ADVERTISEMENT

Where did Mike Davis say he was from during introductions?

Lucas_Jackson

Active Member
Jul 18, 2007
1,046
90
48
Somebody mentioned that he did not credit the University of South Carolina.

Happy for his success, but I'd like to see him give a shout out to us... it can only help recruiting, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclone94
He said his high school, probably. A lot of guys do it. I believe his stint here was just a marriage of convenience, and that's okay. Not every player will eat, sleep and shit their alma mater. People are made differently.
 
Probably not happy with the university or going to have much of a relationship with Muschamp here. Some real bad blood between the two of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheReelEss
Probably not happy with the university or going to have much of a relationship with Muschamp here. Some real bad blood between the two of them.
Wonder why the bad blood betweeen Mike D and Champ, or are you saying the University as a whole?
 
Go back and look at his recruiting. Muschamp really jerked him around, and according to Mike, flat out lied to him.
 
Probably not happy with the university or going to have much of a relationship with Muschamp here. Some real bad blood between the two of them.


Well, with a player-coach 'issue' stamped on his resume, I'm sure that bit of info will really jack up his profile with the NFL owners/player personnel directors . . . and then watch another pro whine and bellyache about not being treated fairly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclone94
Much ado about nothing. A lot of guys do that. I've even heard one guy mention his elementary school. They're just giving a 'shout out' / a little recognition to their other school.
 
The reason Mike D. was here was because of a fallout with Muschamp during that recruiting cycle. Like I said, it was a marriage of convenience where we were the lucky recipient, and I forgot that Muschamp was the guy on the other side of the equation.
 
Probably everyone. What NFL players say and tell others about their college coaches and being a student at the schools themselves is
really important.

But most important is whether they stand or kneel
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jpcooper
The reason Mike D. was here was because of a fallout with Muschamp during that recruiting cycle. Like I said, it was a marriage of convenience where we were the lucky recipient, and I forgot that Muschamp was the guy on the other side of the equation.

He was commited to UF and was pretty much told he would be the man . I think it was FSU had a 5 Star guy decommit ( Thinking it was Matt Jones), UF offered him and he commited and it rubbed Mike the wrong way . That’s the story I got from my UF buddy .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brace1 and Sulayman
It's annoying but as has been said lots of guys do it for a variety of reasons. Some truly have "bad blood" with the school but some just want attention/to be different, some have a special reason they want to name their HS/hometown, etc
 
GOD HATES THE GAMECOCKS AND WILL NOT STOP UNTIL HE HAS UNLEASHED A FURY UPON THE UNIVERSITY THE LIKES OF WHICH NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN.

Haven't we already lived through it?

268x268_520132.jpg


Hopkins does it because he has a bad relationship with Dabo, who told the press he wasn’t ready for the NFL... and made similar comments behind closed doors to coaches and scouts. Costing Hopkins draft position and money.

This needs to be on billboards all across this great nation.
 
He was commited to UF and was pretty much told he would be the man . I think it was FSU had a 5 Star guy decommit ( Thinking it was Matt Jones), UF offered him and he commited and it rubbed Mike the wrong way . That’s the story I got from my UF buddy .
WHAT?????
 
Wonder why the bad blood betweeen Mike D and Champ, or are you saying the University as a whole?
He used social media to catch WM in a lie. According to MD, WM told him he was not recruiting any more RBs, then went after another. That kid posted a pic on social media and WM was busted. I thin it was one that eventually committed to UGA.

Mike was OK. But how many times would he take himself out of a game just when he started busting long runs? Another RB would sub and fall short of a 1st down by a foot. Then we would either lose a close one or squeak by a team when we had a foot on their throat. The last year Davis was here was not a year you could punt and let the defense win it. That offense was our defense.
 
Last edited:
He said his high school, probably. A lot of guys do it. I believe his stint here was just a marriage of convenience, and that's okay. Not every player will eat, sleep and shit their alma mater. People are made differently.
Well, it puts me in mind of the women who keep their maiden names after they get married. They eschew the use of their husbands' last names as being overly submissive to men, but keep the last names of their fathers - who are also men. They exercise a right in order to not really prove anything.
 
Not true. Hopkins recently spoke out about why he intentionally doesn't give Clem credit during intros. Compared college to a ponzi scheme. BTW, he's an idiot.

well , it basically is a ponzi scheme...at the least a pyramid scheme
 
Well, it puts me in mind of the women who keep their maiden names after they get married. They eschew the use of their husbands' last names as being overly submissive to men, but keep the last names of their fathers - who are also men. They exercise a right in order to not really prove anything.
Does not bother me one bit nor are they exercising a "right." They just want to keep their name like you wanted to keep your name. It's pretty simple.
 
