Moral Dilemma

by **KnuckleStang** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:01 pm

Players will always get in trouble, that's going to happen. But yes, I would prefer a "boy scout," as you call it, team that loses money to that thuggish Miami embarrassment (I assume that's what you're referring to). If I were the president of Miami, Shalala or whatever her name is, and I saw those Miami players on the sideline jumping up and down celebrating their disgusting display, and Coker not doing anything about it, I would have gone down on the field and told Coker to take his team to the locker room. Congratulations, you just forfeited to Florida International. The network can show "Full House" reruns for the next hour and a half. And on Monday, I'd fire Coker.

by **Kappas Are Yummy** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:07 pm

If SMU would add a box marked "Slush Fund" for me to check on the donation forms they send, I'd actually consider giving the school some money.

by **jtstang** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:28 pm

I think the poll is flawed. If SMU had a team full of thugs that went to bowl games every year, I still don't think they'd "pay for the athletic department" with the attendance we see. Even back in the Mustang Mania days we had to give away tens of thousands of tickets each week to get people in the stands.

by **J.T.supporta** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:43 pm

I really dont like that wording, "THUG"...what do u mean by "thug"?

by **Stallion** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:43 pm

SMU can compete by simply using the same rules allowed by the NCAA minus partial qualifiers, non-qualifiers and diploma mill players if they will make the necessary changes in curriculm and transferrable hours. The biggest complaint I have is the transferrable hours for Division 1A transfers who are almost always full-qualifiers out of high school. What is the rationale for branding these players undesireable when they have met all NCAA admission standards? These are not "thugs" per se.

by **KnuckleStang** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:01 pm

J.T.supporta wrote:I really dont like that wording, "THUG"...what do u mean by "thug"?

Can't speak for others on here, but since you asked, this video shows what I mean by thug. And if you listen to the announcer's comments about 1:50 into it, you will hear an example of how a thug reacts to the behavior of other thugs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JWeE9KqZjQ

by **me@smu** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:06 pm

Yes I was talking about Miami...but also USC, UT, OH ST, about every "major" BCS championship team has a bunch of questionable players.

JT - I know Miami doesn't fund hte athletic department through ticket sales alone...it is the $13+ MM payouts that they get from BCS and other major bowls. Consequently, it is also why Miami's athletic department is operating in the red recently.

by **J.T.supporta** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:11 pm

I understand what you mean about the former Miami player/alum that was announcing the game. He was out of line for saying that and his remarks got him fired. That was very "thugish" I guess of him.

It is unexceptable to do that but I do not consider it to be THUG. My meaning of thug refers to Tupac or someone of the African-American background. I am not trying to bring race into this being a minority but I do feel that this happens more with black players.

The most disgusting thing I saw from the fight was a Miami player running in and Swinging his helmet at the other teams player. THAT IS DOWN RIGHT THUGISH and UNEXCEPTABLE. That player needs to be kicked off the team in my opinion.

by **Stallion** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:13 pm

in a related Note has anybody counted from the date that Fresno St. was forced to change its policy of admitting non-qualifiers-I realize that term has changed-one year, two years, three years and now they are what 1-5? Although the non-qualifier rule has changed enlarging the pool of players who actually fit that category, the fact is that in the old days schools like Fresno St. and Marshall among the most prominent had a "super-advantage" because most schools wouldn't touch them. Now both are 1-5.

by **me@smu** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:13 pm

Completely Agree...Anthony Reddick needs to be gone...forget this indefinite suspension crap...just send him home

by **J.T.supporta** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:16 pm

YES...that is is name. Reddick. In most cases, the player that was hit could file assault charges for that hit with the helmet.

When I saw that on Saturday night, I cringed inside and it made me sick beyond belief.

Moral Dilemma

Would you prefer a thug football team that won bowl games and paid for the athletic department or a boy scout football team that didn't win bowls/BCS and actually was a money pit for the athletic department?

Moral Dilemma

Who is online