Spoken like a guy who's been around coaches for a looooong time :) JP, you sound just like a coach (and I mean that as a positive!). I always wondered how coaches go about keeping guys focused and motivated for the games that aren't supposed to be close. Do the coaches really get on the players and work on cleaning up mistakes, or do they work on stuff might come into play at a later date..... say.... late November against a team from the North?
I guess I'm just the outlier here, but I think every fan base has their own set of delusional fans. Our delusional fans are not as noticeable because the team is consistently solid and rarely really drops down for multiple years at a time, but we have our own delusional fans too.
If tOSU dropped to the level of UM for a decade or two, I'm pretty sure you could go onto any OSU internet board and find a lot of angry delusional fans posting.
I must admit though, reading their comments -- especially the really delusional ones -- brings me joy. Great thing to do when you're having a rough day at the office, it brings the cheer right back :D
lol, good luck with that line of reasoning :D
tOSU decided to clamp down and gain control of the resale market by going all digital. Now they are going to sell thousands fewer tickets. Funny how those unintended consequences work.......
You might be right about vetoing a person's passion leading to resentment, but if a wife feels strongly about something, going against those wishes usually does not end well for the husband, and definitely doesn't lead to a happy home life.
In this case, none of us know her true feelings about things or his perspective, but with real health issues looming over him might be a deciding factor. Seeing him crippled with pain from a brain cyst on the sidelines has to absolutely destroy his wife and kids, and what man wants to do that?
Agree 100%, you play stupid games you win stupid prizes, and you could argue the player deserved it. In your example you are exactly right, I don't have a right to dump a drink in your lap (or punch you or whatever), but you definitely deserve it. If I do it though, I might face consequences for my actions even though you completely deserved it. That's why in this case, both actions are penalized individually. The fan violated the code of conduct and got banned, and saying "well if he hadn't jumped here nothing would have happened!" is a losing argument. The NFL can decide if/how they want to punish the infraction of the player (going into the stands as a visitor).
Sorry about the extreme analogies, obviously getting a beer on you is not the same, I'm just trying to illustrate the point.
As others have already said, the number is in the middle of the seat, the guy sounds like a dumbass.
That said, tiny tiny tiny seats where you inevitably get smushed between people and have no space is yet another of many reasons why I don't often attend games. It's just not comfortable, I'll take my big comfy couch at home.
Butts have gotten exponentially bigger on average over the decades, but the seat sizes at the stadium have not (they've probably gotten smaller), kinda like the airplane tickets. It doesn't make sense.
Is someone putting a gun to their head and saying "you must go to this school and accept this deal"? No. If they don't like it, they are free to go do something else somewhere else. Sure you can negotiate your compensation. The negotiation goes something like this: "hey, I want xyz", and the school says "nope, sorry, we won't agree to that. Here are the terms. If you don't want them, we understand, you can ply your trade somewhere else". That is no different than any other person anywhere else.
You mention the issue right at the top of your post: "by not compensating them fairly". What exactly is "fair" compensation? Each person has to decide if what they get in compensation is "fair" given what they bring to the table. It's no different anywhere: if you don't think the compensation is sufficient, then it's your choice not to do it. Nobody is forcing you to.
So what if millions are going to the school or athletic department and not the player?? That's the deal, you can go to a school, accept that you will get a scholarship, free room and board, food, help with classes, tutoring, but not get to otherwise make money from playing your sport...... or you can say "no way, I don't think that's fair" and not do it.
Lets also not forget that for every person on an athletic scholarship that could make a ton of money based on their endorsements / image etc, there are 100 that can't possibly even come close to providing the value of that scholarship back to the school. Do you suppose the average person on a rowing scholarship is "exploiting" the university? Of course not, both sides agree to the stipulations of the deal up front and decide that it's good for them.
If some engineer working for Apple comes up with a great idea for a new feature that results in Apple selling an extra $10 billion worth of phones, do you think that engineer gets a "fair" share of that? No, the engineer gets exactly what they agreed to get by taking the job. I don't buy the whole "exploitation" logic at all, they are not any more exploited then every other person in the world who agrees to do something in return for something else.
Physical contact is not needed for assault to take place. That would be battery. For example, if I pull up my fist to get ready to strike you in the face, that could constitute assault even if I never touch you (it would be assault, and if there was actually a punch, it would be assault and battery).
We'll have to agree to disagree, but I can tell you for certain: that's not how it works in the legal sense. The law doesn't follow the "well, if he hadn't done this first none of this would have happened" logic.
A good example of this is if you set a booby trap in your house and a burglar gets killed. You could say "if he hadn't entered my house illegally nothing would have happened, so he bears some of the responsibility".... and it would get you nowhere. You would be held fully responsible as others have been in the past.
That probably depends on the jurisdiction, but generally, assault can be defined as “the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of harm". I don't have a link right now, but I do remember reading about cases where someone throwing a beer in someone else's face was in fact found to be an assault.
