Tuesday Skull Session

By Danny on October 25, 2011 at 6:00a

Good morning Buckeye faithful and welcome to your Tuesday Skull Session.

Come football and basketball season, I do what just about every other student at this school does and wait roughly two hours in hope that I receive student season tickets to all the games for the upcoming season. I usually am able to get whatever ticket I want, but this year I was caught off guard, as student tickets for basketball sold out in about 45 minutes.

It was estimated that only 1,400 students were awarded tickets for the season, me not being one of those fortunate souls. Obviously, I am upset about this particular season, because I want to see the number three team in the nation tear it up, but I'm more concerned about that fact that only 1,400 total students were given tickets.

Mark Titus took to twitter to voice his opinions on the situation, saying:

"Can't believe OSU students don't realize that if you want season bball tix, you have to be a rich, old guy who only comes to half the games."

But he was not done:

"OSU turns away 1,000s of students who want tickets and then wonder why they can't sell out games. What a joke. I'm embarrassed for them."

I've never met Mark Titus, but on the surface he just seems like the man. He's never afraid to voice his opinions and usually has some sort of merit to back things up. He also has a knack for getting OSU students into a massive uprising, which happened after a few of those twitter posts.

With enough student harassment of the athletic department through an online petition, the powers that be finally announced they would grant students additional tickets for the season. I am not trying to say alumni and boosters, who are obviously just as important as the current students today in what makes OSU great, don't deserve tickets. However, OSU needs to free up space for more students who are passionate about their school and its teams.

Oh yeah, and I'd like my tickets, too.

DEPTH PERCEPTION. Ohio State released its official depth chart for the Buckeyes' game against number 15 Wisconsin this Saturday, where Eat Too, Brutus will be in full swing.

Braxton Miller is listed as the starter at quarterback, but Kenny Guiton was listed as backup along with Joe Bauserman. Can anyone say quarterback controversy? It may be a small move, but with Miller's history of injuries it's not ludicrous to think that Guiton or Bauserman might be called on. Hopefully Luke Fickell will never be faced with such an awful decision, but if he is, let's hope we don't see Bauserman coming in to run the huddle.

Dan "Boom" Herron, after a spectacular game against Illinois, is back as the starting running back, with Jordan Hall and Carlos Hyde both listed as backups. After Hyde's Twitter outburst last week, it is not known how many carries he'll receive, as he was the odd man out against the fighting Illini. Something tells me Hyde will still receive the fewest amount of carries this week. The offense will mostly be run through Herron and Fickell has always favored Hall this year. Either way, this back field looks impressive.

SOLUTION FOR THE PASSING GAME: RUN MORE. Doug Lesmerises of the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an article on OSU's offensive approach for the last five games of the season. Lesmerises looks back to 2008, Terrelle Pryor's freshman season, when the Buckeyes offense averaged only about seven completions per game and heavily relied on its running game.

The Buckeyes went 4-1 over their final five games that season, with their only loss coming against Penn State. During that 13-6 loss to PSU was the only time the Buckeyes attempted more than 15 passes throughout the course of those final five games.

Braxton Miller is not Terrelle Pryor. They are not as similar as some people speculate, but I believe Lesmerises may have a point that OSU should continue to rely heavily on its run game and defense. Of course I want to see Miller put up huge numbers and make completion after completion, but he's not developed enough for that yet. He still needs to be patient and learn this offense.

In the meantime, it wouldn't be crazy to think that OSU sticks to a similar game plan like the one seen against Illinois, but maybe a smidge more than four pass attempts going forward.

Roark working hard, real shocker there.

I LIKE THIS ROARK FELLOW. Tom Archdeacon of the Dayton Daily News wrote an article about one of the more unknown faces of OSU football. That would be the face of Chris Roark, a current walk-on player for OSU's football team.

Archdeacon chronicles a truly remarkable story surrounding Roark's journey to becoming a walk-on player for the Buckeyes. Unlike scholarship players, Roark pays his way through school, working winter and summer jobs to cover his tuition. He's also made OSU's dean's list six times and regularly volunteers at local hospitals and schools, where he reads to children.

Roark gave up a lot of opportunities to play football for the Buckeyes, including offers from schools outside Division 1 and an academic scholarship from Butler. He stood out as a wide receiver in his walk-on tryout against 80 other people to make the team a few years back.

