K9Buck

5 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

That wasn't the question you asked.

 

I know.  My point was, should people be paid when their image is used by media?  Should Trump be compensated every time CNN publishes his image?  But you have a point.  Sports Illustrated has been cashing in for years on images of players.

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Ha...those guys loving making money...for themesevles

Sure.  Who doesn't?

Just to be clear, I have no problem with paying players.  There will be unintended consequences that the California legislature is not taking into consideration.  If schools have to start paying players, they might conceivably have to cut scholarships for non-revenue sports.  But maybe that's fair.  Why should volleyball players get a free ride on the backs of football players?  

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Why would anyone be against anyone else making money?

You mean besides university presidents and the NCAA?

1 hour ago, yort2000 said:

 

 

Do professional players get paid when a media outlet publishes their picture?  I don't think so.

1 minute ago, Omaha-Husker said:

 

This is a liberal state providing a very libertarian option for athletes.  Cali is proposing that athletes be able to market their names in the free market to be able to earn whatever sponsors would pay them.  This is an incredibly capitalistic proposal that you should support based on your stated beliefs.

I'm ok with paying players.  I generally disagree with government intervening in a private transaction between private people.  

Don't liberals tell us all the time that Twitter and Facebook are private companies and can do as they please?  Why can't universities and the NCAA do as they please?    

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

Again, false.

 

You asked for examples of "what isn't detrimentally affected once the government decides to step in and take over." The people who live in cities that were filled with smog 30-40 years ago think the Clean Air Act is great. My mom thinks Medicare is great. Having highways to drive on and a police force and a fire department are all great things. If these things were done for profit there would be a crapton of small towns that didn't have them. People take what they get due to the government for granted.

 

Sometimes policies preventing people from being cheated, hurt, or killed does cost companies some extra money, but that doesn't mean said policies are "delivering less."

 

 

Also, it's really weird to me that you're okay with the NCAA telling players they can't make money off their own likeness but you're mad about the government taking things over.

I don't believe that it's necessary for the government to intervene in collegiate sports.  Is there anything that you don't want the government running?  I generally support free-market capitalism.  The view that government must control everything is a philosophy that has been shared throughout history by communists, fascists and socialists alike.  No thanks. 

Just now, LumberJackSker said:

What if espn runs a commercials leading up to a match up of ranked teams and they show players from those teams in the commercial. Espn gets money from running adds during that game that people are watching because of the players participating in it.

 

I have no problem with espn, fox , cbs or nbc having to compensate players in some way.

I don't necessarily have a problem with paying college players, but I hope our beloved game of college football isn't detrimentally affected.  I presume that it would be as a result of government trying to manage it.  

45 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

If these multi billion dollar companies are going to continue to make insane amounts of money off the players they deserve a cut. In what other scenario does a company make so much money without compensating the people featured? 

 

However, I think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't lead to recruiting advantages. Otherwise you'll see power even more consolidated and it'll be the same schools getting the best recruits and winning over and over again. So, I don't think the money can come from the schools and maybe not even the NCAA.

Well, if universities have to pay players, that could mean less money for scholarships in other sports.  But maybe that's fair because, the truth is, other athletes benefit from the popularity of revenue sports.  Perhaps the money being spent on their scholarships should actually instead go to the players who are bringing in the fans.  We call that capitalism.  

43 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

If these multi billion dollar companies are going to continue to make insane amounts of money off the players they deserve a cut. In what other scenario does a company make so much money without compensating the people featured? 

 

However, I think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't lead to recruiting advantages. Otherwise you'll see power even more consolidated and it'll be the same schools getting the best recruits and winning over and over again. So, I don't think the money can come from the schools and maybe not even the NCAA.

41 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

Lots of things.

 

And "take over" is an exaggeration, anyway.

 

 

It doesn't.

LOL.  Virtually everything government touches ends up costing more and delivering less.  Do you really want the state of California running the NCAA?  Thank God for the electoral college.  

