Where D-1 Players Come From

[Shep]

This should have it's own thread since the title of the other has nothing to do with it.

As far as cities, Dallas is #1 and Los Angeles is #2, BTW.

Star Search | Tulsa World

[Masters]

Notice when population is taken in to account (per capita) where California ranks.

[Alo]

California players don't have SEC speed.


(Also, why we do we have a new thread on this in the Browns forum?)

[Shep]

Because...

1. It's interesting.
2. We're football fans.
3. It was in another thread under a title that didn't mean anything about it.

We spend too much time judging the relative merits of threads. I've heard more of that in the past month than in the previous 15 years online.

Masters... yeah, point taken.

[Alo]

We're trying to reduce the number of redundant threads. Also, it'd be great if threads were started by a more varied group of posters.

Just something to keep in mind.

[Shep]

I don't really know what that means in this context.

1. Was there another thread like this?
2. How do I get someone else to start it? Who should I use?

[Alo]

There's thread creep all the time; we don't need a new thread every time one changes course.

Also, I suspect that neither the PFT post on Blount or the D-1 article were going to provoke extended discussion. Maybe the latter would, but we do have a CFB forum for that kind of stuff.

It's probably a good thing if posters consider whether their thread-starting crowds out existing threads or stops people from starting new ones. I know that I've consciously avoided starting new threads during the draft season because I wanted to give others a chance to frame the discussion.

[TheBestPlayersPlay]

This probably does belong in the college football section ...for some reason people seem to think nobody will look in the other sections of the board. While that may be the case currently, it would certainly change if people were posting there more often. It would be nice to get some good college football action going here, as I am sure we would attract a whole new set of members. Shep you should make a conscious effort to use your unapproachable thread starting acumen to help the board out by making the college football section more active. That would be nice.

If you all think it's warranted I could always group the Browns section and College football section together.

[Shep]

Well, that's a lot to think about. I'll ponder it heavily!

Originally Posted by Alo

There's thread creep all the time; we don't need a new thread every time one changes course.

Also, I suspect that neither the PFT post on Blount or the D-1 article were going to provoke extended discussion. Maybe the latter would, but we do have a CFB forum for that kind of stuff.

It's probably a good thing if posters consider whether their thread-starting crowds out existing threads or stops people from starting new ones. I know that I've consciously avoided starting new threads during the draft season because I wanted to give others a chance to frame the discussion.

[Alo]

I don't mind the condescension, provided you start fewer threads. The constant thread-starting bothers me less than most folks, but it'd help the board run more smoothly if you limited yourself a bit.

[Shep]

I didn't feel like I was starting a lot of threads. But now the very word "thread" is burning in my brain and giving me diarrhea. I'm only teasing you because I've never seen so much discussion about threads!

Start finding me funny, damnit.

[Alo]

Yeah, I agree that all of this is ridiculous...but us obsessively posting on a football board is ridiculous as well.

And having one thread on each topic seems to prevent things from getting really ridiculous, especially when it's a topic that a lot of posters aren't interested in (like the Rookie QBs Around the League thread).