fear_the_nut70's picture

fear_the_nut70


Member since 30 July 2012 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 772 | Leaderboard

Recent Activity

Comment 22 Jul 2014

Here is the flaw in your logic: yes the OSU/MSU game is considered a toss up (and rightfully so after the BCC game and the fact it is in EL).  What Vegas odds makers could be saying relative to winning the division is that the odds of MSU dropping games to OTHERS on the schedule is much higher (which fits in as it pertains to my talent argument).

Your chalking it up to "[t]here are alot more OSU fans than MSU fans so that line must be shaded fairly hard to reflect that." is just plain silliness."  Vegas makes their odds based on making a buck, not appeasing a fan base or trying to draw a base into a bet that would be bad for the house based on the odds.

Comment 22 Jul 2014

There is a HUGE difference in recruiting rankings between OSU and MSU.  At the end of the day, that one variable is bigger than any of the others.  It also doesn't hurt that OSU has a coach with 2 NCG rings and a winning percentage north of 81%.  But by all means, pull out your wallet and take advantage of Vegas naivite.  As my old man once told me, they didn't build all those casinos on the backs of all the winnings they paid out.

Comment 22 Jul 2014

I would not make any team with a first year starter at QB as the favorite.  I know that is pretty much what happened with FSU and we may see this more in the future, but historically speaking, very rare.

Comment 22 Jul 2014

And this analysis would be spot on if the games were played on paper.

For me, the ones played on the field tell the story, like against Stanford, Auburn, Ohio State.  Any physical team with a good D (specifically a D line) that can outmuscle Oregon can relegate that offense into decent and nothing more.  True, I am talking about teams that were elite at the end of the season, but that is what will separate Oregon from championship aspirations (if they somehow get by Stanford)--I don't care that they hang 80 on Towson.  When they beat Stanford, when it actually happens, then I will sit up and take notice.  Till then, nothing to see there...

(And oh, I do want to see the MSU game.  I am not convinced like many this will be a great Sparty team.  Well coached and I like Narduzzi, but they are taking some losses on defense, and I just think it is harder to consistently mold 3* guys into elite level players.  I guess that IS why they play the games on the field).

Comment 17 Jul 2014

I remember the Roby tweet about OSU not using corners correctly.  Reminds me of the way TB misused Revis.  I know hindsight is 20-20 and all, but I would have like to have seen Roby be used as a lockdown on one side of the field and compensate for weaknesses elsewhere.  Dude was a first round NFL pick after all.  Just talking out of my....

Comment 17 Jul 2014

I am from the school of thought that most recruiting rankings are about right (rarely does a five star guy really only have 2 star talent). Not exact, but close.  To me, what makes the difference between expectations met and those that are not are two things, equally important: 1) the quality of the coach instructing them; 2) the amount of work the athlete puts into it.  For the latter, if you believe you are a five star kid and thus can just show up and dominate, there is a good chance "bust" will be attached to your name.

Comment 15 Jul 2014

I didn''t even hear that the players voted yet.  Without a vote, the one game suspension seems a bit hasty...

Comment 15 Jul 2014

DJ, this is for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxx3ShuqlJc

Comment 11 Jul 2014

I wish all kids well, even when they don't pick us.

But Muschump over Meyer?  That is a head scratcher.  Well, better brush up on his "blocking his own teammate drill."

In all sincerity, good luck to Mr. Baker.  Hope it works out for him!!

Comment 03 Jul 2014

I think they have the same sorta of environment in Gainesville under Muschump.  True, their techniques are a bit different:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10041972/florida-gators-find-funny-moment-teammates-own-block

Comment 03 Jul 2014

Looks like Stacey Elliot is an ambassador for the program.  He travelled to Nati on his own dime and often comes to Columbus to talk with recruits' fathers.  Good story at Cleveland.com:

http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/07/how_ezekiel_elliotts_father_st.html

Comment 03 Jul 2014

I might be doing exactly the same thing.  I grew up in NE Ohio but left for Arizona when I was 18 (unfortunately, for various reasons, I got into OSU 2x but attended school elsewhere).  Getting back, getting tickets, securing a place to stay has made it a bit more challenging.  I am determined to do it this year and have targeted that game.  Hope it happens.

