Printable View
Who cares? This whole thread is ignorant. God forbid the coach does something for the players because fans are too worried about what someone else thinks... Some of you folks need to grow a pair and stop validating your self worth using other people's opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Since they do not have to pay millions in attorney fees to defend us from the NCAA, the MSU Athletic Department to spend the excess cash on something.******
That's what you think that I validate my self worth with other opinions here? Jeez... my opinion is hardly ever the consensus here, and that never affects my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Cobreh
Participation trophies are weak
It's not that deep. We're just having some fun with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Cobreh
This amazes me. If we lose to them this board melts and wants to clear house but if we beat them in our biggest rivalry game and reward our players with hardware for doing so it's a participation trophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I always thought a participation trophy was given to losers to make them feel better. Last I checked we won the egg bowl
I guess if this is stupid then having a name and a trophy for the game is stupid.
Participation trophies would be if we lost. We won.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
What specifically irks you about the ring. You think beating OM is not important enough to warrant a ring?
No, I don't. Om was 1-7 in conference play last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
ETA... did vandy give rings for beating om too?
Why did the ring have outback bowl on it too?Quote:
Originally Posted by vv83
I have no issue at all with this. Whatever it takes to motivate them to whip that butt every year.
Nah, Prince Alberta for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
So we should only give rings if OM is good?Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Vandy and OM are not hated rivals.
We should never give rings for winning a regular season rivalry game. I don't think we should give rings for anything less than an actual championship. They're called "championship rings" for a reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
What if we went 1-11 and they were our only win? Do we still do the ring thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I know they're our rival, and it matters a lot to win that game, but beating them shouldn't define our season. I absolutely hated when Dan would say "he could go 1-11 and as long as our 1 win was OM, he'd be loved"...I just think that makes us look small as hell. Beating your rival IS important, but so is taking steps forward as a program, playing in NYD bowls, access bowls, etc.
My 2 cents.
That's kinda how I think, Beardo... Using non-traditional awards for beating a rival just enhances one's rival, IMO...Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardoMSU
Im fine with it. If we wouldve lost yall wouldve wanted to fire him. I guess some people will hate on him no matter what. I promise you the kids loved it
Yet another example of Moorehead being a clown show. OM was freaking terrible, we underachieved, and he gave out rings? God he is terrible
I’m not. Screw that. Give a ring for amazing play for the season. I’m like 7 I’m sick of motivation by participation trophies. Produce Excellence and be rewarded by excellence.
My child gets a C in school they ain’t getting a trophy they getting hell from dad! Praise mediocrity you get it. Raise the bar and expectations. Demand it.
Yea lets fire him now....You sound like an 80 year old man right here man. If the kids love it, I love it. If its a big enough game you do something for it, and thats the biggest game of the year every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastMan