The Cowbell issue is back....and I'm not sure it's a good thing
- Thread starter RobbieRandolph
- Start date
- Status
is because the Ole Miss administration didn't want to say the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, Civil War, etc.
as previously mentioned, it's not like Scott Field is the loudest stadium in the conference. If "to the extent" just means that the actual fans take part in it (vs. the Bama, SCAR sound systems) then that seems to be an argument for the tradition rather than against it.<div>
</div><div>I don't know about the symbols that Bama fans might want to smuggle in, but you guys should be experts on that sort of thing by now.</div>
</div><div>I don't know about the symbols that Bama fans might want to smuggle in, but you guys should be experts on that sort of thing by now.</div>
Similarly, you can't just go around saying "17 you" to everyone and expect to be protected under the 1st amendment.
Open areas of campus are a different story.
Open areas of campus are a different story.
I'm free to express myself via a ringing cowbell then?
ETA: A football game is not a public event, which is a HUGE issue in this argument.
ETA: A football game is not a public event, which is a HUGE issue in this argument.
You're totally within your rights to tote around a flag that basically says "You know what was AWESOME? The time period when people could be treated like property!" But if you think for one second you have the "right" to offend people's ears by ringing a bell that has been ARBITRARILY BANNED BY A COLLEGE SPORTS CONFERENCE, well you're way off base there, pal!
the 1st Amendment only protects you from the Federal Government. Entry into the stadium is implied consent.
And simply possessing a flag doesn't put anyone in danger. Threatening someone verbally, or drunkenly beating someone with a cowbell isn't protected speech. There are levels of protected speech.
The guy above said it most succinctly. You can ban the sticks and deal with it that way, or end up in court for a decade.
The guy above said it most succinctly. You can ban the sticks and deal with it that way, or end up in court for a decade.
I'll make this clear for everyone.<div>
</div><div>You can make a ban on rebel flags, but how far does that extend? To flags made of cardboard? Of paper? What about stickers? Can I wear my rebel flag t-shirt? When you get here, you've begun an argument about every little thing. How come I can wear my Trent Lott for Senate sticker, but I can't wear my rebel flag sticker? How come I can wear my Barack Obama t-shirt, but I can't wear my rebel flag t-shirt? How come I can hold up a cardboard sign that says, "Jevan: DON'T THROW!", but I can't hold up a rebel flag. The difference is the subject matter of the speech which opens a whole can of worms regarding forums, availability, fairness, yada, yada yada.</div><div>
</div><div>Ban the sticks and you solve the problem without ever touching the subject matter of the speech.</div>
</div><div>You can make a ban on rebel flags, but how far does that extend? To flags made of cardboard? Of paper? What about stickers? Can I wear my rebel flag t-shirt? When you get here, you've begun an argument about every little thing. How come I can wear my Trent Lott for Senate sticker, but I can't wear my rebel flag sticker? How come I can wear my Barack Obama t-shirt, but I can't wear my rebel flag t-shirt? How come I can hold up a cardboard sign that says, "Jevan: DON'T THROW!", but I can't hold up a rebel flag. The difference is the subject matter of the speech which opens a whole can of worms regarding forums, availability, fairness, yada, yada yada.</div><div>
</div><div>Ban the sticks and you solve the problem without ever touching the subject matter of the speech.</div>
Someone needs to tell that to the hefty young girl that always patted me down at the student gate to take mine. I would have it hidden as would other people in front of me. No use, she was a patting machine. I e-mailed Gregory Byrne about after the second time of this and it never happened again. He actually told me if someone tried to pat me down, stop them and tell them that they did not have the authority to do that.
I was actually preparing to ask that question.
Do MSU fans think that MSU football can'tbe successfulwithout the cowbells?
I know what types of answers I'll get, but this is more fun that watching everyone repeat the same worn out points about Stans and Cohen.
Do MSU fans think that MSU football can'tbe successfulwithout the cowbells?
I know what types of answers I'll get, but this is more fun that watching everyone repeat the same worn out points about Stans and Cohen.
Now i agree with HLRebel, that it was infinitely easier to just ban the sticks. But the principle here is that you are not allowed absolute free speech at a NON-PUBLIC event.
