Jack Fu's picture

Jack Fu

Columbus (via Small Michigan town of no consequence.)

Member since 23 September 2010 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 2,613 | Leaderboard

Grew up in Michigan. Went to OSU. Still in the Columbus area.

Favorites

  • SPORTS MOMENT: In the end zone bleachers at Ross-Ade Stadium on November 9, 2002.
  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Matt Wilhelm
  • COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER: Boban Savovic
  • NFL TEAM: Detroit Lions
  • NHL TEAM: Detroit Red Wings
  • NBA TEAM: Detroit Pistons
  • MLB TEAM: Detroit Tigers
  • SOCCER TEAM: EPL: Aston Villa; MLS: Columbus Crew

Recent Activity

Comment 15 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 15 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 15 Apr 2014

See the Eleven Warriors bursar for a full refund.

Comment 15 Apr 2014

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.

 

Comment 15 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 15 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 15 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 11 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 10 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 10 Apr 2014

Oh, absolutely. Always golden gun mode. Golden gun, paintball mode, radar off, and no one is allowed to be Oddjob.

Comment 10 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 10 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 09 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 08 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 08 Apr 2014

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.

Comment 08 Apr 2014

I want the students to be well cared for, but I - like many others - have no desire to see the NCAA become the NFL's actual d-league instead of just its de facto d-league.

Horse is out of the barn on that one, Andy. Given the choice between being fair and giving the athletes some portion of the billions of dollars their labor is generating, and continuing to believe in the fiction that college football isn't big-time business, well, I'm taking the red pill. If you want to keep living in the Matrix, that's your decision. You're probably going to be on the wrong side of history.

Comment 08 Apr 2014

I didn't say it was a good decision. In fact, I pretty clearly said I disagreed with it. I was just answering your question as to why Delany went after Rutgers.

Comment 08 Apr 2014

Choosing to engage in an activity doesn't forfeit your legal rights. They chose to play football, which, per the NLRB's ruling, sure looks like a job. These players spend 40-50 hours per week on football-related activities, which are completely separate from their obligations as a "student." Their labor nets their institutions millions and millions of dollars (as Deadspin pointed out yesterday, Alabama's athletic department generated more revenues last year than all 30 NHL franchises and 25 of the 30 NBA franchises. They made more money than corporations specifically designed to make money off of athletics). Their "employer" institution and its coaching staff have rigorous rules and regulations that the players have to adhere to. They meet the definition of employees. They should have the same rights as other employees, including bargaining.

Try and divorce the decades and decades of rhetoric about the value of "amateurism" from the reality of the situation as laid out by the NLRB. Here's an great hypothetical from Brian Phillips:

Let’s say, as a hypothetical, that you have a cousin/daughter/friend/niece named Julie. Bright kid. Fiddling around in her dorm room junior year, she invents a new kind of combustion engine that makes cars 50 times more fuel-efficient. It’s worth a billion dollars. Julie wants to sell it to GM, but — whoops — it turns out the university owns it and she gets nothing, because she’s on an engineering scholarship. Tough break, but Julie can’t really complain, right? Because at least she got the college experience.

Or say Julie has a brother named Max. Max writes a novel sophomore year that’s the biggest thing since Harry Potter. Months on the best-seller list, major movie deal, the works. Only Max not only can’t see a penny from his work — that all goes to the school; thanks, English scholarship! — he also makes the mistake of selling an autographed copy at a book fair. Boom, Max is banned from writing for a year. Not touching a pen will teach Max discipline, because Max obviously has character issues. Probably comes from a troubled home.

Now, if Max and Julie were your cousins/kids/friends/whatever, would you be OK with this deal for them? Of course not, right? In any area other than sports, where decades of rhetoric have beaten us down till we can’t see the obvious, you would say that someone who creates a product of enormous value from their own talent and hard work is entitled to many, if not all, of the rewards resulting from that product. You would say that any contract that worked like an athletic scholarship is padded-wallpaper insane.

If Max or Julie was a friend or family member (or if you were Max or Julie), would you say "eh, you got a scholarship out of it, that should be good enough"?