BREAKING: University of Missouri football team on strike until president resigns!! Over racism

[Correll]

Sure. Let's have a WITCH HUNT!

Somewhere on this campus there are people, white people of course, who yelled a racist slogan and painted a shit swastika!

They must be found and punished!

Address the issue please. You guys wanted to know what happened and even when the guy that stepped down admitted he didnt anything about the incidents you guys can only respond by whining.

I did.

"Racist" Witch Hunt. THat's the issue. Looks like you're going to get one.

Blacks and libs clashed and blacks won.

The fact that the moronic lib administrator felt he had to fall on his sword is certainly important in that it shows that complete lack of moral courage by libs.

Not doing your job and stepping down is not a witch hunt. Its accepting responsibility for your inaction like the guy admitted. The fact that you are crying about it is amusing.

It's not his job to care about a supposed racial slur that happened off campus or to implement policy changes over a shit swastika that was just as likely to be painted by a black loner as a white one.

He was as stupid as you...hence,unemployed.

This is for you.

 

[Correll]

Ok. So YOU are the 20 year president of State University.

In comes your secretary.

"Sir/Ma'am/Zi....our student body president is saying some white guys in a pickup near main entrance called him the N word. What should we do?"

"Well....is there proof? Do we know who it was?"

"No ma'am/sir/zi/xo......we dont."


"AH GOD DAMMIT....that's it....guess I have to resign now and end my career!!"




What would you do???

You should ask the guy that stepped down. Obviously he knows something should have been done.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

Still nothing on what actions would have satisfied you libs.

 

[Asclepias]

You're the one who is deflecting.

You have stated that he did not address the incidents.

If you have no idea what he should have done, then how do you know he didn't do the best that could be done?

No. Youre the one deflecting. My opinion on what he should have done is not question here.

Because he said so?

Yes it is.

YOu are claiming his inaction was the problem. SO what would the proper solution have been?

If you can't answer that, then your complain is invalid, for as I said, he might have done all that could have been done.

No it isnt. I'm not making a claim. I only went by what the guy that stepped down said.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

 

[Asclepias]

Ok. So YOU are the 20 year president of State University.

In comes your secretary.

"Sir/Ma'am/Zi....our student body president is saying some white guys in a pickup near main entrance called him the N word. What should we do?"

"Well....is there proof? Do we know who it was?"

"No ma'am/sir/zi/xo......we dont."


"AH GOD DAMMIT....that's it....guess I have to resign now and end my career!!"




What would you do???

You should ask the guy that stepped down. Obviously he knows something should have been done.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

Still nothing on what actions would have satisfied you libs.

Ok?

I wont indulge your deflections today.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's Happening at the University of Missouri?

It's hard to understand....because "on campus" isn't where it happened. It happened "near campus".

Need I explain the difference of "on" vs "near"??

You probably need to explain what difference it makes and how that changes the incidents of racism that were not addressed. BTW you again dont know what you are talking about because the incident occurred on campus.

"Addressed" how?

Expel all white students with pickup trucks?

Rhetorical question. I know you don't have an answer and won't admit that you don't have an answer.

I'm glad you realized it was a rhetorical question and a strawman.

LOL!

And of course, still no hint as to how you would want these "issues" addressed.

Well....of course....just immediately hand the college over to minorities. All black college. That's the only answer to the white privilege and microaggressions and implicit bias all over U of Missouri.

The funny thing is there's already dozens of black colleges in this country. Blacks get what they want and whites can go **** themselves in their minds. Blacks don't want to be reasonable and that is a problem.

 

[bucs90]

Ok. So YOU are the 20 year president of State University.

In comes your secretary.

"Sir/Ma'am/Zi....our student body president is saying some white guys in a pickup near main entrance called him the N word. What should we do?"

"Well....is there proof? Do we know who it was?"

"No ma'am/sir/zi/xo......we dont."


"AH GOD DAMMIT....that's it....guess I have to resign now and end my career!!"




What would you do???

You should ask the guy that stepped down. Obviously he knows something should have been done.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

Still nothing on what actions would have satisfied you libs.

NOTHING will.

That's the beauty of eternal victimhood for them. It's a life long excuse.

This whole U of Missouri incident is ALL A HOAX. There isn't one bit of proof that ANY of it actually happened.

 

[Correll]

You're the one who is deflecting.

You have stated that he did not address the incidents.

If you have no idea what he should have done, then how do you know he didn't do the best that could be done?

No. Youre the one deflecting. My opinion on what he should have done is not question here.

Because he said so?

Yes it is.

YOu are claiming his inaction was the problem. SO what would the proper solution have been?

If you can't answer that, then your complain is invalid, for as I said, he might have done all that could have been done.

No it isnt. I'm not making a claim. I only went by what the guy that stepped down said.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

Yes you did make that claim. REad your above posts.

Yet you have no ability to explain why you think what he did was wrong.

 

[bucs90]

IT'S STAGED. A HOAX. GUARANTEED.

 

[Asclepias]

You're the one who is deflecting.

You have stated that he did not address the incidents.

If you have no idea what he should have done, then how do you know he didn't do the best that could be done?

No. Youre the one deflecting. My opinion on what he should have done is not question here.

Because he said so?

Yes it is.

YOu are claiming his inaction was the problem. SO what would the proper solution have been?

If you can't answer that, then your complain is invalid, for as I said, he might have done all that could have been done.

No it isnt. I'm not making a claim. I only went by what the guy that stepped down said.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

Yes you did make that claim. REad your above posts.