It's truly refreshing to see someone so committed to living out his dreams, helping others, and representing OSU in such a positive way. I'm always rooting for walk-on players because of how dedicated they are to their love of the game, as well as how invested they are to life off the field.

SHOW ME THE MONEY. The Associated Press is reporting that "more than 300 major college football and men's basketball players" have signed a petition in order to get the NCAA to set aside money for them earned from T.V. revenue.

The petition cites that an estimated $775 million dollars was recently earned in T.V. revenue by the NCAA. The players announced they would like some money to be set aside that can be used in both college and once they graduate. 

I've thought a lot about paying college athletes recently, especially because a Buckeye is suspended just about every week for financial-related issues. I personally am in favor of these players signing the petition in this case. There will have to be compromises made between the NCAA and its student athletes, but I truly believe this is really the beginning of a movement for college athletes. The athletes that colleges continue to bank coin from are finally speaking their minds and acting on their belief that the NCAA isn't being completely fair to them.

I don't expect the NCAA to give in so easily to this request, though. It will be a while before we see a world where student athletes are finally compensated in a fair manner.

LOS LINKS. Catching up with OSU basketball assistant coach Chris Jent... A very nice gesture for Stefanie Spielman... More money, hopefully less problems... I bet all of you make more money than Big East consultant Jeff Hathaway... Relive the magic that was Kirk Cousins's throw.




AGL's picture

bye week and berry strikes again.  bb ticks a shame, would rather see student allotment @ 10k and any unsold go to general public. Depth chart,  see Curtis Grant made it,1 5star backing up another 5star,  bauseman trotting on to field= job abandonment x entire coaching staff.

Colin's picture

I think the regular season package actually sold out in less than half an hour...needless to say that after waiting so long to be able to log in I was quite perturbed to find out.

Haters Gonna Hate's picture

The problem with the ticketing system is the way you have to get them. Ticketmaster says you are in "line" and will be served when it's your turn, but people get dropped at random from the line to start buying tickets. I've gone through this everytime I try to get tickets. One of my friends will get his and then use my credentials to login and will get in right away while I'm still waiting in "line." It happened trying to get basketball tickets too. I know a kid who was able to get 3 sets of tickets for other people (not including his own) while others were still waiting in this so called line. Also, what made it bad this year were students who bought tickets to turn around and sell them for ridiculous amounts. I've seen students trying to sell these packages at 500 a piece. That's just ludacris and those are the worst kind of people IMO.

"Because I couldn't go for three" - Woody

Run_Fido_Run's picture

What's your position on providing enhanced scholarship benefits to student-athletes? And, if you're against it, why?

I ask because some students/alumni (not necessarily you) will argue that student-athletes are not entitled to better packages; that when they went to school, they had to pay their own ways, work odd jobs, eat Ramen noodles, etc. That's a valid position, but if some of the student scalpers are among those who are struggling to pay for school, are they still "the worst kind of people"?

Buckeye 09's picture

Student scalpers are absolutely "the worst kind of people." They take advantage of the system and screw over the students that actually want to go to the games. If you do not want to go to the games, do not buy tickets. I wish they would no longer allow students to "upgrade" tickets to general public tickets.

Haters Gonna Hate's picture

I agree wholeheartedly with this. These students are exploiting the rest of the student body. I think that it shows a complete lack of respect for other students who are most likely in the same situation as the student scalper. I understand you need your money but there are other ways to get it. There are plenty of jobs on or around campus that will schedule you around classes, I know because I am going this route now.

"Because I couldn't go for three" - Woody

William's picture

It was way less than half an hour. There is no way that there were tickets still being sold at 10:45. The system is awful. I know one guy who was able to buy his tickets at 9:30, another friend had been online since 9:30, and my girlfriend who didn't get on til 10:20 was logged in and processed faster than him, and at that time tickets were already sold out. Its just pathetic, I'm writing the Dispatch and the assholes who are price gouging on facebook are real shit heads. Its also pathetic that our student section is smaller than Duke's, when our arena is twice the size of theirs. 

baddogmaine's picture

I completely agree with Doug Lesmerises that one completion per game probably won't cut it over our last five games.  Not passing at all makes an offense so predictable that all but absolute juggernauts will get stopped by good defenses. Neither WIS nor PSU is likely to be much concerned about a steady diet of Boom, and if that is still what we are doing at the end of November I bet Hoke blitzes every play and dares Miller to go over the top. And if we somehow manage to win enough games to face someone better than #30 in the rankings in a bowl that team will be ready to stop the run also. We're not good enough at the run to make it our only weapon. We ran enough against IL to win, but as we just saw beating IL might not be much of a thing. We have harder games left than IL and if we want to win them we need to do better than we did last week.

