While it appalls me that some people think talking like a stereotypical gang member makes them “cooler,” to read it in print is horrifying! No self-respecting professor would accept a paper written in that manner, and I’d like to think the Collegian has close to the same standards.
Bad writing aside, let’s look at the subject of the article. A football player didn’t get picked for the team. Maybe now he understands what that poor kid felt like at being picked last for kickball. But wait, he got to sign with the Broncos as a free agent! Looks like he didn’t get picked last after all. Claiming that the NFL has some personal vendetta against CSU is crossing the line.
These are people who get paid to choose the best athletes they can find, no matter where they come from. While we’re on the subject of personal vendettas, I am completely baffled by the hatred for CU that drips from the fangs of rabid CSU sports fans. The whole ordeal makes the Hatfield-McCoy Feud look tame by comparison! The saddest part is, I have never heard any insult aimed at CU more imaginative then “they suck.”
It would have been more intelligent to write “Screw Flanders” over and over.
Here’s my personal favorite: according to the editorial board, our athletes are “stud(s) in our green and gold stable.” While the comparison of a jock to a large animal good for nothing but running, jumping, and eating does seem to fit, I don’t really believe it is appropriate to print, whatever the actual similarities may be.
The lack of maturity displayed by the editorial board is inexcusable. It’s a game. Grow up. Get over it. I doubt this is a very popular view but, as you would say, “no love for the haters,” right?
Sophomore Political Science