USWNT

Real Deal said:
Honestly. There are gay Christians too. WTHeck. What year is it? Feel like we we in the dark ages.

Wish they had just worn the rainbow jerseys, but allowed her not to. Then we wouldn't be talking about this ridiculous issue. They did have her to come back in to a camp, but you all seem to be ignoring that fact. The coach finally determined she wasn't what she wanted, like she did with many others. And then they won the World Cup.
Click to expand...

Did the coach give her a shot? She didn't play a minute. Sort of like she gave Casey Short "a shot." Jill decides who she wants regardless of how they play. Crystal Dunn was one of the best players in the lead up to the World Cup in 2015 but she was left off for older players who didn't even play. Please explain to me a good reason why you leave one of your best players in qualifying off of a roster in favor of someone that you don't even play and never intended to play?

Let's be honest here. She invited her into camp likely to not appear that she was discriminating against her due to her views. The actual NWSL numbers say that she has been the best leftback in the league over the last 2 years. The actual NWSL numbers say that Alex Morgan, and others, are average to below average in the US professional league, yet they apparently are the best players that we have. Yes we won, however, I am convinced that any decent coach can pick 24 US pro players and win.
 
outside! said:
The school would not exist without taxpayer funding. No school, no teams. All of the students benefit from taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

That is a silly argument. So even though no taxpayer dollars are consumed by a program AND they pay the school money for every athlete, your argument is that it is still eating up taxpayer dollars? Wow. So Stanford, $C and Harvard (which receive federal funding too) are in the same category because the vast majority of their money comes from federal or state sources?

Your argument is seriously flawed and shows that you don't know how Power 5 conference athletic departments are run.....
 
Real Deal said:
Honestly. There are gay Christians too. WTHeck. What year is it? Feel like we we in the dark ages.

Wish they had just worn the rainbow jerseys, but allowed her not to. Then we wouldn't be talking about this ridiculous issue. They did have her to come back in to a camp, but you all seem to be ignoring that fact. The coach finally determined she wasn't what she wanted, like she did with many others. And then they won the World Cup.
Click to expand...

It does not matter to religious bigots that USSF invited her back to camp, although that is compelling proof that she did not make the WC team because she isn't good enough, rather than due to her bigotry. They ignore that she was not an elite player in HS who was never invited to play on youth NTs or even recruited by a power program. They ignore that she was never better than a 3rd team All-American in college, which made her maybe the 30th best player her own age. They ignore that she was never called up to play in any meaningful games even before her publicity stunt, but was only called in for a handful of games and a camp just like scores of other fringe players to whom USSF provides a nominal opportunity to impress but who also get cut. They ignore that she was not good enough to make first team in the NWSL in 2018. Or second team either. They ignore, in fact, that she has never made first or second team NWSL. They ignore that one of her teammates was actually good enough to make one of the NWSL teams, but even she wasn't good enough to make the WNT. It does not matter how compelling the facts are. Bigots will do, say and believe anything to oppose equality. When definitive proof establishes that she is not good enough to make the team on merit, they skip that part. When definitive proof exists that USSF invited her back to camp even after Hinkle's self-promotion campaign, they skip that part also. When definitive proof exists that numerous WNT players are deeply religious but still make the team, they skip that also. When they speculate that the WNT will go down in flames because Ellis discriminates against Christians and favors lesser lesbian atheists like herself, they ignore that she has steered the WNT to the most successful run in its entire history and is therefore obviously making the best possible personnel decisions.

Hinkle is just a pawn being used by a bunch of bigots to oppose civil rights, nothing more. I'd actually feel bad for her if she weren't such an awful person.
 
End of the Line said:
Teaching Sunday school does not make you an educator.

The WNT absolutely plays in a league, just like MLB teams. It is a league operated and overseen by another private company which you probably know as FIFA. USSF is literally no different than the Dodgers, although I understand that small minds cannot get past the reflexive jingoistic impulses that cloud their judgment every time a private business slaps the words USA and the red, white, and blue onto a product. I bet people like you get really jingoey when the Padres wear their jerseys supporting the military.

