Trumpish ... wow! Nice political statement.So this 17 year old kid is supposed to be "loyal" to ISU? Why? That's Trumpish. He's lucky enough to have options. Hope he succeeds wherever he goes.
Trumpish ... wow! Nice political statement.So this 17 year old kid is supposed to be "loyal" to ISU? Why? That's Trumpish. He's lucky enough to have options. Hope he succeeds wherever he goes.
It’s great to get guys like Lazard who have ISU as their dream school, but the vast majority of high schoolers, athletes or otherwise, are just looking for the right fit for them. We can value “loyalty” but it’s more of an exception than a rule, and that’s okay.It all comed do
Lazard had one key character attribute unlike this "5 star" recruit ... loyalty. CMC has a 5 star culture where playing time must be earned. Let this one go...he fits at OSU.
By your definition "blind" loyalty ... connotes a negative twist ... perhaps we should petition ISU to ban "Loyal, Ever True" from the new training facility at the stadium.Yeah, blind loyalty for no real reason.
Seriously, would love to have him at ISU, but you can't criticize every kid born in IA who doesn't attend ISU as disloyal. That's just dumb. Are kids (or young men to satisfy Mr. History) who score high on the SAT/ACT and go Ivy or Stanford "disloyal" to Iowa/Iowa State?
I've also thought it's not an advantage at all. I know when I was choosing where to go to school, one of the main reasons I chose Iowa State over Iowa at the time was because Iowa was too close to where I grew up. I didn't like the idea of "going off" to college but not actually going anywhere different than where I spent the previous 18 years of my life.I think it's interesting that we always figure a local connection is an advantage, but that's premised on the idea a kid wants to stick around Iowa. I can't blame a kid who basically has a passport to anywhere for wanting to see a different part of the country for 3-4 years.
I would have guessed it was on the list because “no snow”, “gorgeous girls” and “an exciting offense”.
I’m always happy to visit Dad in Tempe.
Blind loyalty is bad. Loyalty for a valid reason is good. ISU grads are loyal and forever true because we've been there, the school gave us a (hopefully) good education, and we're appreciative of that fact. To ask me to be loyal to ISU as a high school junior is assuming facts not in evidence. It makes no sense. Carry on.By your definition "blind" loyalty ... connotes a negative twist ... perhaps we should petition ISU to ban "Loyal, Ever True" from the new training facility at the stadium.
Trumpish ... wow! Nice political statement.
Only if you reside on one side of the political spectrum. Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals includes: "ridiculing and publically demeaning your political enemies." How about sticking with sports and not engage in divisive politics?It’s pop culture at this point, not political.
This individual is a "5 star recruit" who likes CMC ...had ISU legacy thru parent/s. ISU wasn't even in the top 7 cut but Iowa was? Carry on with your definition of loyalty ...I will carry on with mine. Carry on.Blind loyalty is bad. Loyalty for a valid reason is good. ISU grads are loyal and forever true because we've been there, the school gave us a (hopefully) good education, and we're appreciative of that fact. To ask me to be loyal to ISU as a high school junior is assuming facts not in evidence. It makes no sense. Carry on.
Only if you reside on one side of the political spectrum. Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals includes: "ridiculing and publically demeaning your political enemies." How about sticking with sports and not engage in divisive politics?
It’s pop culture at this point, not political.
Neither the left nor the right has exclusivity on this tactic. But let's leave politics out of this thread.Only if you reside on one side of the political spectrum. Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals includes: "ridiculing and publically demeaning your political enemies." How about sticking with sports and not engage in divisive politics?
Those Americans fighting WWII were often referred to as "our boys". This is really no different.Jus sayin and not directed at you. This is for generational comparison only: 17 year olds stormed beaches at Normandy and Iwo Jima and were called "men." My 21 year old uncle was the command pilot on a B-17 with nine other men on board (late teens and early twenties) ...shot down over France. We throw too much slack calling post high school football players "kids"....they are young men.
Blind loyalty is bad. Loyalty for a valid reason is good. ISU grads are loyal and forever true because we've been there, the school gave us a (hopefully) good education, and we're appreciative of that fact. To ask me to be loyal to ISU as a high school junior is assuming facts not in evidence. It makes no sense. Carry on.
So if you are saying "boys" equate with "kids" ... you are wrong again. No young soldier, sailor, or airmen were called "kids" in WW2. Using the term "kids" to describe young adults only promotes infantilized behavior.Those Americans fighting WWII were often referred to as "our boys". This is really no different.