I had to see if you got back to me. Shocker - yes you did.
Ouch! You really got me there. Now it's my turn. I triple dog dare you to not respond to me. If you do respond now, it's only because I dared you to. And if you don't respond, then you're a big chicken. That's not juvenile at all, is it?
When I got done with the article I did not feel like the author said "THE SEC IS EVIIILLL!!! MWAH HA HA! - THE B1G RULES!!!" But it seems like you did
I'm sure to you the article just came across as a sincere attempt to assist the SEC with a problem. Wait, what's the SEC's problem again? Oh yeah, something about attempting to maintain an ameteur tax shelter while only offering 1 year scholarships. Of course, this is something that no NCAA school has had an issue with over the 40 years that they've all been offering 1 year scholarships, but somehow it's an issue now for the SEC.
I got a different vibe from the article. First, the entire concept is condescending. "Since the poor, stupid SEC has been outmaneuvered by the B1G (yet again), I'll give them the solution that they've been so desperately seeking on their own but to no avail." If you don't know where I'm getting this, please go back and read the 2nd paragraph of the article.
But I think the true purpose of the article was just to give the author the opportunity to take frequent pot-shots at the SEC:
"The calculated move was a not-so-subtle shot at "over-signing", a sinister practice perfected in the Southeastern Conference"
"So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised the great minds involved in the Southeastern conference fell for it"
"Derek Dooley, a Southern luminary"
"The SEC doesn't have a problem with guaranteed, multi-year deals when they are the beneficiaries, you see"
"the SEC's nurtured hyper-competitiveness, fueled by a collectively instituted "whatever-it-takes attitude""
"The true irony of this situation is crystallized by the the SEC's solution perhaps laying in a place a lot of Southerners don't even believe is real: Europe."
"Since the South is accustomed to swaddling its sports in the American flag"
Despite all those obvious jabs, I abstained from outright accusing the author of anything in my first 2 posts. If you will go back and look, I simply asked why he chose to frame this as an SEC vs B1G issue, pointed out that oversigning and opposition to 4 year scholarships is in no way limited to the SEC, and kindly offered him a suggestion: if he's truly interested in coming up with a solution, perhaps he would be better served by leaving out divisive comments like the ones above. After all, if he can offer his unsolicited but sincere advice to the SEC, surely I can do the same for him.
The author kindly said you were taking it out of context, but on you pushed.
Again, I guess we viewed things a little differently. Whereas you viewed his comments as kindly, I couldn't help but notice the following:
"Their coaches, who have been given a "WIN AT ALL COSTS" mandate by their schools' trustees, do it because it allows them to bring an extra recruiting class every five years and lets them take risk-free waivers on somebody unfulfilled potential like Duron Carter."
"Instead of empty, ceremonial bylaws, I tried to offer a better alternative than whatever new way Nick Saban has found to rationalize lying to kids"
At this point, I concluded that the author has an obvious anti-SEC bias, and I pointed it out just as many (including yourself) have felt it relevant to speculate that I must be an LSU, Alabama, or SEC fan.
you have to learn that you can't come here and say "my facts are correct - yours are false" over and over
Thanks for the unsolicited advice and I will certainly keep that in mind, but if I see someone make a comment that is false or a misrepresentation of the truth, then I will continue to point it out. Sorry if that upsets people. But know that I do try to always remain respectful and not attack anyone personally.