What Lesmerises gets wrong is repeating a cliche as if it is wisdom. For the umpteenth time: passing is not some absolute like pregnancy where you either are or you aren't. Bauserbombs are passing. So are screens behind the line of scrimmage. The questions are what kind of passes against what kind of defensive alignments in what situations. So Pryor averaged 7 passes for 121 yards. Was this 17 yard average the result of passes downfield or yards after catch? If the team wants to copy what worked before it needs to know what was done before, not just throw around numbers. Ever since it became clear that we cannot rely on passing downfield I've been a strong advocate of mixing in passes with the reliance on runs, but what I'm advocating is not sending a receiver with relatively little experience against Div 1A (sorry, the new acronym makes as little sense as most else the NCAA does because WE WILL HAVE PLAYOFFS AND A REAL CHAMPION SOME DAY!!!)) coverage downfield so a QB with relatively little success against Div 1A defenses can heave it. There are schemes that can be executed by our personnel against a defense focusing on stopping the run. Look at what FL, without a great QB, did against us in the title game. Look at what we did against Oregon. We can't copy those exactly because we aren't FL or even the team we were back then, but studying those games makes more sense then just saying "let's attempt enough passes so we can complete 7 for 121 yards" as if that means something helpful. I'm all for Miller completing 7 of 12 passes for 121 yards, hopefully 2 or 3 of the 5 incompletions are not interceptions. But based on past experience we can not expect Miller to get those 17 yards per by going downfield - we need to design plays that involve five to ten yards in the air and the receiver in a position to get the rest on the ground. We haven't done this all year and we need to. If Lesmeriseswants to be helpful he should be talking specifics, not cliches.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

RB screens and WR quick slants, respectively, are two of the more high-risk passing plays to ask a young, inexperienced QB to execute. Maybe that's partly why the staff is calling slower-developing, but lower-risk, mid-range routes (Bauserbombs are not designed to be bombs).

Other short passes are lower risk: quick outs and hitches work better against "soft" coverages, while the idea with bubble screens is that you have a WR who any given time can take it to the house, especially when he gets big blocks outside. The OSU v. Oregon game plan, btw, involved either Sanzenbacher or Posey getting blocks from other veteran receivers, etc. Without that threat, why not hand off the ball to the more dangerous RBs? 

The last time Miller was both healthy and throwing in decent weather, the game plan was very effective without asking Miller to do too much. I see the Buckeyes building off the Nebraska gameplan, hopefully mixing things up in unpredictable ways. Miller was 5 of 8 for 95 yards before going down against Nebraska. Based on that mix, going forward, a really successful offensive output for the Buckeyes will look something like this:

Passing: 9 of 14 for 155 yards

Rushing: 50 for 250 yards

If the Buckeyes approach that offensive production against Wisky and are able to make Wisky's offense mostly one-dimensional, by containing Wisky's run game and making Wilson beat them, the Buckeyes will have a good chance to win.       

baddogmaine's picture

Slants do carry a risk of throwing into a masked zone but screens are generally safe passes as long as the QB looks before throwing - if an end is waiting to poach then don't throw. Blocking is necessary to make screens into big gainers. Hyde could be sent out in a pattern with the assignment to block for Hall - we can do that with who we have. The reason not to just hand off to the RB is the same reason it has always been - because if the defense is waiting for it because it's all we've done then eight guys in the box are probably going to stuff it.

Slower developing plays are also somewhat risky for inexperienced QBs. Our line has had problems holding blocks for long, and pressure on new QBs leads to panic. And if the block holds, even mid-range passes need to be thrown on or before the break, and it takes poise to read whether it will be open - if the QB waits until the receiver is open the coverage can recover. And even if Miller reads it right too many of his passes have not had enough zip, and that really allows a defense to recover.