Comment 03 Jul 2014

I know most of the elite kids don't think this way, but when do you look at OSU's talent at RB and say "damn, it's gonna be hard to get carries."  Cans are falling off the shelf when yoiu open the cupboard door in droves.

Comment 03 Jul 2014

This has been going on for sometime now.  One stinkin' ticket behind homeplate in Yankee Stadium for game # 66 is $2,500.  A few years ago, I read that someone payed $24k for a pair of prime tickets in Glendale AZ for the Auburn/Oregon Natty.  I do believe as much as anything this has contributed to the explosiion of fans watching in front of HD tv's--easy access to the bathroom, fridge, and if you so choose, you can shut the advertisers out.  I do believe the purveyors of American sporting events have sheered the sheep one time too many, and it will be interesting to see how they continue to fill stadiums in the future without a precipitous decline in ticket prices.  It has thus far missed the Shoe because OSU continues to win at an astounding rate--a down season or so (and I am biting my tongue), and things may change...

Comment 23 Jun 2014

Pro = getting paid for playing

Amatuer = you don't get paid for playing.

This is the heart and soul of it, so no.  You are right that they have been widdling away at the edges alomst to the point of absurdity, but the core still remains in tact.  JMO...

 

 

Comment 23 Jun 2014

So is there something wrong with a Corporate America that systematically keeps people out because they haven't earned a college degree?  Sorta forces some people to go to school if they want such a job, doesn't it?

Except it doesn't (go get whatever job you can get with your HS diploma)  Same in football.  The great HS football player does have a choice.  Go play in the Candian Football League, Arena Football League, NFL Europe etc (or hell, just sit home, work out, and get paid however you can) OR go to college and take advantage of 100 years of branding, a free education, world class training factilities, some of the best coaches money can buy, free room and board, medical, free meals, all the while getting exposure on TV (also not paid for by the athlete) so you can increase your value ahead of future NFL drafts (hey, I'd like to be on TV on Saturdays in the fall for four years to increase my career options.  Buehler?  Buehler?)

There are many that simply can't stand the idea of colleges raking in billions of dollars while student athletes aren't getting directly paid.  For reasons that aren't clear to me, this type of "exploitation" in other aspects of society simply isn't as troublesome.  I don't get it.

Comment 23 Jun 2014

Oh and Riz, one major distinction between your grad work and the student athlete--You had already earned a degree which meant you would have had increased employment opportunities on the open market.

I know this will rankle a few who think the athlete has no options, but he does--Canadian football league, Arena Football league, NFL Europe, etc.  Most athletes play CFB because they know it will increase their draft stock immensely as it pertains to the NFL.

Even without a degree, I am in favor of paying them a stipend as I think all the extra time precludes them from a part time job.  Still, that does begin to open the box a bit, as there are clearly some schools that can not afford this.  When this is all said and done, I am afraid the game we loved won't look nearly the same.  Behind every mess there is always an Okie to blame...

 

Comment 23 Jun 2014

RIZ, I agree with you 100% and was making this EXACT point arguing with DJ last week.

You Don't make money in college, you go there to learn a skill or trade (or just earn a degree) that will enable you to make more money when you leave.  It is no different for student athletes, except that they don't have to take on loans and/or pay turition, plus get all kinds of other access the rest of us don't get.

This thread is one of the best discussions I have seen on 11 W and I will be book making it for future review.

Great job goes out to ALL of the posters in this comment thread.

