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
ApostleofGrief
Member Posts: 3,904
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.
The best part of the stadium now though -- no jumbotron.
Comments
-
Hopefully they never get upgrades
-
This isn't helping your social media presence
-
A former lineman of mine plays at Western Oregon. That's NAIA shit.
No NAIA team or a team that plays NAIA teams needs an $8 million stadium and they especially don't need a jumbotron.
There is way too much football after high school. The worst player I have ever coached in 15 years, I'm talking a 5'5 150lb ginger with two left feet and no strength made an NAIA roster. -
Western Oregon is NCAA D-2, not NAIA. They have a successful coach and program accepting many walk-on players who want to pay out of state tuition and continue playing football.
NO 5'5" 150 lb lineman ever played at Western Oregon. Ever.
You must really hate that young kid. -
Pics?Mosster47 said:A former lineman of mine plays at Western Oregon. That's NAIA shit.
No NAIA team or a team that plays NAIA teams needs an $8 million stadium and they especially don't need a jumbotron.
There is way too much football after high school. The worst player I have ever coached in 15 years, I'm talking a 5'5 150lb ginger with two left feet and no strength made an NAIA roster. -
"Poor/broke CWU trying to cobble together funds for stadium upgrades"
Not going to get much money from a shoemaker.
What a joke! -
He didn't play at Western, he was from AZ and played at some school in the midwest. I don't hate anyone that has played for me, but there is just way too much football after high school. Also, no one ever said he was a lineman, which he wasn't.doogie said:Western Oregon is NCAA D-2, not NAIA. They have a successful coach and program accepting many walk-on players who want to pay out of state tuition and continue playing football.
NO 5'5" 150 lb lineman ever played at Western Oregon. Ever.
You must really hate that young kid.
I know you're going to counter with all of those schools have track, basketball, etc. and you are correct. Those sports don't need 16 man coaching staffs and tons of equipment. Also, most of those kids that play at these low levels aren't very good athletes, but you are asking them to spend an extra half decade killing their body in the weight room and on the field for very little return. You can half ass track, soccer and basketball and no one cares. You can't half ass a 200lb guy smashing into you.
End rant, but these little schools everywhere with multi-million dollar stadiums and 75 fans is ridiculous and a drag on tax dollars. This isn't Texas high school football.
-
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.
-
NOGAF about Central footballApostleofGrief 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.
HTH -
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.
I will add to the talent disparity argument. I had a WR play for me in Tucson that was a scholarship player at New Mexico State, which is the worst D-1A program. He barely played all four years. Just to see if he could do it, he went and walked onto the Arizona Rattlers Arena team, which is one of the best Arena teams. He scored three TD's in his first game. The talent gap between actual football players and people that just want to play football is mammoth. -
well, Mooster, if he doesn't care, at least has comments!CuntWaffle said:
NOGAF about Central footballApostleofGrief 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.
HTH -
The Seahawks are Paul Allen's teamApostleofGrief 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 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. -
My comments are they shouldn't exist.ApostleofGrief said:
well, Mooster, if he doesn't care, at least has comments!CuntWaffle said:
NOGAF about Central footballApostleofGrief 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.
HTH -
well the public paid for his stadium is the point. Mooster is complaining about tax dollars, but that is where real money went. Small college football has almost nothing for upgrades you know. In eburg the goal posts literally are so old they tilt, the track has cracks, and the men's room urinal looks like the sink, so they need signs to prevent mishaps.RaceBannon said:
The Seahawks are Paul Allen's teamApostleofGrief 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.
-
Small college football should have nothing. Giving money to intermural flag football > small college football.ApostleofGrief said:
well the public paid for his stadium is the point. Mooster is complaining about tax dollars, but that is where real money went. Small college football has almost nothing for upgrades you know.RaceBannon said:
The Seahawks are Paul Allen's teamApostleofGrief 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.
-
well that is like just your opinion manCuntWaffle said:
Small college football should have nothing. Giving money to intermural flag football > small college football.ApostleofGrief said:
well the public paid for his stadium is the point. Mooster is complaining about tax dollars, but that is where real money went. Small college football has almost nothing for upgrades you know.RaceBannon said:
The Seahawks are Paul Allen's teamApostleofGrief 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.
-
I'm glad you mentioned George Fox. We had a kid on our team, he didn't play, he was just on our team that is actually in the rotation at George Fox. Now, you can't start for a 4A high school in the middle of nowhere Oregon, which has horrible high school football as a state, but you are good enough to play in college? GTFOutta here.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.
After D-1AA the majority of decent metro high school programs are better teams that their college counterparts, which isn't supposed to be the case. -
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.
-
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.
-
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.