I'm not a coach for many reasons, including that I'm not qualified to evaluate all the options. But with 30+ years of watching football behind me I know that few teams can be successful today unless they can punish a stacked box in some way. We have not shown that we even want to inflict that punishment, which means that more often than not we are the ones being punished.

I don't mind your proposed game plan. My point is that it won't happen just by saying "pass seven times" or 14 times - it won't happen if OSU continues with a square peg pro set for a round peg QB. I'm not sure that Bollman can do it - unfortunately for Fickell if he wants a job at OSU next year he needs to make it happen, one way or another.

Maestro's picture

Well said Run Fido, and slower developing pass plays allow Miller to do what he does best right now........run like hell.

I am also pretty tired of the 4 passing attempts number being thrown around like those were the only pass plays called the entire game.  There were several other pass plays called including 2 shovel passes that Miller simply didn't throw the ball on.  His 35 yard burst up the middle was a shovel pass that he decided to keep for some reason.  He kind of stumbled with the snap, Boom was waiting in a huge hole for the pass and Miller decided to tuck it and run through the gaping hole in the middle of the defense.  Just because he is uncomfortable throwing the ball and decides to scramble doesn't mean a pass play wasn't called, and it speaks to why there are fewer passes called than runs.  He simply eats the ball if there is a sniff of pressure often times with plenty of time to throw or a pocket to step up into.  He just isn't comfortable and chooses to run.

I am confident that we will see his best passing game of the season (besides Akron) against Wisconsin.

vacuuming sucks

Doc's picture

Why isn't he comfortable to pass?  He threw the ball in High School, why not now?  Is he overwhelmed with the offense?  Doesn't have the confidence?  Can't physically do it?  If he answers "Yes" to any of these questions than doesn't the blame fall on the coaches?  Shouldn't they put him in situations to be successful?  Build some confidence.

"Say my name."

RoweTrain's picture

11 pass plays were called.  4 thrown, 4 scrambles and 3 sacks.  Was it enough to win?  Obviously because we did.  Was it enough to evoke any sort of confidence when we play better teams?  I don't believe it was.

"Just bow up and go out and play." ~ D. Lee

baddogmaine's picture

Speaking for myself the number I throw around isn't four, as in attempts - it's one, as in completions. We won not because of one completion, but despite it; because IL was totally unprepared on either side of the ball and made things easier for us.


And I echo the concern that only four of 11 passes were thrown. If Miller eats the ball because nothing is open after all appropriate reads then good. Great, in fact (though neither good nor great for our receivers). If he eats it or gets sacked because he is taking too long then he needs to be coached to make quicker reads. If he's eating or going down because the o-line is getting blown up then that is yet another argument against SLOW DEVELOPING plays. Not against quick passes, but slow ones.

In terms of game management 11 called passes is probably too few. Though this brings up the question that won't go away - in any given game how high a priority is developing the QB? With WIS' loss to MSU we theoretically have something big to play for again, and so if we have a lead we do nothing to lose it, like throwing an INT or stoppingthe clock. But at some point this year Miller needs to be turned into a QB. Not just an athlete but a QB, something he isn't now, or we will go into next year with the same problems. If we beat WIS then I expect our play calling to remain neanderthal. But if we lose our offensive game plan has to start getting Miller ready for next year. Not by going downfield as Bollman likes to call, that doesn't prepare Miller for anything worthwhile. But by building his confidence and arm strength by having him throw passes he can complete now. And telling him that if he has time to find a receiver he needs to find a receiver once in a while, not just tuck it.

AltaBuck's picture

With Berry imploding,  have Hyde return KOs with Hall. With his size and speed, he would be very dangerous for opposing teams.

I am Groot - Groot

OSUNeedles's picture

If you pay every college athlete an extra $2000 it means that the kids who feel they are special & feel entitled to be treated like superstars already will want $5000. It doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the starting position.

joel121270's picture

I agree with your point BUT....If I was one of these players and saw what's going with the NCAA, ESPiN, CBS, and NBC to name a few that are making billions off of us you damn well better believe I want a cut. I am not saying a salary but a "thanks, here ya go" type of thing. More power to these kids. I understand they have a scholarship and should feel privileged for the chance to play at a big time program but this is a different time and a lot of these kids who have booming college careers dont pan out in the pros so yes, give them a cut while in schoo.


