Colorado fined for fans’ bad behaviour at game against BYU

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And you keep missing my point.  I have never ever said it wasn’t the principle force.  I have always been interested in how that influence played out…as in how much influence it had on what, not in comparison to other organizations or individuals, but in changing minds from pro or neutral gay marriage to anti gay marriage as well as how much influence it had on getting the vote out.  I have never even said anyone was wrong in resenting the Church.

You seem to think because I accept that others were also committed to trying to influence the vote that I am trying to downplay or shift responsibility from the LDS Church.  I am not.  I am trying to create a fuller picture of the Church’s involvement…what worked and why.  Also interested in why people heavily focus on the Church and ignore other players because it doesn’t make sense to me.  If I got beaten up by a gang, I might resent the leader of the gang…the one who pushed the gang to attack me the most, but I wouldn’t be forgetting the guy who kicked me in the ribs or the one who gave me the black eye.  I don’t see what the Church did as anything close to it, but I understand why some people feel that way….but for some they just call the Church the bully in my experience.

I do think the Church made a difference and most likely a winning difference given the narrow margin, but it wasn’t acting on tabula rasa individuals or hypnotizing anyone.  And it wasn’t just the money amount that mattered because the Church and its allies were out spent by pro gay marriage opponents.  Maybe it was wiser spending, maybe it was the grassroots connecting, maybe it was because there was already a fertile ground as the majority of voters were already against gay marriage and we nudged them into voting when many wouldn’t have.  Maybe something else.

But given the dislike for the Church overall as well as the greater amount of money spent by the pro faction as well as the low numbers of all the LDS voters, I am interested in what actual weight was the influence  (in 2008 there were approximately 755,000 LDS in CA, am wondering if this is records or census numbers; the difference between pro and anti was almost 600,000…only assuming that no LDS would have voted yes without the Church coming out and telling them to can one say that LDS voters made the difference on their own….so it’s influence that matters).

I grew up and had extended family in the Bay Area, I know how popular LDS were generally speaking from the 60s up to the 90s, less familiar though still have family in Southern California these days.  The Priesthood Ban was not making us friends.  We weren’t taken seriously by most kids and adults I knew because of no sex, no smoking, no alcohol , not even coffee, iow no fun.  We were odd, at the very least, more often seen as racist.  So I get curious when I hear the Church was a powerhouse of influence in this campaign and I wonder why (not debating it, wondering about the mechanics, how we did it).  Mitt Romney did get to be a candidate nationally, but there is a chance being LDS hurt his candidacy.  Orrin Hatch had a lot of influence as did Harry Reid, so not saying LDS couldn’t have lots of influence, likely more than usual for our size, in part because we are centralized and very good at organization.  Also now because of wealth, which generally speaking gets paid attention to way too much by politicians in some quarters even if the Church isn’t among those who bribe, etc.

If I remember correctly the Knights of Columbus played a pretty significant role in Prop 8

[Calm]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

If the conference had its member schools make an announcement before games that inappropriate fan behavior can result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (15 yards) and trained officials to call such penalties when they witness such conduct (e.g. throwing things on the field, profane chants), I believe that such real time game impacting consequences would do much more to mitigate bad behavior than after the fact apologies.

I like and dislike that idea.  I like the immediacy of it and the direct consequence.  I even think it might work eventually, though likely to really piss people off to begin with.  Those officials might need disguises when off the field.  Might even create backlash when fans not doing it feel it’s unjust to punish those who are behaving along with those who aren’t and therefore think damned if we do, damned if we don’t.  I also would feel horrible for the team members…assuming here they are not encouraging the behaviour.

I wonder if having several of the team at the beginning and throughout the game during breaks asking for acceptable behaviour be more influential than coaches speaking.

Edited October 2, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

If the conference had its member schools make an announcement before games that inappropriate fan behavior can result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (15 yards) and trained officials to call such penalties when they witness such conduct (e.g. throwing things on the field, profane chants), I believe that such real time game impacting consequences would do much more to mitigate bad behavior than after the fact apologies.

The Big-12 made a rule change this year and banned throwing things on the field.  If fans do that, they get two warnings and then will get a 15 yard penalty.  The rule change had 15 voters for it and 1 voter against it.  That one voter was from Texas Tech.  They have a tradition of throwing tortillas on the field.  And even with the rule change, they are still throwing tortillas.  It isn't as much as it used to be, but it didn't stop them - https://www.texasmonthly.com/food/texas-tech-tortilla-toss/.  So I wouldn't expect a penalty to change it that much.  Sport games are really easy to get caught up in the moment.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And you keep missing my point.  I have never ever said it wasn’t the principle force.  I have always been interested in how that influence played out…as in how much influence it had on what, not in comparison to other organizations or individuals, but in changing minds from pro or neutral gay marriage to anti gay marriage as well as how much influence it had on getting the vote out.  I have never even said anyone was wrong in resenting the Church.

