ZRod

I've read it before Landlord and I'm in total agreement about them getting huge benefits, but can you honestly say that it's ok for someone to profit off of a 18-24 year old kids success and not pay him a dime for that work? That would be like your professor taking your final project and submitting it to a company getting payed for it, but you don't see any of the money.

I'm torn on this issue, I honestly don't think student athletes should be getting a stipend just for being athletes. They are already getting a full ride to college and the ability to make a comfortable living after they graduate, with basically zero debt. Which is a great opportunity that most people don't get. If they want extra spending money then get a summer job like every other student, hell Marcel Jones used to work at the Grand in Lincoln. But the universities and NCAA to a certain extent are profiting of their image and likeness with jersey sales and what not like Accountability said and I don't think that is really fair. If you really want to give out stipends though your going to open up a huge can of worms! No matter how you split it someone is going to come out on the losing end. If you set a standard rate then when you factor in cost of living some athletes will be getting payed more than others. On the other hand if you do factor in cost of living, then the outward appearance is that some schools will be "paying" their athletes more and that's going to cause a huge sh#t storm when it's a prominent or dominant school.

Ummmm I think both of these teams are occupied the last week of the season I think they have been for the lat 95 years...

I'm ready for the new season as well. How convenient it's only 3 months away!

They're SC coach needs to be fire they look soft...

You trying to make fun of my status screw up here?

Its in a different language? I didn't have the audio up Yeah, its Italian or Portuguese I think. Maybe Spanish but I didn't recognize much of it.

That'd be great, but given Bo's history of promotion from within, I could see Fisher getting that promotion.... I've seen this several times on this board and for the life of me, I have no idea why. Yes, I like what he has done with the receivers. But, does that automatically make him OC material? It did for Scott.

LJS Article Glad Bo and I are on the same page.

Couple things from the article 1.) I wonder if Scott might feel a bit of a connection with Taylor. Both are tough as nails and hard nosed competitors who took a lot of heat early, and of all things it had quiet a bit to do with throwing the ball. 2.) I really got the impression that we might see a lot 3 man fronts this year with Pelini's comment about the defense being more "multiple". That's the first time I think I've heard him use that word in regards to the defense. I wonder if we also might see some amoeba looks since Wiscy gave us fits with that in the CC game, and I think there were some glimpses of it when Crick was here.

I think it has a lot more to do with another board that spread some rumors, over and over and over. There are OTHER BOARDS?! I've head the same rumor of other boards in existence, but they are of no account and less importance. I know of one that will no longer take new posters, you had to have loved. billy C to have an account. It's not the cable union conspiracty site is it? SMART BOMB!!!

Looks like he might be on meth.

Slightly Oregon-esk in my opinion. Not sure if that's good or bad though.

They are high! They aren't that high. They offer great views of watching the plays develop, probably have more legroom, and have easier access to concessions and restrooms. If I had access I would jump all over these tickets. You'd be surprised how far up there they are, probably about 135 feet above the field. I'm not saying it's not a good view, the seats are right on top of the field. But that's pretty far up there. No different than any new pro stadium out there. I have sat in the upper deck at Mile High (Sports Authority) and it isn't bad at all, and it's up there, and steep. Right, but the point is that's why the seats are cheaper...

Those numbers are hard to find. I've looked for Kyle Field but I can't find much, just that the upper deck may start at 73 feet. Ours is at 115 feet from ground level, however their upper deck is larger. All I know is that from sitting there in the endzone at Kyle it's way up and out there! The new addition to memorial will likely been on par height wise but it should be closer to the field than even their sideline stands I would think.

He said "super duper awesome"!

Something quick I threw together.

They are high! They aren't that high. They offer great views of watching the plays develop, probably have more legroom, and have easier access to concessions and restrooms. If I had access I would jump all over these tickets. You'd be surprised how far up there they are, probably about 135 feet above the field. I'm not saying it's not a good view, the seats are right on top of the field. But that's pretty far up there.

They are high!

Chauncey

How did I know? That would be a branch of science or art, however you view it, called philosophy my friend! Philosophy is not a branch of science - in fact, science could and would not exist without philosophical presuppositions with which to ground itself on. The point that I was making being that science is not the only and exhaustive source of truth, like BigRedBuster claims. I know exactly what your point was, it's been made before.

I'm going to miss that show.