These kids bring in billions every year and don't see jack for the efforts they put in? Doesn't seem right to me. Ask me this 15 - 20 years ago and my answer would be different as they weren't getting "pimped" nearly as bad as they are these days.



Run_Fido_Run's picture

I agree, in certain respects, but maybe for slightly different reasons. 

My issue with the extra $2,000 is politically incorrect: what will make it ineffective is the pseudo-"equity" factor, in which ALL of the student-athletes will - by court and NCAA "law" - be expected to receive roughly the same packages regardless of whether they are stars in the big revenue sports (FB & BB), or participate in revenue-dependent sports. You're right, on the one hand, some of the superstars in FB and CB, who often come from lower-income households but now help to generate millions of dollars, will still be looking to "get theirs" and will not be content with an extra $2,000. On the other hand, a girls lacrosse player, whose father is a cardiologist and mother is an attorney, will be that much more privileged with the extra $2,000.

Ideally, the major schools would scrap the NCAA, keep all the bball tourney money, and form a new rules oversight body, while telling the little schools to go pound sand. Under the new system, the athletes in revenue-generating sports would be part of a different, parallel system than the traditional "student-athletes." Everyone would be happy except the feminists, the old-school professors/academics, activist judges, and the Wake Forrests of the world, etc. - in other words, it will never happen.      

Maestro's picture

I think we are headed the direction you propose.  Death to the NCAA in football.

vacuuming sucks

Buckeyejason's picture

Hyde returning kicks? I don't think that's a smart move. Better off with Philly Brown or Chris Fields.

So if the NCAA decides to pay players, how many pairs or shoes will players have...60,75?


slippy's picture

I still don't understand the increase in scholarship amounts or giving them money from TV.  Why can't athletes take out student loans like the rest of us?  They're still going to have a hell of a lot less debt than the average graduate.

AGL's picture

ya kinda weird,  just had a thought that of the millions$$$$  maybe divide money to all acredited schools general student fund so all students have a chance to leave school a little less debt free, won't happen and would prob bring more corruption among adm.  but there are far more students attending schools as big as TOSU w/o schollies than with.,  all students need some xtra cash,  for books,food and survival.  education should be 1st and helping all students should be foremost, after all, these kids in school now are the future

OSUNeedles's picture

Or give the money to the government so that they can decrease student loan interest rates back down to a reasonable level... Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that I would get to provide my country with an extra $48000 if I extend my loans to 20 years instead of 10, but I think I would rather have that cash for my daughter's college.

Buckeyejason's picture

College athletes haven't been getting paid "technically" for years and years..now they want to change it? Suck it up for 4 years geez you get to eat and have a roof over your head..as well as getting to play big time College sports.

Let's face it, these kids will blow that money on expensive clothes, shoes, jewelry, tattoo's, and other meaningless crap.

And don't tell me that they're "entitled" to anything either. The schools are the ones recruiting the players and giving them a free college tuition.

You want your school payed for..you gotta play ball. ITS AS EASY AS THAT.


Denny's picture

Disagree with a lot of this, but I think the claim that 'these kids will blow that money on expensive clothes, shoes, etc' is a bit much. The fun thing about money is you can spend it on whatever you want. When I was at OSU as an undergrad, the money that I made from tutoring and TAing went pretty much straight to pay for my bar tab. It's arguable that bar tabs are just as 'meaningless' as any of the things you listed, but hey - that's what I wanted to pay for. So that's where the money went.

If student-athletes want to buy (totally arbitrarily defined) 'meaningless crap' with their stipends, why not give them more scholly money in order for them to comply with NCAA rules? Not all of them will buy what you perceive as 'meaningless crap'. Some of them might even buy what I perceive as 'meaningless crap'. So what? It's their prerogative.

Compared with what these kids could earn in a free market situation (see: Brandon Jennings in Italy), they're making pennies on the dollar with their stipends/tuition/room/board. I realize one stipend bump probably won't satisfy all of the student-athletes, but everyone always wants more, regardless of their situation. It may allay some of the problems we're seeing - it may not.

The universities also make millions of dollars off the athletes, so it's not like the schools are offering an education as a charity case either.


Run_Fido_Run's picture

Good points, Denny. I'm normally the last one to play a race card, but when some people (I'm NOT referring to BuckeyeJason here) suggest that FB and BB players will mainly use the extra money to pay for extra bling, gear, and malt liquor, there is a paternalistic racial/class element to these criticisms.

