urbanMSP

So, our pro team that has never threatened to leave over a stadium subsidy won their third championship in five years.

And this photo op.

Sometimes I hate politicians.

So does anyone want to buy my Gophers/Badgers football tickets for this afternoon? Two lower level chairback seats, row 7. At a boot the 25 yard line, on the sunny side of the bowl. Someone should!

I see why you were selling them.

Ahead of the Wild-Stars playoff series, here's a 1993 story detailing how the North Stars ended up in Texas.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas- ... -minnesota

No mention of sexual harassment I see.

I see this type of stuff too much with the MN United.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/magaz ... lture.html

Prejudice is common enough among soccer fans that the "elite" supporter group for the aspiring Minnesota the m.l.s. franchise has anti racism, sexism and homophobia language in their mission statement. i really hope white male American soccer fans mimicking fascists is borne out of ignorance not bigotry. If that's the case they learned very little during the college semester abroad paid for by their fathers.

Sorry, but Seattle Sounders fans have nothing in common with the English hooligans Bill Buford followed around in 1980s. "Among the Thugs" is a fascinating book, though, for anyone interested in that kind of stuff.

If you want to talk about a dangerous, bigoted soccer culture, though, it might be better to start in Mexico.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-madd ... 89424.html

http://www.espnfc.us/mexico/story/28813 ... -from-fans

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/15279 ... meroon.htm

I see this type of stuff too much with the MN United.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/magaz ... lture.html

Really? I only go maybe once a year (a shame as Carl Craig is sort of a friend), but even when we sit with the Dark Clouds, I've never seen anything that was concerning. Maybe there are chants/songs I don't know the origin of, but my sense is that crap would not be tolerated. And Nick Rogers and the front office seem to be pretty progressive too.

The last game we went to was the friendly against Club Leon at Target Field. There was a gaggle of latino children behind us (perhaps players' family) that were super endearing screaming their love for Minnesota in spanish accents.

Terrible, lazy, article.

I dunno this chant, to me, does not appear to antifa: http://www.truenorthelite.com/songschants/

RISING OF THE NORTH

There will be blood,

There will be gore,

But we came ready,

Ready for War.



We are the children,

Of the North,

Minnesota,

To the core.



When you hear.

Our battle cry,

You be ready,

Ready to die.



You will fear,

The rising of the North!

The rising of the North!

The rising of the North! x2

From Seattle https://www.weareecs.com/multimedia/songs

We came to drink
We came to drink, we came to sing whoa whoa
We came to drink, we came to sing whoa whoa
We came to drink, we came to sing ECS from one thirteen!
Whoa, ooohhh, oohh
Burn destroy wreck and kill whoa, whoa
Burn destroy wreck and kill whoa, whoa
Burn destroy wreck and kill, Seattle Sounders surely will!
Whoa, ooohhh, oohh
Emerald City we are here, whoa whoa
Emerald City we are here, whoa whoa
Emerald City we are here, supporting Sounders drinking beer!
Whoa, ooohhh, oohh

Among the Thugs is a legitimately frightening book. Worth a read these days as it explores the same class divisions in that are in display in the Brexit fiasco. SPORTS!

I don't know where else to put this, but I know there are some Gophers fans here and had a theory I wanted to test out. For the record, I wouldn't necessarily call myself a Gophers "fan," but I follow the team enough to know what's going on. So with that said:

The Tracy Claeys firing was almost too easy. He was a placeholder coach with no charisma, his team was almost unwatchably boring this year despite nine wins, and the stadium was routinely under capacity. Then he apparently two-faced the administration and sent a tone deaf tweet in support of his misguidedly boycotting players. And, cynically, but perhaps most important, the Gophers would be in a uniquely good position to hire a replacement coach this offseason.

Yet you go online after the news of his firing, and people are freaking out. You'd think the U just fired Bob Dylan or something. (Sorry, that was the best I could come up with)

But then this got me thinking. A lot, lately, things happen in the world, and people react in ways that are totally unexpected to me. Another example from this week was when the BBB lowered MyPillow to a failing rating. My reaction was to read the story, see the BBB's reasoning and decide, "OK, that makes sense." But others reacted with such utter contempt not just for the BBB but also for the news media, with several accusing the press of being anti-Minnesotan for even reporting this. What's going on? How can these two simple news stories evoke such different reactions? The more I think about it, the more I think examples like this are directly related to the massive urban-rural, educated-non-educated divides Donald Trump exposed in our country.

