menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
Page: 4 of 11
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 3:53 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
I asked you about other non employee compensation and the examples you provide are academic scholarships (which don't have the handcuffs), library membership (really?), and barter payments. Non of which are generating 100s of millions for the "employer."
Wow. 100s of millions, huh? Where's Ohio University's cut? Or are you saying it only generates 100s of millions for a select few?

We both know the answer to that.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 3:57 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.
Are you actually claiming that no one is suggesting that universities play players?
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 3:58 PM
You make a random comment from outside the exchange we have had. I reply you must be distracted. And that's a shot at you?

Wow. Just wow. OK.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 4:00 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
You make a random comment from outside the exchange we have had. I reply you must be distracted. And that's a shot at you?

Wow. Just wow. OK.
You said I was distracted by a "shiny object." And yet, now you claim that's not offensive.

Wow. Just wow.
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 4:00 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
I asked you about other non employee compensation and the examples you provide are academic scholarships (which don't have the handcuffs), library membership (really?), and barter payments. Non of which are generating 100s of millions for the "employer."
Wow. 100s of millions, huh? Where's Ohio University's cut? Or are you saying it only generates 100s of millions for a select few?

We both know the answer to that.
yes we do

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2016/4/12/114...
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 4:04 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Larry's Dog House. That's what will keep Ohio Football afloat. OSU will be bringing in millions from Nike, Budweiser, Levis, whoever. OU will be kept whole by the Burrito Buggy. [/QUOTE]We're not talking about 'keeping Ohio Football afloat.' We're talking about making the lives of our players slightly better. And that you can do that without changing amateur status is all the more reason why you should. This just puts NCAA athletes on the same amateur status as Olympians.

[QUOTE=Robert Fox]
Here's an alternative, leave amateur status alone. Let these athletes play for a 4 or 5 years. If they're good enough, they'll make millions. If they're not, they'll fall back on the degree they got for free. (I know that's news to you.)
Or, and hear me out, stop blindly supporting a completely un-American and anti-capitalist system because you value your own entertainment over the livelihood of others. This proposal strikes a perfect solid ground; players who don't go pro still have the degree to fall back on, and during the 4 or 5 years they were famous, nationally known athletes they're able to make some on merchandising and endorsements.

Will some players get richer than others? Yep. That's called capitalism.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 4:06 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.
Are you actually claiming that no one is suggesting that universities play players?
Yes. Not only am I claiming that, I'm pointing out that it's central to the legislation proposed in the title of this thread.

That you're not aware of that, still, is hilarious.
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 4:08 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
You make a random comment from outside the exchange we have had. I reply you must be distracted. And that's a shot at you?

Wow. Just wow. OK.
You said I was distracted by a "shiny object." And yet, now you claim that's not offensive.

Wow. Just wow.
Yea I dug real deep for that dreaded shiny object analogy. Sorry if that disturbed you.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 4:10:48 PM by cc-cat
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 4:12 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
I asked you about other non employee compensation and the examples you provide are academic scholarships (which don't have the handcuffs), library membership (really?), and barter payments. Non of which are generating 100s of millions for the "employer."
Wow. 100s of millions, huh? Where's Ohio University's cut? Or are you saying it only generates 100s of millions for a select few?

We both know the answer to that.
yes we do

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2016/4/12/114...
So the solution, then, is to allow the mega corporations to inject massive payments directly to players. Maybe tell a QB that if he scores three throwing TDs today, McDonald's will pay him $300k. What happens when he's got two throwing TDs and his coach replaces him in the fourth quarter because the game is basically over? Kid loses $300k? What if the kid works a deal with the coach. Splits the proceeds. Is all of that good with you?

Amateur status would be gone. College football--at least at that level--would be professional.

So if that's what you want, do it with the top teams only. Make a Super conference. Fine.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 4:13 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
You make a random comment from outside the exchange we have had. I reply you must be distracted. And that's a shot at you?

Wow. Just wow. OK.
You said I was distracted by a "shiny object." And yet, now you claim that's not offensive.

Wow. Just wow.
Yea I dug real deep for that dreaded shiny object analogy. Sorry if that disturbed you.
You're a jackass. I thought you were reasonable. I was wrong.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 4:15 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.
Are you actually claiming that no one is suggesting that universities play players?
Yes. Not only am I claiming that, I'm pointing out that it's central to the legislation proposed in the title of this thread.

That you're not aware of that, still, is hilarious.
The title of this thread is not limiting the discussion. It's about the entire argument of "paying players," be that from endorsements or universities, or whatever. I don't care if you agree on that.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 4:20 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.
Are you actually claiming that no one is suggesting that universities play players?
Yes. Not only am I claiming that, I'm pointing out that it's central to the legislation proposed in the title of this thread.

That you're not aware of that, still, is hilarious.
The title of this thread is not limiting the discussion. It's about the entire argument of "paying players," be that from endorsements or universities, or whatever. I don't care if you agree on that.
Well, hope you win the argument you're having with yourself, dude. You're doing a bang up job.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 4:21 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.
Are you actually claiming that no one is suggesting that universities play players?
Yes. Not only am I claiming that, I'm pointing out that it's central to the legislation proposed in the title of this thread.

