They tend to prefer players with good oral skills.
Ball handling is a plus.
They tend to prefer players with good oral skills.
I'm not even surprised with that name given it's in Japan.
No they wouldn't.
Yea, idk what he was talking about. Eminem is likely the best of all time. Definitely in the top 3. So his career will be remembered kindly.
As someone who studies primates, I can say that it would be possible. Chimps have been known to attack leopards. Gorillas also have big canines and could do damage if they grabbed a lion. I'm not saying they would win, but don't underestimate the strength of a gorilla. If they grabbed a lion's legs, they could likely break them pretty easily.
Made me nauseous to watch.
Should have never left.
My most recent top 5 for football (excluding tOSU):
1) Oregon - started pulling for them & their green & yellow jerseys in the 90's, went to graduate school there
2) Boise St. - like their approach to play anyone, and always have good coaches and good players
3) TCU - always liked the mascot and Gary Patterson's team
4) The U - the recent U hasn't been fun, but typically loved the bravado
5) Oklahoma State - love their scoring, jerseys, and playmakers they've had throughout the years
Honorable mention: Baylor - their scoring prowess is fun to watch
My most recent top 5 for college basketball (excluding tOSU):
1) UNC - Jordan fan forever
2) Oregon - see #1 for college football
3) Cincy - love Ohio teams
4) Xavier - love Ohio teams
5) Gonzaga - like the coach and their players and approach to b-ball
This really bugs me, and yes I love futbol but their constantly rotating sponsors on jerseys bugs me too.
At what point do we stop? I have yet to meet someone that enjoys saying the Battlefrog Fiesta Bowl, and every other shitty bowl name we now have to deal with. Every time we have some special replay or stat display during a game it always has to be sponsored by some company (usually a crappy beer company, "cough" Bud). Do we have to sponsor everything? Don't Nike, Adidas, Reebok etc. usually pay to provide the jerseys? What's wrong with having their logo on our shorts and jerseys; no one typically cares because they make the actual unis. $1.1 billion over 5 years by Nike for the NFL.
This is all done to benefit the league, owners, and maybe players (not sure if this particular deal benefits them). I understand the leagues are businesses, but they are heavily dependent on their customers. As we have seen over the past few decades, leagues keep finding new ways of making money, increasing revenue, and growing their brands. Yet fan experiences go down while costs keep going up. I have yet to see a time where added revenue from promotions and sponsors has helped fans afford attending a game (thank you for the free pom poms Burger King). So before someone says, "these extra monies will reduce ticket prices for fans", my question will be, "what was the precedent"? Even in futbol, many teams have increased their ticket prices much to the dismay of their fans even with their huge sponsorship deals. The only sponsorship case I can think of that has benefitted the fans is Taco Bell sponsoring the 500 person student sections in the CFP playoffs. If there are more please share because I'd love to know of any other cases where fans have truly benefitted from a sponsorship.
I get they will sell jerseys without the logos. But what happens after the pilot program ends and they find out they can make another 5 or 10 million by selling all jerseys with the logos and/or making them bigger?
I'm not looking for an argument on here with anyone (though I would gladly engage in one off here so as to avoid a huge public ruckus and frequent downvotes on here ;)), but after a while it gets to the point where you can't enjoy a game anymore without being inundated with promos, ads, and 30 commercial breaks (looking at you NFL and college football), and then they want to make rule changes to shorten games instead of decreasing their 2 hours of commercial breaks for a 1 hour game.
I have never once considered advertising a part of the game and I have only seen it diminish the feel of the game to many fans (i.e. bowl game names, stadium names). I know it sounds like I'm being idealist or overly nostalgic, however, I do not have a problem with advertising because I understand tv stations need ad revenue and I know that teams can use extra money if they are in a smaller market. But there are tasteful, less intrusive, less shitty ways of doing this without having to ruin gameday experiences. Otherwise we might as well dress up all of our players like nascar drivers and throw in the towel.
This rant brought to you by Carls Jr.