MLB requiring players to wear 42 jerseys is exactly the same as the WNT requiring players wear rainbow jerseys, with the exception they are supporting equality for different historically oppressed minorities. Regardless of how you misrepresent the purpose for MLB and USSF requiring its players to wear the specific jerseys, the fact is that both are doing so for the exact same reason - to show support for equality. Of course, people know better than to oppose equality and civil rights when it relates to blacks, but they think it is still ok as to gays. So they continue creating excuses in their minds and engaging in mental gymnastics in order to rationalize their opposition to full civil rights because the alternative - and reality - that they're a bigot is not something they will ever admit. It is the same reason you don't touch the issue of USATF supporting black history month. Or the US Chess Federation supporting Jews. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

This is a very simple concept. USSF is a private company. The LA Dodgers are a private company. Both play in leagues operated by a private entity. Both have every legal and moral right to support equality, and they do. Hinkle is a homophobe who opposes civil rights. Fundamentally, you and others like you know deep down that opposing civil rights is wrong but, you cannot reconcile that with the fact that your god says it is ok - and even said gay people must be stoned to death right up until he changed his mind and his kid apparently said you don't need to do that anymore. Well, that isn't good enough.

Unlike you, I harbor no illusions that you will learn from anything I am saying. If you think a god tells you it is ok to oppose equality, no amount of logic and reason can help you.
Click to expand...

do you spout off like this to muslims too?
 
MakeAPlay said:
Did the coach give her a shot? She didn't play a minute. Sort of like she gave Casey Short "a shot." Jill decides who she wants regardless of how they play. Crystal Dunn was one of the best players in the lead up to the World Cup in 2015 but she was left off for older players who didn't even play. Please explain to me a good reason why you leave one of your best players in qualifying off of a roster in favor of someone that you don't even play and never intended to play?

Let's be honest here. She invited her into camp likely to not appear that she was discriminating against her due to her views. The actual NWSL numbers say that she has been the best leftback in the league over the last 2 years. The actual NWSL numbers say that Alex Morgan, and others, are average to below average in the US professional league, yet they apparently are the best players that we have. Yes we won, however, I am convinced that any decent coach can pick 24 US pro players and win.
Click to expand...

You lost it right after "let's be honest here".
 
MakeAPlay said:
That is a silly argument. So even though no taxpayer dollars are consumed by a program AND they pay the school money for every athlete, your argument is that it is still eating up taxpayer dollars? Wow. So Stanford, $C and Harvard (which receive federal funding too) are in the same category because the vast majority of their money comes from federal or state sources?

Your argument is seriously flawed and shows that you don't know how Power 5 conference athletic departments are run.....
Click to expand...

He pulled the Power 5 card. Time to whip out the Shield Sphere card that has been hiding in the deck.
 
MakeAPlay said:
That is a silly argument. So even though no taxpayer dollars are consumed by a program AND they pay the school money for every athlete, your argument is that it is still eating up taxpayer dollars? Wow. So Stanford, $C and Harvard (which receive federal funding too) are in the same category because the vast majority of their money comes from federal or state sources?

Your argument is seriously flawed and shows that you don't know how Power 5 conference athletic departments are run.....
Click to expand...
And your argument is accounting smoke and mirrors. The land for the field and all the associated buildings were paid for by taxpayers. All of the infrastructure required for a university was paid for by taxpayers. Like I said, no university, no athletic program.
 
I hate to interrupt this virtue signaling and false equivalency debate (its actually quite entertaining), but I think we should also look at the big picture.

