How to think about U of Wyoming Sports

Wyoming High School sports, pro sports, other college sports
Post Reply
307bball
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:08 pm
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 62 times

Posting in this section since this topic is not specific to any particular sport.

This is in response to threads from the other boards about the following:

Graham Ike transferring to Gonzaga.
Sundance Wicks posting hate mail he received to twitter.
The hypothetical related to what Josh Allen would have done had he played in the transfer/NIL era.
Any topic that touches on coaches or athletes choosing to transfer away from Wyoming.

There are a variety of opinions relating to each of these topics, but they all seem to fit into roughly two categories as it relates to individual decision. I'll try and describe them. (It's going to be a broad and low resolution description)

Category #1 - Those who view the individual decisions through their own lens of "right" and "wrong" with very little respect/understanding for those who would choose something they would not.

Category #2 - Those who view the decisions by attempting to understand that reasonable individuals may arrive at different conclusions from them. Even in the event they would not have made any particular decision, in the absence of actual crime or rule breaking, free individuals are free to make decisions for themselves with a minimum of moral condemnation.

I think the Sundance Wicks discussion is an example of this dichotomy. What is the problem in this story? Do you think the problem was that this got posted to social media? Do you think the problem was that somebody felt free to place a hateful piece of paper or two into his physical mailbox? If you think they are both problems, which one is more threatening?

Anyways...I'm just looking to get some opinions here. I'll lay my cards on the table and say that I think that the less people we have in category #1 in any given community, the more healthy that community will be.
User avatar
'PokeForLife
Cowpoke
Posts: 626
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:40 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 9 times

In order to better understand your categories -- are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist? Is there such thing as "my truth and your thruth" or is there just "one truth"?

I also wonder if in reality many people here may be in a category 1.5?

Category #1.5 - Those who view the individual decisions through their own lens of "right" and "wrong" [and] attempt to understand that reasonable individuals may arrive at different conclusions from them; [those who believe that] free individuals are free to make decisions for themselves with a minimum of [vocalized] moral condemnation, but on an anonymous forum they may as well let their opinions be heard.

Maybe I'm off base, but I feel like Wyomingites in general are much more likely to be moral absolutists than relativists. There is definitely a moral right and wrong but will give people the benefit of freedom to choose whatever they want right up until it affects them or their family.
307bball
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:08 pm
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 62 times

'PokeForLife wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 7:07 pm In order to better understand your categories -- are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist? Is there such thing as "my truth and your thruth" or is there just "one truth"?

I also wonder if in reality many people here may be in a category 1.5?

Category #1.5 - Those who view the individual decisions through their own lens of "right" and "wrong" [and] attempt to understand that reasonable individuals may arrive at different conclusions from them; [those who believe that] free individuals are free to make decisions for themselves with a minimum of [vocalized] moral condemnation, but on an anonymous forum they may as well let their opinions be heard.

Maybe I'm off base, but I feel like Wyomingites in general are much more likely to be moral absolutists than relativists. There is definitely a moral right and wrong but will give people the benefit of freedom to choose whatever they want right up until it affects them or their family.
I'm trying not to get into deep philosophical waters here. In my attempt to be general...I think I muddied the water with how I framed it and by going off on a tangent related to what happened to Sundance Wicks. Within the context of college athletics, nobody is applying a moral lens to decisions that HS recruits make when they are deciding what school to play for. There are minor exceptions to this at the extremes where some people will condemn an in-state player for going to play for a rival but that is a pretty obvious sour grapes reaction. This "pass" that is given to HS recruits is not extended to athletes that decide to transfer. I think some background is necessary.

For years, college athletes have been restricted after signing a LOI in ways that the courts are now weighing in on. I'm not a labor law expert but it seems like the prevailing notion in the courts is that Universities have benefitted in some way from these restrictions at the expense of the athletes themselves. The expense imposed on the athletes is not a harm per se...it's more of an arbitrary system that has immense benefits for Universities that the players themselves really have not been able to share in. There are some diverging viewpoints on the validity of the courts opinions but, in general, it seems like that is the state of play at the moment. Within that environment, the NCAA has been pressured to greatly relax transfer restrictions and to allow players to directly be compensated for their name, image, and likeness (NIL).

This brings us to the conversations around the transfer of Graham Ike, comments by Brandon Ewing about what he might have done had he been subject to the current rules, and discussion about the hypothetical of what Josh Allen may or may not have done if he had the option of transferring like todays players do. I get the sense that there is an immense amount of moral panic around the decisions that these athletes make. Past UW greats are revered and held up as "loyal" because they didn't transfer when, in reality, they had no real option to do so. People throw around examples of relationships like marriages to justify their ill will towards these "disloyal" athletes. Every comment gets read into no matter how small. I'm perplexed and a bit repulsed by this attitude. I don't like feeling like I'm cheering on my Pokes shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of moral toddlers. I'm mostly looking to find the context that explains this phenomena.

I guess I thought that we had set aside the athlete as a role model of moral virtue around the the time that Charles Barkley was doing his thing, but I guess there is a contingent of folks that are hanging on to those beliefs.
stymeman
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7233
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:40 pm
Location: Cheyenne, again
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 45 times

Just fighting game after game to matter in this thing that is college sports. Too bad we stay so mediocre year after year...(hard to compete)
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5247
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 134 times

FOI the Sternberg report. A lot of consistencies over the years.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
Post Reply