Wrong again, but what’s new.
If you want to talk politics, go over to the OTB.
But on a practical note, when it comes to political candidates, you’re voting for a political philosophy and not just a profile in character, and you’re given a limited choice of candidates. If you choose not to support anyone, you’re abandoning your voting duties as a citizen. In the presidential election of 2016, imo, we had two poor choices and both had character issues. Many candidates frequently do to varying levels, but our political process gives great scrutiny to candidates and we have adversaries looking for flaws in their opposition.
College coaches and athletic programs have operated in a fairly insulated system, free from the scrutiny of the public. It’s only when something happens like occurred here or at Penn St or at Michigan St that we begin to understand the lack of character. So the political comparison is a poor analogy situationally.
When it comes to a situation like Ohio State was faced with, it was to choose to have high morals, ethics and integrity, or not. It chose ‘not’. It chose winning football games over morals, ethics, and integrity.
By making that choice, it contributes to a decline in those values in college football coaching. Had it chosen otherwise, it would have been a significant statement to the coaching profession that poor character will not be tolerated and rewarded.
This is not virtue signaling.