Stanford Trades Twitter Handle to Syracuse for Oranges Because They Are so Silly
You might be shocked to hear that a major trade went down between two famed college athletic programs on Monday.
It seems the people behind Stanford's Twitter account have traded their handle to Syracuse University for some oranges.
I wish I could say I made this up, but I am not that clever.
CBS Sports' Jerry Hinnen reports on the random exchange that now makes @SUAthletics property of Syracuse.
As for the reason, Go Stanford has as good a breakdown as any:
Stanford’s social media lineup saw a shakeup over the weekend as the nation’s most successful athletic department traded its Twitter handle, @SUAthletics, to the Syracuse University Athletics. The trade is believed to be the first blockbuster trade in college athletics. To complete the trade, Syracuse will send a collection of local goods to be named later but also including one case of oranges, which Stanford intends to use in refilling its 2011 Orange Bowl trophy.
The roster move was necessitated after its new handle, @GoStanford, emerged as a two-sport star both as a hash tag (#gostanford) and Twitter handle.
We are now seven hours into Syracuse's new handle, and the only tweet as of this writing has been the following:
We can confirm the trade rumors ... http://t.co/pklyZ8h2o0— Syracuse Athletics (@SUAthletics) July 1, 2013
It looks like Syracuse was so excited to get its hands on a new handle that it suffered an immediate and debilitating case of writer's block.
I certainly hope the Twitter swap isn't confusing to fans, because there is already enough bewilderment going down on July 1.
As Yahoo! Sports reports, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding various realignments taking place on Monday. UConn had some missteps in the early going, forgetting to place Central Florida in its official website banner celebrating the budding American Athletic Conference.
Indeed, the regular season can't get here soon enough.
Hit me up on Twitter, until I trade handles: Follow @gabezal
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?