Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bigrig

US Olympians you Rooted Against?

Recommended Posts

 

Title ix has been the biggest enemy of college wrestling my friend. What you stated is incorrect

 

We're not friends. Title IX could be repealed tomorrow and not one DI program would be reinstated. The only likely result would be the dropping of many women's sports with the money reallocated to Football and Men's BB facilities/coaches. Any school that wants wrestling (see the Big 10) has it. And the schools that don't have it, don't want it back - period - and it has zilch to do with Title IX at this point. But hey, keep rolling with the same complaints wrestling has used since 1979, its worked so well for us...

 

 

Are you saying that dropping Title IX wouldn't mean schools would add back wrestling (which is probably true) or are you saying that it had NOTHING to do with wrestling being dropped in the first place?

 

Those are two very different things IMO.

 

Also i'm surprised your saying that if a school doesn't currently have wrestling it is ONLY because the school "doesn't want it". That doesn't make too much sense when wrestling has been growing in popularity at all levels except those under regulation by Title 9 institutions. Schools have eliminated wrestling to keep the number of men/women in proportion even when a program is 100% self sufficient financed by alumni & supporters (obviously a large enough group in the school wanted it to put up there own $$) like Marquette University named in the article below.

 

This article is from 2003 NYTimes so the situation is (likely) worse now:

 

Why are wrestlers so upset about this? The number of collegiate wrestling programs lost to Title IX compliance is staggering; this is especially alarming because, since 1993, wrestling has been a rapidly growing sport at the high-school level. Data compiled by Gary Abbott, director of special projects at USA Wrestling, indicates that in 2001, there were 244,984 athletes wrestling in high school; only 5,966 got to wrestle in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Not to put too fine a point on it: there is only one N.C.A.A. spot for every 41 high-school wrestlers. The numbers have been going downhill for a while. In 1982, there were 363 N.C.A.A. wrestling teams with 7,914 wrestlers competing; in 2001, there were only 229 teams with fewer than 6,000 wrestlers. Yet, in that same period, the number of N.C.A.A. institutions has increased from 787 to 1,049. No wonder wrestlers are unhappy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opini ... all&src=pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US women's soccer .....those title ix nazis led by Julie foudy. They are probably the only Americans I've rooted against though I don't mind seeing the basketball team lose as well

 

Yeah, because if Title IX went away, every school would immediately reinstate wrestling - oh wait, over the last decade nearly every DI school that has dropped wrestling was in Title IX compliance at the time. These same old complaints/whining will NEVER win us the battle over public opinion.

 

Title ix has been the biggest enemy of college wrestling my friend. What you stated is incorrect

 

We're not friends. Title IX could be repealed tomorrow and not one DI program would be reinstated. The only likely result would be the dropping of many women's sports with the money reallocated to Football and Men's BB facilities/coaches. Any school that wants wrestling (see the Big 10) has it. And the schools that don't have it, don't want it back - period - and it has zilch to do with Title IX at this point. But hey, keep rolling with the same complaints wrestling has used since 1979, its worked so well for us..

 

It has everything to do with title ix. It's not tired old excuses, it's facts that wrestling and a to. Of other non revenue men's sports have been dropped to become title ix compliant. Women's sports rarely get dropped. Fix it ever sawn on toy why. I'm no saying that d1 colleges would rush to add wrestling but title Ix has been a huge aggravating factor in our major program losses at the d1 level. What's your solution my friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pulling for Metcalf to get a world medal since he began his senior freestlye career, 6 or 7 years ago. It's been frustrating watching him out there trying to out folk the guys in freestyle but he keeps sticking with it and inching closer and closer to the top spot domestically. I don't see him ever winning a world level medal, he just doesn't have the technique for it, but it wont stop me for pulling for him if he's the US rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused...the Olympic Games were awarded to Salt Lake City on June 16th, 1995, four years before Mitt Romney was named President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and a mere months after Romney returned to Bain Capital after losing his 1994 Senate campaign by 17 points. Romney had absolutely nothing to do with the SLOC Bribery Scandal.

 

Exerpt from http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/10/ ... s-secrets/

 

"The third cover-up was of a bid scandal to get the Games. In December 1998, Swiss IOC member Marc Holder, Games oversight committee chair, disclosed that the Salt Lake bid committee lavished gifts on IOC members deciding where the 2002 Games were held. The gifts included college scholarships and jobs for members’ children, and cash.

 

While Romney was not the Olympics chair during the bidding, he not only conducted no further investigation but awarded contracts to central figures. Former Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. called Romney’s selections, “cronyism at its peak.” He gave several bid gift-givers contracts including travel hospitality owner Sead Dizdarevic, who admitted in court giving $130,000 to bid organizers."

