Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RedRamage


  1. On 11/19/2019 at 11:51 AM, Sydney_Fife said:

    I want people banned for life. Pete Rose betting on his own team earned a lifetime ban. These guys potentially doing what they did ruined seasons and postseasons. It tainted everything they ever accomplished. In short, screw everyone who was complicit in this.

    I agree that this is pretty serious and I think it needs serious punishment.  BUT... I don't put in on the level of gambling for one big reason:

    The assumption is with sign stealing that you're trying to improve your team and win more.  As bad as that is you can count on them still trying as hard as possible.  There's really no point in stealing signs to try and play worse.

    With gambling there's always the concern of fixing a game.  That's what makes it so terrible... that a player or players or manager would intentionally throw a game is the reason gambling is the worst crime in sports.

    Again, that's not to say that this is bad (at least imho) and should be punished (again, imho) but I wouldn't put it at the same level of gambling.

    • Like 2

  2. What I don't understand is why Lou and Tram weren't both voted in together.  I agree that they are both borderline, but both seemed certain to get in these days.  So why didn't anyone figure that it makes sense that two guys who played together for so long as a double-play combo... who are being considered in part because of longevity of their careers... why would they not be considered together?

    About the only reason I can think of is that they didn't want people to assume they got in BECAUSE they played together for so long.  But I don't know that anyone would really have argued that they didn't deserve it and only got the nod because of the tenure.


  3. Here's a Detnews story on it: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2019/11/15/cleveland-browns-myles-garrett-suspended-rest-season-using-helmet-as-weapon/4202755002/

    Suspensions (according the link above):
     

    • Browns defensive end Myles Garrett was suspended for at least the rest of the regular season and postseason by the NFL on Friday for using a helmet “as a weapon” and striking Pittsburgh quarterback Mason Rudolph in the head.
    • Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey was suspended three games for punching and kicking Garrett
    • Browns defensive tackle Larry Ogunjobi was suspended for one game. He shoved Rudolph to the ground from behind during the melee.

    Now, looking at the video in the above tweet, I'm a little surprised that Rudolph didn't get some punishment as well.  Maybe not a suspension, but a fine wouldn't be out of line.  It's pretty clear that Rudolph was trying to rip off Garrett's helmet (see 20-25 second mark in video).  Obviously this does not excuse Garrett at all... but my guess is Rudolph's actions caused Garrett to lose it.

    Again, clearly does NOT excuse Garrett ripping off Rudolph's helmet (two wrong's don't make a right) and absolutely does not excuse him hitting Rudolph with the helmet after words.


  4. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2019/11/13/ex-tiger-mike-fiers-astros-used-camera-steal-signs-during-championship-season/2585212001/

    The short version is this: Camera in CF pointed at catcher, TV was in hallway near Astro's dugout.  When an off-speed pitch was indicated someone would bang a trashcan to signal the Astro Batter.

    Mike Fiers, who pitched for the Astros in '17, when this was supposedly going on, is saying it did happen.  MLB investigating.

    For the record, I have no problem stealing signs by the players and/or coaching who are on the field or in the dugout not using any technology.  I have no problem with a team trying to figure out what a first or third baseman are signaling to runners/batters.  I have no problem with a runner on base trying to signal to a batter.  As long as it's happening on the field by the people in the game, it should be legal imho.

    But using technology like cameras and relay from people not in the game is wrong (again imho) because it's uneven.  The Astros, if they did indeed do this, obviously weren't sharing this video feed with the opposition when the Astros were pitching.  Nor were they making the other team aware they were using stuff outside of the normal rules so that the opposing team could combat it.


  5. 3 hours ago, Shelton said:

    Yeah, you look at the hockey model and you’ve got college teams with players that have been drafted and NHL teams holding their rights. Every year at the end of the season you have guys going straight to the team that already drafted them. 

    I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been a bigger attempt as a handful of major schools or a couple of the big conferences just dropping out of NCAA.


  6. 3 hours ago, Shelton said:

    If the NCAA decides that they should let the players benefit from their NIL, the players org can step in and negotiate their share of tv rights. 

    ...

    And I don’t think title IX would be a problem. Title IX is fairly vague. I think so long as female athletes are also afforded the opportunity to negotiate their share of rights, it would be ok. 

    If it was done this way, then I would agree that Title IX is out of the picture.  As long as the school isn't paying directly and as long as the schools aren't doing anything the facilitate, organize, or establish anything for the major sports that they aren't also doing for all sports, then Title IX shouldn't come into play.

    Of course that doesn't mean that someone won't complain about it, but then it's up to the courts to decide.


  7. 30 minutes ago, Shelton said:

    I could see tv money being allowed to be shared with players...

    The problem with this will be Title IX.  I'm sure the TV deals are with the schools (or conferences) and therefore it would be the schools pays the students.  That means the money would have to be shared equally among male and female students, even though the Football and men's Basketball are where the vast majority of the money is coming in for.

    The endorsement path means the money is coming from outside of the school, which means it won't be a Title IX issue. 


  8. 15 hours ago, Deleterious said:

    Love that the biggest question people have is if the NCAA Football video game will come back or not.

     

    The Video Game is actually one area where this could fairly be done if you just gave the same percentage to each player.

    Another thought I had was to pool the money received and divide it among the players.  The difficulty here would be that it wouldn't make sense to simply have every player who makes a team get the same cut... players would have to be ranked in some manner... 10-1.  A level 10 player (ie, a super star) would get 10 shares of endorsement money while a level 1 player (the depth guy who probably doesn't make the team us he's the nephew of the WR's coaches childhood friend) gets 1 share.

