|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 19, 2010 21:28:14 GMT -8
Let's face it. We are the Padres and they are the Yankees of college football. It sucks. The Golden rule, the people with the gold make the rules. Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. The name of the party is the DemocraTIC Party. You can't vote Democrat. You could, however, vote Democratic. Or, you could vote for a Democrat. I did not realize that this is a political board. Obama is no one's savior and is not trying to be. A reasonable distribution of income is hardly socialist. It just makes sense and creates a stronger society. Or, we could have one person with everything and everyone else with nothing. I guess you would like that. Who decides what is a "reasonable distribution of income"? And who will be given the power to see to it that such a distribution is carried out? This is getting a little off this topic. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jun 19, 2010 21:57:20 GMT -8
The name of the party is the DemocraTIC Party. You can't vote Democrat. You could, however, vote Democratic. Or, you could vote for a Democrat. I did not realize that this is a political board. Obama is no one's savior and is not trying to be. A reasonable distribution of income is hardly socialist. It just makes sense and creates a stronger society. Or, we could have one person with everything and everyone else with nothing. I guess you would like that. Who decides what is a "reasonable distribution of income"? And who will be given the power to see to it that such a distribution is carried out? This is getting a little off this topic. AzWm It's way off topic and that is why I suggested that the individual using right-wing language and referring to Obama sarcastically as "our savior" might stick to sports. I didn't start the political references and he should take his rants to a political board. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 20, 2010 9:14:02 GMT -8
Let's face it. We are the Padres and they are the Yankees of college football. It sucks. The Golden rule, the people with the gold make the rules. Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. The name of the party is the DemocraTIC Party. You can't vote Democrat. You could, however, vote Democratic. Or, you could vote for a Democrat. I did not realize that this is a political board. Obama is no one's savior and is not trying to be. A reasonable distribution of income is hardly socialist. It just makes sense and creates a stronger society. Or, we could have one person with everything and everyone else with nothing. I guess you would like that. It's not a political forum. There are at least for of them on this website where he can talk all the trash he wants. Best thing to do is just not respond other than to tell him to take it elsewhere. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by mattpohl on Jun 20, 2010 10:20:39 GMT -8
Just for kicks, Scumbama sucks!!! Hang in there, Matt
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 20, 2010 10:26:00 GMT -8
Let's face it. We are the Padres and they are the Yankees of college football. It sucks. The Golden rule, the people with the gold make the rules. Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. The name of the party is the DemocraTIC Party. You can't vote Democrat. You could, however, vote Democratic. Or, you could vote for a Democrat. I did not realize that this is a political board. Obama is no one's savior and is not trying to be. A reasonable distribution of income is hardly socialist. It just makes sense and creates a stronger society. Or, we could have one person with everything and everyone else with nothing. I guess you would like that. There is a place to post this kind of drivel on the Political Board. |
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jun 20, 2010 14:34:35 GMT -8
Just for kicks, Scumbama sucks!!! Hang in there, Matt I read this board to try to learn about the Aztecs and get a break from constant political turmoil and bashing. Could you please post these types of comments on the political board where people enjoy this kind of thing? |
|
|
|
Post by mattpohl on Jun 20, 2010 14:52:40 GMT -8
Boy things are really slow around here. Back in "the day", a "Clinton sucks" drew four pages of vitriol. Hang in there, Matt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2010 16:20:23 GMT -8