Does not bother me one bit nor are they exercising a "right." They just want to keep their name like you wanted to keep your name. It's pretty simple.
Anytime you make a lawful choice you are exercising a right. Doesn't "bother" me, either. I've never even thought about my name. But if declining to take a man's surname is a choice, why is one man's surname any more preferred than another? Just make up a name of your own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rod Dangerfield
Anytime you make a lawful choice you are exercising a right. Doesn't "bother" me, either. I've never even thought about my name. But if declining to take a man's surname is a choice, why is one man's surname any more preferred than another? Just make up a name of your own.
I'm not following you. Are you saying a woman, when she gets married, should make up a new last name instead of keeping the name she was given at birth? So, you never thought about your name. You just kept it, because it was your name, correct? In fact, it wasn't even really a choice, correct? You just didn't do anything and kept your name.

In my opinion the government shouldn't be in the marriage/civil union business, at all. Why are they?
 
I'm not following you. Are you saying a woman, when she gets married, should make up a new last name instead of keeping the name she was given at birth? So, you never thought about your name. You just kept it, because it was your name, correct? In fact, it wasn't even really a choice, correct? You just didn't do anything and kept your name.

In my opinion the government shouldn't be in the marriage/civil union business, at all. Why are they?
Because marriage/civil unions are contracts - express or implied, and someone has to referee. Property and child custody issues alone dictate that. In case of dissolution, who is responsible for which financial obligations? People can't govern themselves in these matters.

As for names, once a person is 18, he/she can choose any name he/she wishes as long as that person has it legally recognized. So, in the case of impending marriage, and for the sake of harmony - or disharmony - don't alienate either father or husband by choosing either name. Just alienate them both, or neither of them, by coming up with another name altogether. As I see it, a woman marrying a man stands to be that man's wife many years longer than she was the ward of the other man. Her name isn't really her name after all, it's the name he gave her - HIS name. If it's that big a deal for her to go by "her" name, adopt another one completely that is "her" name..
 
Because marriage/civil unions are contracts - express or implied, and someone has to referee. Property and child custody issues alone dictate that. In case of dissolution, who is responsible for which financial obligations? People can't govern themselves in these matters.

As for names, once a person is 18, he/she can choose any name he/she wishes as long as that person has it legally recognized. So, in the case of impending marriage, and for the sake of harmony - or disharmony - don't alienate either father or husband by choosing either name. Just alienate them both, or neither of them, by coming up with another name altogether. As I see it, a woman marrying a man stands to be that man's wife many years longer than she was the ward of the other man. Her name isn't really her name after all, it's the name he gave her - HIS name. If it's that big a deal for her to go by "her" name, adopt another one completely that is "her" name..

People have children all the time and don't get married. You can buy a house with somebody else and not be married.

Why is it HIS name? What happens if it stops being HIS name. What happens if women start keeping their names from birth then passing that name onto children? Does the complete fabric of society break down and the earth falls into ruin and despair? Does God smite our entire civilization? Does mankind become so confused and disheveled that society falls into complete gridlock? I don't know the answer to those questions. I do know that I have married friends where the woman has kept her name and married friends where the woman has taken her husband's name. Other than those facts there is no discernible difference between the couples. I respect either choice. Hyphenated names kind or irk me, but I'm looking forward to the day I can laugh at people with hyphenated hyphenated names, etc.

Bob Rodgers-Cromartie-Sefarian-Jenkins
 
People have children all the time and don't get married. You can buy a house with somebody else and not be married.

Why is it HIS name? What happens if it stops being HIS name. What happens if women start keeping their names from birth then passing that name onto children? Does the complete fabric of society break down and the earth falls into ruin and despair? Does God smite our entire civilization? Does mankind become so confused and disheveled that society falls into complete gridlock? I don't know the answer to those questions. I do know that I have married friends where the woman has kept her name and married friends where the woman has taken her husband's name. Other than those facts there is no discernible difference between the couples. I respect either choice. Hyphenated names kind or irk me, but I'm looking forward to the day I can laugh at people with hyphenated hyphenated names, etc.

Bob Rodgers-Cromartie-Sefarian-Jenkins
So, if they split up, what becomes of the kids or the house? Those aren't just annoying technicalities, they are questions than have to be settled. Hence, the involvement of some exogenous entity, probably a government entity. Even arbitration must be sanctioned by some ruling legal authority.

It was his name before he conferred it on her, which is the only reason it became her name. He probably didn't ask for it, either, but he was OK with it. People make up names all the time. She might as well go that route. In fact, if she really wants a name that is truly "hers", she has to.
 
So, if they split up, what becomes of the kids or the house? Those aren't just annoying technicalities, they are questions than have to be settled. Hence, the involvement of some exogenous entity, probably a government entity. Even arbitration must be sanctioned by some ruling legal authority.
What happens now? Probably that.

I will say that two things I'd like to see in society is men have more equal footing in custody and divorce battles. In 2017 there is no reason that a woman should just up and get half a man's worth during a divorce and no reason to think a man isn't equally capable of raising and making decisions about a child.
 
What happens now? Probably that.

I will say that two things I'd like to see in society is men have more equal footing in custody and divorce battles. In 2017 there is no reason that a woman should just up and get half a man's worth during a divorce and no reason to think a man isn't equally capable of raising and making decisions about a child.
I agree. And although I am apparently more traditionally inclined than you are, I have no problem with married women keeping their surnames given at birth. I don't understand the point based upon what I've said, but I recognize the legality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sulayman
ADVERTISEMENT