|
Post by airman on Feb 17, 2013 20:26:40 GMT -6
it was the same stretch as your equation of " sacrificing of your personal glory for the greater good of the group" as tantamount to preaching the Communist ethos. Coach Slack can believe in Jesus all he wants. Jesus was a very nice figure if he existed.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 21, 2013 11:34:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Feb 21, 2013 11:53:26 GMT -6
Gladwell loves to play Nostradamus because he knows people aren't cataloguing his misses.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Mar 3, 2013 18:45:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 3, 2013 23:15:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 4, 2013 7:14:11 GMT -6
steelhawk--it seems a great deal of that is about the fact that "college" football is in no way/shape/form student athlete based. Not necessarily an attack on football, but rather the current state of college football
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 4, 2013 8:24:03 GMT -6
the problem with that 'debate' from a year ago was that it was all over the place and none of the four panelists would focus on one specific topic. Gladwell conveniently included brain trauma to recycle an older argument about college athletics, period. It didn't help that Whitlock and Green didn't step outside their syndicated columnist world, dig a little deeper to provide anything other than a "tradition" argument.
I think that illustrates the goal here should be for us all.....deal with this issue matter-of-factly and provide direct feedback. If either Whitlock or Green did that, they would've proved Gladwell and Bissinger's disjointed themes ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Mar 4, 2013 8:36:30 GMT -6
steelhawk--it seems a great deal of that is about the fact that "college" football is in no way/shape/form student athlete based. Not necessarily an attack on football, but rather the current state of college football True, but if they remove football from the college ranks, I think we can all agree that there would be a trickle down effect that would likely lead to football being removed from many high schools. I would hate to see football removed from the college ranks, but you have to admit that it was schocking and compelling that Gladwell and Bissinger were able to "win" the debate convincingly based on the audiance poll.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Mar 4, 2013 8:44:39 GMT -6
Great points Brophy. I agree 100%
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 4, 2013 10:51:05 GMT -6
steelhawk--it seems a great deal of that is about the fact that "college" football is in no way/shape/form student athlete based. Not necessarily an attack on football, but rather the current state of college football True, but if they remove football from the college ranks, I think we can all agree that there would be a trickle down effect that would likely lead to football being removed from many high schools. I would hate to see football removed from the college ranks, but you have to admit that it was schocking and compelling that Gladwell and Bissinger were able to "win" the debate convincingly based on the audiance poll. A lot of times winning the audience poll depends on who's in the audience.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Mar 4, 2013 11:01:32 GMT -6
A lot of times winning the audience poll depends on who's in the audience. Very true, but they polled the audience before the debate and the majority of the audiance was AGAINST banning college football. They re-polled the audiance after the debate and the numbers almost reversed. The "winners" were determined by who was able to change the most opinions. I guess it's possible that many in the audience were lying about their initial stance. But like Brophy said, I think the group supporting college football could of made a stronger case.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 4, 2013 11:10:31 GMT -6
A lot of times winning the audience poll depends on who's in the audience. Very true, but they polled the audience before the debate and the majority of the audiance was AGAINST banning college football. They re-polled the audiance after the debate and the numbers almost reversed. The "winners" were determined by who was able to change the most opinions. I guess it's possible that many in the audience were lying about their initial stance. But like Brophy said, I think the group supporting college football could of made a stronger case. I think that maybe a lot of the audience who were initially against banning football were what recruiting junkies call a "soft commit". BTW, the moderator didn't exactly do Green/Whitlock any favors with his lead-in to the debate.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 4, 2013 11:47:47 GMT -6
BTW, the moderator didn't exactly do Green/Whitlock any favors with his lead-in to the debate. or Green/Whitlock didn't do any favors to football because they are both brainless mopes. There was NOTHING discussed in that forum that would compel anyone to action one way or the other. Gladwell and Bissinger just made stronger arguments of their position. Both presented a position and backed it up with some type of evidence. Unfortunately, for them all they did was get you half way there. Its like saying "ice cream makes you fat. It has all this sugar and calories.......ICE CREAM WILL KILL YOU!". Rolling up the "college football is too big!", "college athletes are not compensated" then throwing some CTE studies in to boot just made a sloppy position. Proponents of football have to be able to meet these criticisms, acknowledge the risks, and then explain whats truly at stake. Rather than addressing that whole big bag of {censored} that the two were using as negative aspects of football, they should have dissected/separated each position (because Gladwell & Bissinger were just using one argument to support the other).
|
|