Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

[propar80]

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...16/1158/VOICES

I'm assuming a lot of us have read this editorial from Patrick Lailey in yesterday's Argus. I do know he definitely could've left out the "town of Brookings" comment. The comment about Vermillion being Progressive, has to be sarcasim...no?? :-/

I just wanted to get a reaction from the board on this article, since I hadn't seen it on here.
I've heard people in Brookings are NOT happy about it.

Feel free to comment on the SDSU view of the rivalry on the Argus page. I can't seem to get into my Argus account, and have never been able to.

[jackmd]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061205/COLUMNISTS0111/612050316/1158/VOICES

I'm assuming a lot of us have read this editorial from Patrick Lailey in yesterday's Argus.  I do know he definitely could've left out the "town of Brookings" comment.  The comment about Vermillion being Progressive, has to be sarcasim...no?? :-/

I just wanted to get a reaction from the board on this article, since I hadn't seen it on here.
I've heard people in Brookings are NOT happy about it.

Feel free to comment on the SDSU view of the rivalry on the Argus page.  I can't seem to get into my Argus account, and have never been able to.

Its from Patrick Lalley the editor of The Voice section of the Argus, do we need to say anything else?
I pretty much just ignore everything he writes, its all essentially without content.

[NightHawk78]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

I posted the link and my commentary last night on the USD-to-D1 smack thread.

http://www.sdsufans.com/cgi-bin/yabb...64864014/24#24

[1bunnies]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

There is most likely a good reason he is a usd2 graduate. He's not bright enough to graduate from State.

[filbert]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

One of my problems with renewing the "rivalry" right now, is that it simply doesn't strike me as being fun. Sports should be fun. To me, the thought of renewing the rivalry, at least right now, is pretty much the opposite of fun.

There are Montanas and Georgia Southerns to play in football. There are Minnesotas, Utah States, and Northern Iowas in basketball to play. Those games are fun. I say let USD pay its dues in D-I the way SDSU is now doing, and then we can talk about playing one another. But I'm in no hurry.

[Haldersham]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

Patrick Lalley wrote some very thought provoking columns after the election, one in partiular I liked was how influences from out of state were using SD for a proving ground on just about any issue by using the intitiative and referandum allowed in the constituio. That  column was excellent and one I agreed with wholeheartly. I had no knowledge of Lalley's background and for him to write this trash about a rivalry is disisturbing to say the least. I am beginning to wonder if juice is Patrick Lalley. This column seems to be on the same level as "juice."

[jackmd]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

I should have stated things more clearly. Mr. Lalley does provoke some thought about some topics. His thoughts about college athletics in South Dakota are not so thought provoking. The comments about the rivalry were immature and in poor taste to say the least. Not suprising the Argus published them, though.

I think Patrick knows where I stand on renewing the rivalry. It will be on our terms, its just that simple.

[mango4]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

I think my favorite part about the whole thing is when he goes into a rant about everything wrong with State (at least I think thats where hes trying to go with it). He says, "its the lewd comments on T-shirts", isn't the U the ones that came up with "Beat State not your wife"

And another thing, there are major hurdles to get over before we piss pound the U some more. One of the major ones was put in place 4 years ago when the U decided they didn't want to play us when we were making the transition. Maybe if they hadn't been so classless the U/State game might happen sooner

[propar80]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

I've just got to think the part about "the progressive spirt of Vermillion" is got to be a joke??  Nobody in there right-mind would think that Vermillion has more going for it than Brookings??  Even the most hard-core U. supporter??  But I'm sure I'll be proven wrong by one U. poster or another. :  

I suppose if you talking about uping the amount of trailer parks where the public can see them year after year progressive, than I cannot think of a more "progressive" town than Vermillion!!

[twism]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

The U has had way more lewd t-shirts that I have seen. I think it is funny that some of the shirts have something to do with D1 or SDSU on them. When really it had nothing to do with the team they were playing.

