Ultrabuckeyehomer's picture


Member since 04 October 2010 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 192 | Leaderboard

Voting Record: 42 / 15


  • SPORTS MOMENT: 1990 Reds World Series win. Being at the 2002 Michigan Game a close second.
  • NFL TEAM: none
  • NHL TEAM: none
  • NBA TEAM: none
  • MLB TEAM: Reds
  • SOCCER TEAM: none

Recent Activity

Comment 19 Oct 2014

Just curious, would you bet your life savings on Minny beating LSU? How many points would give me? 

Look, it's not helpful to be upset at all the things others think. We win and we're probably in. All this other anger is a waste of energy. 

Comment 16 Oct 2014

I was wiling to deal with the VA tech loss when it happened, but as time rolls on, I am more and more perplexed. Wow. That is a bad team that beat us. How were we that bad defensively? 

Comment 28 Sep 2014

actually Thom would be rooting for the Buckeyes... He's an OSU homer if anything. I listen/watch my reds and he loves our Bucks. Probably tempered a bit yesterday, given where his bread is buttered. But I would be willing to be the did not want the Bucks to go down 

Comment 23 Sep 2014

His good buddy and AD at Auburn was the AD at Cincy at the time. Bab witcock or some shit. That's how he ended up in KY north. Remember, he left a power conference gig for another one. That rarely happens. And when it does, it's because the folks know each other. 

Your overall point is valid, though. But Purdue had no "in" with Tubbs

Comment 23 Sep 2014

Couple of observations: 

1. Tubbs didn't put anyone on notice... What was he supposed to say? "I'm concerned we'll shit the bed and fail to communicate?" 

2. The shoe can be extremely loud, but it doesn't happen as often as we like to think. Personally, the 2002 gamble return is the loudest I've ever heard it. I wasn't at the USC game, but have been there for all other night games, save Va Tech this year.

That return was louder than when we secured the title shot against Michigan later on that year... The Tostitos flowed that night and it was grand. 

3. I went to the iron bowl in Shula's last season (astute readers will notice something here). My buddy and future business partner at the time is a huge AU fan, from Jasper AL. I had promised him for years that I would go. I couldn't believe how loud it was. And these were two teams going nowhere. Granted, it was the iron bowl, but I had been to several "The Games" and never heard a stadium that loud.  I've been to HV, AA, and Madison (thanks you a-hole lee Evans!) and was embarrassed at how loud a stadium in the south gets with two bullshit teams compared to up here, although I never confessed it at the time.  

It is different in some places, that's all. 

Our tailgating wins the cake compared to T-town (and anywhere else for that matter), hands down. But stadium hostility isn't even a factor for us, normally. Which is why teams march in to the shoe and beat us at night more regularly than most want to believe. 

But we normally win with more talent. And I prefer that. Remember, Miss St allows cowbells for crying out loud... How well has that noise worked over their history? 

Comment 15 Sep 2014

There is a lot of truth in the problem of luring southern kids north, unless you are OSU, Penn state, Michigan. We still rip kids from FL and GA, and we did it before Meyer. But I don't think we need to get southern kids north in big numbers to get better. 

Population shift is not the reason the league has gone down. Take a look at the population of our states. Are people saying we had to have 10 times the population of AL, Arkansas, Miss, S. Carolina to compete? We're still much larger than most southern states. 

Ohio, penn, ILL, Michigan are still huge states. Plenty of athletes for our premier programs to be nationally competitive. This may not be the case in 2 decades, but right now, population shift is the lazy answer. It doesn't explain the decline. What does, IMO, is coaching staffs. 

Comment 15 Sep 2014

I disagree with your new conference idea, but totally agree with everything else. The BIG has never been solid up and down. In fact, historically, no conference has. It is only recent that the SEC has become so deep. 

Our top programs have to win. That's all it will take. 

Comment 15 Sep 2014

Count me in the group of folks that believe it only matters about the top of our conference. The best programs have to beat other name brands. Until then, forget it. No one would care about Illinois or IA struggling if Mich state, Michigan, Wisconsin and us had won. Hell, 2-2 would have probably worked as long as the loses we're respectable. 

IMO part of the problem started when certain programs believed they should be better than they are. Minny fired Mason and ILL fired Zook (who brought in athletes). Those programs ought to be thrilled with 6-8 wins and a bowl bid. Once these programs get to that level, don't run off a coach because of one or two bad years. You are what you are. That's why IA needs to stay the course. They aren't getting back to 10/11 win seasons again. 

