From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: ANYONE INTERESTED IN GATORS' SCHEDULE
Keywords: Fightin' Gators, 92 Schedule
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:22:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

aaron@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Aaron Fager) wrote:

}Notably, none of that information coming from you, just wave after 
}wave of spewed hate toward anyone that says something positive about the
}Hurricanes.

I'd be very interested to see you reproduce the supposed "wave
after wave of spewed hate".  You're right about the information,
though, I have provided very little of that in the last week.
Fortunately I will always have your *highly informational* posts
to give me something to aspire to.

}Just try to be objective for one moment and ask yourself : "What if Miami
}had cancelled games to be played against Florida?  How would I judge the
}Miami Hurricanes then?" In my own opinion, of course, I figure that you
}would come down much harder than you have on the Gators.

Well, here's a quote from an article I wrote last November or so:

>      [Florida makes] more money [playing patsies] than they would by
>playing Miami.  BTW, I also think this doesn't excuse them one bit
>from chickening out of the Miami series, but then I don't think $600K
>extra is a worthy reason for Miami to skip Florida in the Sugar Bowl
>either.

Now then, does it sound like I'm judging Miami and Florida by
different standards?  Meanwhile, you, Aaron, have been blabbering
for years about how Florida is "chicken" for not playing Miami
(though they make more money playing playing patsies at home)
and yet you were quick to justify Miami's avoidance of the
Gators last season with finances.  Why don't *you* "try to
be objective for a moment" and make up your mind as to whether
money is a valid reason for ducking another team or not.  So
far you've told us that is is OK for Miami and that it's not
OK for Florida - does that sound "objective"?

The only "defense" of Florida in this case which I have made
is to mention the fact that the SEC schedule was changed (not by 
Florida's hand) after Spurrier's statement (that is, the one which Jason 
posts every 2 or 3 months.)  I happen to think that Spurrier was sincere
when he made the statement, but was forced to renege by circumstances
beyond his control.  (That doesn't change the fact that I still
think Florida is a bunch of chickens for dumping Miami in the
first place, and that Miami are a bunch of hypocrites for whining
about it for years and then doing nothing to try to play Florida
in the Sugar Bowl.)

}>Since Miami joined the Big East rather than the SEC, it seems Miami would 
}>rather play Temple and Boston College than Florida.

}Don't forget St. John's, Syracuse, and UConn.  After all, one of the MAIN
}reasons Miami joined the Big East was for Basketball.  

If they joined it for basketball, why'd they insist on turning it
into a football conference?  Why not just join the Big East for
basketball and continue to play football as an indie?  The Big East
is suffering from declining ratings (because of declining quality)
and would have loved to expand into the Florida market for basketball
only.

It's interesting that you can't even attempt to justify playing
the Big Easy football teams on their own merit, it always comes back 
to this basketball argument.  (BTW, I happen to think that the Big
East is a perfectly respectable league of teams based on football
merit only - probably about on par with the ACC.)

But in any case, if Miami really wanted to play Florida they would
have joined the SEC.  And the SEC happens to have basketball competition
as well, though it hasn't been quite at the level of the Big East
for the past decade.  (That trend appears to be changing, however,
as the Big East basketball declines somewhat and the SEC improves.)

-- 
"Laugh while you can, monkey boy!"    | Mark Mitchell, Ga. Tech, Atlanta, GA
                                      | mm42@prism.gatech.edu