Georgia's Locker-room

[SeattleCuse]

You should read up on the origin of college football in the south. Has nothing to do with the bible. I live in Georgia and while it is seen as a religion by some the history behind it is more political and to this day still has political undertones. Some of the ideology exists even on this board as to why people in the south still point at football's importance.

This is interesting. Any suggestions for reading (books, etc) on college ball in the south / politics? Haven’t spent as much in the south as I’d like but would like to do so - lots of history and tradition it seems. Thanks.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

UGA football facilities: A donor’s guide

Each section in Sanford Stadium has a per-seat contribution requirement

www.ajc.com

That is a big part of donors for UGA then we have:

5 Georgia football players form donation fund

Five Georgia football players started working to leverage their status to benefit causes close to their heart.

www.redandblack.com

But by all means continue perpetuating the myth that all money goes to football. The donors also consist of former athletes who donate to other major charities but that wouldn't fit your narrative either I suppose. A large portion of donations are tied to football tickets and those donations are applied across more than 500 UGA athletes not just football. I guess it helps to have a passionate fanbase over a bunch of folks content to rake leaves. You get what you pay for.

I'm sorry, what myth am I perpetuating? In what universe can you rationalize donating a $1 so someone has a nicer locker room, is more important than donating a $1 so someone can eat? Are you saying that isn't some kind of universal truth?

But since you missed it, I offered, "In the end, i think most people, really spread it around. At least, I like to think that."

 

[wfschrec]

I'm sorry, what myth am I perpetuating? In what universe can you rationalize donating a $1 so someone has a nicer locker room, is more important than donating a $1 so someone can eat? Are you saying that isn't some kind of universal truth?

But since you missed it, I offered, "In the end, i think most people, really spread it around. At least, I like to think that."

You are basing it on the fact that people sit and rationalize it and I'm willing to bet you insist that it is something that is unique to the south which is a mindset on this board. The point I am making is simple no one is sitting there saying I can pay $1 for someone to eat or donate it for a locker room.

A large portion of their donations is tied to ticket rights and used for far more than a locker room. People can donate to whatever the hell they wish, however since we wish to talk about buying people meals you do realize NYS has the second largest homeless population in the country so if that is your focus maybe you should tend to your own backyard instead of worrying about the choices donors below the Mason-Dixon line make.

 

[wfschrec]

This is interesting. Any suggestions for reading (books, etc) on college ball in the south / politics? Haven’t spent as much in the south as I’d like but would like to do so - lots of history and tradition it seems. Thanks.

NCSU.edu did a series on this, here is an excerpt:

Andrew Doyle argues that the meanings of Southern victories over Northern teams extended beyond the football field, serving “both as symbolic vengeance over historic enemies and as a plea for respect from those same enemies.” Some Southerners, especially members of the growing middle class, felt pride in seeing Southern schools master a sport that had originated at elite Northern universities. They connected these victories to a sense of collective identity based on their role as leaders of an emerging New South – an economically progressive, industrial region with strong ties to the rest of the nation that still retained many aspects of traditional Southern culture. Football fit in perfectly with this regional identity. It was seen as a modern, scientific sport because it required “discipline and organization” and “technique and strategy" more so than older sports such as boxing, which relied more on brute strength and bravery. However, football still drew on some of the values that had defined the antebellum South, such as white male virtue and strength. Southern business owners and entrepreneurs who embraced the idea of a New South were eager for greater connections with and respect from Northerners. They saw victories against Northern teams as a way to advertise the South’s economic, social, and educational progress and refute stereotypes of the South as a “bastion of backwardness.”

 

[wfschrec]

I'm sorry, what myth am I perpetuating? In what universe can you rationalize donating a $1 so someone has a nicer locker room, is more important than donating a $1 so someone can eat? Are you saying that isn't some kind of universal truth?

But since you missed it, I offered, "In the end, i think most people, really spread it around. At least, I like to think that."

While you're at it you better get over to the other thread and shame the Lally's and everyone else contributing to this:

Cuse Announces $150M Fundraising Initiative to Create Unsurpassed Student-Athlete Experience:

https://cuse.com/news/2021/11/22/general-athletics-announces-150m-fundraising-initiative-to-create-unsurpassed-student-athlete-experience.aspx

syracusefan.com

But you won't, because it's SU and not UGA. "Go Dawgs!", that was your little tag line right? Like I said your post carried a bias. $150 million will buy a whole lot of XBoxes won't it?

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

I literally didn’t say any of that. You inferred all of that. What are you do defensive and insecure about?

