A Passionate Bob Diaco Talks About the conFLiCT & National Reaction

[Stainmaster]

And this is why we must protect basketball at all costs and move to the big east. Hopefully the AAC will keep this team and this nutjob. If not- DROP IT. Protect basketball (the sport that gave UConn a name) AT ALL COSTS.

Hey Bob- if you were a halfway decent ****g coach, like our basketball coach, you'd win some important games. That will get you fan support. Not these duck**d up little stories you have in your head about how to "market" your team. Clown.

No.

 

[Point6]

If UCF wanted to create a real rivalry, the best thing they could have done is leave the trophy as they did. Now there is a genuine dislike and a real rivalry can develop.

 

[noeynox]

If UCF wanted to create a real rivalry, the best thing they could have done is leave the trophy as they did. Now there is a genuine dislike and a real rivalry can develop.

Yep, and if we beat them down there next year, parade it around,the stadium with the uconn flag.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Send this man to an insane asylum.

ya - I just watched that video first time. I'm ok with crazy - as long as it works. His crazy isn't working.

 

[Carl Spackler]

My guess is that the losing is getting to him and this is the first time he's failed at anything or at least has heard a chorus of complaints. This is virgin ground and he has no experience dealing with it publicly

That's an assessment I can agree with. He's in uncharted territory.

 

[Caronimo]

UConn vs Temple on Nick at Nite would be a greatie

 

[huskymedic]

Barstool - Bob Diaco Spent 10 Minutes Talking About ConFLiCT And Now I Can’t Wait Till Next Year

 

[huskymedic]

Barstool - Bob Diaco Spent 10 Minutes Talking About ConFLiCT And Now I Can’t Wait Till Next Year

Duplicate - see @CTMike posted in an different thread...

 

[Confident Carl]

No, I wouldn't. If I was good enough I wouldn't have played for him either. In this video Bobby Bowdin literally said taking jesus out of schools is why rape and murders happen "all the time" when in fact we are living in the safest time period throughout history. The "Christian Persecution" complex needs to end. It's just a matter of old people feeling uncomfortable that their beliefs aren't the recognized norms anymore.

 

[JMick]

Look, I'm going to guess you're at least 50? 60? The world is changing, maybe it's scary for you. You used to go to church with your peers and now you show up and the mean age just keeps getting older and older. You start seeing all the bad things in the news and assume well the youngin's ain't goin ta church, this is why the world is in shambles. Sure, I get it.

Ya know, for a generation that complains about the millenial generation being "special snowflakes" you're really, really soft. Soft .

 

[Confident Carl]

Look, I'm going to guess you're at least 50? 60? The world is changing, maybe it's scary for you. You used to go to church with your peers and now you show up and the mean age just keeps getting older and older. You start seeing all the bad things in the news and assume well the youngin's ain't goin ta church, this is why the world is in shambles. Sure, I get it.

Ya know, for a generation that complains about the millenial generation being "special snowflakes" you're really, really soft. Soft .

 

[Marty Jackson]

Hardly. It's origins relate to the decision by UConn to push out a coordinator for sharing his faith. What was disrespectful was Herbst's intolerance. I'd provide more detail in regards to separation of church and state and it's historical antecedents, but you wouldn't understand.

please share. I'm real curious how you come up with Herbst being intolerant, yet it was the coach assuming you need Jesus in the huddle.

 

[CTMike]

Duplicate - see @CTMike posted in an different thread...

No sweat HM

 

[huskymedic]

No sweat HM

Comments were gold.

 

[BlueDogs]

please share. I'm real curious how you come up with Herbst being intolerant, yet it was the coach assuming you need Jesus in the huddle.

Well, it's probably not the right forum but you asked, and I apologize to the rest for this diversion.

