OT Fans doing harm.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
I'm curious . . . you have no opinion on either side but you propose that "counter" protests are the ones rough on recruiting . . . How so?

I would wager that 75-80% of Division I, Power 5 prospects have at least some black heritage. The protesters are here saying that those young men are valuable beyond what they can do on a court or field. The counter-protesters, who have shown up to nullify or counteract the calls for equality and change, are saying that they want the status quo to remain unchanged.

I think for those who understand the hardships of black culture it can be quite sobering to know that there are people out here who can see the pain you're going through and say, "yeah, well I don't care.. I just want things to stay the same because that's what makes me comfortable.."

In this CURRENT CLIMATE (probably for this class and maybe the next class), that will be a turn off for some recruits and their families. The American attention span isn't great and the bags will win out eventually. However, this 2021 class will be considerably impacted (IMHO).
 
My guess by those signs is some want to take down confederate or racist monuments, and others want to preserve their culture.

Students are protesting that they should take it down because it represents a loser (former leader of a confederate regiment). After reading up on him, I actually disagree with them. No real documentation (that I could find) about him being racist, though a student writer mentioned he was strong into white supremacy with no sources. He is however, credited with with murdering union soldiers that have surrendered (mostly African-Americans).

But TAMU, I would assume, put his statue there, to represent how he (literally) saved the university from poor management and scandals. There are reports that the shiitty school even had no running water when he got there (lol). Not going to post a whole biography, but if you really look into it, dude did a lot for the school. He even advocated for, and allowed females into the university.
 
I would wager that 75-80% of Division I, Power 5 prospects have at least some black heritage. The protesters are here saying that those young men are valuable beyond what they can do on a court or field. The counter-protesters, who have shown up to nullify or counteract the calls for equality and change, are saying that they want the status quo to remain unchanged.

I think for those who understand the hardships of black culture it can be quite sobering to know that there are people out here who can see the pain you're going through and say, "yeah, well I don't care.. I just want things to stay the same because that's what makes me comfortable.."

In this CURRENT CLIMATE (probably for this class and maybe the next class), that will be a turn off for some recruits and their families. The American attention span isn't great and the bags will win out eventually. However, this 2021 class will be considerably impacted (IMHO).

Thank you for clarifying what each side is "saying" . . .
 
Advertisement
Thank you for clarifying what each side is "saying" . . .

I quoted the part I was responding to. I just wanted to chip in to help explain how this might affect recruiting.

Coached a kid that played college ball. His father was the victim of police brutality. For him, the peaceful protests and the desire to see change is personal. Having an image of people who want to oppose the change he hopes to see might have a profound effect on a young man. There are many others like him.

A friend's son just committed to play for a P5 school. Privately he's talking about how he's glad he didn't commit to "some of these other schools" because of what he's seeing floating around on Twitter from their fans and locals.

I hope this clears up the point I was attempting to make.
 
My guess by those signs is some want to take down confederate or racist monuments, and others want to preserve their culture.

@88 those in that video are republicans. the confederacy were democrats and the monuments were of democrats that is why democrats want them taken down.
 
I quoted the part I was responding to. I just wanted to chip in to help explain how this might affect recruiting.

Coached a kid that played college ball. His father was the victim of police brutality. For him, the peaceful protests and the desire to see change is personal. Having an image of people who want to oppose the change he hopes to see might have a profound effect on a young man. There are many others like him.

A friend's son just committed to play for a P5 school. Privately he's talking about how he's glad he didn't commit to "some of these other schools" because of what he's seeing floating around on Twitter from their fans and locals.

I hope this clears up the point I was attempting to make.

Parents are often involved in school choices for their kids . . . They pay the tuition, too . . . Some of the kids are even dead policemans' sons . . .
 
Jimbo has to be sick about this.

***To be clear I am not trying to do a protest thread (currently frowned upon) I am simply pointing out that counter protests have to be tough on recruiting. No opinion on either side of even commenting on either sides stance or views.***


Real Sh.. How can a recruit want to play for a school that has fans doing negative protesting? Just like the coach in Texas said you can cheer for them when they score touchdowns, when they get sacks, when they get INT, but you wont let them date your daughter you wont hire them in certain positions. This is more than football, so when football players start sitting out of games, those haters will realize times need to change.
 
Advertisement
@88 those in that video are republicans. the confederacy were democrats and the monuments were of democrats that is why democrats want them taken down.


Stop it with your BS.

Originally, the party was called the "Democratic-Republican" party. Eventually, they dropped the second half of the name.

Democrats in 1860 were conservative. Republicans in 1860 were liberal (i.e., "Radical Republicans").