For example, nobody ever says that the girls lacrosse player (see my comment above), with the cardiologist dad and attorney mom, will just use the increased disposable income she has as a result of getting a full-ride scholarship, to buy more makeup, designer shoes, and lipstick.

One of the big problems is that revenue-generating and revenue-dependent sports are treated the same ways all under the outdated, corrupt "student-athlete" NCAA model.

If we wanted to be mercenary about it, we could initiate a scathing critique of the NCAA from a "radical" perspective: for example, the current system might be supported by parties - for example by parents of girls lacross players - who tend to have more political and economic resources and benefit from the stutus-quo . . . I'm not saying I agree with that line, but I'm fed up with the NCAA, and it might be about time to unleash the dogs . . .    

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

I think the scholarship players stipend should be about $3000 per month. It won't solve all of the problems, but at least they won't be able to play the poverty card. There will be certainly less incentive to take $500 here and there from boosters.

Doc's picture

They could be making $10,000.00 a month and still want an extra $500.00.  That is just human nature.  You will never get the "extra" benefits out of the game.  Someone some where will always want more and someone else will be willing to give it.

"Say my name."

O-H-I-Owe-U's picture

I now want to see Chris Roark on the field. 

Old_school's picture

His 3 arms would do wonders for the passing game.

Buckeyejason's picture

Look the reason I state that they'd waste the money on the afformentioned things is because I've seen it. I've seen the buckeyes players showing it off..I've seen it when I was in college, ive seen it everywhere. Its reality..it has nothing to do with race.

If you think giving these players extra money will solve the NCAA "problem" then you are very nieve.


SaintTressel's picture

No one thinks it will completely solve the NCAA's problem, but it's a step in the right direction. It also provides a more equitable distribution of profit. We can all get behind that. As for the waste argument, Denny hit the nail on the head. It's relative. I bet a few players on the team would think my wrinkle resistant khaki's are a waste of money, but man I hate ironing.

Denny's picture

Oh no, wrinkle-resistant clothing releases formaldehyde over time it's not good for you.


Denny's picture

I get your point, and personally I didn't read into it along racial lines (though I do think Fido's points were quite valid) - but saying that kids are going to 'waste' money is not a valid argument in my mind. Things that you view as excessive may not seem as such to the kids in question. It's unfair to project our own opinions on what may or not be wasteful onto a bunch of kids that we can't easily relate to.

You may think that tattoos, etc. are wasteful. Someone else may think new hunting equipment is wasteful. Someone else might think that going to the strip club is wasteful. Some people may think a puppy is wasteful. Everyone's got opinions on what may or may not be 'wasteful', and that's fine - they're opinions, after all. But just because you've seen kids with tattoos doesn't mean 1) every kid gets them or 2) it's actually 'wasteful' in their eyes. If we're going to do something about curbing 'wasteful' spending we probably shouldn't just have arbitrary definitions of what is or isn't wasteful.

And re: naivety, I disagree there too. I'd argue that inherent distrust of kids and assuming that they'll waste the money is a bit paranoid.


Buckeyejason's picture

I understand all that..and again that's your opinion. The point is most/alot of these players scream poverty when they're in school "we can't even get a pizza or take a girl out on a date" etc etc.

That's B.S. If you read these guy's twitter's they're eating out every night (Chipotle, Canes, Easy Living etc) taking trips across the country, buying Big screen t.v's, 300 dollar phones, tattoo's up the wazoo, every Jordan shoe that's been made and yet they're "barely" getting by.

I just think giving these players more money is ridiculous.


Denny's picture

I don't know if even a lot of these players are 'screaming poverty', though I can see how it'd be perceived that way. Everybody panders to emotion when making arguments - I mean, it's happening on an even more absurd scale with the NBA lockout pressers.

Not all of the players do the things you mention - some do, some don't. And some of them actually do happen to come from families with money. I get what you're saying, but I think you're exaggerating a bit (or at the very least you're painting with a broad brush).