    Of course, this means players have to be some how ranked and what if a player ends up a 3 when he thinks he's a 1?  Is there some way to appeal the process?  And what is an unknown player ends up a diamond in the rough and rockets to stardom?  Can he get his rank re-evaluated half-way through the year?

    And what about players who just make zero effort to get endorsement deals? Is it fair to allow them to collect if they do zero work? Or do we require that players have an endorsement deal so that they're contributing to the pot before they're allowed to take from the pot?

    And suddenly things have gotten more complicated than the US Tax code...


  9. 14 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

    So like... are you ever..... happy?

    No, 6Hop only follow the Lions for what he terms "comic relief." Unfortunately it can be a little annoying at times.

    But in this case it would have been really dumb for the Lions to have traded for anyone of consequence.  They have a number of holes in the team which a key pickup might fill, but they also have an OL that can't run block worth crap, questions in the secondary due to a previous trade and Slay's injury, a DL which is underperforming, and truthfully questions at HC.

    All of this says that it seems unlikely that the Lions will make a serious push for a long playoff run this year.  Given this, why in the world would they mortgage their future to push this year?  Just to get to the playoffs?  *Maybe* win one playoff game? (And yeah, I know that's something they haven't in decades, but the point is I don't want to give away future assets *just* for one playoff win.)

    This was a time to stand pat.  If the right trade came along, sure... try it.  But don't sell out for a piece or two that *might* help win 10 games instead of 9.

    • Like 2

  10. If the goal it to make it so that a school can't "pay to win" then this defeats this process.  Whether good or bad, whether it's happening under the table or not, allowing this would allow booster to pack their schools and would hurt smaller schools I think.

    I'm not opposed, at all, to finding a way to pay college athletes, but this process, in my humble opinion, is not a good idea.  I supposed one can argue that the "Hundred Dollar Handshake" already exists and this just makes it legitimate, but don't like this idea. 

    In theory, Joe Millionaire gets together with his 9 other buddies and they setup up sponsorship deal so that anyone who makes University of State's Football deal gets to be a spokes person for company X, and gets paid $10,000.  (Btw, Company X just happens to be the supplier to the team of item Z that the team needs and buys in large quantities.)  If you're a 2nd-tier guy... someone who's a depth guy at University of State, but who would be a starter at Northsouthern State University, what would you do?  Would you try to start at NSU, be a starter for a so-so middle of the road team or collect $10K per team at UofS?

    Now Jane Billionaire, who happened to go to State University decides she wants her team to do better, so gets together with her friends and pony up $12K per year per student.  Isn't a player more likely to chose SU vs. UofS?  Well, until Joe and friends bump their's up to $13K...

    Now, if you're okay with that, then no problem.  It isn't really that different from how pro-sports work (minus the salary cap in the leagues that have it), but it destroys any semblance of an even playing field and, like I said, I think it'll hurt the smaller schools who don't have the millionaire backers.

    • Like 1

  11. 19 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    Denver winning or losing the game is really irrelevant. It's the fact the Bears were down late to an inferior team. Their offense is not very good. They simply aren't going to run away from teams.

    I know... it was just a passive aggressive shot at people who don't think the refs robbed the Lions in the Packers game.  And yes, I'm a very petty individual.


  12. 11 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    Also, people talk about the schedule being "easier" as we get down the stretch. Considering we bungled the game away against a supposed cakewalk opponent in Arizona, don't Bucs, Giants, Broncos, and Raiders fans have every right to look at the game on the schedule against us and say "thank god, we're playing the lowly Lions who couldn't even beat a rookie QB and HC, that should be a win for us." Don't they deserve the right to look at our game on their schedule and check it off as a win?

    After watching out defense turn into a trainwreck and considering the Cardinals game, I don't know that we can consider any of the aforementioned games as wins at this point. That in my mind, adds further credulity to the narrative that the season is over.

    I think that's a very fair statement to make.  If the Lions don't want them to think that way, beat 'em.

    This was the first SOL game of the year for me.  The rest I could always seem a glimmer of hope or a bright spot or something to look at and say: Yeah, this is a good team.

    This one felt like the Vikings just went out there and coached and played better than them top to bottom.


  13. 9 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

    There was a song some local guy wrote about that song.........a country song  and I remember the chorus

    "The Bucs stop here at our Motor City home, the Lions are unbeaten at the Sil-ver-dome"

    Well, they wound up going 7-1 at home that year

    I'm hesitant to call out people for not expressing emotion the way I want them too.  Everyone expresses themselves differently and just because I would react a certain way in a certain situation doesn't mean they would as well.

    Having said that, I honestly felt like there was just a lack of intensity in the game.  It didn't feel like they played hard and were just beat... it just felt like there wasn't that much heart in the game.  And when there doesn't feel like there's any heart in the post game pressers either, I can't fault someone too much for being upset with that.


  14. 2 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

    You dont think the nfl would care about losing its number 2 advertiser?!

    I think that the NFL is an attractive product that many advertisers would be interested in joining in on.  I think that they would probably be able to find replacements without too much difficulty.  It may not be super easy, but I also won't think it would be impossible.

    Another thing to consider is this: Who is the NFL?  Ultimately who are the people to have control and final say in the NFL?  It's the owner, right?  So, if you were one of 32 people who was ultimately in charge, how would you feel if 1 of the 32 was trying to manipulate the other 31 by risking pulling funds?

    "You have to do what I say, or I'm gonna risk costing y'all money if you don't!"

    If it was a situation where they really would lose money (like 20-30 years ago before the NFL was the dominate sport in the nation) then yeah, they might fold.  But these days I gotta think that if 1 owner make a threat like that a good number of the other 31 would be pretty pissed and more than willing to call the bluff. (This assumes that the other 31 disagree with the 1.)

×
×
  • Create New...