[Coyote_Fan]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

I think my favorite part about the whole thing is when he goes into a rant about everything wrong with State (at least I think thats where hes trying to go with it). He says, "its the lewd comments on T-shirts", isn't the U the ones that came up with "Beat State not your wife"

And another thing, there are major hurdles to get over before we piss pound the U some more. One of the major ones was put in place 4 years ago when the U decided they didn't want to play us when we were making the transition. Maybe if they hadn't been so classless  the U/State game might happen sooner

Kinda of funny how once again USD is the one being blames for not playing State. Actually there were negotiations but SDSU would only play USD on SDSU's terms. They wanted to play in Brooking and maybe Sioux Falls but never in Vermillion. Normally that is what happens with D1 vs D2 but in the circumstance of a big in state rivalry things aren't quite that easy. If USD had moved up first I can gaurantee that SDSU would not sign a deal to play only in Vermillion, or a Vermillion-Sioux Falls deal. SDSU had just as much to do with not playing USD as visa-versa. USD would have signed a home and home deal but SDSU didn't sign it so you can just as easily say that SDSU was the one that wouldn't play USD. It's a two way street and neither side would agree to the others terms. Don't go saying USD wouldn't play SDSU because it's not as simple as that.

When SDSU moved out of the NCC if there was one school that was to blame for the rivalry being discontinued it was SDSU. They were the school that made the decision to get out of the NCC. USD simply wanted to wait for the NCC to move up together. So now that USD is going to be in D1 don't hold grudges against USD because they went about their business a little more carefully. SDSU made the leap and they deserve credit for doing so but you can't really blame USD for playing things conservatively. They had to say all the right things at the time but I don't think anyone on the inside at USD didn't believe that there wasn't a very good chance that in the future USD would be going up to D1 as well. USD basically used NDSU and SDSU as guinea pigs just as much as people think USD is a mere follower. They just played their cards tight to the chest.

[filbert]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

[quote author=mango4 link=1165422878/0#7 date=1165436602]I think my favorite part about the whole thing is when he goes into a rant about everything wrong with State (at least I think thats where hes trying to go with it). He says, "its the lewd comments on T-shirts", isn't the U the ones that came up with "Beat State not your wife"

And another thing, there are major hurdles to get over before we piss pound the U some more. One of the major ones was put in place 4 years ago when the U decided they didn't want to play us when we were making the transition. Maybe if they hadn't been so classless the U/State game might happen sooner

Kinda of funny how once again USD is the one being blames for not playing State. Actually there were negotiations but SDSU would only play USD on SDSU's terms. They wanted to play in Brooking and maybe Sioux Falls but never in Vermillion. Normally that is what happens with D1 vs D2 but in the circumstance of a big in state rivalry things aren't quite that easy. If USD had moved up first I can gaurantee that SDSU would not sign a deal to play only in Vermillion, or a Vermillion-Sioux Falls deal. SDSU had just as much to do with not playing USD as visa-versa. USD would have signed a home and home deal but SDSU didn't sign it so you can just as easily say that SDSU was the one that wouldn't play USD. It's a two way street and neither side would agree to the others terms. Don't go saying USD wouldn't play SDSU because it's not as simple as that.

When SDSU moved out of the NCC if there was one school that was to blame for the rivalry being discontinued it was SDSU. They were the school that made the decision to get out of the NCC. USD simply wanted to wait for the NCC to move up together. So now that USD is going to be in D1 don't hold grudges against USD because they went about their business a little more carefully. SDSU made the leap and they deserve credit for doing so but you can't really blame USD for playing things conservatively. They had to say all the right things at the time but I don't think anyone on the inside at USD didn't believe that there wasn't a very good chance that in the future USD would be going up to D1 as well. USD basically used NDSU and SDSU as guinea pigs just as much as people think USD is a mere follower. They just played their cards tight to the chest. [/quote]

Yeah, that worked out REAL well . . .

[1bunnies]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

[quote author=mango4 link=1165422878/0#7 date=1165436602]I think my favorite part about the whole thing is when he goes into a rant about everything wrong with State (at least I think thats where hes trying to go with it). He says, "its the lewd comments on T-shirts", isn't the U the ones that came up with "Beat State not your wife"

And another thing, there are major hurdles to get over before we piss pound the U some more. One of the major ones was put in place 4 years ago when the U decided they didn't want to play us when we were making the transition. Maybe if they hadn't been so classless  the U/State game might happen sooner

Kinda of funny how once again USD is the one being blames for not playing State.  Actually there were negotiations but SDSU would only play USD on SDSU's terms.  They wanted to play in Brooking and maybe Sioux Falls but never in Vermillion.  Normally that is what happens with D1 vs D2 but in the circumstance of a big in state rivalry things aren't quite that easy.  If USD had moved up first I can gaurantee that SDSU would not sign a deal to play only in Vermillion, or a Vermillion-Sioux Falls deal.  SDSU had just as much to do with not playing USD as visa-versa.  USD would have signed a home and home deal but SDSU didn't sign it so you can just as easily say that SDSU was the one that wouldn't play USD.  It's a two way street and neither side would agree to the others terms.  Don't go saying USD wouldn't play SDSU because it's not as simple as that.  