 

Oh and btw...Romney is quite enough of a scumbag that smearing him isn't really necessary...just telling the truth works nicely. Maybe saying he bribed is going to far...but it's certainly not going too far to say he rewarded the bribers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically he had nothing at all to do with the bidding corruption and came in afterwards and made the Utah Olympics a huge success yet you still want to smear him with the original corruption? Got it.

 

What a scumbag... never drank, never smoked, never used drugs, hugely successful in both public & private pursuits, and gives a huge % of his privately earned $$ away to charity. If he is a scumbag what does that make all of us?

 

I wish I was that much of a scumbag in my own life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically he had nothing at all to do with the bidding corruption and came in afterwards and made the Utah Olympics a huge success yet you still want to smear him with the original corruption? Got it.

 

What a scumbag... never drank, never smoked, never used drugs, hugely successful in both public & private pursuits, and gives a huge % of his privately earned $$ away to charity. If he is a scumbag what does that make all of us?

 

I wish I was that much of a scumbag in my own life.

 

Oh yeah, he's great. Takes over American companies, dismantles them, fires tens of thousands of people, moves the companies overseas. Takes a true American hero to do stuff like that. God bless him!

 

Btw...Hitler was a vegetarian teetotaller who didn't smoke either. Guess that made him a great guy, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there are "Americans" who hate America so much that they just cheer against America, as a whole, when it comes to the Olympics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhMVRP0n-_c

If only MSNBC and Rachel Maddow could have covered the Benghazi coverup as well as twisting her story regarding Obama's failure to rank Chicago, the murder capital of the United States, above last place in the running for hosting the 2016 Olympics. Apparently there are some who still watch MSNBC and people like Rachel Maddow. They certainly don't lead in the ratings for their time slots. Hannity beats the entire 9pm lineup combined and more than doubles the ratings Rachel Maddow receives. Complete and total liberal bias obviously does not sell well in America.

 

Media by the numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/0 ... 13/176195/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only MSNBC and Rachel Maddow could have covered the Benghazi coverup as well as twisting her story regarding Obama's failure to rank Chicago, the murder capital of the United States, above last place in the running for hosting the 2016 Olympics. Apparently there are some who still watch MSNBC and people like Rachel Maddow. They certainly don't lead in the ratings for their time slots. Hannity beats the entire 9pm lineup combined and more than doubles the ratings Rachel Maddow receives. Complete and total liberal bias obviously does not sell well in America.

 

I wouldn't hang my hat on TV ratings if I were you. TV ratings aren't a measure of who is right,they are just a measure of viewing blocks. People right of center prefer to watch shows that verify their biases, so they almost universally watch the ridiculous Fox "News". Sane people, on the other hand, watch a variety of news sources on TV. As for content vs ratings, Comedy Central doesn't get the highest ratings, but watchers of even the comedic DAILY SHOW consistently outperform FOX fans on current event tests. In fact, watchers of FOX news are more ignorant than people who DON'T EVEN WATCH THE NEWS AT ALL. As for the "liberal media bias"...are you some kind of kook conspiracist?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... n-stewart/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-anot ... -informed/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/it ... -stupider#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only MSNBC and Rachel Maddow could have covered the Benghazi coverup as well as twisting her story regarding Obama's failure to rank Chicago, the murder capital of the United States, above last place in the running for hosting the 2016 Olympics. Apparently there are some who still watch MSNBC and people like Rachel Maddow. They certainly don't lead in the ratings for their time slots. Hannity beats the entire 9pm lineup combined and more than doubles the ratings Rachel Maddow receives. Complete and total liberal bias obviously does not sell well in America.

 

I wouldn't hang my hat on TV ratings if I were you. TV ratings aren't a measure of who is right. Comedy Central doesn't get the highest ratings, but watchers of the comedic DAILY SHOW consistently outperform FOX fans on current event tests. In fact, watchers of FOX news are more ignorant than people who DON'T EVEN WATCH THE NEWS AT ALL. As for the "liberal media bias"...are you some kind of kook conspiracist?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... n-stewart/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-anot ... -informed/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/it ... -stupider#

 

I didn't hang my hat on anything. Just stating that fact that Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are liberally biased and did not cover the Benghazi story like they should have and as a consequence lose money because they can't sell their product to the American people. By product I'm referring to news, not comedians who make a living from political satire.

 

I'm not a conspiracist. I am highly educated in the world of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Maddow "twist the story," when she simply played video clips of Country Clubbers across the country applauding that the U.S. lost the Olympic bid? Did she also "twist the story" when she showed "president" George C- Bush stating that, "Chicago would be the best city for the Olympics?"