Yet you have no ability to explain why you think what he did was wrong.

Sorry but I already informed you I merely summarized the words of the guy that stepped down. Try harder.

 

[Correll]

Ok. So YOU are the 20 year president of State University.

In comes your secretary.

"Sir/Ma'am/Zi....our student body president is saying some white guys in a pickup near main entrance called him the N word. What should we do?"

"Well....is there proof? Do we know who it was?"

"No ma'am/sir/zi/xo......we dont."


"AH GOD DAMMIT....that's it....guess I have to resign now and end my career!!"




What would you do???

You should ask the guy that stepped down. Obviously he knows something should have been done.

Saying he takes "full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred,"

Still nothing on what actions would have satisfied you libs.

NOTHING will.

That's the beauty of eternal victimhood for them. It's a life long excuse.

This whole U of Missouri incident is ALL A HOAX. There isn't one bit of proof that ANY of it actually happened.

I know that. Hell, Asclepias knows that.

He is just too dishonest to admit it.

THis type of Race Baiting works for the Left, even if it costs one of their own, as it has with this spineless administrator.

 

[Stephanie]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Too bad you can short stock in u of Missouri

 

[Asclepias]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

Money talks and bullshit walks. The sooner people of color start exercising their economic power the faster these issues will be addressed. Good stuff.

 

[Correll]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

Which ironically would put real salaries in the pockets of thousands of "Minor League" black players instead of degrees they don't need or want.

 

[Correll]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

Money talks and bullshit walks. The sooner people of color start exercising their economic power the faster these issues will be addressed. Good stuff.

Addressed how?

Oh, you don't have an answer.

 

[Asclepias]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

Money talks and bullshit walks. The sooner people of color start exercising their economic power the faster these issues will be addressed. Good stuff.

Addressed how?

Oh, you don't have an answer.

Ask the president of the UoM. I know he stepped down already but since he cited his inaction maybe he can tell you what he would have done different.

 

[Correll]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

Money talks and bullshit walks. The sooner people of color start exercising their economic power the faster these issues will be addressed. Good stuff.

Addressed how?

Oh, you don't have an answer.

Ask the president of the UoM. I know he stepped down already but since he cited his inaction maybe he can tell you what he would have done different.

That was one minor example.

You made a far more expansive statement, that was far beyond that president's job.

What were you talking about? Addressed how?

Or are you just spouting stuff and nonsense?

 

[Stephanie]

You bet these mushed brain children thought up these DEMANDs no less. you know there is someone behind this stirring up this crap. and I think we can guess who

get this crap


Follow
https://twitter.com/download
Brandon Kiley@BKSportsTalk


Here they are - the list of demands from #ConcernedStudent1950.

from
Mizzou President Timothy Wolfe Resigns Amid Growing Protest

 

[bucs90]

this was probably the main reason the so called football players (record 4/5) got involved.

from another article:
Philip Bump writes that the impact of the football team’s threatened boycott shows that the athletic department has a lot of control over universities — even teams with 4-5 records:

That’s the fourth point: There’s huge long-term economic power in college football programs. The Tigers aren’t having a great season, at 4-5 after four straight losses. They’re still in contention for one of college football’s countless bowl games, assuming they close the season strong. If they did make a bowl, the school would get some amount of money as a bonus. Last year, schools that played in even the least-known games got six-figure payouts.

There are any number of other economic pipelines that are put at risk. The University of Michigan — a much bigger program than Missouri’s — signed a deal with Nike worth $11 million a year for 15 years. That’s just to allow Nike to outfit their teams in games. Missouri gets $2.2 million — plus bonuses if those Nike uniforms make it to the Bowl Championship Series (which they will not) featuring the very top teams in the country.

Those television agreements that are mentioned in the BYU contract are another thing altogether. Missouri is in the SEC Conference, which means they earn $15.6 million per year just to be seen on the SEC Network on cable. By the 2018 season, the Mercury News’s Jon Wilner estimated in March, the school will get $35.6 million in overall television revenue — and that’s a conservative estimate.

How much the school would lose if the team boycotted even one game is hard to say. But swinging back to politics, it’s easy to see where the leverage lies.

It’s also a good reason for universities to rethink their commitment to big-money sports. I like college football as much as the next fan, but it’s impossible to see this as anything else but a corruption of the core mission of higher education. If football drives these kinds of outcomes, what kind of academic outcomes does it drive for these schools as well? Do other administrators pursue go-along-to-get-along policies to keep teams and boosters happy?

Maybe the larger lesson of this story is this: Let the NFL fund its own minor leagues, and let universities get back to education.

from the article:
University of Missouri president resigns after football team threatens boycott « Hot Air

Which ironically would put real salaries in the pockets of thousands of "Minor League" black players instead of degrees they don't need or want.

The room and board plus books and education, not to mention high caliber training towards a shot at the NFL and networking to a possible coaching career....is worth 50K or more per year.

No one forces players to college. The NFL only requires you to be 3 years removed from high school. They're free to play semi pro or Arena league until then.

BUT...college is the best training ground for an NFL dream. Just like a computer science major may wanna work at Microsoft or Apple. Kids choose the best route.

 

[bucs90]

You bet these mushed brain children thought up these DEMANDs no less. you know there is someone behind this stirring up this crap. and I think we can guess who

get this crap


Follow
Brandon Kiley@BKSportsTalk


Here they are - the list of demands from #ConcernedStudent1950.

from
Mizzou President Timothy Wolfe Resigns Amid Growing Protest

Must admit his white male privilege!?