ray wrote:
Again, as a side, I have in no way indicated that the kids on that team nor the coaches on that team don't take the sport seriously.
From page 1 of the thread....
ray wrote:
First of all it's Quinnipiac for god's sake. Do they even have a track program? Certainly not one that anyone takes seriously.
Sorry, Ray, but you are a liar.
ray wrote:
Hey Q. Brave, Yes it's me and you answered all my questions thank you. Finally. I didn't want to bust anybody's balls I just wanted an explanation as to why Jack could possibly allow this to happen. You gave a very logical explanation. I was offered the QU job a few years ago and turned it down when they insulted me with the salary, job description and the objectives of the program. They would not make any promises as to the future of the program. Now it is plain to see why.
OK for the uneducated, let me explain again. I explained my comment numerous times during this thread including this quote here. Again, read the thread before making an ass of yourself. And as also mentioned numerous times on this board, if you think you have something of value to contribute and you want someone to take you even half seriously try putting your name to your comments.
That's a reach, though not the only one posted within the last two pages of this thread. You QU apologists sure don't mind coming across as desperate over peanuts.
Your pants are on fire wrote:
ray wrote:Again, as a side, I have in no way indicated that the kids on that team nor the coaches on that team don't take the sport seriously.
From page 1 of the thread....
ray wrote:
First of all it's Quinnipiac for god's sake. Do they even have a track program? Certainly not one that anyone takes seriously.
Sorry, Ray, but you are a liar.
Sadly Ray is stupid wrote:
Hay Ray, I forgot to mention: In a few years when your son wants to run in college and can't you remember to look him in the eye and explain how he doesn't deserve the OPPORTUNITY.
I think I know what you're saying but I'm not sure. Can someone interpret this?!
If my son was good enough and if he took the sport seriously, I would hope he would go somewhere where the school took the sport seriously. Regardless, there are some good kids at QU and they will have the opportunity to compete in cross, run on the road scene and get into the countless number of invitationals available in New England. In addition to that, it was stated earlier in the thread that their scholarships would be honored. That's a pretty good deal. Yes, we can all lament about the lost opportunity. It is time to move forward. When does this go into effect? I certainly hope it is not effective 2009-2010. It would look pretty silly if the program got cut after Jack's kids left.
QU only cut the team cuz they are scared of me! they were just sick of losing every year in track. I'm the best ever. I'm the most brutal and most vicious and most ruthless champion there's ever been. There's no-one can stop me. Quinnipiac is a conqueror? No. I'm Alexander, dey no Alexander. I'm the best ever. There's never been anybody as ruthless. I'm Sonny Liston. I'm Jack Dempsey, there's no one like me - I'm from their cloth. There's no one that can match me. My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat his children. QU can slob on my knob, thats one less team for me to beat on. PEACE NINJAS.
Yes. Congratulations. You've discovered the typo. If you can interpret correctly what I meant you'll be in contention for a Nobel Prize.
That's not a typo, you just used the wrong word. Try "brain fart" or "mistake."
Let's give you the Congressional Medal of Self-Righteous Unable-to-take-a-joke-and-laugh-at-himself Jackassery, instead. You must be great company, you miserable cunt.
Well you've certainly put me in my place. Thanks for really adding to the discussion with a brilliant piece of proofreading and a dashingly clever insult.
not for nothing, but what about offering to reduce ur scholarships (pay cut) in order to keep the programs
you can cut a woman's sport if you also cut men's sports to offset the lost number of women athletes. Thats the whole point here
Ditto.
Ray, I believe the man is saying you need to one day tell your son that you are an ass and that you were basically happy to see men's programs of no value (in your eyes) cut. Therefore, you Ray helped lead to the loss of opportunity for your son. But, that's just my interpretation Ray. You Ray likely have another interp because you are indeed an ass.
ray wrote:
And as also mentioned numerous times on this board, if you think you have something of value to contribute and you want someone to take you even half seriously try putting your name to your comments.
Wow, you got us with that one. What's your name? Ray? That's like your full name on your tax return? You are a sad little man.
Jack Hoff
Medina, OH
I love the self-righteous a-hole notion that people believe they make so-called "valuable" contributions to threads like this while people who make goof off posts don't. Sorry, but almost every thread on this forum is a worthless discussion and thus every contribution is equally valuable. We've seen threads like this enough by now to know that they don't achieve anything except to act as a venue to vent sour grapes, especially towards women.
wake up wrote:
you can cut a woman's sport if you also cut men's sports to offset the lost number of women athletes. Thats the whole point here
You didn't read Cohen v. Brown University, did you? Cutting outdoor track, doesn't get rid of any athletes for proportionality purposes, assuming indoor folks all do outdoor. If they weren't in compliance before the cut, they are further out of compliance because they cut participation spots for women, and basically none for men. Read this website:
http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/ray wrote:
I was offered the QU job a few years ago and turned it down...
If any of the QU folks who offered you the job are reading this thread, I am sure they must be thrilled that you turned it down.
As an alumnus I understand exactly what you're getting at Ray. Don't let these morons and trolls get to you. Those of us familiar with the situation got the point back on the second page of this thread. It's a shame that people like HRE and you, who have a clue, have to deal with all those that don't. I was there before Track became an official sport, but I have followed the teams progress carefully. This recent turn of events doesn't make much sense and it does seem suspicious.
QRunr wrote:
This recent turn of events doesn't make much sense and it does seem suspicious.
Of what, exactly, are you suspicious? Seriously.
rukidding wrote:
You didn't read Cohen v. Brown University, did you? Cutting outdoor track, doesn't get rid of any athletes for proportionality purposes, assuming indoor folks all do outdoor. If they weren't in compliance before the cut, they are further out of compliance because they cut participation spots for women, and basically none for men. Read this website:
http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/
It's not about "athletes." It is about "participation opportunities."
From your link: "Whether the intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments."
Finally, someone appears to see the emperor has no clothes...
Yes, Yes... Effective next year, 2009-2010 - the year after Jack's son graduates...
And, thats the same reason he currently travels to all the meets - he never did that before!