I ate out every night in college because it was quicker than cooking and I was busy - and I was nowhere near as busy as a full-time athlete. TVs are fairly inexpensive commodity items (and probably are part of bowl swag at this point). Just about every college student has a $200 cell phone. Lots of college kids go on trips that they can barely afford. Most college kids are 'just getting by' - that's part of being young and reckless. College students put stock into different things than adults - it's always been that way, and that fact isn't going to change anytime soon.

Also, I'm not sure how much stock you should take in people's twitter feeds. Mine's mostly about when my dogs fart, at least lately.

PS. 'Tattoos out the wazoo' made me laugh because who would get a butt tattoo


RBuck's picture

I got one. It reads "exit only".

Long live the southend.

Bucks's picture

I dunno. I tend to agree with the thought that regardless of what someone receives, they always want more. Yes, I realize that until it happens no person can just proclaim that would occur but what person just settles for what they have?

Not saying the current system is fair. The solution though is not as easy as here is some $$ to make it right. Not to even mention that a monumental switch to paying players/increasing compensation would bankrupt most athletic departments that already post a loss. The losses pass on to increased fees/tuiton/etc. I guess athletic departments across the nation could just give up their programs? Is that beneficial to the landscape? Not even posing that in a crass manner ... realistically, that is the result.

I have no clue what the "wonderful solution" is. I don't know that there is one. I'd be in favor of rewriting the working guidelines for scholarship athletes to make more money before I would even think of the model where they are paid for play or even increased grants to them.


Denny's picture

There's certainly no panacea here - any changes are going to come at someone's expense. The current system is frustrating as hell and pretty fundamentally flawed. The problem, as you've said, is that it's going to be damn near impossible to find a solution that's best. The cynic in me thinks that we'll end up with the solution that's 'least bad'.


Buckeyejason's picture

You're correct for the most part, I guess I'm just stuck with my stubborn beliefs.


btalbert25's picture

Personally, I'm tired of hearing about how exploited the kids are and how they deserve money, or that I'd want a cut of the billions being made.  I think that I'm exploited at my job.  I work for a multinational corporation that makes billions every year.  I make a modest salary, but I have to pay for food, housing, and healthcare.  Not to mention the money I'd have to pay if I want to go to school to continue my education. 

I can see wanting a cut for my labor if I was a kid.  Hell I want more money for the crap I have to deal with every day.  The problem for me, isn't that the guys aren't payed and people are making billions off of them.  They scholarship, books, food, housing, stipend, working out in the finest facilities and medical care probably equals more than my salary per year.  The problem is when a guy can't make money off his name.  He should be able to sell his stuff if he wants, and sign autographs for money.  That kind of stuff is what pisses me off.  If TP wanted to make 40,000 off of signing his name, that should be his right.  Guys should be allowed to make money off their their name and image.  I'm even in favor of letting guys have the ability to endorse products. 

Any Ohio State player would be able to make money off of selling trophies and even autographs.  Some may not make as much as others, but at least they'd have the ability to make something. 

Doc's picture

Bravo!  They should be able to sell their things and have people pay for their autographs.  This is a free market economy.  If TP can sell his John Hancock for $20.00 bucks a piece good on him.  As long as they aren't breaking any LAWS then fine.  Make as much as you want.  Remember boys you have to keep your grades up too.

"Say my name."

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I have no problem, per se, with CFB/BB stars selling their autographs or memorobilia. But ask yourself why the NCAA will NEVER allow that to happen. Then, extend that logic further . . . 

btalbert25's picture

Paying players isn't going to happen either, just makes sense to me to allow the guys to make money off their name, than it does to tie the hands of athletic departments by making them pay each player on a football and basketball team X amount of money.  You'd lose athletic programs and some schools that aren't in 2 or 3 conference just couldn't afford it.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

As I mentioned above, I agree the extra $2,000 will not achieve the desired results because this change will still be operating within a corrupt, dysfunctional system - you'll get no argument from me on that.

You're also right, the system probably won't change until it collapses on its own . . . unless, people who normally wouldn't pay much attention to the NCAA started to poke around and dismantle its rotten edifice - but that probably won't happen either.  

