B1G Loser Mentality

Landlord said:
I'm not talking about the benefit of effects. Yes, I already acknowledge in a previous post that a lot of good came from it and those players received benefit that was valuable. I'm talking about intention. You asked how it isn't noble - something being noble has to do with moral principles and ideals, not results. 

When we give a scholarship to a player the most foundational primary reason for doing so is for our gain, not theirs. But different situations have different degrees of added consideration and altruism, or differing amounts of overlap between player and program desires/needs, or less of a dichotomy between athletic success and academic integrity. 

Our exploitation of partial qualifiers strikes me as slightly less ethical or easy to sit with than our exploitation of other college football players (don't get triggered by the word exploitation it's not meant to be an indictment), and the argument in favor of it is a little too much like Romans supporting gladiatorial pits saying, "Well, at least those prisoners get a chance to be free or die with honor! They should be grateful" for my comfort. 

And again, I'm only talking about this because you keep asking. It's a very very very little deal to me. 
Click to expand...


You're going deeper into la la land with this.

We brought partial qualifiers in for the exact same reason why we bring any scholarship player in.  We give them an education and they play football for the program.  With partial qualifiers, we were able to give that opportunity to a few players a year that normally would have just gone to a JUCO.  

I absolutely fail to see how that's some how immoral or unethical.  Every program in the conference had the ability to do that and I would be surprised if they didn't.  It wasn't something we dreamed up and just did ourselves in secret to try to get around rules or to exploit the system.

These players were not eligible to play till they were fully qualified.  So, it's not like we were playing a bunch of failing players for a couple years then dumping them.  They came in, did the work, got qualified and played....and I would guess that many of them ended up with a college degree because of it.

You're way out in strange land on this one.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
You have teams on that list who have actually made it to the playoff. They did actually play in a competitive game- win or lose. Some that actually made it to the final championship game so your list is not very good.
Click to expand...




You just implied losing in the playoff isn’t being competitive and said the goal is to have a legit shot at beating the other 3 teams. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I fail to see how Landlord’s point here is confusing, even though I disagree with his overall view in this topic.

He’s talking about intent. A side effect was a benefit to the players. The intent was to get a competitive advantage. It’s not a “noble” cause unless your intent is to help people. If the players weren’t going to help them get an advantage they wouldn’t have helped them. 
Click to expand...
Are we questioning the nobility of Dr. Tom? 

 
BigRedBuster said:
You're going deeper into la la land with this.

We brought partial qualifiers in for the exact same reason why we bring any scholarship player in.  We give them an education and they play football for the program.  With partial qualifiers, we were able to give that opportunity to a few players a year that normally would have just gone to a JUCO.  

I absolutely fail to see how that's some how immoral or unethical.  Every program in the conference had the ability to do that and I would be surprised if they didn't.  It wasn't something we dreamed up and just did ourselves in secret to try to get around rules or to exploit the system.

These players were not eligible to play till they were fully qualified.  So, it's not like we were playing a bunch of failing players for a couple years then dumping them.  They came in, did the work, got qualified and played....and I would guess that many of them ended up with a college degree because of it.

You're way out in strange land on this one.
Click to expand...






No he isn’t. His viewpoint isn’t strange at all.

Immoral and not noble are not the same thing. Something can be morally fine but not noble if the reason for helping someone is to help yourself.

 
BigRedBuster said:
You're going deeper into la la land with this.

We brought partial qualifiers in for the exact same reason why we bring any scholarship player in.  We give them an education and they play football for the program.  With partial qualifiers, we were able to give that opportunity to a few players a year that normally would have just gone to a JUCO.  
Click to expand...
So by Landlord's logic I think he is calling the entire JUCO system not very noble.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
No I implied losing 2 games by a combined score of 79-0 in the 1st round is not competitive. 
Click to expand...




And then you said teams on LL’s list made the playoff. So which is it, is making the playoff being competitive or is winning a playoff game competitive?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I keep trying to be clear that I'm not talking about anything related to rule breaking or benefits that happened as a result of the practice, yet both arguments keep coming up repeatedly. 

@Huskers93-97, I certainly have objections to the juco farm system, yes. Have you seen Last Chance U? It's largely a complete mockery of the intention of college athletics. 

(also when the same two teams are guaranteed to win the championship each year and likely play each other in it, I fail to believe that anyone else is really truly currently competitive)

 
Moiraine said:
And then you said teams on LL’s list made the playoff as if that’s good enough to be competitive. 
Click to expand...
It is competitive if you lose a close game. I will pick 1 team off his list as an example. The last 2 years Oklahoma lost to Georgia 48-54 in double overtime then last year to alabama 34-45. I see nothing wrong with those 2 losses. It looks like they belonged on the field. 

But when you lose 79-0 most folks walk away saying. Hmmm. Maybe we put the wrong team in the playoff.

 
Landlord said:
(also when the same two teams are guaranteed to win the championship each year and likely play each other in it, I fail to believe that anyone else is really truly currently competitive)
Click to expand...
That statement I believe does have some merit. I cant recall anytime in CFB history that 2 teams have dominated like this at the same time? This next season is nearly worthless to even play. Skip to Alabama vs Clemson and not play the season. Georgia does have the chops to take them out I believe though.

 
Landlord said:
Because we weren't doing it for them, we were doing it for us. 
Click to expand...


You’re talking out your a$$ here. Ya know it’s okay to back down from defending something you have no idea about.

Just because TO used partial qualifiers to his benefit does not indicate anything. He was operating within the rules at the time. Of course he used every advantage he could. It still resulted in kids getting an education that otherwise wouldn’t have been able to. I don’t care if you consider that noble or not but it’s a fact and to state that we were doing it solely for our benefit and not theirs is just wanting to advance some faulty narrative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
No he isn’t. His viewpoint isn’t strange at all.

Immoral and not noble are not the same thing. Something can be morally fine but not noble if the reason for helping someone is to help yourself.
Click to expand...


Well, under those guide lines, the entire football program is "not noble".  It's there for the fans to have fun and the the university to have media exposure and make money.  We give scholarships to players so they come and satisfy all of our needs.  None of that is any more "noble" than allowing a partial qualifier to come in and get qualified before he plays the sport.

If Landlord has a problem with partial qualifiers, he should have a problem with the entire program.

 
I have an extremely minor disagreement with our partial qualifiers practices from the past, and I have disagreements with other things, and I have an overall mentality that apparently leaves a lot more room for nuance and shades of grey than your false dichotomies do. 

 
Landlord said:
I have an extremely minor disagreement with our partial qualifiers practices from the past, and I have disagreements with other things, and I have an overall mentality that apparently leaves a lot more room for nuance and shades of grey than your false dichotomies do. 
Click to expand...
I keep waiting for you to explain that little nuances and shades of grey.  You haven't provided any.  So, based on that, I have no "false dichotomies".  

 
Lord knows I've tried but you can't seem to see them on your screen or something. Sorry I can't help more and am quite disinterested in trying to keep explaining the same things over and over again about something I care so little about.

Here's how this conversation would have gone in a bar.

"Yeah idk, I mean I get the approach and it's no big deal, we weren't breaking the rules or anything and plenty of kids got valuable opportunities because of it so I'm glad for that but idk if it was something to necessarily feel good about. I probably wouldn't have done it but can't really knock anyone who did especially with no rules about it."

Five minutes later

"Then why are you even a fan dude!?!"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top