 

[wfschrec]

I literally didn’t say any of that. You inferred all of that. What are you do defensive and insecure about?

Actually you did. "I are not do defensive and insecure" about anything. Your grammar much like your memory needs fine tuning. My previous question stands. Why aren't you in the Cuse donation thread complaining about how people donate? Your bias applies to schools south of the mason-dixon, pretty obvious.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

Actually you did. "I are not do defensive and insecure" about anything. Your grammar much like your memory needs fine tuning. My previous question stands. Why aren't you in the Cuse donation thread complaining about how people donate? Your bias applies to schools south of the mason-dixon, pretty obvious.

Ok there Shelby Foote. I’ll let it go. But I’ve made this point in other threads too. My track record of calling this stuff nonsense is pretty well established. I also recognize I am a hypocrite in that I also donate to SU’s athletic department.

 

[wfschrec]

Ok there Shelby Foote. I’ll let it go. But I’ve made this point in other threads too. My track record of calling this stuff nonsense is pretty well established. I also recognize I am a hypocrite in that I also donate to SU’s athletic department.

If you wish to address the true cancer it’s the abuse of NIL and overzealous boosters. You should start there Don Knots.

 

[longtimefan]

NCSU.edu did a series on this, here is an excerpt:

Andrew Doyle argues that the meanings of Southern victories over Northern teams extended beyond the football field, serving “both as symbolic vengeance over historic enemies and as a plea for respect from those same enemies.” Some Southerners, especially members of the growing middle class, felt pride in seeing Southern schools master a sport that had originated at elite Northern universities. They connected these victories to a sense of collective identity based on their role as leaders of an emerging New South – an economically progressive, industrial region with strong ties to the rest of the nation that still retained many aspects of traditional Southern culture. Football fit in perfectly with this regional identity. It was seen as a modern, scientific sport because it required “discipline and organization” and “technique and strategy" more so than older sports such as boxing, which relied more on brute strength and bravery. However, football still drew on some of the values that had defined the antebellum South, such as white male virtue and strength. Southern business owners and entrepreneurs who embraced the idea of a New South were eager for greater connections with and respect from Northerners. They saw victories against Northern teams as a way to advertise the South’s economic, social, and educational progress and refute stereotypes of the South as a “bastion of backwardness.”

The highlighted portion is a problem I have with the South, exclusive of the college football context.

Honoring the "values" of the antebellum South continues to this day, and is abhorrent.

 

[wfschrec]

The highlighted portion is a problem I have with the South, exclusive of the college football context.

Honoring the "values" of the antebellum South continues to this day, and is abhorrent.

It did not say all values and BTW I already know where you are going but quite frankly the ideology around the antebellum south and inherently the cause of the civil war wasn't slavery in spite of whatever people like to say.

"What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. A key issue was states' rights."

That is from PBS and if you start to dig into what "rights" includes you would be surprised at what you learn. A common knee jerk reaction is to point at slavery and the ultimate irony was the north drove the need for the expansion of slavery. Upon the invention of the cotton gin the ability to produce cotton at a higher rate ultimately increased the demand for labor. Where did that cotton flow? To northern states for clothing production, in 1808 the continued importation of slave labor was ended and agreed upon by all parties. This was born out of the constitutional debates of 1787 and executed in full 21 years later. Ultimately what drove the civil war was the full blown argument of states rights in economic decision making.

Slavery of any form is a terrible thing and still exists in several markets across the globe (obviously not here) but it is often misconstrued that this is what the civil war was entirely about which is not true. There are values from that period that are on life support today and that has created some of our societal problems. This includes organized religion (obviously the non-radical extreme kind), emphasis on family structure and the perception and treatment of elder generations. Ultimately folks are too quick to point to slavery which is normal but even in Peterboro NY (roughly 15 mins from my hometown) there was not only a faction of the underground railroad but also a contingent of the KKK that existed well past the Civil War. The KKK even went as far as to establish a faction in New Jersey back in 1921.

Fundamentally issues of this scope go beyond geography and don't have boundaries.

 

[IthacaMatt]

NCSU.edu did a series on this, here is an excerpt:

Andrew Doyle argues that the meanings of Southern victories over Northern teams extended beyond the football field, serving “both as symbolic vengeance over historic enemies and as a plea for respect from those same enemies.” Some Southerners, especially members of the growing middle class, felt pride in seeing Southern schools master a sport that had originated at elite Northern universities. They connected these victories to a sense of collective identity based on their role as leaders of an emerging New South – an economically progressive, industrial region with strong ties to the rest of the nation that still retained many aspects of traditional Southern culture. Football fit in perfectly with this regional identity. It was seen as a modern, scientific sport because it required “discipline and organization” and “technique and strategy" more so than older sports such as boxing, which relied more on brute strength and bravery. However, football still drew on some of the values that had defined the antebellum South, such as white male virtue and strength. Southern business owners and entrepreneurs who embraced the idea of a New South were eager for greater connections with and respect from Northerners. They saw victories against Northern teams as a way to advertise the South’s economic, social, and educational progress and refute stereotypes of the South as a “bastion of backwardness.”