What I mean is that I think the "city view" was largely what I outlined above: Even though Claeys had an OK season, there wasn't a super compelling reason to keep him even before the tweets and apparent insubordination. But then there was another segment of the population that really latched on to Jerry Kill, and by extension Tracy Claeys. In these coaches people saw small-town men of great integrity, guys who represented their rural values in a major institution. And so no matter the actual circumstances, this situation was going to come down to the slick administration being unfair to the good ol' country coaches who were just trying to earn an honest living teaching young men how to play football. In other words, this really seems like an example of our rural friends being mad as hell and not going to take it anymore with us city folks disrespecting them.

I'm curious what others think. Is this another example of the Donald Trump divide in America? Am I over-thinking this? How is it possible that a situation like this can evoke two so dramatically different viewpoints?

In these coaches people saw small-town men of great integrity, guys who represented their rural values in a major institution.

I don't think it's that. I think it's that "men are getting falsely accused of sexual assault on campus and it's unfair" has been a right wing talking point for awhile, so that you see even people who weren't enamored of Claeys being outraged that he was fired over something as silly a girl having second thoughts about her sexual behavior. (For the record, that's not my view of what happened, just how some characterize it)

So, start with Title IX's unfair, add the belief that the real issue with campus sexual violence is false accusations, thus you get sympathy with the boycott and the obvious conclusion that Claeys was right to back him players and viola, firing him is unfair.

In these coaches people saw small-town men of great integrity, guys who represented their rural values in a major institution.

I don't think it's that. I think it's that "men are getting falsely accused of sexual assault on campus and it's unfair" has been a right wing talking point for awhile, so that you see even people who weren't enamored of Claeys being outraged that he was fired over something as silly a girl having second thoughts about her sexual behavior. (For the record, that's not my view of what happened, just how some characterize it)

So, start with Title IX's unfair, add the belief that the real issue with campus sexual violence is false accusations, thus you get sympathy with the boycott and the obvious conclusion that Claeys was right to back him players and viola, firing him is unfair.

Your response appears to come from the presumption that there is no possible rational reason for being upset about this. "People don't like the Gopher's coach getting fired? Clearly that's because they are rape apologists that thinks campus sexual assault is a myth." That strikes me as intellectually lazy (and, I might add, is precisely in the strike-zone of the alt-right narrative: "if you dare question any facet of the socially progressive agenda, it is de-facto evidence that you are a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe, etc.").

Sigh. Urban, rural, left, right: we all deserve Trump,.

So, start with Title IX's unfair, add the belief that the real issue with campus sexual violence is false accusations, thus you get sympathy with the boycott and the obvious conclusion that Claeys was right to back him players and viola, firing him is unfair.

Sure, I know that's part of it, but I really think this is less ideological and more about the feeling that a simple, country man with good intentions got the short end of the stick from "the elite."

Which I find really interesting, because that's not how I see it at all.

Claeys is getting $500,000.00 for being fired. Hard to say he has suffered some injustice.

It's not like he is some genius. Kill/Claeys scheduled soft non-conference games, could not challenge the elite of the conference and had trouble keeping top recruits in the state.

The new AD wanted a head football coach that was his pick. Add to that; the scandal, a questionable tweet, the overall mess that has been the Gopher Men athletic program you get a fired head coach.

The people most upset are the usual reactionaries, so I don't think Kill/Claeys homespun homespunnery had much to do with it.

Not to be too cynical, but I suspect that if Claeys had gotten a victory against Penn State, Iowa, or Nebraska (not to mention Wisconsin) this year, the decision would have been a more difficult one for the administration. As it is, don't let the door hit you on your (very ample) ass.

Your response appears to come from the presumption that there is no possible rational reason for being upset about this.

There is very little rational reason to be upset that a coach got fired because 10 of his players had to be suspended because they are accused of campus conduct violations, including alleged sexual violence, and he completely failed to (1) effectively communicate to his team why and what the process is going forward, (2) publicly undermined his superiors, (3) failed to take responsibility for the discipline agreed to with his boss, and (4) simply did not seem to understand the magnitude of the situation.

A month ago, I would have argued pretty strongly for keeping Claeys, in the face of not completely irrational concerns about attendance, failure to take a step forward this year against a soft schedule and a reportedly weak recruiting class. But once you add to that, "was in the middle of a national embarrassment for the institution," yeah, it's a little hard to see a rational reason for being upset they they are moving on.