Pouring a beer on someone may or may not meet that definition, but it would not be difficult for someone to argue that if someone throws a beer at me, it's reasonable for me to have "apprehension of harm" -- in other words, to believe someone is trying or going to try to harm me. That makes it an assault (again, depending on the applicable laws).
Now here's a crazy hypothetical situation one of my law professors brought up many years ago. Lets say someone says something about your mom and you throw a beer in his face. Turns out, the guy has a crazy allergy to an ingredient in the beer, his throat swells shut and he dies. Guess what -- you could be charged with murder. Again, not a real situation, just an extreme example to illustrate the concept.
I agree with you, both did something wrong, but you said that Ryan bears some responsibility for the actions of the fan because he went into the stands. That's not how it works though. He bears no responsibility for the act of the fan. He bears responsibility for his own act in violation of the NFL rules against visiting players jumping in the stands. No more, no less.
No, that's not how it works. Lets say there's a rule that says I can't walk on a certain part of a sidewalk, and I decide to do it anyway. Some other guy sees me do it and decides to pummel me. By your logic, I would share the responsibility for what happened..... but that's not how the law works, nor should it be. If I'm not supposed to be on that sidewalk (just like the player wasn't supposed to jump in the stands, violating league policy), then I have to face whatever consequences are associated with my actions based on the law. It does not in any way give someone else the right to met out whatever punishment they decide is fair for that "infraction".
The player violated the rule, and the penalty is whatever the NFL says is the penalty for jumping in the stands. The fan violated code of conduct rules (and in fact could even be charged with assault if a district attorney decided to do it) and gets banned from the stadium.
Makes sense to me. The player did something he probably shouldn't have, and ended up getting doused in beer. The fan did something stupid he shouldn't have and is getting banned. Seems about right.
I never understood these idiot fans anyway. What in the world makes you think it's OK to pour a beer on someone? Would you do that in any other setting and think it's OK? .... not to mention, would even think of doing that in any other setting to some huge muscle bound guy who could stomp you into the ground? No, not likely... but yet fans decide to do these things.
There is no exploitation. Nobody is forced to attend a college or agree to play there under the rules. Basically, it's your choice as to whether you want to get your college education paid for and play the sport or not. If you feel that's exploitation, then you are free not to play.
That's where I think it would go. Nobody forces a school to join the NCAA, but if they do they have to abide by the rules of the organization. If they choose not to, then they can't play in NCAA events. Let Cali schools decide if they want to play or form their own version of the "G-League".
My understanding of the law is that it doesn't mandate that students get paid, but rather that it allows it. If an institution chooses to do so, then the NCAA will simply tell them they can no longer participate in the NCAA sanctioned events. Schools in CA will have to decide how they want to play it, but the way I see it only USC and Cali have any leverage. The rest would just get excluded from the NCAA and there would be barely a ripple. I personally don't care if USC and other CA schools vanish from the NCAA, that's much preferable than a situation where college football as we know it is destroyed and simply becomes triple A baseball or the G league in basketball. I for one would no longer care about college sports if it's just another professional league.
It's not an age thing, it's the simple fact that a greedy university is trying to trademark the most common word in the English language, It's absurd and makes them look like complete idiots. Even if by some miracle the trademark is granted, the rest of the world would rightfully see the university as greedy idiots, and rightfully so.
It's embarrassing to me as an alum that my alma mater even tried it. Hopefully they let it die now and don't try it again.
Yes, they've looked inept so far, but at the end of the day they're still 2-0 and they have the entire season to get better. I still think as long as Hairball is there we are pretty safe, but you never know.
lol, usually the September Heisman winners last at least through the end of the first couple of months.
Hairball hasn't won anything and it looks like more of the usual this year, but that fan base is even more delusional than most fan bases so they probably think it's just part of the Haurbaugh 4D chess master plan to trick Ohio State and beat the Buckeyes. National media still loves him, so their delusional fan base probably still supports them even though the natives are getting restless.
That 2021 class is starting to look stacked already.
I like reading / watching stories that (even if just temporarily) give me some hope in humanity.
From the same site as the OP link: https://www.wkrn.com/news/disney-sending-boy-who-gave-up-trip-to-help-hurricane-dorian-victims-to-disney-world/
A 6 year old saves up his pennies for a year so he can go to Disney World with his grandparents... but then when hurricane Dorian came along, he took everything he had saved up and spent it on food and water for the evacuees -- he made up a sign and stood on the side of the road and handed everything out himself. That's awesome, and then Disney got wind of that story and decided to reward the kid with a great trip to Disney. Win all around.
It always amazed me how programs that get great talent like USC, FSU etc could fall so far. Given the talent pool, the weather, the "scenery" etc etc, they are great places to recruit. The only way you don't win there is if you are a terrible terrible coach.