Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Poor/broke CWU trying to cobble together funds for stadium upgrades
Comments
-
They aren't good. If they were good they would be playing D1. They suck. Deal with it.ApostleofGrief said:
There was one huge, fat guy who literally weighed 400 pounds playing for George Fox a couple of years ago... that is the only bad athlete I've seen (and who knows, he may have been working wonders with footwork). Now, of the guys who AREN'T on the field, I can't comment on, but the athletes on the field are good. Most of the guys at CWU are successful high school guys who don't fit into the D1 profile -- too small or too white. But as far as the dedication and athletic side, I don't agree with you at all. The level of competition is pretty good. And they badly need facility upgrades.Mosster47 said:
Bullshit. There are 105 kids on 130 D-1A programs. That's 13,650 kids at elite level. As a comparison there are a total of 5,205 D1 basketball players total out of 347 schools. Now let me blow your "they are good athletes" nonsense out of the water.ApostleofGrief said:The only team with 75 fans would be Puget Sound which is terrible anyway. There is no drag on tax dollars. The football drag on tax dollars came from building CenturyLink Field for the Paul Allen Seahawks. Most of the kids who play at the "low level" are good athletes.
There are 124 D-1AA schools with 80 players on each. That's another 9,920 kids. There are 169 D-2 schools. Of course they can only give grants to 36 but they have a ton of walk-on's so lets say they have 55 per team. That's another 9,295 kids. There are 448, yes 448 D-3 schools, which about 250 have a football program. Again, you're looking at an average of around 50 kids per team. That's another 12,500 kids. There are 88 NAIA schools playing football. We can use that same 50 kid metric and be accurate. That's another 4,440 kids.
We might as well add this one; there are 126 JUCO programs out there. I've never seen a JUCO with less than 50 kids on the team, but let's use 50 as the average. That's another 6,300 kids.
Overall we are talking about 51,665 kids playing football after high school. When you factor is basketball, baseball, hockey, crew, golf, and T&F taking their cut out of the athlete pool do you really think the back half of these 50k+ kids are good athletes? Of course they aren't. They are kids that didn't want to stop playing and that's about it. The tax payers and fellow students shouldn't be on the hook for that. If they want to keep playing then join a local semi-pro team and pay for your hobby, because down there that's all it is. -
Why stop there? According to your world view almost all D1 players suck because they don't make it in the NFL. Of those, you could say the good ones win the Super Bowl and everybody else sucks.CuntWaffle said:
They aren't good. If they were good they would be playing D1. They suck. Deal with it.ApostleofGrief said:
There was one huge, fat guy who literally weighed 400 pounds playing for George Fox a couple of years ago... that is the only bad athlete I've seen (and who knows, he may have been working wonders with footwork). Now, of the guys who AREN'T on the field, I can't comment on, but the athletes on the field are good. Most of the guys at CWU are successful high school guys who don't fit into the D1 profile -- too small or too white. But as far as the dedication and athletic side, I don't agree with you at all. The level of competition is pretty good. And they badly need facility upgrades.Mosster47 said:
Bullshit. There are 105 kids on 130 D-1A programs. That's 13,650 kids at elite level. As a comparison there are a total of 5,205 D1 basketball players total out of 347 schools. Now let me blow your "they are good athletes" nonsense out of the water.ApostleofGrief said:The only team with 75 fans would be Puget Sound which is terrible anyway. There is no drag on tax dollars. The football drag on tax dollars came from building CenturyLink Field for the Paul Allen Seahawks. Most of the kids who play at the "low level" are good athletes.
There are 124 D-1AA schools with 80 players on each. That's another 9,920 kids. There are 169 D-2 schools. Of course they can only give grants to 36 but they have a ton of walk-on's so lets say they have 55 per team. That's another 9,295 kids. There are 448, yes 448 D-3 schools, which about 250 have a football program. Again, you're looking at an average of around 50 kids per team. That's another 12,500 kids. There are 88 NAIA schools playing football. We can use that same 50 kid metric and be accurate. That's another 4,440 kids.
We might as well add this one; there are 126 JUCO programs out there. I've never seen a JUCO with less than 50 kids on the team, but let's use 50 as the average. That's another 6,300 kids.
Overall we are talking about 51,665 kids playing football after high school. When you factor is basketball, baseball, hockey, crew, golf, and T&F taking their cut out of the athlete pool do you really think the back half of these 50k+ kids are good athletes? Of course they aren't. They are kids that didn't want to stop playing and that's about it. The tax payers and fellow students shouldn't be on the hook for that. If they want to keep playing then join a local semi-pro team and pay for your hobby, because down there that's all it is. -
No It's the ones that don't win Super Bowl MVP's that suck.ApostleofGrief said:
Why stop there? According to your world view almost all D1 players suck because they don't make it in the NFL. Of those, you could say the good ones win the Super Bowl and everybody else sucks.CuntWaffle said:
They aren't good. If they were good they would be playing D1. They suck. Deal with it.ApostleofGrief said:
There was one huge, fat guy who literally weighed 400 pounds playing for George Fox a couple of years ago... that is the only bad athlete I've seen (and who knows, he may have been working wonders with footwork). Now, of the guys who AREN'T on the field, I can't comment on, but the athletes on the field are good. Most of the guys at CWU are successful high school guys who don't fit into the D1 profile -- too small or too white. But as far as the dedication and athletic side, I don't agree with you at all. The level of competition is pretty good. And they badly need facility upgrades.Mosster47 said:
Bullshit. There are 105 kids on 130 D-1A programs. That's 13,650 kids at elite level. As a comparison there are a total of 5,205 D1 basketball players total out of 347 schools. Now let me blow your "they are good athletes" nonsense out of the water.ApostleofGrief said:The only team with 75 fans would be Puget Sound which is terrible anyway. There is no drag on tax dollars. The football drag on tax dollars came from building CenturyLink Field for the Paul Allen Seahawks. Most of the kids who play at the "low level" are good athletes.
