Share
It’s better to win than to lose.
Ask any sports fan — or just any human — and they would tell you the same thing. But what about when the choice becomes slightly more complicated?
ESPN introduced a poll last week asking fans which college football program they would rather support: Auburn or Virginia Tech.
Three years ago, Auburn was 14-0 and at the top of the football world.
It was the SEC champion, national champion and its star quarterback Cam Newton was awarded the Heisman Trophy.
Now the Tigers are 3-9, winless in the SEC, and the previously revered head coach Gene Chizik is on the way out. Since 2007 — eliminating the great 2010 and horrendous 2012 — the Tigers are 30-21, giving true meaning to the term mediocrity.
And then there are the Hokies. In the past 18 years they have won seven conference championships, including three in the past five years. Until this year, they held the nation’s longest record of consecutive 10-plus win seasons. The team has played in 20 straight bowl games, but just a single National Championship — a loss to Florida State in 1999.
It comes down to this. Would you prefer to root for a team that is almost always average, but has recently acquired a national championship? Or would you choose a program that is always good, perhaps the most consistent team in the past decade, but has never climbed to the top of the mountain?
At first the decision was clear, who wants to cheer for common? Maybe I have an intrinsic bias as a Tech student, but the success the Hokies have experienced of late has been more than enough to keep the fans happy. Last year, I went to the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans. It was a losing effort, yes, but I had an experience Tiger fans won’t be able to have for quite some time.
This year has been the worst for the Hokies in recent history, and they are still going bowling. The Hokies fan has had the luxury of becoming so spoiled that even in the most down of years, they experience postseason football.
I thought I would never want to give this up — this recurrent success — for a single dream season to be followed by countless nightmarish ones.
But then I remembered something; something that I occasionally wished to forget. I am a St. Louis Rams fan, and a loyal one at that. And the more I think of it, the more I realize I’m just like those fans down in Auburn.
A decade ago the Rams were the “greatest show on turf.” Mike Martz, Kurt Warner, Issac Bruce, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt — the names were endless and the success seemed likewise.
But clearly it was not.
Since 2005, the Rams have been a miserable 15-55, yet I have remained loyal. I’ve done so because I experienced something great all those years ago. And although the team struggles today, and will likely struggle tomorrow, one day, the franchise will return to greatness. When it does, the feeling of ecstasy will be that much greater having remained true through so many years of awful football.
A version of this article appeared in the Dec 4 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 16 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Jacob Emert: this is plagarism.
You copied the thesis of ESPN writers Ted Miller and Mark Schlabach.
You are in college, sir: site your sources.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/hot?id=8685623
Reply to this Top
He mentioned the poll and the survey in the third sentence. Only two theses could possibly be derived from the poll.
Reply to this Top
Citing a poll is not the same as giving credit to an author. He stole the idea and tried ot pass it off as if Hokie fans do not read espn. The only original thought in his piece is that he is a St. Loius Rams fan.
I think Shame on CT has a valid point, and the newspaper should pull the article.
Top
Did you guys read the columns on ESPN? I did and the only thing they and this column have in column is they both reference the poll. Just because two people talk about the same issue doesn't mean one of them stole ideas.
Top
Yea, look at the Virginia Tech Honor Code definition of plagiarism ... this is it.
“Plagiarism is a specific form of cheating. It is defined as copying the language, structure, idea, and/or thoughts of another and claiming or attempting to imply that they are one's own work. It includes the omitting of quotation marks when references are copied directly, improper paraphrasing, or inadequate referencing of source.”
Reply to this Top
Excuse me JoeBlow but you did not properly cite the Virginia Tech Honor Code by providing an actual link to it, which is at http://www.honorsystem.vt.edu/
You have plagiarised your statement and I believe you should ask the CT to pull your comment and then turn yourself in to the Honor Court.
Reply to this Top
Are you guys totally nuts or just totally nerds? I'm a VT Alumni and took the Honor Code very seriously, and this is NOT plagiarism. It might not be the most elegantly written column, but he clearly referenced that he was commenting on the ESPN article/poll, then spent much of the rest of the time discussing his own team loyalties and how that ties in to the story. Get a life.
Reply to this Top
You see the quotation marks in my statement?
No?
Let me give you some help there .... they look like this: " ".
