Zirg said:It's par for the course for Dartmouth. Nobody goes to Dartmouth because of their football prowess anyways so it's impossible to hurt recruiting and falls in line with their determination to be "progressive". They've produced 4 NFLers in the last 22 years. Montana can claim 29 in the same period.
Zirg said:It's par for the course for Dartmouth. Nobody goes to Dartmouth because of their football prowess anyways so it's impossible to hurt recruiting and falls in line with their determination to be "progressive". They've produced 4 NFLers in the last 22 years. Montana can claim 29 in the same period.
fanofzoo said:Zirg said:It's par for the course for Dartmouth. Nobody goes to Dartmouth because of their football prowess anyways so it's impossible to hurt recruiting and falls in line with their determination to be "progressive". They've produced 4 NFLers in the last 22 years. Montana can claim 29 in the same period.
I always thought that you went to school for an education.
SoldierGriz said:fanofzoo said:Zirg said:It's par for the course for Dartmouth. Nobody goes to Dartmouth because of their football prowess anyways so it's impossible to hurt recruiting and falls in line with their determination to be "progressive". They've produced 4 NFLers in the last 22 years. Montana can claim 29 in the same period.
I always thought that you went to school for an education.
Said no one involved in big-time college athletics...
Zirg said:I knew this would rub you the wrong way Rep. You, obviously have a connection with the school, but I didn't post any erroneous info. There's no denying Dartmouth's prestige and earning-power. I thought this was a football discussion.
Ursus1 said:How can they know anything if "they never played the game"? Yes I am joking
signedbewildered said:Ursus1 said:How can they know anything if "they never played the game"? Yes I am joking
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh the irony.
PDXGrizzly said:Zirg said:It's par for the course for Dartmouth. Nobody goes to Dartmouth because of their football prowess anyways so it's impossible to hurt recruiting and falls in line with their determination to be "progressive". They've produced 4 NFLers in the last 22 years. Montana can claim 29 in the same period.
I don’t see how being “progressive” comes into play. Either they are good at what they do and bring good coaching to the table or they don’t. If they don’t, then adios. If UM had some female coaches and still kicked ass, what would be the beef? Sure, Dartmouth is a bastion of liberalism wrapped up in an Ivy League pedigree. But if these coaches do a good job, who cares if they are women.
GGNez said:PDXGrizzly said:Zirg said:It's par for the course for Dartmouth. Nobody goes to Dartmouth because of their football prowess anyways so it's impossible to hurt recruiting and falls in line with their determination to be "progressive". They've produced 4 NFLers in the last 22 years. Montana can claim 29 in the same period.
I don’t see how being “progressive” comes into play. Either they are good at what they do and bring good coaching to the table or they don’t. If they don’t, then adios. If UM had some female coaches and still kicked ass, what would be the beef? Sure, Dartmouth is a bastion of liberalism wrapped up in an Ivy League pedigree. But if these coaches do a good job, who cares if they are women.
It's always good to be reminded that most men aren't sexist. Thanks for the post, PDX. Your daughter is a lucky little girl. It's quite an interesting study in psychology to read some posts and try to determine what it is about women in certain professions that some guys find so off-putting and...."icky". Fascinating, really. A little creepy but interesting.
Ursus1 said:Silly Teevans....."You don’t have to play football to be a coach,” Teevens says. “If someone is passionate and willing to put in the time — it’s not a 9-to-5 job — you can learn the sport.”