As the Terrapins had a similar issue a few years back re: offensive "speech" at Maryland sporting events.
As the Terrapins had a similar issue a few years back re: offensive "speech" at Maryland sporting events.
Sweet Jesus, pick up a con law book and read. <div>
</div><div>The second amendment has not been applied to the states who may restrict the carrying of firearms in any manner that they wish. Firearms are banned on college campuses by the Miss Legislature</div>
</div><div>The second amendment has not been applied to the states who may restrict the carrying of firearms in any manner that they wish. Firearms are banned on college campuses by the Miss Legislature</div>
I think what everyone is missing is that if the SEC wanted to pursue cowbells under the "weapon" theory, they would have done so under Roy Kramer after Darth Visor's ball boy allegedly got clocked on the sideline in 2000. They didn't then, and they won't now. It's too much of a leap, and not worth the trouble.
Realistically, outside of SPS and Nafoom, not many people even know about the cowbell beatingafter this year's Egg Bowl.
Realistically, outside of SPS and Nafoom, not many people even know about the cowbell beatingafter this year's Egg Bowl.
and the SEC seems to be intentionally ignoring it.
<div class="comment-content">
This is a problem that is easily addressed.</p>
Place decibel meters on the sidelines (one on each side), at the line of scrimmage. If the sound exceeds a predetermined level (the same level for ALL SEC stadia), the “decibel meter holder” will notify the nearest linesman (referee).</p>
This will allow potential penalties to be enforced in a fair manner.</p>
The source of the noise will no longer be the point of contention. All noise will attribute to the reading on the decibel meter.</p></div>
The cost is insignificant. If the SEC can require all stadiums to be equipped with the state-of-the-art video replay systems, the conference has no excuse for not implementing this solution.</p>
<div class="comment-content">
This is a problem that is easily addressed.</p>
Place decibel meters on the sidelines (one on each side), at the line of scrimmage. If the sound exceeds a predetermined level (the same level for ALL SEC stadia), the “decibel meter holder” will notify the nearest linesman (referee).</p>
This will allow potential penalties to be enforced in a fair manner.</p>
The source of the noise will no longer be the point of contention. All noise will attribute to the reading on the decibel meter.</p></div>
The cost is insignificant. If the SEC can require all stadiums to be equipped with the state-of-the-art video replay systems, the conference has no excuse for not implementing this solution.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those who want to ban cowbells would do so ostensibly
because they claim that cowbells can be used as weapons – at least that’s the
excuse they’ll use.<span style="">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Well, here’s an idea; leave cowbells alone but ban the act
of using them as a weapon.<span style=""> </span>Better yet,
let’s just make it illegal to assault someone with a cowbell.<span style=""> </span>Wait a minute – that’s <span style="font-style: italic;">already</span> illegal.<span style=""> </span>That being the case, banning all cowbells
just because one may have been used as a weapon in the past is asinine because
it punishes all other people who would use cowbells <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> as weapons.<span style=""> Automobiles kill thousands of people each year. Should we ban all automobiles?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">No, those who want to ban cowbells only get agitated when
MSU starts to climb out of the SEC dumpster and win a little bit.<span style=""> </span>They can’t stand to see MSU succeed,
especially if it means that their schools are the ones that are getting beat by
MSU.<span style=""> </span>I’ll wager that if MSU had actually
beaten Florida
and LSU last year <span style="font-style: italic;">as they nearly did</span> (<span style="text-decoration: underline;">but for the help from SEC officiating</span>),
then the cowbell issue would be even hotter.<span style=""></span>Can’t let those Bulldogs fool around and beat any of the SEC Darlings, now
can we?<span style=""> (I'm not counting Mississippi as one of the SEC Darlings but we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">did</span> stomp a mud hole 'em last year.) </span>I don’t recall hearing any
gripes about cowbells from our out-of-conference opponents that came to MSU recently.</p>
because they claim that cowbells can be used as weapons – at least that’s the
excuse they’ll use.<span style="">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Well, here’s an idea; leave cowbells alone but ban the act
of using them as a weapon.<span style=""> </span>Better yet,