You seem to think because I accept that others were also committed to trying to influence the vote that I am trying to downplay or shift responsibility from the LDS Church.  I am not.  I am trying to create a fuller picture of the Church’s involvement…what worked and why.  Also interested in why some people heavily focus on the Church and ignore other players because it doesn’t make sense to me.  If I got beaten up by a gang, I might resent the leader of the gang…the one who pushed the gang to attack me the most, but I wouldn’t be forgetting the guy who kicked me in the ribs or the one who gave me the black eye.  I don’t see what the Church did as anything close to it, but I understand why some people feel that way….but for some they just call the Church the bully in my experience.

I do think the Church made a difference and most likely a winning difference given the narrow margin, but it wasn’t acting on tabula rasa individuals or hypnotizing anyone.  And it wasn’t just the money amount that mattered because the Church and its allies were out spent by pro gay marriage opponents.  Maybe it was wiser spending, maybe it was the grassroots connecting, maybe it was because there was already a fertile ground as the majority of voters were already against gay marriage and we nudged them into voting when many wouldn’t have.  Maybe something else.

But given the dislike for the Church overall as well as the greater amount of money spent by the pro faction as well as the low numbers of all the LDS voters, I am interested in what actual weight was the influence  (in 2008 there were approximately 755,000 LDS in CA, am wondering if this is records or census numbers; the difference between pro and anti was almost 600,000…only assuming that no LDS would have voted yes without the Church coming out and telling them to can one say that LDS voters made the difference on their ownyouu….so it’s influence that matters).

I grew up and had extended family in the Bay Area, I know how popular LDS were generally speaking from the 60s up to the 90s, less familiar though still have family in Southern California these days.  The Priesthood Ban was not making us friends.  We weren’t taken seriously by most kids and adults I knew because of no sex, no smoking, no alcohol , not even coffee, iow no fun.  We were odd, at the very least, more often seen as racist.  So I get curious when I hear the Church was a powerhouse of influence in this campaign and I wonder why (not debating it, wondering about the mechanics, how we did it).  Mitt Romney did get to be a candidate nationally, but there is a chance being LDS hurt his candidacy.  Orrin Hatch had a lot of influence as did Harry Reid, so not saying LDS couldn’t have lots of influence, likely more than usual for our size, in part because we are centralized and very good at organization.  Also now because of wealth, which generally speaking gets paid attention to way too much by politicians in some quarters even if the Church isn’t among those who bribe, etc.

Added:  as for why I bring up other organizations, I will never understand why LDS had the level of influence they did as well as the staying power of that understandable resentment if I don’t also examine why other organizations involved aren’t seen that way even in proportion to level of involvement by some.

Thank you for taking the time to write your response.  I do now understand why you were posting what you did.  Yes, the Church was not the only one pushing for the passage of Prop 8, but it was the face of that proposition.  

I grew up in the Bay Area and I too remember a general like and acceptance of the Church.  That acceptance seems to have deteriorated quite a bit.  I am sure there are a number of factors that have contributed to that deterioration.  This is just one of many.  Perhaps the biggest influence have come from so many people leaving the church in this area.  Every stake I have lived in has had a decrease in the number of wards, a sharp contrast from exceptional growth in my youth.  Unlike when I was growing up when people became inactive and just faded away, many who have left the Church have not been silent about why they left.  There is a lot of anger and resentment against the Church now that didn't exist nearly so much as in the past.

AI lists the three biggest social reasons why people. have left the Church

 

Quote

 

Social and cultural conflicts

Many members feel that the church's positions on key social issues are out of step with their personal values, leading to a disconnect with the institution. 

• LGBTQ+ issues: The church's official stance that marriage is between a man and a woman is a significant point of conflict for many, including its 2015 policy that banned the children of same-sex couples from being baptized. Even after the policy was reversed, the issue continues to drive members away.
• Exclusivity and conformity: The church's claim to be the "one true church" can clash with the modern, pluralistic view that there are many valid spiritual paths. Younger generations, in particular, may resist the emphasis on conformity and obedience.
• Women's role: The church's denial of priesthood to women is a barrier for feminist members who seek greater equality. 

 

•  

Edited October 1, 2025 by california boy

[let’s roll]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Might even create backlash when fans not doing it feel it’s unjust to punish those who are behaving along with those who aren’t and therefore think damned it we do, damned if we don’t.  I also would feel horrible for the team members…assuming here they are not encouraging the behaviour.

