have permanent lights in their stadium? Those schools have made less investments than we have, despite receiving tens of millions more in revenue due to their conference association (not to mention the revenue of annually hosting teams that bring 10,000 paying customers to road games)

While Cincy has played the sport of football a long time, the problem as I see it is that for most of the 20th Century you were an independent that did not play a national schedule or any memorable game - 1936 to 1946 and again from 1970 to 1995. You did well in the MAC in the late 40's, but left it for the Missouri Valley and the likes of Tulsa, Wichita State, St. Louis, N. Texas State, Memphis State, Bradley, and Houston. While you recent success is to be lauded the fact remains that from late 19th Century until nearly the year 2000, your football team competed at a very, very low level.

Army, Navy, and Air Force don't need to be mentioned in these conversations - they have a pass if they want a pass. Tulane chose to drop down in 1964 - they like Sewanee made the choice to drop the competition of major college football. Chicago did the same thing in the Big 10.

ECU made the decision in the late 1960's to compete with NC State, UNC, etc in football.

When you look at schools like UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, the thing you all share is that you began attempting to compete at D-1 football just for the last 20 or so years, not the last 80, 90, or 100 years. On the flip side are schools like Rice, SMU, Houston, and others that were competing for decades and were left in the dust in the 1990's.

From what I see it takes a combination of perseverance and pure luck of the geographic draw to make into the big league. Louisville, TCU, Utah, and Rutgers got damn lucky that they had a combination of factors to fall in their favor so as to "move up".

If you think about it, the last schools to "move up" like this were Arizona and Arizona State in 1977 in the Pac 8, Oklahoma State into the Big 8 in the late 1950's, Michigan State into the Big 9/10 in 1949, and Wake Forest into the Southern Conference/ACC in 1937.

Think of it like this - in 1921/22, the SIAA and SAIAA merged to form the Southern Conference - Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, GT, Florida, North Carolina, North Carolina State, VT, UVA, Vanderbilt, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Maryland, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, VMI, Tulane, Sewanee. Trinity (Duke) was added in 1927.

Whatever the name, the ACC and/or the SEC have existed in some form since the 1890's. The same is true with the Western Conference (Big 10). The Pac 5/6/8/10/12 has also existed for nearly 100 years with various names and incarnations. The Big 8 had been stable for 70 years until the addition of Texas and TAMU.

I think Cincy has gotten a raw deal, but they have to look at decisions made in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's and Cincy's geography has never been good for the B10 or the SEC. In a "FAIR" world, Cincy and BYU would probably be B12 schools, but it's not a fair world.

Post: #40

(08-28-2013 07:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:

(08-28-2013 05:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:

(08-28-2013 03:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: A lot of this is about the Johnny-come-latelies like UConn, USF, UCF, etc versus schools that have poured money into their football stadiums for the past 80 or so years. On the one hand you have to respect the more recent commitments to football, but how do you compare them to the sunk costs that others have made over the last 6, 7, and 8 decades.

Even then, you have schools like BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, Army, Navy, etc who have been making those investments just as long.

Cincinnati has been playing football at the highest level since 1885. We have the 2nd oldest playing field in D-1 football, and are starting our 5th major renovation of our stadium since the current version was built in 1915.

Are you going to say that we've invested less than a school like Illinois, who actually removed 10,000 seats in 2009? Or Miami, who has always rented professional stadiums? Or Purdue, who doesn't even have permanent lights in their stadium? Those schools have made less investments than we have, despite receiving tens of millions more in revenue due to their conference association (not to mention the revenue of annually hosting teams that bring 10,000 paying customers to road games)

While Cincy has played the sport of football a long time, the problem as I see it is that for most of the 20th Century you were an independent that did not play a national schedule or any memorable game - 1936 to 1946 and again from 1970 to 1995. You did well in the MAC in the late 40's, but left it for the Missouri Valley and the likes of Tulsa, Wichita State, St. Louis, N. Texas State, Memphis State, Bradley, and Houston. While you recent success is to be lauded the fact remains that from late 19th Century until nearly the year 2000, your football team competed at a very, very low level.

Army, Navy, and Air Force don't need to be mentioned in these conversations - they have a pass if they want a pass. Tulane chose to drop down in 1964 - they like Sewanee made the choice to drop the competition of major college football. Chicago did the same thing in the Big 10.

ECU made the decision in the late 1960's to compete with NC State, UNC, etc in football.

When you look at schools like UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, the thing you all share is that you began attempting to compete at D-1 football just for the last 20 or so years, not the last 80, 90, or 100 years. On the flip side are schools like Rice, SMU, Houston, and others that were competing for decades and were left in the dust in the 1990's.

From what I see it takes a combination of perseverance and pure luck of the geographic draw to make into the big league. Louisville, TCU, Utah, and Rutgers got damn lucky that they had a combination of factors to fall in their favor so as to "move up".

If you think about it, the last schools to "move up" like this were Arizona and Arizona State in 1977 in the Pac 8, Oklahoma State into the Big 8 in the late 1950's, Michigan State into the Big 9/10 in 1949, and Wake Forest into the Southern Conference/ACC in 1937.

Think of it like this - in 1921/22, the SIAA and SAIAA merged to form the Southern Conference - Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, GT, Florida, North Carolina, North Carolina State, VT, UVA, Vanderbilt, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Maryland, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, VMI, Tulane, Sewanee. Trinity (Duke) was added in 1927.

Whatever the name, the ACC and/or the SEC have existed in some form since the 1890's. The same is true with the Western Conference (Big 10). The Pac 5/6/8/10/12 has also existed for nearly 100 years with various names and incarnations. The Big 8 had been stable for 70 years until the addition of Texas and TAMU.

I think Cincy has gotten a raw deal, but they have to look at decisions made in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's and Cincy's geography has never been good for the B10 or the SEC. In a "FAIR" world, Cincy and BYU would probably be B12 schools, but it's not a fair world.

i think you stated it perfectly. the only thing i personally would like to point out is that the rocky mountain schools have co existed with each other for just as long as the sec or p12. they got the raw geographic deal where some of them moved into the p12 while others got left out, but like rice smu & houston they are quite literally in the same class if you wanna name schools who deserve to be in because they were power schools that got left behind.

you also forgot the swc which existed for around 70 years

(This post was last modified: 08-28-2013 08:42 PM by john01992.)