RIP Will Smith
I remember him at my dorm freshmen year, hanging out with Marco Cooper. I helped them with some math problems. Also got him to sign my jersey after they beat scUM in 2002.
Such a sad day :(
DV simply b/c they are so terrible. Sorry.
Yea it's not stealing when they've been leading all year. It'd be one thing if they were sitting 3rd and had 2 teams slip up ahead of them and they were able to win it. They've simply played the most consistent all year.
Clearly you don't watch Oregon in bowl games. Other than the natty, when was the last time they got waxed? They were "waxing" TCU last year until Vernon Adams got knocked out of the game. Wisconsin, Kansas State, Texas, Florida State, South Florida, and Oklahoma State might disagree with you. Oh, and 3-point loss to Auburn in the natty, preceded by a 9-point loss to tOSU in the Rose Bowl. So other than the natty last year, when was Oregon getting "waxed" by teams in bowl games?
Got a little teary watching that performance. Very powerful song and message.
Has nothing to do with that looney toon.
McCaffrey or Watson hopefully win. Henry has good numbers, but 'Bama just hands it to him and he's too big to bring down right away. He doesn't have a lot of highlight plays or "moments" like McCaffrey or Watson, or even Elliott. In the past, if they weren't taking Texas Tech or Hawaii qb's too seriously for their 80 pass attempts a game, they shouldn't take Henry seriously when he runs it 40 times a game. Would love to see Henry lose twice this postseason.
Dude you are an idiot. Because 3 or 4 losses are the teams that we are talking about. Go ahead and keep justifying the clusterfuck then every year when multiple 1 or 2 loss teams are all sitting there without real justification on who should be 4.
You're an idiot. Take care of business? Because we don't schedule like SEC and actually had a hard game late in November, we were punished for playing a hard team, unlike Alabama. How about Oklahoma and their loss? Sparty and their loss?
It's Ohio State fans like you that annoy me most. News flash, we aren't going undefeated every year, and neither does the champion always go undefeated. But you "fans" stick to this idiotic view that somehow now that we have the playoffs, and no longer the BCS, the top 4 are totally deserving and heaven forbid we consider expanding to 8 teams. Before you fans would make the argument, that hey, we shouldn't have lost that 1 game so we would have made the BCS, now we say the same about the playoffs.
And to compare the CFP to the NCAA Tourney is ridiculous. Teams that are on the bubble to get in aren't legit threats to win the tournament most years. Even if they put together a good run, we usually get one of the best teams winning it. If we have a "debate" about the 8th best team, then so what. Iowa, Sparty, and tOSU all have 1 loss, and Sparty has the worst. Oklahoma has an equally bad loss, but Stanford has 2 losses but has looked good against a lot of ranked teams. Of course there's overrated Bama. Do you like the rankings? I sure don't. I think the committee is a huge pile of crap that has their own agenda because of their ridiculous rankings they throw out each week.
I'm more pissed than anyone about our 1 loss, but I also don't think it's fair to have teams so unfairly punished for a loss, where other teams don't get hurt in the same way. But go ahead, keep holding on to your conservative view points and inability to use logic to assess college football.
I went to Oregon for my Master's degree and still live in Eugene (unfortunately), and basically they talk about the "Oregon" way here. The assistants stay pretty loyal and many of the assistants coach here for a long time and aren't interested in head coaching jobs like assistants at other schools. That's why they don't have a lot of turnover and why there was no search to replace Kelly because they knew they wanted Helfrich.
People die running marathons. People die playing football. People die hiking in national parks.
Are we going to shut down every thing we do because one person died? Given how many people attend this each year, we've probably had a few hundred thousand people jump in, and this is the 1st person to die? That's better odds than running in a marathon (about 1 in 50,000). There's going to be an inherent risk in any physical activity we do. It's people jumping into water in November, not throwing themselves off a 10-story building where the risk of death is obvious.
It sucks the kid died. It would suck if they cancelled the jump. It would suck more if we stopped doing everything in this society because someone gets hurt or died. Can't stop everyone from doing something stupid or from potentially having a preexisting condition.