Very interesting.

 

[mscanlo]

UGA, and other SEC schools, are not far away from telling their donors to stop donating directly to the athletics program because they make too much money from TV, and have the donors fund a NIL consortium instead.

If you think it was already hard, its going to get a lot harder for everyone outside the SEC + 5 to 10 schools to compete

 

[mscanlo]

I'm sorry, what myth am I perpetuating? In what universe can you rationalize donating a $1 so someone has a nicer locker room, is more important than donating a $1 so someone can eat? Are you saying that isn't some kind of universal truth?

But since you missed it, I offered, "In the end, i think most people, really spread it around. At least, I like to think that."

In what universe can you spend time on a an hour on a sports message board instead of spending an hour volunteering?

Not trying to come after you, but you make it sound worse than it is. It’s more pride of their school, wanting to see the school be good and be associated with it. Is it sometimes a little over the top, sure, but no different to our time spent here sometimes

 

[AlaskaSU]

College football is an arms race. If it is too hot get out of the kitchen.

 

[SWC75]

You could hold a prom in there.

 

[gmoney44]

It did not say all values and BTW I already know where you are going but quite frankly the ideology around the antebellum south and inherently the cause of the civil war wasn't slavery in spite of whatever people like to say.

"What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. A key issue was states' rights."

That is from PBS and if you start to dig into what "rights" includes you would be surprised at what you learn. A common knee jerk reaction is to point at slavery and the ultimate irony was the north drove the need for the expansion of slavery. Upon the invention of the cotton gin the ability to produce cotton at a higher rate ultimately increased the demand for labor. Where did that cotton flow? To northern states for clothing production, in 1808 the continued importation of slave labor was ended and agreed upon by all parties. This was born out of the constitutional debates of 1787 and executed in full 21 years later. Ultimately what drove the civil war was the full blown argument of states rights in economic decision making.

Slavery of any form is a terrible thing and still exists in several markets across the globe (obviously not here) but it is often misconstrued that this is what the civil war was entirely about which is not true. There are values from that period that are on life support today and that has created some of our societal problems. This includes organized religion (obviously the non-radical extreme kind), emphasis on family structure and the perception and treatment of elder generations. Ultimately folks are too quick to point to slavery which is normal but even in Peterboro NY (roughly 15 mins from my hometown) there was not only a faction of the underground railroad but also a contingent of the KKK that existed well past the Civil War. The KKK even went as far as to establish a faction in New Jersey back in 1921.

Fundamentally issues of this scope go beyond geography and don't have boundaries.

This is how most of the south view the cause of the civil war because this is how it’s taught down there. This is in fact BS and any reputable documentary about the civil war absolutely identifies slavery as by far the biggest reason for the Civil war. Yes they were other reasons that contributed to the war but they pale in comparison to the issue of slavery.

I highly recommend Ken Burns documentary “The Civil War.” It is often played on PBS.

 

[wfschrec]

This is how most of the south view the cause of the civil war because this is how it’s taught down there. This is in fact BS and any reputable documentary about the civil war absolutely identifies slavery as by far the biggest reason for the Civil war. Yes they were other reasons that contributed to the war but they pale in comparison to the issue of slavery.

I highly recommend Ken Burns documentary “The Civil War.” It is often played on PBS.

I was born and raised and up north and had a historian neighbor who will disagree with you. Ken Burns is better off sticking to baseball IMHO. The North narrative is what drives education in southern schools ... as someone who actually has kids in a southern school I can tell you how it is taught here.

 

[longtimefan]

It did not say all values and BTW I already know where you are going but quite frankly the ideology around the antebellum south and inherently the cause of the civil war wasn't slavery in spite of whatever people like to say.

"What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. A key issue was states' rights."

That is from PBS and if you start to dig into what "rights" includes you would be surprised at what you learn. A common knee jerk reaction is to point at slavery and the ultimate irony was the north drove the need for the expansion of slavery. Upon the invention of the cotton gin the ability to produce cotton at a higher rate ultimately increased the demand for labor. Where did that cotton flow? To northern states for clothing production, in 1808 the continued importation of slave labor was ended and agreed upon by all parties. This was born out of the constitutional debates of 1787 and executed in full 21 years later. Ultimately what drove the civil war was the full blown argument of states rights in economic decision making.