Who decides what is a "reasonable distribution of income"? And who will be given the power to see to it that such a distribution is carried out? This is getting a little off this topic. To try to bring this back to college sports, to me at least, it's not socialistic for the NCAA to place a cap on the amount that universities may spend on their football programs. I don't see a lawsuit ever being successful since the BCS or its successor will simply keep tweaking the system in response to adverse court decisions. And I don't see how there could possibly be any way to control the amount that sports networks will pay for TV rights. However, if a governing authority were to limit the amount schools can allocate to football, Texas, Florida and the like wouldn't be able to dominate the sport through sheer spending. If the NCAA did that how could Texas et al. be kept from just pulling out of the NCAA and starting their own governing body? Easy. As Stuart Mandel has been advocating, Congress needs to first warn everybody that if they stop playing ball with the NCAA, they face the prospect of losing their tax exempt status. Too many pundits keep saying Congress has other things to do. Well, there's no doubt about that. However, I just don't see any other way to save college football from becoming the fiefdom of a few dozen big boys who rake in megabucks while everybody else is forced to drop down to the DIAA/FCS level Ultimately that wouldn't be good for anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 20, 2010 16:24:04 GMT -8
The name of the party is the DemocraTIC Party. You can't vote Democrat. You could, however, vote Democratic. Or, you could vote for a Democrat. I did not realize that this is a political board. Obama is no one's savior and is not trying to be. A reasonable distribution of income is hardly socialist. It just makes sense and creates a stronger society. Or, we could have one person with everything and everyone else with nothing. I guess you would like that. There is a place to post this kind of drivel on the Political Board. Odd that you didn't write anything when the original political message was posted. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 20, 2010 16:25:56 GMT -8
Boy things are really slow around here. Back in "the day", a "Clinton sucks" drew four pages of vitriol. Hang in there, Matt If there was one thing I learned in the 9 or so months I moderated Zip's off-topic forum it was that the vast majority of people did not care to see any sort of political arguments and got really pissed when someone would try to start one. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 20, 2010 16:29:32 GMT -8
Who decides what is a "reasonable distribution of income"? And who will be given the power to see to it that such a distribution is carried out? This is getting a little off this topic. To try to bring this back to college sports, to me at least, it's not socialistic for the NCAA to place a cap on the amount that universities may spend on their football programs. I don't see a lawsuit ever being successful since the BCS or its successor will simply keep tweaking the system in response to adverse court decisions. And I don't see how there could possibly be any way to control the amount that sports networks will pay for TV rights. However, if a governing authority were to limit the amount schools can allocate to football, Texas, Florida and the like wouldn't be able to dominate the sport through sheer spending. If the NCAA did that how could Texas et al. be kept from just pulling out of the NCAA and starting their own governing body? Easy. As Stuart Mandel has been advocating, Congress needs to first warn everybody that if they stop playing ball with the NCAA, they face the prospect of losing their tax exempt status. Too many pundits keep saying Congress has other things to do. Well, there's no doubt about that. However, I just don't see any other way to save college football from becoming the fiefdom of a few dozen big boys who rake in megabucks while everybody else is forced to drop down to the DIAA/FCS level Ultimately that wouldn't be good for anybody. Agreed on all points. The NCAA limits scholarships already. And there's another factor in this - it plays right into the hands of the Title IX proponents because they can point to the vast amount of bucks being spent on football and therefore argue that other sports are getting the short end of the stick (and please, no comments about football paying the way - most schools have deficits every year by trying to keep up with the few schools that can afford to spend so many bucks on football). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Jun 20, 2010 16:41:51 GMT -8
Time to campaign for revenue sharing with a salary cap on coaching salaries. Let the lawsuits begin. Or maybe our saviour, Obama, can implement these ideas since he seems to be into socialism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We may have to vote Democrat and get our senators and congressmen involved like you have done with Orin Hatch. On your second point, there is a political forum on this board so please kindly confine such comments to that. Really? Boy, do I hate the partisan, politically correct atmosphere in this country. People are WAY too sensitive. However, I should have realized that and I will make sure I avoid that topic in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 20, 2010 17:21:38 GMT -8
There are indeed political ramifications associated with many sports topics. In such cases it is not inappropriate to raise those issues. However, it's one thing to suggest that the government should (or should not) take this or that action with respect to the BCS on grounds of restriant of trade, and another to take pot shots at particular politicians. The latter is indeed what the political sections of AztecMesa are for.