As a historical matter, the notion of separation of church and state has never extended to the private expression of faith in the course of one's official duties until recent times. In fact, on the contrary, there is jurisprudential precedent since the earliest times of the country's founding and well into the 20th century that the country is founded on Christian values and it is a Christian nation. This view was not considered to be inconsistent with rights of free expression and practice. In fact, there are even references to "Mohammedans" being present and being able to freely practice provided they conformed to civil laws which were informed by Christian ethics (thusly, why most courts used to post the 10 commandments until very recent times). The singular letter that is consistently misinterpreted and, if read out of context, stands in opposition to the writings of other founders of the period is Jefferson' reference to a wall separating church and state written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. In recent modern times, progressive left legal scholars known as positivists seized on that singular instance of language to reinterpret the Constitution's free practice guarantee and prohibition against making laws respecting or prohibiting religion. As a matter of legal interpretation and customary practice for over 150 years, there was never any understanding that prayer was prohibited in schools, in legislatures, in courts or any other place. As pertains Herbst, she reflexively took the public position that a prayer by a coach was intrinsically offensive, and because of his beliefs and expression of them, he was forced out. This is by definition intolerant and an abuse of power under the impratuer of government authority. It is part and parcel of an ongoing sanitizing of Christianity from public life when it was never intended to be the case. Several generations of legal scholars have been poisoned by positivism (the notion that you can interpret Constitutional provisions as you see necessary to fit modern times, when as a fundamental matter the provisions are fashioned on immutable matters of natural law emminating not from man but from the higher authority of God). It is precisely why these rights are not given or granted but exist independently of any state's authority. They are the basis of human liberty and limit a state's power. That is my reasoning. But, you won't hear this in many places because the leftist agenda has infiltrated most institutions of learning and the goal of disconnecting God from mankind to shift authority to the power of the state in alignment with socialism is on the rise. So, there it is in quick nutshell.

I promise the rest of the BY'rs not to further continue this on our football site.

 

[whaler11]

Well, it's probably not the right forum but you asked, and I apologize to the rest for this diversion.

As a historical matter, the notion of separation of church and state has never extended to the private expression of faith in the course of one's official duties until recent times. In fact, on the contrary, there is jurisprudential precedent since the earliest times of the country's founding and well into the 20th century that the country is founded on Christian values and it is a Christian nation. This view was not considered to be inconsistent with rights of free expression and practice. In fact, there are even references to "Mohammedans" being present and being able to freely practice provided they conformed to civil laws which were informed by Christian ethics (thusly, why most courts used to post the 10 commandments until very recent times). The singular letter that is consistently misinterpreted and, if read out of context, stands in opposition to the writings of other founders of the period is Jefferson' reference to a wall separating church and state written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. In recent modern times, progressive left legal scholars known as positivists seized on that singular instance of language to reinterpret the Constitution's free practice guarantee and prohibition against making laws respecting or prohibiting religion. As a matter of legal interpretation and customary practice for over 150 years, there was never any understanding that prayer was prohibited in schools, in legislatures, in courts or any other place. As pertains Herbst, she reflexively took the public position that a prayer by a coach was intrinsically offensive, and because of his beliefs and expression of them, he was forced out. This is by definition intolerant and an abuse of power under the impratuer of government authority. It is part and parcel of an ongoing sanitizing of Christianity from public life when it was never intended to be the case. Several generations of legal scholars have been poisoned by positivism (the notion that you can interpret Constitutional provisions as you see necessary to fit modern times, when as a fundamental matter the provisions are fashioned on immutable matters of natural law emminating not from man but from the higher authority of God). It is precisely why these rights are not given or granted but exist independently of any state's authority. They are the basis of human liberty and limit a state's power. That is my reasoning. But, you won't hear this in many places because the leftist agenda has infiltrated most institutions of learning and the goal of disconnecting God from mankind to shift authority to the power of the state in alignment with socialism is on the rise. So, there it is in quick nutshell.

I promise the rest of the BY'rs not to further continue this on our football site.

If only God had thought to grant these rights to the slaves owned by the people who wrote this stuff down.

It's freedom of religion as long as the religion is yours. Got it.

 

[Dizzy21]

If UCF wanted to create a real rivalry, the best thing they could have done is leave the trophy as they did. Now there is a genuine dislike and a real rivalry can develop.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that for all the talk in this thread about how Diaco failed to create a rivalry, people fail to see that he may have actually been successful in creating one. I know I really dislike UCF now and I could care less two weeks ago....I don't think this is how he meant to do it, but UCONN hatred toward UCF should be really high now and that will reflect on the UCF side when we have that passion. Definitely seems like a rivalry brewing to me...

 

[Marty Jackson]

Well, it's probably not the right forum but you asked, and I apologize to the rest for this diversion.

