Yes, but going with a red brick look to coordinate with campus would have been much groovier than the gray semigloss.

probably.

I can give you quite a few more examples of aesthetic flaws than acoustic block. Lets start with the water stains running down the asbestos tiles along the back walls of the interior.

Those are character lines.

Jesus, I didn't think people liked bathroom tiles so much. Sorry.

It's freaking June, pardon me for being on topic. By all means, let's add a few more pages to our "laser-focused" portal thread where nothing ever happens, except some people find more creative ways to rip on our own players.

If a guy has a good year, he’ll go to a power five. If a guy doesn’t play, he’ll go somewhere where he gets minutes. The only guys you’ll keep are guys who play, but aren’t stars. There’s no experience of seeing a player start as a freshman, develop, and be the man as a senior. The big criticism of the pros, by college fans, has always been “you’re rooting for laundry.” This is rooting for laundry on steroids, when every player is a free agent every offseason. The connection to Ohio University is tenuous at best. What’s the point of it all?

Re: the gray bricks, I remember it catching my eye on TV before I even attended OU, and it makes me happy every time I see they’re still there. Yes, they’re weird, but they’re “our” weird. I say keep them.

Does the data actually support this? Everybody insists the sky is falling. We lost nobody this past year. Did nobody play well?

That's a far cry from what AZBobcat said. The data you shared is that half of the POTY in non-P6 conferences transferred. Your data refers to the top 1% of performers (assume 10 teams per conference and 10 roster spots for the rough math).

AZBobcat said that anybody who has a good year will transfer. Obviously subjective, but we held onto guys who had good years, right? If "good" means all conference, then yeah -- we're gonna struggle to hold onto those guys.

Maybe you all are right, but to me the jury's out. Non power conference teams are gaining from the portal, as well. I'm just not convinced that when the dust settles this is going to be a "what's the point of it all?" caliber change to things. We're so early into this, that we just don't know what the status quo will end up looking like.

But look at the All MAC teams last year. 4 of 5 guys on the 1st team transferred to the MAC. 2 of 5 on the 2nd team. Emoni Bates on the 3rd team, Jaylin Hunter, Leon Ayers, Anderson Mirambeaux, Kaleb Thornton, Lamar Norton Jr, all got honorable mention and transferred to the MAC. And the only member of the all-Freshman team to transfer transferred to another MAC school.

The MAC loses some good players, it gets some good players. Hard for me to conclude there's no point in supporting Ohio basketball anymore.

My thoughts, exactly.

I'm guessing that in the NIL world in the non-P6 universe there will be a handful of coaches who will defy the odds and hang on to exceptional talent and have seasoned senior-laden teams that can compete well in the NCAA tournament and advance to the Elite 8 and occasionally Final Four rounds. This will probably be due to a combination of selective recruiting, superb locker room and off-the-court (or field) interactions with players, and an above average G5 NIL pool. I'm hoping that Boals and TA will be coaches like that with resources like that. Perhaps donations from deep-pocket athletically oriented alumni that used to go for such things as the IPC/MPC will now be funneled into the NIL Collective.

[A side note: It seems to me that these NIL Collectives are not really in the spirit of NIL, unless they actually involve using the name, image or likeness of the recipient for some kind of advertising. Otherwise, they are just outright payments to players for simply being a player at a school and would constitute a defacto salary. I'm sure legal minds better than mine will figure this all out, but I do wonder about it.]

I mean, I hear you. But I just don't get how one justifies restricting transfers given what you're saying. I mean, basically you're saying that AJ Brown might want to go play basketball with his brother. Is it somehow consistent with the NCAAs mission to keep that from happening? How does one justify it?


100% agree. The sport loses something. But I think I disagree with the premise. Would Trent have transferred if he wouldn't have had to sit out a year? If so, that sort of sucks. It basically means that players only stay at Ohio because of a contractual obligation.

Which is kind of the core issue here. The root of people's issues here are really about the "fan experience." And we're fans, so that makes sense. But the problem is that this is amateur athletics and the NCAA claims their mission is to educate first. Where does the fan experience fit into that mission, exactly? Certainly it's not a legally justifiable reason to restrict the freedom of an individual to study where they'd like.

Pro sports has a solution to this: employment. And that employment's structured with set duration contracts. Without that, I don't think the NCAA's going to have much of a leg to stand on if they try and restrict student movement. There aren't restrictions on a Chemistry Major's ability to transfer from one school to another, even if they're on scholarship. Hard to treat basketball players differently.

NDSU is an afterthought to who? Grant Nelson? I don't think so. What's the actual significance of "all of the credit" that Alabama gets?