Comment 23 Jun 2014

And what you write isn't even the true value.  Like every other bank loan, the interest is paid up front so that hte principle remains in tact for much of the loan.  This is the reason on a 30 year mortgage, you will sometimes pay 2x or 3x the face value of the loan.  Student loans are similiar in that their payback period is often set at 25 years (if you haven't paid them off in 25 years not to include forebearance periods, they are then charged off so to speak and the borrower must pay taxes on the balance as income).  So in other words, the true value of a 4 year schollie in actual dollars paid back is much, much higher.

Comment 20 Jun 2014

Here is another thought too--for those that receive a stipend, part of the logic there might be that you have already earned an undergraduate degree which would obviouslly mean that you could command a higher salary on the open market.  This of course is not true of the student-athlete, in the process of earning one.

Still, i am in favor of paying the athletes something for all the extra hours they put in practicing.

Comment 19 Jun 2014

Thank you for the specifics.  The numbers I saw were collective numbers for the CIC and I probalby should have delved into that a bit further.

I knew that some received stipends (though as I wrote above, I have had at least one friend who did not, but it wasn't at Ohio State).  I am in favor of the players receiving a stipend too, because to my way of thinking, all those extra practice hours makes it impractical or impossible to have a part time job.

At any rate, I appreciate the specifics, I did not have them.

 

 

Comment 19 Jun 2014

A well thought out retort DJ, but of course there is much I would like to respond to (this is long, but hopefully you and some others are enjoying the exchange):

This may take us down the field maybe a bit further then we wanted to go, but I think your understanding of what goes on in the research labs is misguided.  Many of the experiments conducted in these labs subject to R&D grants are completely conducted by doctoral students, supervised by their professors (sounds a little to me like the players running the plays under the guidance of a coach).  Here the Ph.d candidate is paid, the students get a capped scholarship, and the proceeds go back to the university, just like in the football operation (and note my info comes from multiple friends of mine who are doctoral students).  I am not sure I see a major distinction there.

While it is true that people do not show up and watch these students (nor can they turn on the boob tube and see ‘em), that in and of itself really isn’t a meaningful distinction other than to say that their likeness is being used on television, the subject of part of our debate.  But this happens all the time in other walks of life and we don’t bat an eyelash at it.  As a for instance, I am a trial lawyer who occasionally handles high profile trials covered by networks such as TrueTv.  I am paid my government salary (akin to the athlete’s scholarship), and my likeness is part of a broadcast for which the networks command millions of dollars in advertising revenue.  Guess how much of that I see for the use of my image?  That’s right, not one red nickel.  And it’s not like this doesn’t happen for all types of employees who work in high profile positions like fire fighters, police officers, etc (in fact, there is a name for this intellectual property called the public use doctrine).  Those employees are never compensated for the use of their image.  And none of this speaks to the fact that players essentially sign waivers as part of their scholarship that allow the use of their images (we will see if that holds up in the O’Bannon trial—I know that courts don’t like them, but they do uphold non-compete clauses which limit an employee’s right to compete against their current employer in a specific market for a specified period of time).

The argument about paying the kids that never get drafted also misses the mark within the confines of the college model (and my argument that the purpose is to prepare you for a career).  For those students in the R&D labs who get only an education, there is no guarantee that any of them will get a job once they graduate.  Does this mean that the colleges should then pay them for their work in college in the event that they do not later get gainful employment in that field (and in this economy, there are many displaced workers in all different types of fields), possibly taking jobs in other fields that may not be sufficient to cover the cost of their student loans?  I am sure there are dozens of these examples, if not more.

As far as “degrading their bodies for our entertainment,” no one forces these kids to play, it is their choice.  Some do it for the love of the game, to represent their school, because they hope to develop their skills and turn pro, or believe it or not, for a college education without the burden of student debt (like those who volunteer for the military, a possibly more dangerous plan).  Regardless, it is still their choice, and we let plenty of people in society engage in dangerous activities (e.g. boxing, coal miner, deep sea fisherman, working on oil rigs, etc).  That legal doctrine is called assumption of the risk (what we are really arguing about is if a college scholarship is fair compensation, and that is going to be a matter of opinion).