Imagine fans opposed to the chants raising their voices (e.g. singing the school fight song or booing to show their displeasure) loud enough to drown out the obscene chant…or the band doing the same.  Or players and coaches taking a knee on the sideline and the AD announcing over the PA system that the game will not continue until the objectionable behavior ceases.  
 

After the fact apologies arise from the false premise that little or nothing can be done in the moment to mitigate bad behavior.  I think these ideas (and I’m sure with some focus we could identify more ideas) point to the fact that with a little thought and some resolve we will find we are not powerless…school officials who state the objectionable actions don’t reflect the values of the school should find ways to engage in activities, in the moment when the objectionable activities are taking place, that do reflect the school’s values.

Edited October 2, 2025 by let’s roll

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think this tread is becoming a little too personal for me.  Evidently I seem to be the only one on this thread that believes discrimination against LGBT students is of any importance at any university in this country.  Good to know that no one seems to think this is even a possibility.  Probably the same thinking that discrimination against Blacks was not important in the 1970's and pushing back against discrimination is not really a thing at universities.  

Do I know how much of this is about treatment of LGBT students at BYU?  No I do not.  But I do know how much animosity there is against the Church within the LGBT community.  Let me just say, the Church not liked and people have pretty strong feelings against Mormons because of the policies against the LGBT community.  Remember the firestorm when the Church decided to not allow baptisms if one of the parents was gay and gay couples were called apostates?  You still don't think that people care?  

Ok, carry on.  That is all I have to say about this.

With love and respect, try not to hear what we didn't say. 

Speaking for myself, I do believe that LGBTQ+ discrimination is important to a majority of young people, but I don't personally believe that this episode was a sign of that.  We are talking about kids that are mostly between the ages of 18-24.  They were 8-14 years old in 2015 when the policy (which I'm glad they changed) happened.  Most of them know very very little about our actual beliefs concerning lgtbq+.  They know we don't support SSM and that's probably about it.  Any protest about the issue at a sporting event against a team they were trying to annoy/insult would be tenuous at best I'm guessing. 

If we did allow SSM, I think we still would have gotten the same chant.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If I remember correctly the Knights of Columbus played a pretty significant role in Prop 8

I am reading a major portion of the money submitted by Catholic organizations came from them.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

too remember a general like and acceptance of the Church

That’s not what I said, though I get why you interpreted it that way as it’s ambiguous.  (I said I remember how much we were liked, which was in my experience quite a bit of negative, mostly neutral, and some positive). There was in the people surrounding me more of a ‘sure, they are nice enough, but they are also strange and racist and their church is just wrong’ attitude.  Some kids and at least one teacher I remember saw us as snobs because some of us wouldn’t go to events that had alcohol, etc.  To me it seemed there were a lot of LDS at my high school as my school in Illinois had only me and my sister, but our ward partially covered three high schools and I only remember two classes that had the same ward member in all my years though one of my best friends was from the other ward that shared our building.  We both like horses and had science classes and gymnastics together.

Racism was brought up a lot in my high school due to busing.  There was a riot the year before I got there, I had two siblings attending.  I have no clue if it was that big, but it still got talked about and teachers were trying to help smooth the integration issues.  This was reflected at church some.  Can’t remember if I heard about the excommunications of certain activists first at church or at BYU.  I at home for the summer when the ban was lifted.  Was working with a Black young lady a little older than me at a job that summer.  I for some reason don’t remember the time I heard the announcement….probably because I was at home, but I remember it being talked about at work along with discussion of why the heck I was still a virgin, lol.

I never heard any discussion about LGBT issues at church in California, did at BYU as Carolyn Lynn Pearson was very popular and it made a lot of noise when her husband came out and they got divorced.  I suspect discussion started getting going in California at our ward by the time I was married (1980), but it never came up in the conversations I had with my parents, so can’t be sure.  AIDS was drawing attention though, so it seems likely. 

My mother was so happy when she found the Alan Cherry book (published 1970) because it gave her hope there could be reconciliation in time.  I never heard my parents say a racist thing, but my grandparents, who lived by Oakland, certainly were in a cringeworthy paternalistic mode, giving compliments to the hardworking girls and boys (grown adults) they knew as if they were surprised and not being happy about the new neighbors moving in (Hispanics mostly, but a few Black families as well) and the whole children of Cain thing didn’t make sense to me once I knew about evolution, which was pretty early because my parents put encyclopedias and science books and National Geographic on our shelves as soon as we could read and I spent almost all my free time reading, so those were consumed pretty early.

