Would an Ohio State player "get away with" what? Refusing to speak, on the advice of counsel? I would hope so. Also, your original comment was not about Florida State; it was an implication that Winston was somehow a lesser person by availing himself of his right against self-incrimination, which is only in the goddamn Constitution of this country.
And seriously, more to the point of the article: who gives two shits about the Heisman when we're talking about whether or not a rape allegation was investigated properly?
Nothing says Heisman quite like clamming up based on the advice of a lawyer.
This is just stupid. He did what every single halfway-decent lawyer would advise, and what every a person convicted of a crime should do. Whether he committed the crime or not, had the right to not incriminate himself and to tell the police "prove that I did anything wrong." Unfortunately, from the look of things, the TPD had no desire to even try.
Wisconsin is without question the team to beat in the Big Ten going into next season. They made the final four, were five seconds away from the title game, and they lose one of their top eight players. Basketball is crazy and someone in the conference may end up being better than them, but they're the favorite, and it's not close.
No, plenty of people on this website have opinions about sports in general and OSU sports specifically. That doesn't make us over-obsessed lunatics. You behaving like an over-obsessed lunatic is what makes you look like an over-obsessed lunatic.
See the Eleven Warriors bursar for a full refund.
It may not have been what you meant to say but it is what you actually put down in words.
Only if you choose to read it that way. Given the context around that sentence, what he actually meant is clear.
That being said, why would anyone want to climb aboard a train full of fools that's headed straight off of a cliff?
LOL yup, the billions of dollars are just gonna dry right up.
I can understand being a little caught off-guard, but I don't see any reason to automatically assume there are ulterior motives.
Is that a joke? This is 11 Warriors, where most users presume that every single thing ESPN does is a sinister attempt to bring down OSU.
Sounds more like they're trying for some kind of content regarding poor fan behavior than anything about OSU.
Oh, well if that's the case it's a good thing the fan in question didn't fly off the handle and act like a jackass.
If unionizing becomes the rage in college athletics I wonder how much of a disadvantage OSU would be at on the recruiting trail because of that state law?
If unionization and/or employment status for football players takes over college football, the very first time Urban says anything about losing a recruit because of that law, it'll be repealed in a matter of days, if not hours.
I vividly remember in 2003 going through the drive-thru at the Burger King on Olentangy River Road, and the vehicle in front of me in line was a gigantic black SUV (don't remember the brand), with a vanity license plate that read "MO HALL." Might have been him, might not have been. Might have been legit, might not have been. Nothing would surprise me.
You're right Jabba; that's my bad. We didn't do golden gun, we were always in License to Kill mode (one hit kills). Egregious error on my part there.
Oh, absolutely. Always golden gun mode. Golden gun, paintball mode, radar off, and no one is allowed to be Oddjob.
That's the problem: anyone who didn't get that gun was at a severe disadvantage. Really affected the fairness of the game. My group never played with them. Pistols in the basement, grenade launchers in the temple (you could arc grenades through openings from one room to another), rocket launchers in the complex, and proxy mines anywhere were our go-tos.
Nobody talking about the very last link the WMDs? The Commonwealth Court called for a hearing on the validity of the consent decree that formed the entire basis for the sanctions against Penn State. There is a very real chance that those sanctions are going to go away.
And never, ever play with Power Weapons. Goddamn klobb.
That's so unbelievably sad. Fuck cancer.
I still think you're picking nits rather than arguing the actual point raised by the hypotheticals: other students, in spite of being on scholarships, can make money off of the fruits of their labor. College athletes are arbitrarily prevented from doing this. If you divorce the idea from the decades of rhetoric about the "value of amateurism," it's a patently ridiculous and unfair situation.
So you do care, is what you're saying?
And besides, that's the great thing about laws: they exist whether you care about them or not.
The National Labor Relations Board disagrees.
Because the real example would NOT be Julie "fooling around in her dorm room" to invent a new kind of engine. No; the better example would be Julie's working 5 hours a week in $250 million nuclear reactor laboratory, in company with faculty, graduate assistants and with special grant for her work.
You changed the hypothetical. You may find it "preposterous," but that's an issue of scope. The point stands: what if she invented something of tremendous value other than an engine? She could sell the product of her labor and make money. A college athlete cannot, and for no logical reason.
Max is going to get rich someday if his talent is as extravagant as you suggest. But Max isn't working in a competitive team environment. Max could quit college and go to Hollywood or New York. The only restriction on Max is if he wants to keep writing on a college scholarship. He could pay for his own college and stay in school. Or he can pursue his career outside of college and forego a degree. Max's only problem is if he's pulling down a six figure salary and working with editors and script doctors and at the same time turning in work at school for prizes and grades.
First, in your scenario Max has other practical, viable options to pursue his craft. A college football player does not. Second, as with the first example, you are adding facts that are not present in the hypothetical. Third, you are missing the entire point of the hypothetical. There would be no such restriction on Max, because he's not an athlete. He could sell that book that he wrote, and make money off of it, because he's not an athlete.
And those are all dwarfed by the reason I stated. I was being hyperbolic when I said it was "literally the only reason." I'm sure someone could reverse-engineer some other justifications. But we all know what the real reason was.