Michigan state is solid for the foreseeable future. NE is fine. Penn state, Wisky are TBD. We will be fine. It's Michigan that is at a cross roads. These are the 6 programs we need winning. And I think three are uncertain. That's my biggest concern. 

Edited to correct my lol math

Comment 29 Aug 2014

Has he refused to change positions? Maybe this will cause him to, if so.

He was never going to be a NFL QB, folks. I don't know why people ever thought so. That's not an easy thing to achieve, and his throwing motion was always suspect. Could he be a receiver? I don't know. But, why not try? 

Comment 20 Aug 2014

What a weird year now, trying to compare it to anything other than tat gate and coming up with nothing... Our NC hopes are probably gone (I hope not, but reality is reality) but we can still win the Big Ten, finally!  Who knows how this will all shake out, but we didn't hold open tryouts for QB, did we? These guys are good. Recruited for a reason. Are they NC good? I doubt it at this point. But, who the hell knows.  It will be a hell of a ride, though.. 

Comment 19 Aug 2014

You made the right call. I too have never had any interest in twitter. He'll, I can't even tell who is saying what to whom on those things. Not worth the effort. And fake JT is just another reminder of how stupid a medium it is. 

Comment 13 Aug 2014

I don't care who RS or not. It's a crapshoot, as always. Let it play out folks. The best will play. That's a distinct difference between the current regime and the last. Seniority doesn't matter. The best will see the field. I'm in favor of this attitude. 

Comment 26 Mar 2014

I would mostly with this... I think the Big ten has a shot being 3rd or 4th, but not number 2. If we are hanging our hat on IA, PSU and NE to make us stronger at the top, that's a bit too much for me to believe. Those are wildly vacillating programs year-to-year. We have two programs guaranteed to be good: us and Mich St. Everyone else is a crapshoot. The B12 and PAC whatever are likely stronger. I hope I'm wrong, but recent history says we're above the AAC and maybe the ACC. 

Comment 20 Mar 2014

Two things: the game was a microcosm of the season. Inconsistent play all around, even from the seniors. But, the people criticizing Matta are crazy. Yes, we list sienna a few years ago and yes we lost today. But how many times has he led us to the sweet 16 and beyond? Only 16 of 300 plus teams can get that far and he's done it more than once. This is the longest period of consistent success this program has had. We usually make the tourney and usually win a couple games or more. It's hard to win a title. Think Dean smith and Roy Williams and Boeheim before they finally got it done. Matta is the right man for the job. 

Comment 19 Mar 2014

It's a good team that will likely lose to Duke. If they get past Duke, they definitely fall in my mind. A good year considering the best pro prospect is out and they started slow. Line most, I'm obviously more concerned with my bucks, but those complaining about an article re: Michigan must have become bucks fans relatively recently.  Most of us are usually interested in what's happening up north. It's the nature of the rivalry. If you don't care about what's happening at/with Michigan, you must be john cooper 's kids. He didn't care much either. 

Comment 16 Mar 2014

While I know it's very difficult to cull the field down to this number, I cannot fathom how every president isn't included in the politics bracket. We have more than any other state and, in politics, is there a higher ceiling? My only beef with the list. Although I think Fraze and Patterson should have made the science/business bracket as well. 

My two cents: grant needs to take it home. We may not have an America we know without his appointment by Lincoln. And, he did it drunk! 

Comment 18 Jan 2014

I agree that this could be a toothpaste back into the tube issue and everyone must be careful. But, given the lack of specifics, I'm withholding judgment until there is any indication as to what is the end game. Is it to simply provide those conferences with a greater say within the existing structure? Like the UN's security council? Or, are we talking about a split altogether from smaller schools?  I do like the idea of no more Mac schools on the schedule, but I also don't want to see the Ohio U and Akron's of the world lose their programs. I know those two wishes may not be compatible, though. 


Comment 16 Jan 2014

You certainly make some fair points re: the uncertainty as to true market values, and I'll absolutely defer to economists in that respect (that ain't my bailiwick ). There are constraints as well, undoubtedly. However, acknowledging these facts is a far cry from agreeing that these kids are woefully under compensated, abused, etc as many say here and elsewhere.  How far off us it? I don't know. My gut sense us that these kids are given a lot to work out and play football. No one prevents them from doing something else. The market us only restricted because of inertia. Want something else? What is prohibiting that? Honestly. I am actually asking. What is the response of proponents? 