As to why there are much fewer LDS there now, my guess is economics plays the biggest role both for young families and the elderly with health care and retirement living costs and then ideology.  There are still many parts of California that are conservative, after all, especially once you get off the coast.

My parents and other families I knew at the mid to late 80s moved out of California due to high costs of living and travel time getting too ridiculous with high traffic.  Our house went from 50,000 to 3 million iirc in 15 years.  Later on families who were moving out often spoke as well of ideology, looking for what they saw as more family friendly environments as well as less expensive living with children (the most vocal on ideology was probably one family member who was required to perform abortions for any reason at his clinic, he couldn’t refer them anymore to another fully qualified doctor in the clinic, he sold his part of the clinic and moved to Idaho).

I have no clue how many moved out of the state and how many moved out of the Church to cause such a drop in church numbers in the Bay Area.  Wish I had paid attention to other parts of California to see if the drop is consistent across the state or varies a lot and if so, on what.

Edited October 2, 2025 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, blackstrap said:

It's " upperclassthem "  Kenngo .😁

Who the h*** knows these days, eh?  Upperclassbeings?  Upperclassentities?  

[Calm]

Quote

but it was the face of that proposition.  

I get that the LDS became the face of the campaign. It just seems odd to me to solely focus on the face. Are not the other parts responsible for their actions as well?  

I assume that the dislike, anger, resentment, and even hatred at times was deeply felt back in the moment.  I remember some of the reactions.  

With such deep feelings, I don’t understand why there isn’t a corresponding deep attachment to all involved that continues.  You seem to suggest it is continuing towards the LDS, but not towards others much, if at all (but maybe I am misunderstanding you).  

The more important something is to me, the more I want to know about it and care about all the connections.  It is why I spend a lot of time on even trivial circumstances surrounding the Church.  So I don’t get the lack of attention to others even if I get the attention still given to the LDS Church.

 

[Rain]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I think this tread is becoming a little too personal for me.  Evidently I seem to be the only one on this thread that believes discrimination against LGBT students is of any importance at any university in this country.  Good to know that no one seems to think this is even a possibility.  Probably the same thinking that discrimination against Blacks was not important in the 1970's and pushing back against discrimination is not really a thing at universities.  

Do I know how much of this is about treatment of LGBT students at BYU?  No I do not.  But I do know how much animosity there is against the Church within the LGBT community.  Let me just say, the Church not liked and people have pretty strong feelings against Mormons because of the policies against the LGBT community.  Remember the firestorm when the Church decided to not allow baptisms if one of the parents was gay and gay couples were called apostates?  You still don't think that people care?  

Ok, carry on.  That is all I have to say about this.

There is definitely animosity.  I just don't think that LGBT+ protests was a part of this.  It's just not a football thing. 

It's been a long time since I was going regularly to college football games as a student. Not quite as long as a parent to high school games so I may not know what happens currently, but given what I've heard it doesn't sound like it has changed so much.

There is a big tradition at many colleges to have tailgate parties.   The parties start hours before. Different school groups will even sponsor barbecues or other things. Then you have students bringing their own drinks.  Big time party atmosphere (with or without drinking) before the game even starts.  And all the cheers and chants getting everyone "psyched" for the game. This continues on into the stadium.

When you sit in the student section cheers sometimes seem to spontaneously start going.

It used to be that word was one you didn't hear often.  Now I feel I hear it more often than I ever hear heard other words (even 80s movies).  It's like the doors were flung right open for it except in some specific places and groups. 

So it doesn't surprise me that a spirited, possibly drinking, football student section would break out into the chant using a word that they quite possibly already use often, with the sense that this chant will be shocking, to members of the church. 

Honestly, I think it pretty much just comes down to modern group football party behavior. 

I'm not excusing the behavior.  I just don't think much thought went into it, which is obviously a problem as well.

[JVW]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

It was F the Mormons F BYU.  Who sponsors BYU?

Can I ask why you don't think a big part of this is not social issues related to LGBT?  Do you think most students don't care about discrimination against LGBT students?  Do you think LGBT students at other universities don't care about LGBT students at BYU?

This wasn't about gay people. Stop trying to make it about gay people.

This is college students, the kind that like attending sports games and getting drunk and going to frat parties. The target demographic for National Lampoon movies, or American Pie movies. Y'know, college kids.

It's fun to yell at games. It's fun to chant. It's fun to vilify and hate on the enemy team, and it's fun to curse. This is not the kind of thing that needs a dissertation written about it examining the relationship and interplay between intersectionality, race, sex, gender identity, cultural background, and politics as to why the students attending the game behaved this way. They are college kids. They drink beer at football games and get rowdy and have a good time. It's not that complicated.