so you have no reaction when watching games on tv?
You mean you don't watch games in a robe while quietly smoking a pipe and enjoying a good novel?
I can promise you, I do not "boo" the television. Nor, if I have an angry outburst, do I think it will somehow traverse the signals and communicate with the coaching staff from the privacy of my own home.
not backpedaling at all. I would have reacted the same way whether in Neyland or on my couch
oh so you agree with stopping the clock late in the game while up one score? Please explain
I have no clue when the booing in the stadium occurred but I booed at home over the playcalling late in the game. For example, 8-9min left and go 3 and out with 2 plays being incomplete passes. We burned less than a minute and handed the ball right back to a team who was only down 7 points.
why is it wrong to express displeasure with the coaching or play-calling?
Rarely is everyone watching the game going to agree with all of the coaching calls. The question at hand is why do some people find it necessary to boo when said disagreement occurs?
Again, what do you feel you have accomplished?
Rarely is everyone watching the game going to agree with all of the coaching calls. The question at hand is why do some people find it necessary to boo when said disagreement occurs?
Again, what do you feel you have accomplished from the privacy of your own home?
I think if you're going to boo, it had better be extremely obvious that you're booing an egregious coaching decision. For instance, I booed lustily last year when DD put two timeouts in his pocket with 38 seconds left against Missouri and didn't try to take a shot or two at picking up 25 yards for a game winning FG attempt.
Other than that, I have a hard time with it. The kids, after all, are kids entertaining me for free.
people scream, cry, boo, dog cuss (with kids around), throw their hands up, etc when they disagree. What does any of it accomplish in the long run? If you ever want to get to a place where the fans simply say "good try guys, you'll get it next time" and clap in approval of losing then you're the one living in a dream world.
Then you agree with me that it is nothing more than an emotional outburst with no overall benefit. If we can agree on that then, given the demoralizing nature to the team, and its potential effects on recruiting, why not leave it out of the stadium, grow up, and deal with it in a different way?
if you think I'm sitting there literally screaming "Boooo" in my living room then you need help.
how would you suggest fans deal with it? Should the band crank up Rocky Top after every 3 and out? Should we do the wave? Standing O?
if you think I'm sitting there literally screaming "Boooo" in my living room then you need help.
how would you suggest fans deal with it? Should the band crank up Rocky Top after every 3 and out? Should we do the wave? Standing O?
In response to a discussion about literal "boos" at Neiland Saturday, you literally posted that you were "booing" at home Saturday. I'm sorry. That's just a hilarious picture.
I suggest they deal with it in a different way while in the stadium. You've already admitted it has no benefit. The negatives are listed.
I suspect that you already know the answer to your own question, or you're just not good at thinking things through. The options you presented are actually a fallacy of the excluded middle-- i.e. presenting only extremes as possible answers. In your scenario, fans can only either boo, or cheer voraciously.
The obvious "middle" is to do neither.
I say that I suspect that you already know your answer because the fallacy of the excluded middle is usually presented when a person knows the alternative, and uses the fallacy to win an unwinnable debate... Or they use it because they are too dumb to realize the "middle" option.
You don't seem dumb.
In response to a discussion about literal "boos" at Neiland Saturday, you literally posted that you were "booing" at home Saturday. I'm sorry. That's just a hilarious picture.
I suggest they deal with it in a different way while in the stadium. You've already admitted it has no benefit. The negatives are listed.
I suspect that you already know the answer to your own question, or you're just not good at thinking things through. The options you presented are actually a fallacy of the excluded middle-- i.e. presenting only extremes as possible answers. In your scenario, fans can only either boo, or cheer voraciously.
The obvious "middle" is to do neither.
I say that I suspect that you already know your answer because the fallacy of the excluded middle is usually presented when a person knows the alternative, and uses the fallacy to win an unwinnable debate... Or they use it because they are too dumb to realize the "middle" option.
You don't seem dumb.