TheBadOwl's picture

TheBadOwl


MEMBER SINCE   January 07, 2012

Favorites

  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Braxton Miller, Carlos Hyde, Ryan Shazier, Malik Hooker
  • NHL TEAM: Columbus Blue Jackets
  • NBA TEAM: Cavs
  • MLB TEAM: #Windians!

Recent Activity

Comment 19 Sep 2019

Apparently the story behind it is that his grandmother is in hospice and he's very close to her and taking it super hard apparently. Stopped going to practice/class, nobody there knows where he is. 

Comment 15 Sep 2019

Also during halftime of Texas Tech and Arizona. 

Huge conspiracy though IMO if they don't mention Ohio State's greatness every time they cut back from a commercial break regardless of program. I want them to lead into tennis matches talking about Justin Fields as a dark horse Heisman candidate. Anything less just proves that they're in bed with the SEC!!!!!! 

Comment 15 Sep 2019

So why is ESPN not also pumping up the ACC then? They own ACC Network, right? 

Not to mention that CBS gets all of the marquee SEC games during the regular season AND the SEC championship.

Besides, ESPN doesn't pick the playoff teams, the committee does. But none of that matters because it is only week three.

Comment 10 Sep 2019

You can't just pay the football and men's basketball players.

Those are the defined revenue sports (although some programs at some schools also drive revenue) so the solution here is to give those players a stipend and also implement the Olympic model. For example, Katie Ledecky swam at Stanford while winning Olympic and World Championship medals and only got to keep a small portion of the prize money awarded. Stanford women's swimming isn't a revenue generating sport, but standouts like Ledecky would be able to keep any international money + sign endorsement deals for fair market value while keeping her amateur status. 

This means some colleges would have to shell out more money than others or less money per student than a college that has less sports.

I think you're missing what I said above. The money wouldn't be coming from the colleges, it would be coming from the NCAA and its corporate sponsors. Theoretically could also have a portion of it funded by conferences with large TV deals. 

The TV deals don't have a fixed value, either, they're subject to demand-driven bidding wars. If the NCAA and its conferences had to take a portion of that money to pay the players, they could ask for more money in those negotiations and still make absurdly high profits. 

Comment 09 Sep 2019

Not to mention that the school has built-in margins for those tuition and board figures, so using that as a benchmark is grossly inflating how much of a financial commitment the schools actually have to their athletes. 

Comment 09 Sep 2019

So, the four year cost of room/board/tuition is 55(ish)k at Notre Dame, Stanford, and Northwestern.

That's what students pay, yes, but the universities have built-in margins for that. It doesn't cost any of those places 55k to let a student attend, and the average student there 1) doesn't make the university millions in TV/conference deal, 2) incurs far less risk to their bodies and minds and 3) is allowed to work part-time to have some spending money. 

The argument for paying the players has never been that they don't get any value from their scholarships; the argument is that the value they provide grossly exceeds the value of the scholarship while they're not able to use their own likeness for commercial purposes while the NCAA rakes in billions of dollars each year in TV money. 

There are roughly 15,000 combined D-1 basketball players and FBS football players. Giving them each a stipend of, say, $30k per year would cost $450 million per year. 

The NCAA makes more than twice that on March Madness alone – without even going into how much individual conferences make from their respective TV deals in other sports. That's not a static figure, either – NCAA revenue goes up each year. Implementing a stipend doesn't mean that the NCAA would take money away from any other students, and they could easily fund it by upping sponsorship costs for TV deals and March Madness. 

Comment 04 Sep 2019

Y'all act like you're from Cincinnati but haven't even asked about high schools yet, smh. 

Gotta start taking lessons in how to do a Cincinnati flex from stxbuck. 

Does this mean there are at least 86 other "CincyBuck" users?  What a wild ride it's been...

Comment 04 Sep 2019

But...he's paid to get clicks so when you dip your toes into the "OSU isn't great" pond, the clicking will come fast and hard.

Or maybe – just maybe! – he doesn't think Ohio State looked like a top five team on Saturday.

Comment 30 Aug 2019

It's like people scour the site they claim to not read to find any slight, however minor, to get outraged over.

Unpopular opinion: A decent-sized chunk of our fan base has a bit of a persecution complex and is absolutely insufferable about it.

Example: Losing their shit over Jack Miller's ESPN300 rating (ignoring that ESPN was higher on some OSU commits than 247) only to see him see similar drops in Rivals and 247 later that same week. Or how when a national media outlet writes a 3,000 word feature on someone affiliated with the program, it gets far less attention than when OSU shows up 6th on a list where people think they should be 2nd or 3rd. 

Might have something to do with the local media's unabashed homerism (see: multiple beat writers tweeting jokes regularly about Michigan and Jim Harbaugh as if they were fans instead of objective reporters) that has completely shifted the perception of what quality coverage of this program actually looks like.  

Comment 11 Aug 2019

but knowing that it's a netflix production

It's not; Netflix bought the distribution rights (as they have with many documentaries) but had no role in creating the film. 

That's how most documentaries make it to streaming – they're produced/filmed by (usually) independent filmmakers, then they pitch the rights to the different streaming services.

Another misconception: it's extremely rare for subjects of documentaries to be paid by the filmmakers – and when they are (as was the case in one of the recent Fyre Festival docs) it's seen as highly unethical. Even after these filmmakers sell the rights to streaming services, the subjects don't get a cut.  

Comment 07 Aug 2019

That's what I'm referring to, though.

Should Texas be ranked that high? I don't know, but it's a preseason poll so really you can rank anyone anywhere because the justifications for any ranking at this point are all over the place. 

At the end of the day, Ohio State is ranked one spot lower than people think they should be. People in this thread act like Texas at 5 is a direct insult to their families. 

Comment 07 Aug 2019

Being that riled up over a preseason poll that has us one spot lower than we should be is probably a bigger sign of insanity imo 

Comment 07 Aug 2019

have no upgrade in their players this year, but somehow everyone thinks they'll be better than last year?

Returning players tend to be better with an additional year of experience + offseason. Ratings like these tend to prioritize returning talent – Michigan has a lot of that – rather than pure upside (although this poll seems higher on OSU relative to Michigan compared to others).

Also, Michigan's new offensive scheme actually comes from after World War II so they should see some improvement there. 

Comment 07 Aug 2019

Are people really getting bent out of shape out of *one* poll having us at six while most others have us at five? C'mon guys this shit does not matter at all. 

Comment 06 Aug 2019

They're obviously not taking him, but Cox was good enough to play quite a bit as a true freshman at a position that's not his natural one (OLB instead of DE) for one of the five best teams in the country. If he was going to end up here (obviously he's not) he could definitely take reps from Fridiay and JJB at least.