The administrators sincerely hope that good judgment on the part of posters will not force us to have to decide whether a thread which started out with a sports question should be moved to another category because it was taken over by partisan debates.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 20, 2010 18:26:03 GMT -8
2. Whether I'm for it or against it is immaterial, but of course "reasonable distribution of income" is socialism (or at least it sure as hell isn't capitalism). Personally, I'm all for a little socialism in college athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 20, 2010 18:34:34 GMT -8
On your second point, there is a political forum on this board so please kindly confine such comments to that. Really? Boy, do I hate the partisan, politically correct atmosphere in this country. People are WAY too sensitive. However, I should have realized that and I will make sure I avoid that topic in the future. Please do. I live engaging in political arguments but you should understand that most on here don't care to see them on the athletic forums. In short, take it elsewhere. It's not a matter of being "too sensitive", it's simply that most people don't care to read your political opinions on a sports forum. Really, that shouldn't be all that difficult for you to figure out. There are 4 political forums on this site that are pretty much dominated by right-wing nuts who will agree with you up one side and down the other. Seems to me it isn't that difficult for you to figure out. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Jun 20, 2010 19:21:37 GMT -8
Seems to work in the NFL, despite Jerry Jones. 2. Whether I'm for it or against it is immaterial, but of course "reasonable distribution of income" is socialism (or at least it sure as hell isn't capitalism). Personally, I'm all for a little socialism in college athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 20, 2010 19:49:50 GMT -8
This used to be an interesting thread. Tuning out. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Jun 21, 2010 18:24:34 GMT -8
Really? Boy, do I hate the partisan, politically correct atmosphere in this country. People are WAY too sensitive. However, I should have realized that and I will make sure I avoid that topic in the future. Please do. I live engaging in political arguments but you should understand that most on here don't care to see them on the athletic forums. In short, take it elsewhere. It's not a matter of being "too sensitive", it's simply that most people don't care to read your political opinions on a sports forum. Really, that shouldn't be all that difficult for you to figure out. There are 4 political forums on this site that are pretty much dominated by right-wing nuts who will agree with you up one side and down the other. Seems to me it isn't that difficult for you to figure out. =Bob Easy there, Bob, try following your OWN ADVICE, but thanks for making my point for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 21, 2010 19:30:32 GMT -8
Please do. I live engaging in political arguments but you should understand that most on here don't care to see them on the athletic forums. In short, take it elsewhere. It's not a matter of being "too sensitive", it's simply that most people don't care to read your political opinions on a sports forum. Really, that shouldn't be all that difficult for you to figure out. There are 4 political forums on this site that are pretty much dominated by right-wing nuts who will agree with you up one side and down the other. Seems to me it isn't that difficult for you to figure out. =Bob Easy there, Bob, try following your OWN ADVICE, but thanks for making my point for me. Which point did I not make clear while you were whining about PC? Take it to the political forums if you want to spew your political crap. Seems to me there are 4 of them that accommodate right wingnut political statements. It's rather easy to access them and by doing so you can hook up with Pooh and the other tea-party people while leaving those of us who don't care to bother with your right wing-nut opinions. In short, take your political opinions to the political forums instead of dropping your $#!+ on athletic forums. Your political opinions aren't wanted and all you'll get is enmity. ain't that difficult to figure out. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Jun 22, 2010 13:25:23 GMT -8
What I'd like to see is our Administrations committment to really turning this program around, as well as the committments from the other MWC Presidents to turn the MWC into a top tier conference, so the mtn can be far more productive in $$$. When you read Borg's comments and sit back and think about it, it really starts appearing to be almost a hopeless situation.
The obvious ploy of pulling Utah into a BCS conference to quiet Oran Hatch, the constant moving of the bar for AQ status, and what appears to be a complete lack of commitment over the years from our own powers that be, really starts to make me wonder why we put all this effort into a program that just by the look of things will never be on par with the bigger schools. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy against just SDSU, but a greater one to keep lesser schools out of the money.
The only program at SDSU that seems to be making real strides is our BasketBall program. Thank god Fish is cool with a low salary, and that the NCAA hasn't figured out a way to institute a BCS system of limiting invites to the NCAA Tourney.
I'm trying not to be too pesimistic, but Borg's post really made me realize the increadible powers that are against schools like SDSU wanting to be able to compete at a higher level.
|
|