Optimistic Buckeye Pessimist's picture

We should be thinking even more outside of the box/bigger picture than we are.  What if the NCAA got the NFL/NBA to eliminate the eligibility rule?  If we did this, kids would no longer be obligated to endure the NCAA and allow universities to capitalize on their talents.  By giving the kids/athletes a choice, people that don't want to play by the rules no longer have to and those that choose to get a free education know that "under my [NCAA's] roof, it's my laws."  This is an extension of what MC was talking about.  I think it's the way to go because most universities can't afford to pay athletes because the AD's are losing money already and how can you pay some athletes and not others.  If the NCAA and college athletes were made more of a choice, then people would have to live with this choice and the stipulations on it.  At that point, the NCAA could really enforce harsh penalties on individuals that don't play by the rules.

Read my entire screen name....

Denny's picture

Problem is, the NCAA has no leverage on the NFL/NBA/MLB at all. These leagues have a free feeder institution in the NCAA - they see no reason for change.


Optimistic Buckeye Pessimist's picture

I see your point and this is mostly why I brought up MC's suggestion of developing these arena leagues and teams into an additional feeder system.

Read my entire screen name....

btalbert25's picture

Y ou would think it could be done through the courts, but Mike Williams and MO C failed when they challenged the NFL.  Seems like these leagues have too much power, and too much to lose by wanting to change their eligibility requirements.

Doc's picture

But, if the players had a third vialble option the NCAA wouldn't have the same power that it has now.  If a high schooler had the option of going to either Sate U or the arena league and still have the option of getting a shot at the NFL the NCAA would have to change to keep up.  You are correct that the NFL/NBA doesn't need to change because they have a free developmental league now.

"Say my name."

gunni070's picture

I think this article was already posted in another thread here but it's worth repeating.  To sum up, a leading civil-rights historian makes the case for paying college athletes—and reveals how a spate of lawsuits working their way through the courts could destroy the NCAA.



Bucksfan's picture

Guys, the issue is not whether athletes are compensated for their talents.  It's what they're compensated with, and the fact that the NCAA uses the word "amateur" to describe them.  Fine, if you want to say that getting paid in a college education (the value of which is starting to become a little less clear for our generation), then how can you use the word amateur to describe them?  That's an $80,000 payment that they get debt free.  They're either amateur or they're not.  They can't be both.

Now, the other side of that is how much the amateur status enforcement agency pays their employees despite being considered a not-for-profit organization.  It is obscene that NCAA members should be taking $300,000 salaries.  It is immoral in a capitalist economy for certain people to be making investment banker-type money, while at the same time telling those who are responsible for their job to even exist that they, themselves, are not allowed to capitalize on their own image.

The whole thing is ca-ca.  It is possible that the ever-increasing popularity of college sports has driven the whole system to an unsustainable state.  You can't have something for free.

baddogmaine's picture

My college (not OSU, I'm sorry to say. If I could do it over again . . .) had teaching assistants to help the profs. These jobs were part of financial aid packages - students worked off loans. But there were not enough math majors on financial aid to fill all the TA slots, so my school paid me, who was not on scholarship, to do a job it wanted done. There was no talk of my getting a benefit not given to other students, though I was - in cash. My job was important to my school but no more so than what football or BB players at a competitive school like OSU do for the school. Generally, the hypocrisy is primarily in sports.

If a school wants a position filled - such as teaching assistant or point guard - figure out what the job is worth and pay the (wo)man. My school had a good reputation in math because it made being good an emphasis. Schools that want to be good in field hockey will make it a point of emphasis in the same way. Of course some schools will have a big advantage - my small school couldn't compete in most academic fields with a school the size of OSU because it didn't have the resources. It was decent in most areas and chose the few places where it could excell. Sports should be no different. And the NCAA employees can get real jobs that benefit society and stop being viruses that live off of hosts.

Bucksfan's picture

I agree.  There is no longer any logic or rationale behind keeping athletes "amatuer" in status.  It's an arbitrary designation that is unfairly immune to challenge.  For there to be an immoral university practice that is not allowed to be questioned by the very minds that the university educates is not just absurd or hypocritical, it is borderline criminal.

acBuckeye's picture

The student-athletes will NEVER get a dime more than their current scholarships from the NCAA until they can put together a competent union that can represent them. Signing petitions and griping about it in social media won't do anything. It will turn into a legal issue, and for that you need attorneys. So the next question becomes.... who pays for the attorneys? School boosters? Undergrads?

As for Roark, thats great to hear. I love stories like his. However, i'm sure the NCAA is already looking into whether or not he was "overpaid" for his off-season jobs. Jerk-offs.