I do agree with you that we are only now fully beginning to appreciate long term consequences of this violent sport.  To that I say 1) (and maybe this is the lawyer in me) if it is proven that the schools knew about the risks and buried them, they are liable and will be found so in lawsuits, just like the tobacco companies; 2) I told you in my original post that I was in favor of setting up funds for health care for the long term care of players hurt playing college football, because I believe the revenue is there.  I didn’t say this, but I also am in favor of paying the players a stipend to cover other costs because I think practice makes it difficult or impossible to have other employment while in school to cover those expenses).

Your NFL argument and free market arguments have no place here (like many, you are bothered by the windfall of money kept by the schools the NCAA, and the NFL, and I understand this).  Kids do NOT have to go college after high school—they could play Canadian football, Arena league football, NFL Europe, or just sit out for three years and physically develop.  The best players “invest” in themselves and increase their stock by developing their skills at the college level, taking advantage of a high profile system set up and paid for by the schools, to develop both their skills and brand and eventually earn seven figure salaries (thinking of it this way, televison actually enhances their value). This is just like many of us could forego college and try making a living off of our high school diploma—many go to college instead and delay earning income for four years because what they earn thereafter will be at a much higher rate.

Regardless, all of this misses the point—the NFL is a separate entity that has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement and agreed that players under the age of 21 are not eligible for employment in that profession.  This is also why your free market argument fails (and I will spare you the “there is no such thing as a free market” as this is not a place for politics) and just say that all pro sports leagues are treated as special cases and given some form of an anti-trust exception which may be necessary in light of the fact that competition is their product.  This is why you, me, and maybe 100 other investors can’t start up a football club in Los Angeles and demand to be placed on the NFL schedule.  It bothers me too that NFL teams are getting a free minor league system, but it really doesn’t belong in this discussion.

 

Comment 19 Jun 2014

Then let me take a shot at it DJ.

We have lost sight of what college is supposed to be (and is for 99.5% of the athletes).  You go to college to get an education to make a living.  Football players, those who go pro, get their education on the field moreso than in the classroom.

This isn't unlike grad students who work in research labs or for professors doing research for papers.  In the case of the former, the lab gets multi-billion dollar grants from the government.  In the latter case, the professors are paid six figure salaries.  In both cases, the students get a "free" education and little else.  For years coleges have been taking advantage of free labor in exchange for providing an education that will later give the student a means to make a living.  We tend to get bent out of shape over football because of our obsession with football (or really, with anything on television), but in really, it isn't conceptually any different.

Also, the obsession with paying athletes has something to do with this country's obsession with the rich and famous but ignores another reality:  If you do the math, more than 99% of college football players will never be drafted or play a down in the NFL.  That means that most student-athletes (chuckle if you want) are really going to school for an education to work just like the rest of us.  As I continue to pay off my student loans, I am constantly reminded what an awesome benefit that truly is--I would love to have been educated at tax payer expense free to earn a living without sellng (what's left) of my soul to some soulless  corporation.

Finally, I really believe paying the athletes really would only apply to a handful megastars like JF, at least if the pay model is based on income generated.  Fans continue to overemphasize the value of stars over the value of the university brand that in many instances exist because of a century of building the brand.  The Shoe sold out when TP was the QB and when Joe Bauserman was firing blauserbombs into the parking lot.  I do NOT deny that the stars do add something to the value of the product, I just think it is grossly exaggerated, both in terms of the number of stars that increase the value, and the amount of the value that the stars contribute to the revenue.  For me, it is fair to have a separate conversation about revenue from jersey sales (and I put that in a trust fund until they leave the university)  and providing things like long term health care for players, but that is as far as I would go.

Fire away with your brand of sarcastic wit.  I would love to discuss this...

 

 

 

 

Comment 19 Jun 2014

Worse than the queen city?  I think not.  I would live a lifetime in Cleveland rather than spend a weekend in Cincinnati.  Different strokes I suppose...