Over time, the identification of Democrats and Republicans as conservatives or liberals began to flip, due to events such as Teddy Roosevelt splitting from the Republicans and the northern Democrats beginning to pursue social justice issues, such as a 40 hour work week, no child labor, and workplace safety. The party switch gained a ton of momentum with Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat revolution in 1948 (where he single-handedly revived the use of the Confederate battle flag) and ended in 1968 with Nixon's "southern strategy".

It took 100 years, but by 1968, there had been a complete flip of "conservatives" from the Democrat party of 1860 to the Republican party of 1968, and a complete flip of radicals/liberals from the Republican party of 1860 to the Democrat party of 1968.

Just look at a time-lapse of how the southern states have voted for President over time. In 1944, Roosevelt carried the south. Starting in 1948, Democrats lost more and more southern states every 4 years until Nixon won them all in 1968. Since 1968, no Democrat running for President has carried the south unless he was a southerner (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton).

Facts.

 
I quoted the part I was responding to. I just wanted to chip in to help explain how this might affect recruiting.

Coached a kid that played college ball. His father was the victim of police brutality. For him, the peaceful protests and the desire to see change is personal. Having an image of people who want to oppose the change he hopes to see might have a profound effect on a young man. There are many others like him.

A friend's son just committed to play for a P5 school. Privately he's talking about how he's glad he didn't commit to "some of these other schools" because of what he's seeing floating around on Twitter from their fans and locals.

I hope this clears up the point I was attempting to make.
My cousin friend's son took the golden goose from his recruiter and said he's glad he went to that school because they payed him...
 
Stop it with your BS.

Originally, the party was called the "Democratic-Republican" party. Eventually, they dropped the second half of the name.

Democrats in 1860 were conservative. Republicans in 1860 were liberal (i.e., "Radical Republicans").

Over time, the identification of Democrats and Republicans as conservatives or liberals began to flip, due to events such as Teddy Roosevelt splitting from the Republicans and the northern Democrats beginning to pursue social justice issues, such as a 40 hour work week, no child labor, and workplace safety. The party switch gained a ton of momentum with Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat revolution in 1948 (where he single-handedly revived the use of the Confederate battle flag) and ended in 1968 with Nixon's "southern strategy".

It took 100 years, but by 1968, there had been a complete flip of "conservatives" from the Democrat party of 1860 to the Republican party of 1968, and a complete flip of radicals/liberals from the Republican party of 1860 to the Democrat party of 1968.

Just look at a time-lapse of how the southern states have voted for President over time. In 1944, Roosevelt carried the south. Starting in 1948, Democrats lost more and more southern states every 4 years until Nixon won them all in 1968. Since 1968, no Democrat running for President has carried the south unless he was a southerner (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton).

Facts.

I'm not defending Jack, but you know it's not that simple. My parents started voting in 1944 and 1948, one a Republican and one a Democrat. It was that way until their deaths in 2000 and 2017. Did one become racist? Was the other a racist and suddenly stopped? Ever wonder why the only ones touting the party flip are the ones who benefited from it and use it as a pejorative to the other? There are a lot more reasons to choose a political party than this and it does no good to paint an entire party with a broad brush. That is the exact definition of prejudice.
 
Advertisement
Jimbo has to be sick about this.

***To be clear I am not trying to do a protest thread (currently frowned upon) I am simply pointing out that counter protests have to be tough on recruiting. No opinion on either side of even commenting on either sides stance or views.***


2017-01-28_SFO_Airport_-NoBan_-NoWall_-RefugeesWelcome_Protest_(32432524742).jpg
 
I'm curious . . . you have no opinion on either side but you propose that "counter" protests are the ones rough on recruiting . . . How so?
I do have an opinion. I just trying to keep it off the board. That way we aren't debating which side is right or wrong. If one group is protesting and another group comes out and faces the other group and chants whatever typically the second group is the counter protesting group. Didn't imply racism or wrong in anyway. These might be great people. Nothing is wrong with what they are doing. My point is in this climate the optics probably don't help recruiting. Some of the Clemson fans counter protests are terrible but I chose not to post. Not trying to have a who's right who's wrong or a what's racist and what's not convo. More about recruiting in the current climate.
 
Advertisement
He's standing at attention, probably a vet. Just looks like the embodiment of bigotry doing it there. Isn't A&M a big ROTC school?
Maybe even a band alumni. Their band is military precision when it comes to marching...
 
Jimbo has to be sick about this.

***To be clear I am not trying to do a protest thread (currently frowned upon) I am simply pointing out that counter protests have to be tough on recruiting. No opinion on either side of even commenting on either sides stance or views.***


Twilight Zone.
 
OP left out one minor detail. This actually ended peacefully and both sides built a giant conciliatory bonfire made of Ill-fitting logs and wood scraps that promptly collapsed upon itself and killed everyone. RIP. 2020 is a real motherf*cker.
Very pointed reference.

Love it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top