College Football 2018-19: Santa Clara is that a way.

[dfwabel]

20 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Is Florida scheduling two-for-ones where they go on the road twice? If not, then there's no reason UCF should be held to that same standard. UCF not wanting to participate in garbage scheduling practices like that should be applauded. Criticizing them for this is basically one step removed from, "Why don't they just join a better conference, since it's up to them!??!"

Oh no.

It was two in Gainesville and one in Orlando. Plus, I wouldn't put it past the Gators to ask for it at the Citrus Bowl as opposed to on campus for a bigger gate by 20,000+.

[See Red]

38 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Is Florida scheduling two-for-ones where they go on the road twice? If not, then there's no reason UCF should be held to that same standard. UCF not wanting to participate in garbage scheduling practices like that should be applauded. Criticizing them for this is basically one step removed from, "Why don't they just join a better conference, since it's up to them!??!"

 

Why would Florida, though, when they can play games like Miami in a neutral site in Orlando (or Michigan in Dallas) and make a ton of money doing it?  There's a benefit to Florida playing schools like USF for Florida (it's good for recruiting in the area and it's a cheaper alternative to these other non-conference opponents they bring in) but ultimately, teams like UCF are desperate to play against programs like Florida and not the other way around.

 

[Red Wolf]

26 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

Oh no.

It was two in Gainesville and one in Orlando. Plus, I wouldn't put it past the Gators to ask for it at the Citrus Bowl as opposed to on campus for a bigger gate by 20,000+.

Exactly my point. Schools like Florida will say, "schedule better" but offer deals they wouldn't take themselves. Like I said, it's only one step up from lecturing schools about how they should just join a better conference.

 

17 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

Why would Florida, though, when they can play Miami in a neutral site in Orlando and make a ton of money doing it?  There's a benefit to Florida playing schools like USF for Florida but ultimately, teams like UCF are desperate to play against programs like Florida and not the other way around.

 

Florida doesn't have to have a home-and-home with UCF, but to criticize UCF for not taking a two-for-one just because USF did is absurd. UCF has several home-and-homes scheduled with other P5 schools so they obviously don't need to take crap deals like two-for-ones to go off to Gainesville twice. If Arkansas State were getting that many P5 home-and-homes that regularly, I'm pretty sure we'd tell even Arkansas to shove-it if they offered a two-for-one.

[See Red]

19 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Exactly my point. Schools like Florida will say, "schedule better" but offer deals they wouldn't take themselves. Like I said, it's only one step up from lecturing schools about how they should just join a better conference.

1

 

Not at all.  Florida and UCF are in two completely different situations.  Florida plays LSU, Georgia, and Florida State every single year guaranteed.  Next year they add Miami and Auburn to that.  Florida is in a position where they can act in the best interest of the program financially because they're not desperate to play blue chips.  Florida takes a 2-for-one series against USF because it's good for recruiting in Tampa, it's another chance to play close to home, it's going to be a very pro-Florida crowd, and it's cheaper to have USF come to the Swamp twice than it is for, say, Idaho to come for one game.  USF takes the series because they want to play programs like Florida.

 

Quote

 

Florida doesn't have to have a home-and-home with UCF, but to criticize UCF for not taking a two-for-one just because USF did is absurd. UCF has several home-and-homes scheduled with other P5 schools so they obviously don't need to take crap deals like two-for-ones to go off to Gainesville twice. If Arkansas State were getting that many P5 home-and-homes that regularly, I'm pretty sure we'd tell even Arkansas to shove-it if they offered a two-for-one.

 

 

They obviously do since they have a strength of schedule down in the 70's, the best team they've played in Memphis, and they're constantly having to explain away not playing any good programs because they're somehow "above" doing what all of the other teams on their level are doing.  Sure, they can get Pittsburgh or Georgia Tech or Maryland to Orlando but that's not doing anything to change the fact that they don't play anybody.  A few years ago UCF played a one-off game at Michigan.  They've beaten up on a weak conference and now they're too good for a two-for-one?

[Red Wolf]

2 minutes ago, See Red said:

They obviously do since they have a strength of schedule down in the 70's, the best team they've played in Memphis, and they're constantly having to explain away not playing any good programs because they're somehow "above" doing what all of the other teams on their level are doing.  Sure, they can get Pittsburgh or Georgia Tech or Maryland to Orlando but that's not doing anything to change the fact that they don't play anybody.  A few years ago UCF played a one-off game at Michigan.  They've beaten up on a weak conference and now they're too good for a two-for-one?

Apparently, yes. If you have the financial means to not play a bunch of money games like you're in the Sun Belt or C-USA, then don't.