There are 124 D-1AA schools with 80 players on each. That's another 9,920 kids. There are 169 D-2 schools. Of course they can only give grants to 36 but they have a ton of walk-on's so lets say they have 55 per team. That's another 9,295 kids. There are 448, yes 448 D-3 schools, which about 250 have a football program. Again, you're looking at an average of around 50 kids per team. That's another 12,500 kids. There are 88 NAIA schools playing football. We can use that same 50 kid metric and be accurate. That's another 4,440 kids.
We might as well add this one; there are 126 JUCO programs out there. I've never seen a JUCO with less than 50 kids on the team, but let's use 50 as the average. That's another 6,300 kids.
Overall we are talking about 51,665 kids playing football after high school. When you factor is basketball, baseball, hockey, crew, golf, and T&F taking their cut out of the athlete pool do you really think the back half of these 50k+ kids are good athletes? Of course they aren't. They are kids that didn't want to stop playing and that's about it. The tax payers and fellow students shouldn't be on the hook for that. If they want to keep playing then join a local semi-pro team and pay for your hobby, because down there that's all it is. -
ApostleofGrief said:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/sports/cwu-trustees-agree-to-move-forward-with-tomlinson-stadium-improvements/article_7f3c7f0b-6dd3-5c76-9cdf-0eb2e60002e7.html
The best part of the stadium now though -- no jumbotron.
-
Pressing. Big time.ApostleofGrief said:
Why stop there? According to your world view almost all D1 players suck because they don't make it in the NFL. Of those, you could say the good ones win the Super Bowl and everybody else sucks.CuntWaffle said:
They aren't good. If they were good they would be playing D1. They suck. Deal with it.ApostleofGrief said:
There was one huge, fat guy who literally weighed 400 pounds playing for George Fox a couple of years ago... that is the only bad athlete I've seen (and who knows, he may have been working wonders with footwork). Now, of the guys who AREN'T on the field, I can't comment on, but the athletes on the field are good. Most of the guys at CWU are successful high school guys who don't fit into the D1 profile -- too small or too white. But as far as the dedication and athletic side, I don't agree with you at all. The level of competition is pretty good. And they badly need facility upgrades.Mosster47 said:
Bullshit. There are 105 kids on 130 D-1A programs. That's 13,650 kids at elite level. As a comparison there are a total of 5,205 D1 basketball players total out of 347 schools. Now let me blow your "they are good athletes" nonsense out of the water.ApostleofGrief said:The only team with 75 fans would be Puget Sound which is terrible anyway. There is no drag on tax dollars. The football drag on tax dollars came from building CenturyLink Field for the Paul Allen Seahawks. Most of the kids who play at the "low level" are good athletes.
There are 124 D-1AA schools with 80 players on each. That's another 9,920 kids. There are 169 D-2 schools. Of course they can only give grants to 36 but they have a ton of walk-on's so lets say they have 55 per team. That's another 9,295 kids. There are 448, yes 448 D-3 schools, which about 250 have a football program. Again, you're looking at an average of around 50 kids per team. That's another 12,500 kids. There are 88 NAIA schools playing football. We can use that same 50 kid metric and be accurate. That's another 4,440 kids.
We might as well add this one; there are 126 JUCO programs out there. I've never seen a JUCO with less than 50 kids on the team, but let's use 50 as the average. That's another 6,300 kids.
Overall we are talking about 51,665 kids playing football after high school. When you factor is basketball, baseball, hockey, crew, golf, and T&F taking their cut out of the athlete pool do you really think the back half of these 50k+ kids are good athletes? Of course they aren't. They are kids that didn't want to stop playing and that's about it. The tax payers and fellow students shouldn't be on the hook for that. If they want to keep playing then join a local semi-pro team and pay for your hobby, because down there that's all it is.