How cool is it that a women's team has captured the spirit and interest of men, women, boys, girls and gender _____. What other US women's team in any other sport has done that at the level the the USWNT has repeatedly done? I can't think of a women's team that comes close. Again, how cool is that? Yes there was some politics and questionable behavior involved with the team, but how about a class act like Carli Lloyd comforting the Thai keeper after the blowout. The interest and excitement for the team is a win for women/girls, LGBT, soccer in the US and Americans as a whole.
 
outside! said:
And your argument is accounting smoke and mirrors. The land for the field and all the associated buildings were paid for by taxpayers. All of the infrastructure required for a university was paid for by taxpayers. Like I said, no university, no athletic program.
Click to expand...

So If the team pays for the facilities that they used, paid for the building that they occupy, and contribute a net positive to the overall budget it is smoke and mirrors? The accounting trick is that the athletic department intentionally showed a net zero (exactly equal expenses and income) due to the excess money going into the general student fund, which is used for non-athlete students, facilities maintenance and other non-athletic activities.

I personally would like the athletic departments to separate from the universities. What would happen then would be the quality of everything would suffer due to the athletic departments making money and the universities just losing it. i think that most rich alumni aren't necessarily donating because of some cutting edge research. Mostly it has to due with a sport or a specific department that they benefited from.

Parse it however you like it. You didn't pay one penny for my kid's public education. Her talent and hard work did, so whatever she or her team does has absolutely no effect on you. When you start thinking that your contribution matters and therefore it is your "right" to have some skin in the game you blur the truth. The truth is athletic scholarships at UCLA are fully endowed. Period. All the athletic department buildings are paid for by separate athletic department funds that do not get a penny from the university general fund or operation budget. If you don't believe me call this person Christopher Iacoi at 310-825-8699. He will explain it to you.
 
watfly said:
I hate to interrupt this virtue signaling and false equivalency debate (its actually quite entertaining), but I think we should also look at the big picture.

How cool is it that a women's team has captured the spirit and interest of men, women, boys, girls and gender _____. What other US women's team in any other sport has done that at the level the the USWNT has repeatedly done? I can't think of a women's team that comes close. Again, how cool is that? Yes there was some politics and questionable behavior involved with the team, but how about a class act like Carli Lloyd comforting the Thai keeper after the blowout. The interest and excitement for the team is a win for women/girls, LGBT, soccer in the US and Americans as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's talk about the players who are actually the best players on the most dominant women's national team the world has ever seen, and who deserve better than to have bigots speculate that some of them only made the team because they're lesbians.

Another great example is Emily Sonnet. Ms. Sonnet was the 2013 GA HS Gatorade player of the year and also an integral part of some excellent UVA teams. She was a Hermann Trophy finalist, first team All American and the ACC defensive player of the year. She was also the ESPNW college national player of the year and the #1 pick in the 2015 NWSL draft. In 2018, she made the NWSL best 11, and was a finalist for the defensive player of the year. She has been a regular on WNTs, for many years, including the U18 and U23 teams. She is also a good teammate who has never whined about being treated unfairly by USSF. Certainly a deserving role player on the USWNT WC squad.
 
MakeAPlay said:
So If the team pays for the facilities that they used, paid for the building that they occupy, and contribute a net positive to the overall budget it is smoke and mirrors? The accounting trick is that the athletic department intentionally showed a net zero (exactly equal expenses and income) due to the excess money going into the general student fund, which is used for non-athlete students, facilities maintenance and other non-athletic activities.

I personally would like the athletic departments to separate from the universities. What would happen then would be the quality of everything would suffer due to the athletic departments making money and the universities just losing it. i think that most rich alumni aren't necessarily donating because of some cutting edge research. Mostly it has to due with a sport or a specific department that they benefited from.

Parse it however you like it. You didn't pay one penny for my kid's public education. Her talent and hard work did, so whatever she or her team does has absolutely no effect on you. When you start thinking that your contribution matters and therefore it is your "right" to have some skin in the game you blur the truth. The truth is athletic scholarships at UCLA are fully endowed. Period. All the athletic department buildings are paid for by separate athletic department funds that do not get a penny from the university general fund or operation budget. If you don't believe me call this person Christopher Iacoi at 310-825-8699. He will explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Revenue is not enough. They need donations to make up for the deficit. I’m fine with that, but don’t give tax breaks for it. That’s what is so absurd. And that does impact everyone.
 