40 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The former NCAA College Football video game was one. College teams used to sell jerseys of their top players each year. Team autographed footballs are sold all the time  Those are just a few. 

The video game was abolished years ago due to a lawsuit.  Can you provide a CURRENT and specific example of someone profiting off of the image of a player's likeness?  

6 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The NCAA and the schools profit from using players likenesses all the time. 

Ok.  Can you provide a specific example?

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

To me, if someone else is getting paid for a players likeness, the player has just as much right to get paid for it.

I'm not aware of anyone getting paid for a player's likeness.  Are you?

33 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If we're comparing the quality of governance/regulation by the NCAA and the US government, I'll take the US government every time.

I don't share that view.  I don't agree with the concept of the government injecting itself into every facet of our lives.  Then again, I'm not a statist.  If government didn't wreck everything it touched, I might be inclined to agree with you.  

I understand that the state of California may pass a law that would require the NCAA to permit athletes to be compensated for ''their likeness''. Do you support this potential new law? 

I'm not Nostradamus so I won't make any predictions on how it would affect NCAA athletics, but I'll take a guess that such a law would be detrimental. After all, what isn't detrimentally affected once the government decides to step in and take over?

On 7/8/2019 at 1:59 PM, deedsker said:

Luke Fickell seems to be a good coach after turning around Cincy in year 2. He was handed a less ideal situation, but still struggled to get over the hump in his one year as the head coach at tOSU. Similar QB situation in Fields vs. Bausermann to Miller and tOSU coming off very successful seasons. 

 

Day may prove to be a Jimbo Fisher (FSU) or Lincoln Riley, or could be a Randy Shannon (Miami (FL)) or Ron Zook (Florida).

Actually, Fickell was the only tOSU coach to ever lose 7 games in a season.  

8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I went and looked at all of Alabama's losses since 2011:

 

'11 LSU - dual threat

'12 A&M - dual threat

'13 Auburn - dual threat

'13 Oklahoma - dual threat

'14 Ole Miss - drop back

'14 Ohio State - Cardale wasn't a true dual threat but he was used in the running game a lot in crucial design

'15 Ole Miss - Chad Kelly seemed like he had some decent mobility but the scheme was more pro style

'16 Clemson - dual threat

'17 Auburn - Stidham isn't really dual threat but he got 1/3 of his season's rushing yards in that game

'18 Clemson - pro style

 

 

Good post.  It's my personal opinion that a pro-style system is the best for our program, but that's not to say that it's the only way to win.  As soon as we went to a pro-style QB, we began getting interest from the cream of the WR recruiting crop.  So, yea, I prefer a system wherein we have an elite QB throwing to elite receivers.  That opens the running game and it's a fun system to watch and to play in.  

14 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Day is wildly more competent than Riley was, but man I get triggered hearing s#!t like this remembering how it went for us.

I'm not sold that Fields is going to be a good pro-style, college QB.  He may be ''good'' in that he may be able to gain yards and scores running the ball, but that isn't ''pro-style'' to me.  Still, we had to take him because he is probably better than what we had in the pipeline.  Tate Martell was another one of those running QB's that Meyer loved so much who was no longer a fit at tOSU.  Right now, we have commitments from the #2 pro-style QB for 2020 and the #5 for 2021.  

I was never a fan of Meyer's offenses, although it was fine when we were winning.  I thought they were gimmicky.  My belief is to recruit GREAT pro-style players and run a pro-style system.  The top talent wants to play in that type of a system in order to be ready for the NFL.  As well, the way to beat Bama, Clemson, etc. is to have a GREAT quarterback that can drop back and throw dimes across the field to streaking receivers or pitch it to the all-world back that can take it to the house.  The QB should be a distributor and NOT a jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none.  Mediocre teams need to put their best athlete at QB so that the ball is in his hands all the time.  Great programs shouldn't have to do that.  

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

The overwhelming answer you'll get from Nebraska fans regarding Texas is 'f#&% no'. Not in a million years with a million foot pole. 