Stating the origin of something and then putting what is taken from there in quotation marks is the correct way of citing original material.
Better luck next time.
Reply to this Top
Sorry you're an idiot Joe, better luck next time.
Reply to this Top
And for the record, the author both paraphrased and credited ESPN with the source, which was the poll. Fat dumbass neckbeards like Joe Blow though are just so lonely and stupid they have nothing better to do than hang out in the CT comments section trying to be "technically correct" and looking like a mouth-breathing retard in the process.
Reply to this Top
I knew I was an obstinate PITA, but now my titles have increased. Thanks so much, Anonymous brethren! I shall put Dumbass and Idiot after the Ph.D. on my business card with relish.
The author credited an ESPN poll but did not note that there were two opposing articles there that he paraphrased (your word, not mine). Since he didn't reference the two articles there, and he paraphrased the articles (your description), he is guilty of plagiarism. Not my opinion or pulled out of my rear, mind you, plagiarism as clearly described in the Virginia Tech honor code.
Paraphrasing is usually plagiarism. Again, not my opinion, please READ the description of plagiarism in the Honor Code.
My point here is that students need to be aware of the gray areas of plagiarism. Your suggestions that I am a dumbass and idiot are kind (probably accurate as well .. kudos), but it is clear based on the definition that this article was plagiarized.
Should the author be hung out to dry? Of course not. But he and students reading this should be clear on what is and isn't plagiarism. Again, there is a gray area that can get students into trouble.
Toss ad hominums when you can't make a cogent arguments, I really don't care, but don't splatter disinformation with your inaccurate portrayal of what constitutes plagiarism.
Reply to this Top
It is not plagiarism. From the Honor Code:
"Plagiarism includes the copying of the language, structure, programming, computer code, ideas, and/or thoughts of another and passing off the same as one's own original work, or attempts thereof."
Because he mentioned the ESPN poll, he has cited his work. The references to Auburn and VT come from the poll, and the rest of the article is generic enough that simply comparing their highs and lows cannot be constituted as plagiarism; the ESPN article writers do not hold a monopoly on the comparison between the two programs. Indeed, the comparison between Auburn's highs and lows and Virginia Tech's steadiness has been discussed this year well before the two ESPN authors wrote their articles. One can simply search message boards and social media to find these discussions. It is indeed recommended that the author point to the ESPN articles discussing the poll, but it is not plagiarism. If it is, then the ESPN authors have also committed plagiarism, as well as anybody who discusses this topic that also participates in message boards or social media.
A PHd is admirable, but does not make one a defacto-authority on this subject.
Reply to this Top
Also, your assertion that "paraphrasing is usually plagiarism" is incorrect. Nowhere in the honor code does it state this, and indeed external resources that discuss plagiarism do not make that assertion either.
From "http://plagiarism.org/citing-sources/how-to-paraphrase"
"To paraphrase is to include the ideas or information from an original source in your paper by rephrasing those ideas or information in your own words. The key to successful paraphrasing is to use as few words as possible from the original text--be mindful not to change the meaning that you are trying to convey as you rephrase--and to cite your paraphrase. Without proper citation, your paraphrase could be construed as plagiarism."
In fact, technically the VT honor system does not use the term "paraphrasing" anywhere. It can be found in the Graduate Honor System though, from:
http://ghs.graduateschool.vt.edu/plagiarism.html
"Another type of copying that is not as obvious, though equally serious, involves the translation of a part of a book, article, or other source into different words--paraphrasing. Although the language is not the same because the exact words of the source have been changed, the structure, ideas, and thoughts of the original author have been copied. Thus, the student who submits an assignment that simply paraphrases a source without identifying it may also be guilty of plagiarism."
Notice the usage of words like "may" and "could" in these definitions. Paraphrasing *may* be plagiarism, but it is not *usually* plagiarism as you asserted.
Reply to this Top
You are all morons for missing the point that he is making (and how clueless he is about Auburn football). They are a very successful program - top 10 in the nation *historically.* VMI was irrelevant in college football until about 15 years ago...
Reply to this Top
VMI is relevant in college football? Since when?
Reply to this Top
000 in Presale Orders for Milwaukee Motorcycles
<a href="http://hollisteruks.webs.com/" title="hollister">hollister</a>
Reply to this Top