The UCLA athletic department did not pay for the land it sits on and did not pay to establish UCLA. No university, no athletic department. To say that the athletic department receives no financial benefit from its association with UCLA is the smoke and mirrors part.
 
MakeAPlay said:
So If the team pays for the facilities that they used, paid for the building that they occupy, and contribute a net positive to the overall budget it is smoke and mirrors? The accounting trick is that the athletic department intentionally showed a net zero (exactly equal expenses and income) due to the excess money going into the general student fund, which is used for non-athlete students, facilities maintenance and other non-athletic activities.

I personally would like the athletic departments to separate from the universities. What would happen then would be the quality of everything would suffer due to the athletic departments making money and the universities just losing it. i think that most rich alumni aren't necessarily donating because of some cutting edge research. Mostly it has to due with a sport or a specific department that they benefited from.

Parse it however you like it. You didn't pay one penny for my kid's public education. Her talent and hard work did, so whatever she or her team does has absolutely no effect on you. When you start thinking that your contribution matters and therefore it is your "right" to have some skin in the game you blur the truth. The truth is athletic scholarships at UCLA are fully endowed. Period. All the athletic department buildings are paid for by separate athletic department funds that do not get a penny from the university general fund or operation budget. If you don't believe me call this person Christopher Iacoi at 310-825-8699. He will explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Tuition and fees constitute 10% of the UC budget. It is cute that you think a student's tuition constitutes their actual cost. Naïve, but cute. It's more than a little disappointing that you could get through four years there and not learn anything.
 
From Chris’s office last year: “With costs across the board continuing to rise as the landscape of intercollegiate athletics evolves and certain projected revenue streams produce at a rate lower than expected, it is vital for UCLA Athletics to generate revenue through private donations as existing self-controlled revenue streams have now been maximized, namely through the department's shoe and apparel partnership with Under Armour and multimedia rights agreement with WME/IMG.”
 
watfly said:
I hate to interrupt this virtue signaling and false equivalency debate (its actually quite entertaining), but I think we should also look at the big picture.

How cool is it that a women's team has captured the spirit and interest of men, women, boys, girls and gender _____. What other US women's team in any other sport has done that at the level the the USWNT has repeatedly done? I can't think of a women's team that comes close. Again, how cool is that? Yes there was some politics and questionable behavior involved with the team, but how about a class act like Carli Lloyd comforting the Thai keeper after the blowout. The interest and excitement for the team is a win for women/girls, LGBT, soccer in the US and Americans as a whole.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Glen said:
Revenue is not enough. They need donations to make up for the deficit. I’m fine with that, but don’t give tax breaks for it. That’s what is so absurd. And that does impact everyone.
Click to expand...

Please read these then we can discuss what you think they have in a deficit. I have been told that the department has a surplus but they put overages into the general fund. And yes they have already surpassed their fundraising goals and have upped them significantly.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

https://uclabruins.com/documents/2018/9/24/AnnualReport_1718_FULL.pdf

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/uclabruins.com/documents/2018/9/24/1718_05.pdf

https://www.dailynews.com/2013/04/0...-director-guerrero-new-contract-through-2019/
 
Glen said:
From Chris’s office last year: “With costs across the board continuing to rise as the landscape of intercollegiate athletics evolves and certain projected revenue streams produce at a rate lower than expected, it is vital for UCLA Athletics to generate revenue through private donations as existing self-controlled revenue streams have now been maximized, namely through the department's shoe and apparel partnership with Under Armour and multimedia rights agreement with WME/IMG.”
Click to expand...

Please read the post above. Read all of it becaase @End of the Line likes to talk about what fits her/his/its agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top