 

We have a very special disdain for them. I'd say it's 75% justified and proper and 25% butthurt animosity for getting bullied and dominated so badly, but they're a cancerous tumor that invades it's host (conference), spreads, takes over, and destroys.

Ha ha.  Thanks.  I know many OU fans who feel the same way.  They would love to get out of the Big12 but it seems about half would like to go to the SEC and the other half to the B1G.  The above poster is probably correct, it would be OU and Kansas.  

I think it would be great.  Although I've heard some talk of a four-pod system, whatever that is.  

Anyway, would you like to have your old rivalry with OU every black Friday?  As a kid growing up in Ohio, I always looked forward to those matchups.  Every day after Thanksgiving it was time to get around the TV and what you boys slug it out for the Big-8 title.  Ah, the good old days!  

I'm inclined to believe that getting both OU and Texas into the B1G would help your recruiting efforts.  

Your thoughts?

On 6/7/2019 at 6:31 PM, BlitzFirst said:

 

I mean I've read a few different ones giving quite a bit of hype to him...I don't just make s#!t up.  Here's a few with about 30 seconds of googling.

 

1. https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-quarterback-rankings-2019
2. https://www.offtackleempire.com/2019/4/8/18300228/best-quarterback-in-the-big-ten-2019-patterson-martinez-fields-stanley
3. In this piece it shows JF has same Heisman odds to win as AM because, you know...so much evidence shows that he's absolutely as good as AM and will put up all those numbers...his appx 40 passes in college ball ensures that.

Fields SHOULD have a nice year in Columbus.  If he doesn't, then he's probably a bust and that would be a real shame for Buckeyes as Fields is the highest rated player to play for Ohio State since recruiting services began rating players.  

As for betting odds, Fields might not be a bad bet in that the odds are probably very good and Fields may end up running AND throwing for a lot of yards and a lot of scores.  Who knows?  That's why they call it ''gambling''.  

On 5/28/2019 at 3:24 PM, Undone said:

It'll be interesting to see whether they'll stick with an offensive scheme that resembled more of a 'Texas Mack Brown' style passing spread that they had with Haskins, or if they'll go back to more of the Power Run Spread that they had ran more of in most of Meyer's previous seasons there.

Day wants to run a pro-style offense and get away from Meyer's running-QB system, although he may need to run Justin Fields more than he would like until such time that he has his QB's in the program, but that will take at least two years.  

On 5/24/2019 at 1:27 PM, Landlord said:

 

 

Utah didn't immediately keep the same leve of success but they certainly did a great job sustaining their program after him. Four years later they went undefeated and depantsed an Alabama team that was ranked #1 for like 5 weeks straight.

 

Florida, you're right.

 

tOSU seems to sustain success through everyone though.

Well, when you're the coach of the Florida Gators and you lose, at home, to Georgia Southern, you're probably not the right coach for that program.  Florida should have hired Dan Mullen when Meyer left.  Mullen IS a good coach with a record of over-achieving.  Don't be shocked if the Gators beat Georgia this year and play for the SEC title. 

On 5/24/2019 at 12:59 PM, Salsa Red said:

I don't think programs have sustained success after Meyer leaves them. We'll see with Day.

A few thoughts from a Buckeye:

Ryan Day was the offensive coordinator for two years under Meyer.  Meyer describes Day as the best OC he's ever had.  By hiring ''in-house'', there is a lot of continuity.  The strength and conditioning guys and the recruiting coordinator and other key personnel hand-picked by Meyer remain in the program.  Day retained most of the coaches but did make three coaching changes on defense.  Day was a QB coach under Chip Kelly with the Philadelphia Eagles and the San Francisco 49er's.  Ohio State is putting together another top-5 recruiting class for 2020.   Meyer remains employed at Ohio State in the athletic department and can continue to help the program.  

We will see what Day does.  He certainly has received a LOT of support and FAR more than a brand new coach hired from outside of the program would have received. 

On 5/24/2019 at 12:24 PM, DevoHusker said:

 

I cant decide if Urban leaving is going to make much of a difference or not...

Neither can we Buckeyes.