That you're not aware of that, still, is hilarious.
The title of this thread is not limiting the discussion. It's about the entire argument of "paying players," be that from endorsements or universities, or whatever. I don't care if you agree on that.
Well, hope you win the argument you're having with yourself, dude. You're doing a bang up job.
I'm winning it with you.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 4:27 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Look man, we're on page three here and you just demonstrated you don't understand the law being proposed at all by talking about how the 'haves' can afford to pay salaries, while the 'have nots' can't.
Are you actually claiming that no one is suggesting that universities play players?
Yes. Not only am I claiming that, I'm pointing out that it's central to the legislation proposed in the title of this thread.

That you're not aware of that, still, is hilarious.
The title of this thread is not limiting the discussion. It's about the entire argument of "paying players," be that from endorsements or universities, or whatever. I don't care if you agree on that.
Well, hope you win the argument you're having with yourself, dude. You're doing a bang up job.
I'm winning it with you.
If the objective is to get super angry, you're definitely winning.
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 4:33 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
You make a random comment from outside the exchange we have had. I reply you must be distracted. And that's a shot at you?

Wow. Just wow. OK.
You said I was distracted by a "shiny object." And yet, now you claim that's not offensive.

Wow. Just wow.
Yea I dug real deep for that dreaded shiny object analogy. Sorry if that disturbed you.
You're a jackass. I thought you were reasonable. I was wrong.
Oh a shot at me - I guess we're even. Fair enough. But I don't think you are a jackass. I really don't. Honestly I don't. I never take it too seriously when people get emotional on a message board or comment section online.
mail
person
giacomo
9/16/2019 4:40 PM
There is so much back and forth in this thread there ought to be an orgasm.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 4:41 PM
No. Actually I feel pretty good. I think there are some whacky people on this site. I think you and CC take unnecessary shots at people, including me, and that escalates things. Then you, and he, like to pretend that you don't do those things. I think this conversation could have been far more considerate. I think you come across as very unprofessional and you think it helps your cause to take intellectual shots at me. I think that's silly and immature in the extreme. I also think it reveals much about your character. I think you're terribly one-sided. I doubt you'd be as big an asshole in person, but then again, who knows. I think you're intolerant of opposing points of view. That's even more obnoxious when the counter point of view is relatively popular and self-understood. I am disappointed that conservative thoughts are usually the vast minority on this site. I'm also disappointed that conservative posters are usually left to fight for themselves.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 5:03 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
No. Actually I feel pretty good. I think there are some whacky people on this site. I think you and CC take unnecessary shots at people, including me, and that escalates things. Then you, and he, like to pretend that you don't do those things. I think this conversation could have been far more considerate. I think you come across as very unprofessional and you think it helps your cause to take intellectual shots at me. I think that's silly and immature in the extreme. I also think it reveals much about your character. I think you're terribly one-sided. I doubt you'd be as big an asshole in person, but then again, who knows. I think you're intolerant of opposing points of view. That's even more obnoxious when the counter point of view is relatively popular and self-understood. I am disappointed that conservative thoughts are usually the vast minority on this site. I'm also disappointed that conservative posters are usually left to fight for themselves.
This is how you started the conversation: "Student athletes are working for free? They get nothing in return for their work? Huh."

Not to ask me to clarify, not with a question. With sarcasm.

And then when people respond in kind, you're surprised. I'm not really sure what to tell you except that people treat you how you treat them.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 5:05:58 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 5:05 PM
I didn't call him jackass. Even after he called me a jackass I didn't respond in kind.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 5:08 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
I didn't call him jackass. Even after he called me a jackass I didn't respond in kind.
And I didn't call him a dick when he called me a dick.

All I did was ask him what value his sarcastic response brings when he could have asked me a question or asked me to clarify my point. He chose the tone, he resorted to attacks, and now acting like the victim. It's a theme with him.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 5:08:31 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 9:24 PM
Have you asked yourself why I called you a jackass? Of course not. That would require thought.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 9:36 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
This is how you started the conversation: "Student athletes are working for free? They get nothing in return for their work? Huh."

Not to ask me to clarify, not with a question. With sarcasm.

And then when people respond in kind, you're surprised. I'm not really sure what to tell you except that people treat you how you treat them.
And I stand by those original comments. Notice they were not a personal attack on you. That's a point you'll undoubtedly miss. You were worked into a lather because I took a sarcastic shot at your position? And therefore you felt obligated to attack me personally?

Your revisionism is BS.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 9:49 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
This is how you started the conversation: "Student athletes are working for free? They get nothing in return for their work? Huh."

Not to ask me to clarify, not with a question. With sarcasm.

And then when people respond in kind, you're surprised. I'm not really sure what to tell you except that people treat you how you treat them.
And I stand by those original comments. Notice they were not a personal attack on you. That's a point you'll undoubtedly miss. You were worked into a lather because I took a sarcastic shot at your position? And therefore you felt obligated to attack me personally?

Your revisionism is BS.
Worked into a lather? I asked you to consider how you responded, in an attempt to avoid the same weird fit you throw here every time. My response to you was a request to engage on content, and to not be sarcastic for no reason.

And you responded to that by saying "some things never change" and insisting I was angry. I wasn't angry. I've just seen you do this exact same thing over and over and thought we might be able to avoid it if I pointed out that you needlessly went from 0 to asshole.

The record is right here on the page, man. Everybody can read it.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 9:57:03 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 9:53 PM
Yep. You missed it.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 9:59 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Yep. You missed it.
You were sarcastic in your very first response, called me boring, called me an asshole, and called cc a jackass.

If you can find equivalent attacks in his or I's posts, by all means quote them.

But I think you're actually just very, very sensitive and when you go back and look, you'll realize what everybody else sees.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 10:12:45 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Showing Messages: 76 - 100 of 252
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)