Quote:
Originally posted by AKA_Monet
macallan--
It seems that watching this info unfold that there are some "back room deals" going on between the schools that the media and press are not privvy to...
There may be something the USC wanted SC State to do for them for the game that they are going to play and SC State felt that they were getting the short end of the stick... So, SC State invoked "controversy" to get what they wanted and wanted to see if USC would recapitulate...
My guess, folks are in South Carolina... Recapitulation doesn't happen often... And what are the alternatives... Boycott? Could SC State do that?
However, it would probably break a huge contract when somebody who doesn't have money couldn't pay... Basically, SC State may have pigeon-holed themselves always seeing the big bucks and being reactive when stuff doesn't go their way, rather than taking a wait and see attitude... And that seems to happen in SC State's communities across the United States... It is just the way it is perceived.
I dunno if it will change. I really am not into that right now. But after all the language that has been thrown, I am hearing what you are saying...
|
Exactly, they tried to make a controversy out of the whole deal....when there was nothing to bring about concern. USC's actions were fair and consistent with their policies concerning all other visiting teams......and they paid SCState what, 240,000$? Seems reasonable to me.