As a historical matter, the notion of separation of church and state has never extended to the private expression of faith in the course of one's official duties until recent times. In fact, on the contrary, there is jurisprudential precedent since the earliest times of the country's founding and well into the 20th century that the country is founded on Christian values and it is a Christian nation. This view was not considered to be inconsistent with rights of free expression and practice. In fact, there are even references to "Mohammedans" being present and being able to freely practice provided they conformed to civil laws which were informed by Christian ethics (thusly, why most courts used to post the 10 commandments until very recent times). The singular letter that is consistently misinterpreted and, if read out of context, stands in opposition to the writings of other founders of the period is Jefferson' reference to a wall separating church and state written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. In recent modern times, progressive left legal scholars known as positivists seized on that singular instance of language to reinterpret the Constitution's free practice guarantee and prohibition against making laws respecting or prohibiting religion. As a matter of legal interpretation and customary practice for over 150 years, there was never any understanding that prayer was prohibited in schools, in legislatures, in courts or any other place. As pertains Herbst, she reflexively took the public position that a prayer by a coach was intrinsically offensive, and because of his beliefs and expression of them, he was forced out. This is by definition intolerant and an abuse of power under the impratuer of government authority. It is part and parcel of an ongoing sanitizing of Christianity from public life when it was never intended to be the case. Several generations of legal scholars have been poisoned by positivism (the notion that you can interpret Constitutional provisions as you see necessary to fit modern times, when as a fundamental matter the provisions are fashioned on immutable matters of natural law emminating not from man but from the higher authority of God). It is precisely why these rights are not given or granted but exist independently of any state's authority. They are the basis of human liberty and limit a state's power. That is my reasoning. But, you won't hear this in many places because the leftist agenda has infiltrated most institutions of learning and the goal of disconnecting God from mankind to shift authority to the power of the state in alignment with socialism is on the rise. So, there it is in quick nutshell.

I promise the rest of the BY'rs not to further continue this on our football site.

All that blather... read your first sentence, it's all that matters. nobody cared the coach was a man of faith. Where the line was crossed, and people like you get confused is when you project your religion on others. And he did it while representing the state university of CT.
Like it or not Jesus does not play a part in everyones life. He doesnt need to be in my life or 'my huddle' for me to be successful. And I certainly don't need my tax dollars to pay for someone to tell me or my children that he does. It's called proselytization.

Herbst was 100% in the right for correcting the coach's statement. She did not admonish the coach's faith but stated the university's mission to respect all religions.

If you want Jesus in your huddle, fine. If you want your school to put Jesus in the huddle and espouse his virtues go to BC or Norte Dame.

That's all. Agree, no more comments on this.

 

[Kgun7]

Why doesn't he just say - hey I tried something... it hasn't taken off... let's talk about East Carolina.

Why quadruple down and keep the topic alive?

100% this! BD is a football coach who is paid to win games. Creating trophies and rivalries does nothing to help him win games. UCONN has a marketing department for that.

Although I disagreed with the extent to which he tore down the program, I agreed with his efforts to instill a culture of team and family. But if he insists on devoting time and energy to creating trophies ... he may not be around to enjoy the rebuilt program culture.

 

[Confident Carl]

Well, it's probably not the right forum but you asked, and I apologize to the rest for this diversion.

As a historical matter, the notion of separation of church and state has never extended to the private expression of faith in the course of one's official duties until recent times. In fact, on the contrary, there is jurisprudential precedent since the earliest times of the country's founding and well into the 20th century that the country is founded on Christian values and it is a Christian nation. This view was not considered to be inconsistent with rights of free expression and practice. In fact, there are even references to "Mohammedans" being present and being able to freely practice provided they conformed to civil laws which were informed by Christian ethics (thusly, why most courts used to post the 10 commandments until very recent times). The singular letter that is consistently misinterpreted and, if read out of context, stands in opposition to the writings of other founders of the period is Jefferson' reference to a wall separating church and state written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. In recent modern times, progressive left legal scholars known as positivists seized on that singular instance of language to reinterpret the Constitution's free practice guarantee and prohibition against making laws respecting or prohibiting religion. As a matter of legal interpretation and customary practice for over 150 years, there was never any understanding that prayer was prohibited in schools, in legislatures, in courts or any other place. As pertains Herbst, she reflexively took the public position that a prayer by a coach was intrinsically offensive, and because of his beliefs and expression of them, he was forced out. This is by definition intolerant and an abuse of power under the impratuer of government authority. It is part and parcel of an ongoing sanitizing of Christianity from public life when it was never intended to be the case. Several generations of legal scholars have been poisoned by positivism (the notion that you can interpret Constitutional provisions as you see necessary to fit modern times, when as a fundamental matter the provisions are fashioned on immutable matters of natural law emminating not from man but from the higher authority of God). It is precisely why these rights are not given or granted but exist independently of any state's authority. They are the basis of human liberty and limit a state's power. That is my reasoning. But, you won't hear this in many places because the leftist agenda has infiltrated most institutions of learning and the goal of disconnecting God from mankind to shift authority to the power of the state in alignment with socialism is on the rise. So, there it is in quick nutshell.

