Hell to the YES, Crew! Here's my take: Which point guard in the B1G would you take ahead of Craft? Appling? No thanks. The freshman from Meatchicken? Nope, I'll take Craft. Wisconson's PG? Pass. Iowa's Gesell? Maybe, tho the guard at Iowa that I'd want is their SG, Marble.
So yeah, he may still garner first, or at least, 2nd team All-B1G. I can't think of anyone that should start over him. Maybe I forgot someone....
I've thought about that SO many times! That could've been one of the all-time best starting fives in OSU history.....
No, the #1 and #2 matches didn't need to finish, because the other singles finished first. Once a team gets to 4 points, they've won the match up. There's a total of 7 pts available, and the doubles only play for 1 pt (I know, it's unusual, but that's how they do it). So, they play 6 singles matches, and 3 doubles. I believe the doubles get started first, and the team that wins 2 of the doubles matches starts off with 1 pt. Then the singles play (most, if not all, the guys who play singles also play doubles).
Once a team gets their 4th pt, the match is essentially over.
Edit: Guess I should've kept reading. This was explained already.
FYI, the Bucks still currently sit in 4th place, at 9-7, a half game ahead of Iowa (8-7). Who knows how the last 2 games of the regular season will go, but they still sit in a position to get that first round bye (However, I don't know how the tie-breaker would work if they finish tied for 4th).
It's been mentioned on this thread already, and I've been talking about it most of the season, but we have GOT to get more than ONE F@CKING REBOUND from the CENTER POSITION!! Holy SCHNIKIES, that's frustrating! I know Amir was in foul trouble, but with all the shots that we miss, how does he manage ZERO bds?!! If our centers could manage just 5 or 6 bds (double digits I guess is just TOO MUCH TO ASK), we would've won by 5+
Yeah, The officials need to be sat down, while nuns whack their hands with rulers and scream "LET THEM PLAY" in their whistle-happy little faces.
Dude, I understand that you're frustrated, we all are. But don't call him stupid. That's just rude, and completely unnecessary. Guy went for the win. It didn't work, and we lost. Yes, I would've loved getting a good look for 2, but he stepped back and got a good look on the 2nd one. It just didn't go in. I can assure you, HE's much more disappointed and frustrated than you or I.
The Elite Eight 8 yrs in a row?!!! With all those amazing streaks and stats, THAT might be the most incredible of all. Now that's consistency!
Although they will very likely take a few steps backwards on the defensive side of the ball. But yeah, that lineup should be able to score some points!
Deshaun actually was picked up by the Spurs, and is playing over in Europe. He's doing well there, seeing the sites and making good $. And his future chances at making the Spurs are pretty promising, especially the way that organization maximizes a player's talents.
But you're right, Q's situation is different (as far as I know, doesn't have a kid to support), and he should definitely stay. Unless, of course, he goes off in the tournament and leads the Bucks to the Final Four.
I hear what you're saying. The rape could happen anywhere. But the response by Michigan was uniquely bad. I would hope that very few universities would respond the way they did. I'm not rejoicing, but I am glad that this is being further investigated.
The combine 40 times are always a little dubious. Which makes Archer's time even more impressive.
Or, maybe you're right, and the team's times are dubious, and the combine gets it closer to reality. Who knows?
Well, you got one word absolutely correct: silly. It was certainly that, and more.That was an odd way to "demonstrate a problem with making assumptions". But with your explanation, I can assure you, nothing was lost on me.
Didn't Archer run a 4.26?
ZITSKY RATES THE RUSSIANS: "THEY'RE PUSSIES!"
No, he's not, but you picked up on the analogy. Thanks for the exchange of ideas, you represent what's great about this site.
I disagree. Low wage workers that are advocating for an increase to the minimum wage aren't "biased", they're living the issue that they're trying to improve.
I appreciate that you're acknowledging and trying to speak to the grey areas in the middle, as you're dead on about many people, regardless of the issue, having trouble seeing anything but the black and white, or opposites poles, if you will.
Yes, in fact, i most certainly can. It's what I've been doing all along. Yes, you've shared some data, and yes, it supports your point. But it was a little off topic. Regardless, your point is well taken. But, the topic is "should players receive a larger stipend". You clearly think that everything they receive is plenty of compensation for the risks they undertake. I hold the position that, in light of the billions of dollars made from college football, increasing the players stipend is not only fair, it's long overdue. I stand by my position, and every assertion I've made.
Lastly, I did not "call out" anyone, I was making my point, that I and any other fans on here have opinions on the matter, and those opinions are secondary to the opinions of the student athletes who are voicing their informed thoughts on the matter. I think the thousands who actually play and have played the sport should be heard, and I value their ideas on the subject. If you disagree, oh well. That's your opinion.
Funny, you seem to be the one making some presumptions here (indicating that Roby and others would not have opportunities available to them based on academics alone). You also seem to be a little shitty, so it's obvious I've touched a nerve for you, when all I've been doing is advocating for the players and freely giving my opinion. Not sure what that shittiness is all about, but I think it's fair to say that we both understand each other's feelings on the matter, so maybe we should just leave it at that.
Well, you're obviously set on the "bias" take, but personally, I think the players that are putting their health at risk have the most valid opinion on this. And for me, it's recent players, who are now done with their college careers, who have an even MORE valid opinion, as they can enlighten us all on the realities of their experience, but are not able to directly benefit from any change to the stipend. And that's really what we're talking about here - simply increasing their stipend. Or, others have proposed, when it comes to the money made from jersey sales and other ways the university makes money off the fruits of their labor, putting money into a "trust" of some sort that they can access when their playing careers are over.
Andy, I appreciate your comments, and liked a lot of what you're pointing out. I just wanted to add that Roby now is no longer a student athlete at OSU, and advocating for players being paid is not self-serving, as he will not benefit from any change to that policy.
You got to watch him suit up? Creepy. (sorry, couldn't resist)
I played tennis, you played baseball. What that means is that neither of us played football for OSU or any other perennial top 10 team.
Dude, go look back at this thread. You reacted to what you perceived I had said, I reacted to what you ACTUALLY said. The insults began flying when you didn't like my question. Regardless, I have no interest in feeding this anymore. YOUR opinion counts the same as MINE because we are both fans on this site posting our opinions. Mine doesn't count more than yours, yours doesn't count more than mine. And at this point, with the way this has gone, I have ZERO interest in hearing any more of your opinions.
"Do you really think these kids should be paid more money than the resources that are already being spent on them?"