[See Red]

23 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Apparently, yes. If you have the financial means to not play a bunch of money games like you're in the Sun Belt or C-USA, then don't.

 

And then complain that nobody takes you seriously because the best team you play is Memphis and pout that nobody will play you.

 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't complain that nobody will play you and demand those schools do it on your terms.  Seems pretty clear Florida's not not playing UCF because they're afraid of losing a game, it's because they have better options.  So yeah, the criticism of UCF is valid.

 

As far as I'm concerned, scheduling a 2-for-1 with Florida allow them to make a lot of money hosting Florida in a sold out the Citrus Bowl (the Pitt game didn't sell out Spectrum Stadium which seats 20,000 fewer people), gives them a chance to show they're on level footing with a program that regularly poaches recruits from their backyard, and satisfies some of the critics saying they don't schedule anybody.  That sounds like a sweet deal for UCF.

[dfwabel]

31 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

And then complain that nobody takes you seriously because the best team you play is Memphis and pout that nobody will play you.

 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't complain that nobody will play you and demand those schools do it on your terms.  Seems pretty clear Florida's not not playing UCF because they're afraid of losing a game, it's because they have better options.  So yeah, the criticism of UCF is valid.

 

As far as I'm concerned, scheduling a 2-for-1 with Florida allow them to make a lot of money hosting Florida in a sold out the Citrus Bowl (the Pitt game didn't sell out Spectrum Stadium which seats 20,000 fewer people), gives them a chance to show they're on level footing with a program that regularly poaches recruits from their backyard, and satisfies some of the critics saying they don't schedule anybody.  That sounds like a sweet deal for UCF.

However, what you describe is what we should call, "The TCU Problem".

 

TCU renovated Amon Carter Stadium but can't get Power 5 schools, outside of Arkansas, to play there. It's only 47K, but genetates crazy revenue and was paid for by like seven folks, so no reason for PSLs (but students might be on the hook for some as they're private...).

 

TCU and Ohio State scheduled a home&home, but Jerry Jones threw up like $4M each for a oneoff which is NOT on the TCU season ticket plan. It's additional money to the season ticket holder, who is already pi$$ed this year since their donation to the athletic department is no longer tax deductible.

 

[dfwabel]

Double post, but the issue is still the same in NCAA basketball.  Nobody wants to play against the non-Power 6* squad who makes the Sweet 16 or better on the road. MVC teams have that issue, see Loyola and Illinois State. Nevada has that issue now too.

 

*-I include the Big East.

[Dynasty]

Oh my god... again with this?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/several-old-homophobic-tweets-kyler-murray-surface-hours-wins-heisman-tropohy-052857060.html

[Kaz]

These athletes really need to comb through their social media and delete their dumb posts; FFS you'd think everyone would get on it after maybe the 154th time this has happened.

 

That being said, imagine being such a loser that you make a hobby of going through the social media of anyone who finds success just to find something to drag them down. 

[jn8]

I mean... looking at them in context, it’s a 14-15 year old joking around with his friends. Obviously we can criticize him for it, but there really wasn’t anything bad he meant by it. Should he have said it? Probably not. Should he have checked his Twitter just to be safe? Probably. But this just seems like something where you can tell nothing bad was meant by it and he apologized for it so it really doesn’t need to be a big deal. Let the kid enjoy his Heisman celebration 

[Cosmic]

2 hours ago, Kaz said:

These athletes really need to comb through their social media and delete their dumb posts; FFS you'd think everyone would get on it after maybe the 154th time this has happened.

 

That being said, imagine being such a loser that you make a hobby of going through the social media of anyone who finds success just to find something to drag them down. 

And he didn't even use the British cigarette word. It's obviously not okay to use "gay" as a pejorative, but this is like finding out someone called black people "colored" when you were expecting the find the n-bomb.

 

In regards to whether he should have scrubbed his social media, this one isn't quite as bad since he doesn't have an agent yet. Somebody in the program or his family really should have told him, though. The ones that really drive me crazy are when all these first-rounders have problematic tweets are still live on draft day... that should be the first thing your agent does these days!

[dfwabel]

5 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

And he didn't even use the British cigarette word. It's obviously not okay to use "gay" as a pejorative, but this is like finding out someone called black people "colored" when you were expecting the find the n-bomb.

 

In regards to whether he should have scrubbed his social media, this one isn't quite as bad since he doesn't have an agent yet. Somebody in the program or his family really should have told him, though. The ones that really drive me crazy are when all these first-rounders have problematic tweets are still live on draft day... that should be the first thing your agent does these days!

