Foley's Friday Mailbag for 3/10/17

[Tom McAndrew]

Zain and Nolf are listed in Foley's predictions for winners at NCAAs. That's it for PSU mentions

Foley goes on a pretty long screed about the NCAA giving truth and transparency in NCAA seeding (and also complains about the challenge and review process being hidden from fans).

I doubt that Foley is smart enough to realize that his screed is far more applicable to International and Olympic wrestling. For those keeping track, this is week 23, and despite promises he tweeted, no response to Flo's article about Olympic reffing corruption from Foley.

FWIW, Foley seems to have attracted quite a few negative comments to this week's Mailbag. You can read the Mailbag at THIS LINK.

 

[dunkej01]

SHOCKER Alert: I agree with the folks calling out Foleys SJW attitude and his bent to bring his politics into just about every column.

That said and I will admittedly be biased, but my favorite comment was:

Jefe (1) 6 minutes ago
UWW schill complains about NCAA transparency.

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Zain and Nolf are listed in Foley's predictions for winners at NCAAs. That's it for PSU mentions

Foley goes on a pretty long screed about the NCAA giving truth and transparency in NCAA seeding (and also complains about the challenge and review process being hidden from fans).

I doubt that Foley is smart enough to realize that his screed is far more applicable to International and Olympic wrestling. For those keeping track, this is week 23, and despite promises he tweeted, no response to Flo's article about Olympic reffing corruption from Foley.

FWIW, Foley seems to have attracted quite a few negative comments to this week's Mailbag. You can read the Mailbag at THIS LINK.

Most of the hate seems to be generated by his response to the question about the gay wrestler headed to Columbia and appears to be written by ignorant homophobic d-bags. The negative comments in regards to his hypocrisy in calling for NCAA transparency but not addressing issues with UWW are warranted IMHO.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

That said and I will admittedly be biased, but my favorite comment was:

Jefe (1) 6 minutes ago
UWW schill complains about NCAA transparency.

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

That's a classic. Did a better job of conveying my point, and did so with a brevity of words. That comment from our friend was not in the Comments section when I posted the link.

 

[tikk10]

Foley and CP fought on Twitter yesterday over the same issue for the same reasons. Regardless of whether Foley is the wrong water carrier for that particular argument (and he definitely is, and especially so on the issue of transparency), they're nevertheless at least somewhat valid points, and undeserving of Invalidation on-sight by virtue of Foley's inherent bias.

That said, he's not making a very good argument despite all the ink. No mention of the oddity that finds coaches with inherent biases on the committee having the ability to impact their own wrestlers and competing teams for instance. That scenario alone is a good argument for more transparency, but he doesn't mention it or provide examples where a coach being on the seeding committee triggered questions, not even hypothetically (e.g., maybe Tom Ryan makes an argument at seeding meeting for Myles Martin to get 5 seed instead of comfier 6 if Gabe Dean not #1?). Foley just kind of blathers about transparency without explaining why it's a good idea here. Not suggesting that you only address an ethics problem when it rears its head but it's not exactly like the NCAA has a situation comparable to five year suspensions for naked Mongolian coaches while armed abusive Russian coaches get multiple free passes.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Not suggesting that you only address an ethics problem when it rears its head but it's not exactly like the NCAA has a situation comparable to five year suspensions for naked Mongolian coaches while armed abusive Russian coaches get multiple free passes.

lmao

that's a great sentence

 

[dunkej01]

lmao

that's a great sentence

I took it over for TR to see cause it was so good.

 

[El-Jefe]

Foley has begun defending himself in the comments, as only he can.

So the Dunk in me might have responded again.

Tom, thanks for highlighting his weekly inanity. Nice diversion from work today.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Foley has begun defending himself in the comments, as only he can.

So the Dunk in me might have responded again.

LOL, your second comment was another gem. You probably have the two best comments in the Comments section.

Dunke did copy and post, and give credit to tikk10, the sentence from tikk that I highlighted.

T.R. hasn't seen fit to respond to these 3 comments, at least so far.

 

[dunkej01]

LOL, your second comment was another gem. You probably have the two best comments in the Comments section.

Dunke did copy and post, and give credit to tikk10, the sentence from tikk that I highlighted.

T.R. hasn't seen fit to respond to these 3 comments, at least so far.

My odds say he wont. He goes to his safe space when it comes to the UWW controversy.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Foley's first paragraph: "They got it right."
Rest of column: "We need to see how they got it right."

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Foley and CP fought on Twitter yesterday over the same issue for the same reasons. Regardless of whether Foley is the wrong water carrier for that particular argument (and he definitely is, and especially so on the issue of transparency), they're nevertheless at least somewhat valid points, and undeserving of Invalidation on-sight by virtue of Foley's inherent bias.

That said, he's not making a very good argument despite all the ink. No mention of the oddity that finds coaches with inherent biases on the committee having the ability to impact their own wrestlers and competing teams for instance. That scenario alone is a good argument for more transparency, but he doesn't mention it or provide examples where a coach being on the seeding committee triggered questions, not even hypothetically (e.g., maybe Tom Ryan makes an argument at seeding meeting for Myles Martin to get 5 seed instead of comfier 6 if Gabe Dean not #1?). Foley just kind of blathers about transparency without explaining why it's a good idea here. Not suggesting that you only address an ethics problem when it rears its head but it's not exactly like the NCAA has a situation comparable to five year suspensions for naked Mongolian coaches while armed abusive Russian coaches get multiple free passes.

Pyles wasn't alone in arguing with Foley on this one. (Full disclosure: We were employed by the same company until about two months ago) I mentioned to him that I was somehow able to nail down 48 out of the 53 at-large selections (since gone up to 50-for-55 with the scratches/promoted alternates). His response: not good enough, you should be getting 100%. I'll let you guys judge who the winner of that argument should have been.

 

[Reslo]

No way Foley wrote that article. There wasn't one complaint about singlets in it.

 

[BruceK-PSU83]

SHOCKER Alert: I agree with the folks calling out Foleys SJW attitude and his bent to bring his politics into just about every column.

That said and I will admittedly be biased, but my favorite comment was:

Jefe (1) 6 minutes ago
UWW schill complains about NCAA transparency.

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

It's a good comment, but I wasn't sure what "schill" meant, as I expect the intent was "shill". Looking up the former word gave me a bit of a jolt; see link below:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schill

 

[El-Jefe]

It's a good comment, but I wasn't sure what "schill" meant, as I expect the intent was "shill". Looking up the former word gave me a bit of a jolt; see link below:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schill

Voice to text sometimes yields interesting results.

 

[dunkej01]

Voice to text sometimes yields interesting results.

I thought it was well intended innuendo