- Member for
- 8 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 hour 17 min ago||Navy definitely looks better.||
Navy definitely looks better. I may be in the minority too but I actually hated the Army look. Wearing the same color helmet, jersey, and pants never, ever looks good no matter what the color.
I actually really wish we could just see Army's traditional uniforms vs. Navy's traditional uniforms and not these excuses for Nike's designers to continue being employed, but now I know for sure I'm wandering into minority territory.
|1 day 8 hours ago||The NBA needs a few Bill||
The NBA needs a few Bill Laimbeers in it. Laimbeer would've fouled him into next week.
|4 days 4 hours ago||It really doesn't even matter||
It really doesn't even matter if it's "natural" for his leg to do that or not. What Dray-Dray doesn't seem to understand is that intent doesn't matter at all. Kick a guy in the head, it's a flagrant.
|5 days 2 hours ago||Hell, they probably should||
Hell, they probably should let that go, too.
|5 days 9 hours ago||The networks might, but the||
The networks might, but the conferences won't. You can't get anyone to pay real money to sponsor a regular season game, except for things like Michigan-Ohio State and then people rightfully go apeshit. You can, however, get sponsors to line up around the block for your conference championship.
|5 days 9 hours ago||And how, precisely, do you||
And how, precisely, do you propose to force everyone to agree to this?
|6 days 2 hours ago||As a diehard fan of, uh, the||
As a diehard fan of, uh, the two teams I'm a diehard fan of.....tonight is kind of a big deal.
|6 days 5 hours ago||And the ranking systems||
And the ranking systems pretty much agree, as would almost anyone, but the point of the OP's article is that they should be considered top four, not just top twenty.
|6 days 6 hours ago||Every time someone makes this||
Every time someone makes this argument they neglect to mention how many times G5 teams lose to complete schmucks. New Mexico: 6-2 in the MWC, lost to shitty Rutgers. CMU, standard-bearer for the troll's argument, lost to shitty UVA. You win a conference that went 4-10 against P5 teams - not good P5 teams, we're talking like Boston College and UVA and Indiana - that's not an argument in favor of being included with the big boys.
|6 days 8 hours ago||Uh, yes, I would. I don't||
Uh, yes, I would.
I don't know how the national title evolved into the be-all and end-all of college football, but it only really became that in the '90s or so. Now there's this idea that everything else is subserviant to it.
|1 week 8 hours ago||Except that Delany is not||
Except that Delany is not spelled with two E's, so if you're going to try that email formula, better make sure you have the spelling down.
|1 week 8 hours ago||Lucky you, it'll be summer in||
Lucky you, it'll be summer in Bolivia soon.
|1 week 1 day ago||If anything in sports||
If anything in sports happened for A Reason, we'd have won this game as there is no way a program run as SEC-esque as Ohio's deserves to have that much of a golden horseshoe stuffed up their collective asses.
|1 week 1 day ago||All the time, in sports like||
All the time, in sports like basketball, baseball, lacrosse, or hockey, people watch their teams lose and then say, "that's OK, just get it done when it counts." Or, "these games don't matter, just perform in the real tourney."
The moment that ever happens in college football, the entire essence of the sport will be lost. And if the playoff were eight teams, Michigan would still be a lock, and that's exactly what everyone would be saying right now.
|1 week 1 day ago||At first I read the headline||
At first I read the headline with the numbers flipped and thought, awww, feewingsball, evwybody deserves to dweam if they tried hard. Then I checked myself and realized the guy is spot on. As much as it sucked to lose that game, even worse would be to water it down and take away what makes college football great.
|1 week 2 days ago||All rational coaches and||
I mean....kind of. This analogy works better in basketball, but if you score 51% of the points and the other team scores 49%, you should win. Shitty, slanted refereeing is like saying one team needs to score 55% - if they score 54%, that's not enough. It ought to be enough. It's certainly a good idea to just blow the other team out if you can, but you should only just have to play better than the other team. You shouldn't have to play better and then some while the other team can play worse and still win.