Comment 16 Jan 2014

Allow me to preface this with an acknowledgement if the appreciation that people can actually have a civil debate on the internet. But, I disagree. First, your argument that what the players are being compensated is not fair begs the question. You are arbitrarily deciding it's not fair. Based on what criteria? Your response is exactly what I stated: they make a bunch, therefore it's unfair. Go back and look at your argument. It makes no sense. Coaches are paid more than their fair share, really? What do you base that upon? You also argue that "those that capitalize are earning more than their fair share" Again, you are arbitrarily determining that without any single shred of evidence. What is your criteria for that? What is the appropriate value of a college coach? A school? You must have a number already, given that you have already determined it's unfair and out of whack? I would like to see your numbers in your response. 

Secondly, I understand your argument perfectly. And in fact, your response only proved my point. Look at your response. It is exactly what I claimed. What you fail to do is explain why college athletes are worth more than they are already compensated. Where is the evidence of "fair market share." How are you possibly quantifying it. I'll tell you how I view market worth: when people stop applying for positions at the compensation you are offering. Tell me, how many schools are having a hard time filling their classes due to players feeling under-compensated?  I'll wait for the answer, although I suspect none. 

Lastly, although I slept through the Sherman anti trust stuff (I'm a criminal guy) the NCAA is not a monopoly (notwithstanding your bald, patronizing assertion). There are other governing bodies of collegiate athletics. Hell, kids can play intramural sports if they wish. How in the world is the NCAA monopoly?  

You say that without the NCAA there would be some pre-nfl league. Okay. And without Coca cola,  I would dominate the soft drink market too. But guess what, there us a coca cola and there is an NCAA. You are free to start this league if you wish. Go for it. I have a feeling, though, that no one wants to see a 20 year old kid play football unless it is for a school they root for. The market dictates that. What had the NCAA done to prevent these upstart leagues. I'll be awaiting your response with examples if how the NCAA has affirmatively prevented these leagues..., because as you state "without the NCAA"they would exist.  


Comment 16 Jan 2014

You were really offended by the notion that parents might be able to pay? Really? You are that easily offended? How about student loans? Why is that so terrible for these guys? I've yet to hear a single cogent argument why they can't take out loans like almost anyone else. 

Look, the great divide here seems to be that some of us don't believe that athletes "deserve" a certain amount of money simply because (and only because) "schools are bringing in billions of dollars." That is how the arguments start for 99% of the proponents of paying athletes. If schools lost money, would you still be arguing they need to be paid? Of course not. Proponents of paying players, above and beyond what they are already compensated, are really arguing that those that capitalized on something inherently owe others. Simple as that. It's a philosophical difference that I think is often understated in these debates. Admit it proponents: you think because the universities "have," they should be required to give more than they currently do. And, what they currently give is pretty substantial.  No matter how much you down Play the value these kids receive, it is substantial. 

almost no single person, playing any particular sport, is inherently valuable to a school. They are fungible for the most part, even Heisman winners.  Do you want to know the reason people watch any particular player? I'll let you in on a secret: they wear the jersey of their school or their state school they grew up rooting for. These kids have almost no inherent, individualized value.  

To prove this, let's engage in an exercise: imagine there was an opt -out provision. Kids could decide to not accept any benefits, be required to pay tuition, rent, etc. in exchange for the ability to go sell their likeness and make money on the open market. Okay, you'd have an occasional Pryor doing tat or car commercials (or hell, even Nike maybe). But, what do you suppose the vast majority of athletes would choose? My guess is to take free tuition, free room, free meals. Likely 99% or more would. Where is the inherent value of these guys? There is none. They did nothing to create the great wealth, you and I did as consumers. 

Oh, and has previously been stated, no one makes them enter into this agreement. No one! Unfair? Do something else. 



Comment 03 Dec 2013

Oh, I wanted to also say that the fact they are starting a new network isn't enough. How are they making more money now? In the short term? In the long term? Saying it is so does not make it so. I would like to see the concrete steps that leads espn to vast riches by making people say false statements on tv. It's a huge assumption and if anyone us going to make the claim, they should have to back it up. Again, I don't deny a bias, but I feel it's not some concerted effort from higher ups and more likely what these people believe.