It's fine if you like to watch shit football. No one is going to tell you what you like. Stop trying to prove some shitty point about D2 athletes. No one cares, go watch your clown show with the 6 other fans and enjoy it with each other. -
Only players who win the Super Bowl MVP in recent years are good. The older players had it easy, so they and everybody else suck.salemcoog said:
No It's the ones that don't win Super Bowl MVP's that suck.ApostleofGrief said:
Why stop there? According to your world view almost all D1 players suck because they don't make it in the NFL. Of those, you could say the good ones win the Super Bowl and everybody else sucks.CuntWaffle said:
They aren't good. If they were good they would be playing D1. They suck. Deal with it.ApostleofGrief said:
There was one huge, fat guy who literally weighed 400 pounds playing for George Fox a couple of years ago... that is the only bad athlete I've seen (and who knows, he may have been working wonders with footwork). Now, of the guys who AREN'T on the field, I can't comment on, but the athletes on the field are good. Most of the guys at CWU are successful high school guys who don't fit into the D1 profile -- too small or too white. But as far as the dedication and athletic side, I don't agree with you at all. The level of competition is pretty good. And they badly need facility upgrades.Mosster47 said:
Bullshit. There are 105 kids on 130 D-1A programs. That's 13,650 kids at elite level. As a comparison there are a total of 5,205 D1 basketball players total out of 347 schools. Now let me blow your "they are good athletes" nonsense out of the water.ApostleofGrief said:The only team with 75 fans would be Puget Sound which is terrible anyway. There is no drag on tax dollars. The football drag on tax dollars came from building CenturyLink Field for the Paul Allen Seahawks. Most of the kids who play at the "low level" are good athletes.
There are 124 D-1AA schools with 80 players on each. That's another 9,920 kids. There are 169 D-2 schools. Of course they can only give grants to 36 but they have a ton of walk-on's so lets say they have 55 per team. That's another 9,295 kids. There are 448, yes 448 D-3 schools, which about 250 have a football program. Again, you're looking at an average of around 50 kids per team. That's another 12,500 kids. There are 88 NAIA schools playing football. We can use that same 50 kid metric and be accurate. That's another 4,440 kids.
We might as well add this one; there are 126 JUCO programs out there. I've never seen a JUCO with less than 50 kids on the team, but let's use 50 as the average. That's another 6,300 kids.
Overall we are talking about 51,665 kids playing football after high school. When you factor is basketball, baseball, hockey, crew, golf, and T&F taking their cut out of the athlete pool do you really think the back half of these 50k+ kids are good athletes? Of course they aren't. They are kids that didn't want to stop playing and that's about it. The tax payers and fellow students shouldn't be on the hook for that. If they want to keep playing then join a local semi-pro team and pay for your hobby, because down there that's all it is. -
All football other than what cuntwaffle defines sucks
-
No, just no.ApostleofGrief said:I suspect NCAA D3 does have some types like you describe, but D2 seems to have mostly good athletes as far as I have seen. A high school team would get demolished in e-burg. You've seen Linfield play I assume. They really mean business.
-
This is the last thing I will add to this because you don't know what you are talking about.ApostleofGrief said:also D3 schools are mostly very expensive private schools which don't have tax support. You are going to see a lot of white guys from rich families who, yes, would not be able to play elsewhere in college. But the deal is they are paying to play. Even so, a lot of schools like Linfield have ways to get quality athletes who are just too small to meet the profile of D1. D2 schools are usually "working class" or middle class kids who just don't meet the profile, again of D1. Face it, D1 recruits a certain type they deem suitable for the positions.
You even prove my point with this post above. D1 football coaches recruit football players. Low level schools recruit kids that want to play football. This isn't hard. One football player at the right position can shut down an entire offense of guys that want to play football or produce so much offense the other team has no chance.
An analogy; A guy with bumbly fingers that plays guitar 8 hours still won't be anywhere near Eddie Van Halen even when he has snorted an 8-ball of coke, smoked an ounce of weed, and chugged a pint of whiskey. One is a guitar player, the other is someone who likes to play guitar.
Go enjoy your mediocre at best football, but don't get confused about what you are watching. -
your mistake is that you lumped all schools past 1A as "lower level" -- you created a false split. Up above we ran that to its logical conclusion by splitting football into the good side 1) recent NFL MVPs in the Super Bowl, and 2) the bad, everybody else. Some of what you are saying no doubt is true -- but at the D3/NAIA level where they pay to play. You still have to deal with D2, 1-AA, as well as all of the D3/NAIA that really do take it seriously like Linfield. You are heavily biased by your life experiences. Common problem.Mosster47 said:
This is the last thing I will add to this because you don't know what you are talking about.ApostleofGrief said:also D3 schools are mostly very expensive private schools which don't have tax support. You are going to see a lot of white guys from rich families who, yes, would not be able to play elsewhere in college. But the deal is they are paying to play. Even so, a lot of schools like Linfield have ways to get quality athletes who are just too small to meet the profile of D1. D2 schools are usually "working class" or middle class kids who just don't meet the profile, again of D1. Face it, D1 recruits a certain type they deem suitable for the positions.
You even prove my point with this post above. D1 football coaches recruit football players. Low level schools recruit kids that want to play football. This isn't hard. One football player at the right position can shut down an entire offense of guys that want to play football or produce so much offense the other team has no chance.
An analogy; A guy with bumbly fingers that plays guitar 8 hours still won't be anywhere near Eddie Van Halen even when he has snorted an 8-ball of coke, smoked an ounce of weed, and chugged a pint of whiskey. One is a guitar player, the other is someone who likes to play guitar.
Go enjoy your mediocre at best football, but don't get confused about what you are watching.