 

Also, what were journalists to cover regarding Benghazi? That it was America's fault, as you are asserting, Rush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't hang my hat on anything. Just stating that fact that Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are liberally biased and did not cover the Benghazi story like they should have and as a consequence lose money because they can't sell their product to the American people. By product I'm referring to news, not comedians who make a living from political satire.

 

Fair enough, but I'll remind you that MSNBC viewers (which I'm not) tend to score higher than FOX viewers as well. But Maddow isn't a reporter....Maddow is an opinionater. Her show isn't to present news, it's for her to present her take on issues she feels deserve her attention. What you are complaining about is like me complaining that Glenn Beck hasn't presented me with stories contradicting Bush's account of the security failures of 911. Beck isn't a newsman either...he's a political talking head, like Maddow. He's not there to present news, he's there to present opinion. Ludicrous opinion, but opinion none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only MSNBC and Rachel Maddow could have covered the Benghazi coverup as well as twisting her story regarding Obama's failure to rank Chicago, the murder capital of the United States, above last place in the running for hosting the 2016 Olympics. Apparently there are some who still watch MSNBC and people like Rachel Maddow. They certainly don't lead in the ratings for their time slots. Hannity beats the entire 9pm lineup combined and more than doubles the ratings Rachel Maddow receives. Complete and total liberal bias obviously does not sell well in America.

 

I wouldn't hang my hat on TV ratings if I were you. TV ratings aren't a measure of who is right. Comedy Central doesn't get the highest ratings, but watchers of the comedic DAILY SHOW consistently outperform FOX fans on current event tests. In fact, watchers of FOX news are more ignorant than people who DON'T EVEN WATCH THE NEWS AT ALL. As for the "liberal media bias"...are you some kind of kook conspiracist?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... n-stewart/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-anot ... -informed/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/it ... -stupider#

 

I didn't hang my hat on anything. Just stating that fact that Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are liberally biased and did not cover the Benghazi story like they should have and as a consequence lose money because they can't sell their product to the American people. By product I'm referring to news, not comedians who make a living from political satire.

 

I'm not a conspiracist. I am highly educated in the world of politics.

 

Is condemning drone attacks "libril bias," Rush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically he had nothing at all to do with the bidding corruption and came in afterwards and made the Utah Olympics a huge success yet you still want to smear him with the original corruption? Got it.

 

What a scumbag... never drank, never smoked, never used drugs, hugely successful in both public & private pursuits, and gives a huge % of his privately earned $$ away to charity. If he is a scumbag what does that make all of us?

 

I wish I was that much of a scumbag in my own life.

 

Oh yeah, he's great. Takes over American companies, dismantles them, fires tens of thousands of people, moves the companies overseas. Takes a true American hero to do stuff like that. God bless him!

 

Btw...Hitler was a vegetarian teetotaller who didn't smoke either. Guess that made him a great guy, huh?

 

 

I won't get into a long drawn out discussion since this isn't an off topic board but this bugged me enough that I will respond. Tobus (unless you're just trolling) I'd suggest you checkout who actually did what you described but using taxpayer funds, while your googling you might as well see how many Americans are still employed by Staples alone before leveling false attacks. And if your curious,http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81529.html.

 

I thought it was common knowledge that when you need to bring up Hitler to smear someone you're pretty much admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

 

Anyway sorry for off topic crap, it wont happen again. I just couldn't let that nonsense stand unchallenged this time.

 

In response to the actual thread topic I do not understand how any American could root for a foreign wrestler over one of their own in international competition... So no i've never rooted against a US Olympian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically he had nothing at all to do with the bidding corruption and came in afterwards and made the Utah Olympics a huge success yet you still want to smear him with the original corruption? Got it.

 

What a scumbag... never drank, never smoked, never used drugs, hugely successful in both public & private pursuits, and gives a huge % of his privately earned $$ away to charity. If he is a scumbag what does that make all of us?

 

I wish I was that much of a scumbag in my own life.

 

Oh yeah, he's great. Takes over American companies, dismantles them, fires tens of thousands of people, moves the companies overseas. Takes a true American hero to do stuff like that. God bless him!

 

Btw...Hitler was a vegetarian teetotaller who didn't smoke either. Guess that made him a great guy, huh?

 

What jackass commentary...moronoc, actually. I'm guessing you're an adjunct instructor at Columbia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What jackass commentary...moronoc, actually. I'm guessing you're an adjunct instructor at Columbia?

 

Hilarious....that a guy who can't spell the utterly simple word "moronic" would say somebody else is "moronoc". I bet the instructors at Columbia can actually spell the word.

 

At Husky...I suggest you alleviate your ignorance by studying "BAIN CAPITAL" to see how your hero made his fortune....busting up companies and shipping American jobs overseas.

 

As per Husky, I'm done with this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...