The refs were a clear fuckjob today, from the first blatant PI they missed in the first quarter all the way to overtime.
|1 week 4 days ago||Fuck Black Friday almost as||
Fuck Black Friday almost as hard as Ohio. The day after Thanksgiving is for sleeping way in and decorating the house for Christmas. Never could fathom why I'd want to get up before dawn to stand in line in a strip mall.
|1 week 6 days ago||The model you want more or||
The model you want more or less exists in the NFL, and it hasn't made anyone in the NFL stop caring about money. I don't think there's any evidence to believe that corporate money grubbing types will stop money grubbing. The Dave Brandons will always care about money - Jim Delany didn't put Rutgers in the conference so that Big Ten teams could more easily sponsor tennis. In fact, what you want is to more directly tie money-spending to money-making. That's always going to lead to more money-grubbing, not less.
|1 week 6 days ago||I strongly disagree with this||
I strongly disagree with this here:
I don't think there's any such measure as "degree of exploitation." A football player is no worse off whether his athletic department makes $1 million or $100 million. His situation is exactly the same. I don't believe he's "owed" anything more. If a company becomes more profitable, they don't just run out and give everyone raises - they generally hire more people. Similar to how an athletic department might add a new sport. That doesn't mean the "degree of exploitation" has increased for the current workers. It means more people got an opportunity.
This will sound harsh, but there are people running college sports with outlooks like yours and MileHigh's - where everything is seen only in terms of monetary value. They have names like Jim Delany, DeLoss Dodds, and Dave Brandon. Their cold, calculatimg, money-only approach is why we play Rutgers every year instead of playing for the Jug. Its why Texas doesn't play Texas A&M and why Kansas doesn't play Missouri. It's why we have games against Alabama in Jerryworld that we don't want to bring the band to. The band cost money, and didn't provide value, so we tried to cut that. How many people were in favor of that? It's why our team was forced to wear bumblebee uniformz that distracted from their MSU prep. Game prep doesn't sell jerzeez.
Those people have killed rivalries and destroyed traditions and generally accelerated the slow walk of college football toward the soulless corporate ways of the NFL. Does anyone like that? And I will guarantee you this: if you and he were to get your way, and nine-tenths of college sports were killed off, the money would not go to altruistic things like reducing ticket prices or academic support. Don't kid yourself it ever would. You'd turn college football into professional football, and a couple hundred players would have ever-growing millions waved at them while they were 17. This would not improve anything one iota.
|1 week 6 days ago||Yes, they can and do get paid||
Yes, they can and do get paid millions in Europe. The few that bother, anyway. Brandon Jennings signed a contract worth over a million and a half for three years. That's not peanuts. $500K+ a year is a lot. So what if it's far from home? You're the one being capitalist here. If that's not a sacrifice that's worth it to them, then obviously the money isn't worth it either, is it?
In case you haven't noticed, I really don't give a shit if sports can't pay for themselves. It's worth it to have them. It provides multitudes of benefits to hundreds of thousands of people, and frankly, society at large. Yes, I mean hundreds of thousands. Athletes, coaches, administrators, construction workers building rowing palaces, parents who don't have to help pay for college, and by the way, easing up on the government-provided student loans. If a couple hundred people have to forgo being paid millions for a couple years so that those hundreds of thousands can have "artificial" benefits, I really do not give a fuck.
|1 week 6 days ago||I did not play a sport in||
I did not play a sport in college, for whatever that's worth.
And you're missing the point on the "what difference does it make" quote. The point is, why should we care if our way is different from the rest of the world?
You and others, by the way, are making one big contradiction. You don't like the cost of tickets and you think they should be less "so more people can enjoy them." Well, they're charging what the tickets are worth. If you're going to demand the athletes be paid what they're worth, you shouldn't have a problem paying what the tickets are worth. You can't be a champion of capitalism except when it hits your pocketbook.
For the record, I don't like ever-rising ticket prices either and can give you a rock-solid guarantee that paying football players "what they're worth" will not result in lower ticket prices. If you think it's an arms race and a money grab now, wait until schools need that money to compete for recruits. If you like advertising and the money chase, by all means pay football players loads of money. They might be able to fund that for a short time by telling five hundred or so athletes they might want to get acquainted with a FAFSA form, but only temporarily.
|1 week 6 days ago||Wait, so coming from a more||
Wait, so coming from a more privileged background means its OK to take away the opportunities we currently provide them? I thought I was the one being a communist in this thread. Who cares about the economic disparity? And for the record, you will probably find thousands of soccer players, women's basketball players, sprinters, and so on, spread all around the NCAA, with stories like Jabrill's.
