Big 10 expansion talk heating up

[SeattleUte]

Thank you for your honesty woot. SU...what a doofus.

"Stanford, Cal-Berkeley and one or two others would absolutely have a heart attack if BYU was admitted into the Pac-10,"

http://www.sltrib.com/utahutes/ci_14377991

lol

[YOhio]

http://www.sltrib.com/utahutes/ci_14377991

lol

That's irrelevant. I demonstrated that a PAC-10 university does indeed employ a professor who has fundamentalist views towards the Bible, which totally smacked down your guarantee.

[UtahDan]

http://www.sltrib.com/utahutes/ci_14377991

lol

But BYU's other issues, such as its owner's highly publicized role in California's Prop. 8 referendum, and its perceived crackdowns on academic freedom among its professors and students is said to not play well among the people who will be ultimately making the Pac-10's decision -- the presidents and chancellors of its 10 member schools.

I know everyone is relieved to learn that these crackdowns were only perceived and don't exist in reality. There are going to be a number of people who will be very surprised, but no doubt happy, to find that their offices are still there and that a pile of paychecks is waiting for them!

[UtahDan]

That's irrelevant. I demonstrated that a PAC-10 university does indeed employ a professor who has fundamentalist views towards the Bible, which totally smacked down your guarantee.

Lol. I just figured out that you are doing a send up of FAIR. Well played.

[LA Ute]

Yep, he's a nutjob. Scientists don't want to talk about the (overwhelming) evidence? Cripes.

There's nothing like an unvarnished ad hominem argument to get a great discussion going.

[woot]

There's nothing like an unvarnished ad hominem argument to get a great discussion going.

Dude, he accused scientists of not wanting to talk about evidence. Does that strike you as likely? Particularly regarding something as concrete as evolution, it's downright stupid to accuse scientists of avoiding the evidence. He's probably right that scientists also get a kick out of how ridiculous the flood story is (I sure do), so maybe he's just feeling persecuted and mistaking scorn for evasion.

Feel free to "get a great discussion going" though if you really want to talk about how Noah's flood is more believable than evolution.

[LA Ute]

Dude, he accused scientists of not wanting to talk about evidence. Does that strike you as likely? Particularly regarding something as concrete as evolution, it's downright stupid to accuse scientists of avoiding the evidence. He's probably right that scientists also get a kick out of how ridiculous the flood story is (I sure do), so maybe he's just feeling persecuted and mistaking scorn for evasion.

Feel free to "get a great discussion going" though if you really want to talk about how Noah's flood is more believable than evolution.

I was just noting that your argument was ad hominem. Or did "nutjob" refer to his argument and not him?

[woot]

I was just noting that your argument was ad hominem. Or did "nutjob" refer to his argument and not him?

No, it wasn't ad hominem. If I had said "his arguments are of no value because he's an idiot and therefore can't be trusted," that would be ad hominem. As it is, his arguments are of no value because they are so obviously contrary to all evidence and reason. Therefore, he's also a nutjob. An ad hominem fallacy is not the same thing as a plain ol' insult.

If you really want me to debunk some of his tired arguments I'll do it (probably over the weekend), but I hope you recognize how invalid they are from the beginning.

[LA Ute]

No, it wasn't ad hominem. If I had said "his arguments are of no value because he's an idiot and therefore can't be trusted," that would be ad hominem. As it is, his arguments are of no value because they are so obviously contrary to all evidence and reason. Therefore, he's also a nutjob. An ad hominem fallacy is not the same thing as a plain ol' insult.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

When we landed in Austin today I was flipping radio channels in the car and stopped on the sports radio station. They were a buzz with talk of Texas to the Big 10.

[falafel]

When we landed in Austin today I was flipping radio channels in the car and stopped on the sports radio station. They were a buzz with talk of Texas to the Big 10.

A buzz as in they were excited? Or just that they were talking about it?

[BoylenOver]

I'm hearing the Big 12 is prepared to go all-out to keep their 12 current schools, and while CU and Mizzou aren't necessarily guaranteed to stay, if one leaves the other is infinitely more likely to follow suit.

So here's my thought: if Mizzou jets to the Big Ten, CU definitely accepts the invitation to the PAC-10, and BYU and Utah are in separate BCS conferences come 2012. But if Pitt is the 12th Big Ten team, then all this buzz and excitement over the last five or six days was for naught.

[Indy Coug]

I'm hearing the Big 12 is prepared to go all-out to keep their 12 current schools, and while CU and Mizzou aren't necessarily guaranteed to stay, if one leaves the other is infinitely more likely to follow suit.

So here's my thought: if Mizzou jets to the Big Ten, CU definitely accepts the invitation to the PAC-10, and BYU and Utah are in separate BCS conferences come 2012. But if Pitt is the 12th Big Ten team, then all this buzz and excitement over the last five or six days was for naught.

I really hope that BYU and Utah end up in different conferences so I won't have to hear the bullshit argument of "I'm rooting for Utah because it's good for the <XXX> conference".

[DU Ute]

I really hope that BYU and Utah end up in different conferences so I won't have to hear the bullshit argument of "I'm rooting for UtahBYU because it's good for the <XXX> conference".

[Indy Coug]

Exactly. What self-respecting rivalry that likes to think of itself as a major national rivalry would allow such an inferiority complex about their own conference get in the way of rooting against their rival every opportunity they get?