When SDSU moved out of the NCC if there was one school that was to blame for the rivalry being discontinued it was SDSU.  They were the school that made the decision to get out of the NCC.  USD simply wanted to wait for the NCC to move up together.  So now that USD is going to be in D1 don't hold grudges against USD because they went about their business a little more carefully.  SDSU made the leap and they deserve credit for doing so but you can't really blame USD for playing things conservatively.  They had to say all the right things at the time but I don't think anyone on the inside at USD didn't believe that there wasn't a very good chance that in the future USD would be going up to D1 as well.  USD basically used NDSU and SDSU as guinea pigs just as much as people think USD is a mere follower.  They just played their cards tight to the chest.  [/quote]

That the way it is mutt. The D1 schools has the bargaining power, not the classless school that plays in a tin can. Filbert, the mutt is right. The NCC moved up together. The NCC was UNC, NDSU, and SDSU. They just waited until years after the NCC was gone. They struck up their rivalry with Crookston.

[jackmd]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

 If USD had moved up first I can gaurantee that SDSU would not sign a deal to play only in Vermillion, or a Vermillion-Sioux Falls deal.  

If USD had made the move up first? That is funny!! The only reason USD is moving up now is because of the status of the NCC. Have you already forgotten that?

You can't ask the question the other way, we don't follow USD, you follow us. I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "simple". Its hard for a simple-minded fellow. If USD is so ready to renew the rivalry it is as simple as agreeing to our terms. Can you understand that?

[BTownJack]

Re: Hum, Not sure how to take this one.

[quote author=mango4 link=1165422878/0#7 date=1165436602]I think my favorite part about the whole thing is when he goes into a rant about everything wrong with State (at least I think thats where hes trying to go with it). He says, "its the lewd comments on T-shirts", isn't the U the ones that came up with "Beat State not your wife"

And another thing, there are major hurdles to get over before we piss pound the U some more. One of the major ones was put in place 4 years ago when the U decided they didn't want to play us when we were making the transition. Maybe if they hadn't been so classless  the U/State game might happen sooner

Kinda of funny how once again USD is the one being blames for not playing State.  Actually there were negotiations but SDSU would only play USD on SDSU's terms.  They wanted to play in Brooking and maybe Sioux Falls but never in Vermillion.  Normally that is what happens with D1 vs D2 but in the circumstance of a big in state rivalry things aren't quite that easy.  If USD had moved up first I can gaurantee that SDSU would not sign a deal to play only in Vermillion, or a Vermillion-Sioux Falls deal.  SDSU had just as much to do with not playing USD as visa-versa.  USD would have signed a home and home deal but SDSU didn't sign it so you can just as easily say that SDSU was the one that wouldn't play USD.  It's a two way street and neither side would agree to the others terms.  Don't go saying USD wouldn't play SDSU because it's not as simple as that.  

When SDSU moved out of the NCC if there was one school that was to blame for the rivalry being discontinued it was SDSU.  They were the school that made the decision to get out of the NCC.  USD simply wanted to wait for the NCC to move up together.  So now that USD is going to be in D1 don't hold grudges against USD because they went about their business a little more carefully.  SDSU made the leap and they deserve credit for doing so but you can't really blame USD for playing things conservatively.  They had to say all the right things at the time but I don't think anyone on the inside at USD didn't believe that there wasn't a very good chance that in the future USD would be going up to D1 as well.  USD basically used NDSU and SDSU as guinea pigs just as much as people think USD is a mere follower.  They just played their cards tight to the chest.  [/quote]

Wow Coyote_Fan...you must have posted this nonsense amongst a heavy cloud of bong smoke!

There were negotiations about playing football and basketball games between SDSU-USD.  It wasn't just on SDSU's terms but rather on the terms of a D-I school playing against a D-II school.  There is a precedent there that SDSU was following and USD was just too stubborn to accept it.  Even considering playing you in Sioux Falls was generous on the part of SDSU.  

And if you are going to consider us "guinea pigs" then the bar has been set for you and USD better damn well be more successful making the transition to D-I.  Good luck...we'll all be watching.