Basketball players, by the way, can absolutely go pro. They can go straight to the D-League or play in Europe. Europe will pay those guys millions. They did for Brandon Jennings, and they'll do it for others. Why do they all go to college if it's so unfair?
|1 week 6 days ago||That paragraph you don't like||
That paragraph you don't like is central to the point. You are talking about taking away opportunities for tens of thousands of athletes so you can pay a few hundred. Do you deny that?
|1 week 6 days ago||If there's one thing people||
If there's one thing people always say about college football, it's that it should be more like the NFL.
|1 week 6 days ago||What exactly is the proper||
What exactly is the proper proportion? They're already compensated better than literally 99.9% of the student body. I wouldn't hate giving them a fixed stipend of some kind, but as I've said in the past, 1) capitalism is a lousy system for college sports, and 2) on the list of injustices, having a couple hundred athletes temporarily not paid what they're capitalistically worth is way down there, somewhere below throwing a player out of a game for a bogus targeting call.
We have a system that works pretty well for probably almost a hundred thousand athletes. Making it worse for most of them so that a small handful can have it better, because capitalism, is a terrible idea.
|1 week 6 days ago||The Ivies already sponsor a||
The Ivies already sponsor a ton of non-revenue sports, and so do the "small, wealthy" schools you propose would pick up the slack. You're saying that one door would close and another would open, but that door is already open. People already pay to go to Williams or Amherst and play tennis and whatnot.
What you propose is to take away a couple million dollars from athletes in some sports and give them to athletes who already stand to make millions of dollars. Why, exactly? To what purpose?
|1 week 6 days ago||Your argument would only make||
I mean, what difference does that make? We have our ways and they have theirs. They also find it strange we care so much about football and use that word for a totally different sport than them.
The justification in spending enormous sums of money is that we have that money and have to spend it on something. Do I like the incessant revenue chasing? Not one iota. But since they have it, what do they do with it? I'm not in favor of paying players like professionals. That would only drive the revenue chase into even more of an overdrive than it is now. It might be a bit silly to build a $20 million rowing palace, but I have no problem with giving rowers the same support as football players. The last thing I would want is for the level of support for various sports to be perfectly correlated with how much money they bring in.
|2 weeks 9 min ago||I'm almost as capitalistic as||
I'm almost as capitalistic as they come in the real world, but college sports is one area where capitalism has no business existing.
|2 weeks 11 min ago||That's an absolutely||
That's an absolutely horrifying idea. It should never see the light of day. Without athletic scholarships to those other sports, they'd completely dry up at the high school level, too. And many sports, like hockey or baseball, can support themselves at some schools but not others. So if those that can't support them get rid of them, they'll likely find themselves unsupported at the other places, too, as the competition disappears.
College is where a lot of our best athletes train for things like the Olympics. What you're proposing essentially says let's never be good at Olympic sports and let's never allow anyone to play a sport unless you're interested in that sport. Oh, you say, but we would just establish Olympic training centers for all these great track stars and tennis players. Yes, and how are we going to find them if high schools don't have those sports? Again: No scholarships for anything but football or men's basketball means nobody would ever take an interest in anything but those sports. Leading to the end of their existence in high school. I like how you think that not only should girls have all their opportunities taken away, but boys too, unless they happen to be good at the sports you like.
Worst idea ever. I'd rather have Dave Brandon in charge of Michigan sports for eternity, than put your idea into place.
|2 weeks 2 hours ago||You are still pretending your||
I wouldn't call it jealousy. It's a simple truth that most people at these schools would trade places in a heartbeat with the football or basketball players. That the players don't also get paid millions of dollars doesn't really gin up a lot of outrage in that situation.
Frankly, on the scale of injustices, the fact that a tiny handful of gifted athletes has to wait a couple years before realizing the massive paydays they think they're worth, rates awfully low. And a significant percentage of those could go start getting paid right away if they wanted to.