However, he and Oklahoma had ample time to do what needed to be done. OU starting today has some staffer running through TweetTunnel now on every student-athlete or prospect.

What happened to Villanova's Donté DiVincenzo in April should have been the "Bat Signal" to every prep and college athlete or young entertainer.

 

Heck, 36 hours earlier, old Kevin Hart tweets cost him the Oscars gig.

[Discrim]

2 hours ago, Cosmic said:

And he didn't even use the British cigarette word. It's obviously not okay to use "gay" as a pejorative, but this is like finding out someone called black people "colored" when you were expecting the find the n-bomb.

Meh, for some inexplicable reason, people get lumped together as "people of color" all the time now.  I personally loathe that dumb term, largely because I'm not sure how it's different from "colored," but whatever.

[Cosmic]

3 minutes ago, Discrimihater said:

Meh, for some inexplicable reason, people get lumped together as "people of color" all the time now.  I personally loathe that dumb term, largely because I'm not sure how it's different from "colored," but whatever.

I've noticed that, too. All you can do is laugh. PoC is the preferred term now, and "colored" is gently, anachronistically racist. 

[BBTV]

it's not dissimilar to how "people without homes" is preferred to "homeless people", because the latter 'labels' the people, as if they're a different (inferior) type of person, while the former acknowledges them as people on equal footing as you or I, who just happen to not have homes.

 

I get what they mean when they say PoC, and I'm not personally comfortable with the oC part, however using the above example, "person of color' would be preferred to "colored person".

[FiddySicks]

The trend of someone doing something noteworthy only to have people comb through their social media accounts looking for questionable content from 5-10 years ago is pretty ridiculous and honestly a bit disturbing. I get that in today’s world a lot of that stuff is out of bounds, and rightfully so. But I remember “ :censored:” “queer” and especially “gay” being a regular part of teenage conversation in the 2000s. I remember I actually had to kind of work on not referring to things as “gay” when I meant lame/stupid/dumb because it was just so ingrained into everyday vocabulary. As I got older and grew, and as we grew as a society and began to really understand the weight of those words, we stopped using them. That kind of progress is kind of what we’re all aiming for, right? It’s one of those instances where someone can say it was a “different time” and for the most part, its true. You also have to remember the internet as this huge social media tool was still somewhat in in it’s infancy, and you have to take into account that there were some growing pains that came along with that. 

 

 

Hold people to higher standards, absolutey. But it also needs to be kept in some context. 

[Red Wolf]

3 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

The trend of someone doing something noteworthy only to have people comb through their social media accounts looking for questionable content from 5-10 years ago is pretty ridiculous and honestly a bit disturbing. I get that in today’s world a lot of that stuff is out of bounds, and rightfully so. But I remember “ :censored:” “queer” and especially “gay” being a regular part of teenage conversation in the 2000s. I remember I actually had to kind of work on not referring to things as “gay” when I meant lame/stupid/dumb because it was just so ingrained into everyday vocabulary. As I got older and grew, and as we grew as a society and began to really understand the weight of those words, we stopped using them. That kind of progress is kind of what we’re all aiming for, right? It’s one of those instances where someone can say it was a “different time” and for the most part, its true. 

Exactly. It wasn't that long ago that virtually everybody I knew would say something was "gay" to refer to it being dumb or stupid*. Obviously that's wrong, but we didn't know any better in 2006. I'm not into the idea of trashing somebody for saying dumb things when they were 14 or 15 years old. My friends and I were using the word "rape" to mean "anything not going our way" at that point.

 

In fact, anybody legitimately angry about this stuff probably has a false sense of what they and their friends were like as teenagers. Hint: Teenagers are the worst version of humanity. We all go through it and learn from it.

 

*Imagine that episode from the US Office where Michael learns this lesson.

[Sykotyk]

The only thing these history-combing spectacles will do is desensitize people to the issue in general.

 

If EVERYONE is found to have said something bad at one time or another, then people will just stop caring that people have that past at all when it DOES matter. Such as a 29-year-old trying to explain away something they said a year ago. They're trying to flip over rocks to shed light on foul people, but at a certain point when you keep finding bugs, people just accept that there's bugs everywhere.

[BBTV]

The difference is that when “gay” was a thing (at least in my world), it was said in real conversations, and not posted on the internet for anyone to see, without context or tone. It’s easy for me to write off some things (not saying this one specifically, as I haven’t really read the old tweets), but for anyone that didn’t grow up in that era, it’s a little different, and the time stamp on the tweets doesn’t really matter if you’re reading them today, and are offended.