Tangent Thread - 2018 Edition

I should have been more clear in the thread - this is really about using good judgement and trying to avoid situations that could get us into trouble with content publishers.

Now that they've changed their website model to restrict certain content we need to be careful about what we post and how we post it. This is no different than how we treat premium info. from Rivals or 247. They may be the "newspaper," but they're also a digital media company with exclusive online content nowadays.

Sharing an article that requires a subscription to read and then sharing specific details from that article should be discouraged, though there is admittedly some gray area. This is true even in the recruiting forum. Again, it gets back to good judgement and online media usage. All of the local media companies work hard to provide their content and, if it's hidden behind a pay wall, we need to respect that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm late to the party but I'm failing to see a problem here.

1- Don't link or post direct quotes from behind the paywall. That's bad.

2- Discuss it all we want. Paraphrasing, restating and/or roughly summarizing what it says within that discussion should be okay. Right? If not might as well, as Brian Regan would say, shut her down.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
I doubt anyone cares about men's golf, tennis, or cross-country. And the football teams' revenue props up those non-money making sports.

So if your concern about propping up non-revenue generating sports is legitimate, and not some passive-aggressive misogyny, then I would think you'd mention some of the men's sports.
Click to expand...


Yawn.

Far more men’s sports generate fan interest and revenue. I would favor amending Title IX so that schools have to offer (subsidize) the same male number of male and female scholarships for non-revenue generating sports. Sports that are self-supporting would be exempted. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ric Flair said:
Yawn. After a few thousand instances of seeing perpetually aggrieved liberals lose their minds about alleged sexism and misogyny, those allegations have lost any effect.

Far more men’s sports generate fan interest and revenue. I would favor amending Title IX so that schools have to offer (subsidize) the same male number of male and female scholarships for non-revenue generating sports. Sports that are self-supporting would be exempted. 
Click to expand...


It wasn't an allegation, it was an observation.  And just because you've gone tone deaf to your own misogynistic attitude that doesn't lessen or diminish the fact that attitudes like yours are still, regrettably, too prevalent in society.  But this is a conversation for another forum.

To your point about exempting revenue producing sports, that might be worth considering.  

 
Making Chimichangas said:
It wasn't an allegation, it was an observation.  And just because you've gone tone deaf to your own misogynistic attitude that doesn't lessen or diminish the fact that attitudes like yours are still, regrettably, too prevalent in society.  But this is a conversation for another forum.

To your point about exempting revenue producing sports, that might be worth considering.  
Click to expand...


How about we keep allegations of sexism and misogyny out of the football forum to begin with. How many women’s sports at how many schools are even revenue neutral? So how long do we use revenue from men’s sports or taxpayer dollars to prop them up when no one cares? 

It’s probably irrelevant though, as we’ll soon enough have lawsuits from transgendered non-binary folks who claim that gendered sports violate their rights by hurting their feelings. Rather than a coin toss to start games, we’ll have a group hug followed by a sharing of preferred pronouns to make sure no one is misgendered.

Holy crap has this country become unhinged.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
If you're tired of these "recruiting arguments" then why try and make the case?

And, without realizing it, you made my point for me...

Every single college football program, whether they have the #1 rated class, or the #117 rated class, recruits on potential. 

But....

Recruiting on potential is never, and has NEVER been the focus of recruiting rankings.  Recruiting rankings are geared and stacked to favor the players most highly rated.  There have been posters on this very board who have posted that any class lower than 20th is an F rated class.

It is this type of dogmatic adherence to recruiting rankings as the sole determinant of success that I am talking about.

Yes...recruiting great talent is important.  But star rankings, team rankings, and that associated BS...doesn't mean jack squat if there's no coaching or development behind it.

Put this way...

Winning a conference and/or national title is a lot like making a great pot of chili.  "Talent" like ground beef, is just a single ingredient.

You also need...

Beans = Strength & Conditioning

Tomatoes = Player buy-in

Salt = Effort/want

And a host of other "ingredients" paprika, chili powder, cumin, pepper, garlic powder, onion powder, brown sugar, and other ingredients.  Likewise, other "ingredients" are needed to make a championship team: staying healthy, lucky bounces of the ball, ref calls that go your way, attitude, belief, favorable schedule, etc.

My point is, and always has been, talent is just one variable.  Those who worship at the altar of star and recruiting rankings as the measure of what Nebraska needs to get back to the national elite are deluding themselves.

The success of UCF this past season, and in the subsequent NFL draft, just shows that hard work, dedication, and commitment to success will get a team much farther than just recruiting rankings alone.
Click to expand...
Just where do the cinnamon rolls fit into this

 
man eating mastodon said:
Just where do the cinnamon rolls fit into this
Click to expand...


On the plate, next to the bowl of chili. Insiders don't dunk the cinnamon roll into the chili - that's what the barbarians outside Nebraska, and not of the Nebraska diaspora, think.  But we true Nebraskans, both those inside the borders and those holding Nebraska within their hearts wherever they may be, know where the cinnamon roll fits into the great scheme of things.

There are many kinds of cinnamon rolls. There are many kinds of chili.  But we, true, dyed-in-the-wool Nebraskans know that cinnamon & sugar (however mom or grandma prepared them) and chili (however dad or grandpa made them) go together. 

We are unique. It is this understanding of the basic laws of complementary tastes that separate us from the unwashed heathen.

It is this that makes us Nebraskans.

 
knapplc said:
On the plate, next to the bowl of chili. Insiders don't dunk the cinnamon roll into the chili - that's what the barbarians outside Nebraska, and not of the Nebraska diaspora, think.  But we true Nebraskans, both those inside the borders and those holding Nebraska within their hearts wherever they may be, know where the cinnamon roll fits into the great scheme of things.

There are many kinds of cinnamon rolls. There are many kinds of chili.  But we, true, dyed-in-the-wool Nebraskans know that cinnamon & sugar (however mom or grandma prepared them) and chili (however dad or grandpa made them) go together. 

We are unique. It is this understanding of the basic laws of complementary tastes that separate us from the unwashed heathen.

It is this that makes us Nebraskans.
Click to expand...




I never heard of cinnamon rolls and chili until I started posting on Huskerboard. I've also never eaten a Runza.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top