Slavery of any form is a terrible thing and still exists in several markets across the globe (obviously not here) but it is often misconstrued that this is what the civil war was entirely about which is not true. There are values from that period that are on life support today and that has created some of our societal problems. This includes organized religion (obviously the non-radical extreme kind), emphasis on family structure and the perception and treatment of elder generations. Ultimately folks are too quick to point to slavery which is normal but even in Peterboro NY (roughly 15 mins from my hometown) there was not only a faction of the underground railroad but also a contingent of the KKK that existed well past the Civil War. The KKK even went as far as to establish a faction in New Jersey back in 1921.

Fundamentally issues of this scope go beyond geography and don't have boundaries.

I disagree.

Read the "Cornerstone Speech" delivered by Alexander Hamilton Stephens, VP of the Confederacy, in March 1861. Or read Jefferson Davis's memoir.

Or read the bloody Confederate Constitution.

 

[gmoney44]

I was born and raised and up north and had a historian neighbor who will disagree with you. Ken Burns is better off sticking to baseball IMHO. The North narrative is what drives education in southern schools ... as someone who actually has kids in a southern school I can tell you how it is taught here.

I have lived in the north, south, Midwest, west, South American, Europe and the Middle East. It is accepted as fact everywhere in the world and our country except the south that the American Civil war was fought predominantly over slavery. I’m not sure exactly why southerners have tried to rewrite history. Maybe because the south lost or because they recognize what a disgraceful reason it was they fought for in the first place. Either way it was 160 year ago. It’s time to move on from the false narrative the south has been pushing ever since the end of the war.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It’s time to move on from the false narrative the south has been pushing ever since the end of the war.

Sore losers are still losers.

 

[wfschrec]

I have lived in the north, south, Midwest, west, South American, Europe and the Middle East. It is excepted as fact everywhere in the world and our country except the south that the American Civil war was fought predominantly over slavery. I’m not sure exactly why southerners have tried to rewrite history. Maybe because the south lost or because they recognize what a disgraceful reason it was they fought for in the first place. Either way it was 160 year ago. It’s time to move on from the false narrative the south has been pushing ever since the end of the war.

Yet in 1808 all parties agreed to stop the expansion of slavery and slave trade was nullified. Correct me if I am wrong but that is prior to the civil war. I also find it ironic that african americans were not allowed to hold employment north of the mason dixon line and part of the expansion plans of the north were to have white only labor. "the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone" that is from PBS when discussing the northern states policies around expansion of the United States. Many documents around the labor structure and even the role of race in labor were destroyed or re-indexed, I wonder why that was done?

You insist the south pushes a false narrative through education and as I've already shared as someone who has kids in this school that is not pushed one iota. I have been fortunate enough to work on the preservation of digital archives around issues like this as well as WW2 and other major world events. Thankfully my scope of knowledge goes beyond a guy who should stick to baseball musing on PBS. Accepting something as "fact" doesn't make it fact, we are told a variety of things through media which often miss the mark. According to CNN the guy below died twice ... does that make it so? Goebbels was right about one thing, you say something enough no matter the truth it becomes truth.

 

[wfschrec]

Sore losers are still losers.

Funny I say the same thing about people who bitch about SEC dominance.

 

[gmoney44]

Funny I say the same thing about people who bitch about SEC dominance.

The south dominants college football because the majority of the country has always cared more about pro football. The south had no pro football presence until the mid to late 60’s with Miami and New Orleans. Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville came much later. If you lived in the south and you like football college is all you had for a long time.

The southern pro football fan bases can’t hold a candle to the NE or Midwest. Polar opposite to the college fan bases.

 

[wfschrec]

The south dominants college football because the majority of the country has always cared more about pro football. The south had no pro football presence until the mid to late 60’s with Miami and New Orleans. Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville came much later. If you lived in the south and you like football college is all you had for a long time.

The pro football fan bases can’t hold a candle to the NE or Midwest. Polar opposite to the college fan bases.

I do agree about pro sentiment but bear in mind how dominate some northern college programs were prior to the 60s. ND, Army, Navy, Michigan, OSU, Pitt, etc. I think we can all agree Alabama wasn't always Alabama, the south has had lean years in college football as well. I will admit I am a tad disappointed you didn't mention Rutgers as the father of college football . I kid ...