let’s just make it illegal to assault someone with a cowbell.<span style=""> </span>Wait a minute – that’s <span style="font-style: italic;">already</span> illegal.<span style=""> </span>That being the case, banning all cowbells
just because one may have been used as a weapon in the past is asinine because
it punishes all other people who would use cowbells <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> as weapons.<span style=""> Automobiles kill thousands of people each year. Should we ban all automobiles?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">No, those who want to ban cowbells only get agitated when
MSU starts to climb out of the SEC dumpster and win a little bit.<span style=""> </span>They can’t stand to see MSU succeed,
especially if it means that their schools are the ones that are getting beat by
MSU.<span style=""> </span>I’ll wager that if MSU had actually
beaten Florida
and LSU last year <span style="font-style: italic;">as they nearly did</span> (<span style="text-decoration: underline;">but for the help from SEC officiating</span>),
then the cowbell issue would be even hotter.<span style=""></span>Can’t let those Bulldogs fool around and beat any of the SEC Darlings, now
can we?<span style=""> (I'm not counting Mississippi as one of the SEC Darlings but we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">did</span> stomp a mud hole 'em last year.) </span>I don’t recall hearing any
gripes about cowbells from our out-of-conference opponents that came to MSU recently.</p>
but this would never happen, I don't think the SEC really cares about "fairness" in regard to noise levels of different size venues, if you can afford to build a 100k+ stadium then you get the benefit of the additional noise, if anything its then not "fair" for smaller less capitalized schools to "cut a corner" with noisemakersand have an equivalent noise level as the larger schools with larger venues.
Half of our fans ring cowbells while we are on offense so maybe losing the bells would help our offensive production?
Half of our fans ring cowbells while we are on offense so maybe losing the bells would help our offensive production?
dawgstudent said:
See...there you go.
Everytime we start winning, someone wants to try and change our colors to pink and black.
When the bottom of that footwear strikes that metal seating...artificial noise. When that pom-pom shakes in the air and makes that faint sound...artificial noise. It IS just because we might actually be on the right track in football, don't think otherwise.
The purpose of a pom pom is not to make noise. The purpose of a stadium seat is not to make noise. Do these things also have the residual quality of making noise? Yes, but that's not their sole purpose.<div>
</div><div>The sole purpose of a cowbell is to make noise.</div><div>
</div><div>Also, in response to the guy who stated that they were going to ban the cowbells because of safety issues. THEY ARE ALREADY BANNED. The SEC has banned artificial noisemakers. MSU administration has blatantly told their fans to ignore the rule as there is no real punishment.</div><div>
</div><div>The decibel thing is not the issue. The whole purpose of the rule is that if you want your stadium to be louder, then you need to put more loud PEOPLE in it, not more loud objects.</div>
</div><div>The sole purpose of a cowbell is to make noise.</div><div>
</div><div>Also, in response to the guy who stated that they were going to ban the cowbells because of safety issues. THEY ARE ALREADY BANNED. The SEC has banned artificial noisemakers. MSU administration has blatantly told their fans to ignore the rule as there is no real punishment.</div><div>
</div><div>The decibel thing is not the issue. The whole purpose of the rule is that if you want your stadium to be louder, then you need to put more loud PEOPLE in it, not more loud objects.</div>
You think because of the US Constitution, we should not be able to use cowbells. Who knew our forefathers cared that much?
They havean eleventy bazillion decibel sound system blairing out that god awfull rocky top. How is that not artifical noise? Oh wait its tennessee, I forgot the rules dont apply to them or the crimson toothless sister 17ers.
Further, with the sheer number of sexual assaults that take place at the OM student section entrance as well as the amount of alcohol confiscated within the game, I don't think anyone can say that OM isn't trying to punish offenders on their own.<div>
</div><div>Also, if a large group of people started waiving actual glass whiskey bottles over their head at a game, then yes, I think the bottles should be confiscated. If someone waves a plastic bottle full of whiskey over their head, I have no problem with their whiskey getting taken up either.</div>
</div><div>Also, if a large group of people started waiving actual glass whiskey bottles over their head at a game, then yes, I think the bottles should be confiscated. If someone waves a plastic bottle full of whiskey over their head, I have no problem with their whiskey getting taken up either.</div>
- Status