I promise the rest of the BY'rs not to further continue this on our football site.

Very informed answer. He asked, you answered intelligently, not emotionally.

 

[GetTheFacts]

I honestly don't understand all of the animosity coming from this thread.

Whether this was Diaco's original plan or not, there's an actual rivalry there now. You can't tell me that the team isn't going to be fired up to play UCF next year, especially Diaco himself.

The fact of the matter is, UConn football is boring as hell. Playing in the AAC, there's not much to get excited about. In Connecticut, football plays second fiddle to basketball, for a variety of reasons. But now there's actual intrigue for the game next season. Contrary to everyone's opinion in this thread, I thought that was one of Diaco's best press conferences. Never seen him that candid.

 

[pepband99]

If only God had thought to grant these rights to the slaves owned by the people who wrote this stuff down.

It's freedom of religion as long as the religion is yours. Got it.

Did nelson swipe your keyboard?

 

[uconndogs]

Well, it's probably not the right forum but you asked, and I apologize to the rest for this diversion.

As a historical matter, the notion of separation of church and state has never extended to the private expression of faith in the course of one's official duties until recent times. In fact, on the contrary, there is jurisprudential precedent since the earliest times of the country's founding and well into the 20th century that the country is founded on Christian values and it is a Christian nation. This view was not considered to be inconsistent with rights of free expression and practice. In fact, there are even references to "Mohammedans" being present and being able to freely practice provided they conformed to civil laws which were informed by Christian ethics (thusly, why most courts used to post the 10 commandments until very recent times). The singular letter that is consistently misinterpreted and, if read out of context, stands in opposition to the writings of other founders of the period is Jefferson' reference to a wall separating church and state written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. In recent modern times, progressive left legal scholars known as positivists seized on that singular instance of language to reinterpret the Constitution's free practice guarantee and prohibition against making laws respecting or prohibiting religion. As a matter of legal interpretation and customary practice for over 150 years, there was never any understanding that prayer was prohibited in schools, in legislatures, in courts or any other place. As pertains Herbst, she reflexively took the public position that a prayer by a coach was intrinsically offensive, and because of his beliefs and expression of them, he was forced out. This is by definition intolerant and an abuse of power under the impratuer of government authority. It is part and parcel of an ongoing sanitizing of Christianity from public life when it was never intended to be the case. Several generations of legal scholars have been poisoned by positivism (the notion that you can interpret Constitutional provisions as you see necessary to fit modern times, when as a fundamental matter the provisions are fashioned on immutable matters of natural law emminating not from man but from the higher authority of God). It is precisely why these rights are not given or granted but exist independently of any state's authority. They are the basis of human liberty and limit a state's power. That is my reasoning. But, you won't hear this in many places because the leftist agenda has infiltrated most institutions of learning and the goal of disconnecting God from mankind to shift authority to the power of the state in alignment with socialism is on the rise. So, there it is in quick nutshell.

I promise the rest of the BY'rs not to further continue this on our football site.

Very thoughtful and well presented. While I don't necessarily agree with all you state, I can certainly appreciate your position.

Snarky comments to a post and position such as you state are probably driven by a either a lack of intellectual integrity or an unwillingness to invest the time and energy to respond in as thoughtful a manner as you have.

 

[huskymedic]

Barstool - Bob Diaco Spent 10 Minutes Talking About ConFLiCT And Now I Can’t Wait Till Next Year

Slow week in CFB:http://deadspin.com/bob-diaco-fails-to-keep-his-cool-as-he-defends-uconns-m-1788268226

 

[SonsOfNutmeg]

This one killed me: "Coach Vineyard Vines" Hahhaha!!! In all honest, I felt a little bad for Diaco here, he was trying to do this with all good intentions. But here's the deal- why is it his job to make games more "fun" or establish marketing plans for UConn Football or the AAC?? Like, what?!?! How about just focusing on recruiting nasty kids to play here, and winning football games! That'll make the fan base interested again. I've come to realize Diaco is really like the Michael Scott of the FBS. lol