Jump to content

uncle bernard

Members
  • Content Count

    380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

uncle bernard last won the day on July 8

uncle bernard had the most liked content!

About uncle bernard

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Absolutely. That would at least be an attempt to score points. I can't believe we're still doing this by the way. Grown adults can't accept a case of bad sportsmanship 10 years later because it hurts their feelings to see their heroes make a mistake. Grow up.
  2. Vito-Alvarez should have a few big exchanges. No idea what to expect from Pletcher-Caldwell.
  3. I was responding to a specific claim about a school like Stanford charging 100k. An average contribution of 15k/year is still obviously way too high. You don't have to convince me that the loan crisis is serious. I work at a university. I see it every day.
  4. Are we sure either of them transfer right away? They technically have 1 season left at Stanford.
  5. I'm hoping his guys will stay for the final year, so they can go out with a bang. I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving right away though.
  6. Tuition is certainly not over 100k a year anywhere. The highest tuition sticker price you'll see are at the ivies of around 50k. Some graduate programs will be a little higher. And that's the sticker price. Almost nobody actually pays anywhere near that. I think the average family contribution for Harvard is somewhere around 10-15k. I grew up middle to maybe even upper-middle class, and my estimated contribution for Harvard was like around that. There are no merit scholarships (completely need based) at the ivies, so your cost to attend is determined by your parents income and ability to contribute. The inflated sticker prices are mostly a symbol of prestige and nothing more. Incidentally, the students you want to deport are the only ones actually paying sticker price for tuition usually. That's why this is such a huge deal. If they're deported, a huge number will drop their programs and the universities will have a huge shortfall in tuition income. Can you explain the policy justification for deporting exchange students here legally on visas? Outside of a general idea that "foreigner=bad."
  7. Okay, but only one of those is a part of the academic core experience. I love wrestling as much as anyone, but if universities have to choose between funding academic or athletic endeavors, they should 100% fund the academics. The writing has been on the wall for a few months. Universities have been hit hard. The new potential ICE rule deporting international students whose institutions are online for the year could completely cripple many schools. Extracurriculars that don't make a profit for the school will be on the chopping block, and that's probably how it should be. Unfortunately, wrestling falls under this category.
  8. Both. Just the presence of video coverage alone has improved the landscape tremendously. Even 10 years ago, it was hard to find matches. Now, it's a shocking inconvenience when I can't find video of a match I want to see. Flo was undoubtedly the driver of increased video coverage.
  9. I just think our disagreement (or lack thereof) was finally clarified. I don't have any illusions about a private business always having to act in the best interest of the public. I don't live in a fantasy where that exists. I just don't like the BS that flo uses to cover up that reality. They should be honest and let their contribution to the sport stand on its own merits. Anyone with a brain can see how much better the fan landscape is now compared to 15 years ago.
  10. Exactly!!! It's the 10 minutes of BS I was critiquing. His final admission of the obvious reality was 100x more honest and genuine than anything he said in the first 10 minutes.
  11. I didn't include the apology part because I was providing a general summary, and I think the rest of my post makes pretty clear that I agreed with Askren's take (and mostly yours). My problem (which is probably an overstatement as I don't care all that much; it's a slow period right now) has always been with the self-righteous way some of them present themselves. CP's opening statement, which you correctly pointed out was cringey, is exactly the type of BS that annoys me and others. Just be honest about what you're doing as a business. I wrote my post right after Askren's derailing, but that ironically led to a much more honest and genuine discussion of what Flo does afterwards where CP acknowledged that they were running a business, not a charity, and that requires them to do things that don't always 100% benefit "the sport." We don't live in a utopia where resources are distributed equally. We live in the era of the market and that market logic dictates what we all do. Flo has to protect its own business interests to remain a viable company. That's fine and it's the response they should lead with. Not covering events would still annoy me, but I don't have a stake in the company and I understand that.
  12. I'll preface this by saying that I like Flo and have been a premium subscriber for years. They put out a lot of great content. I wanted to get this in before LJB jumps in and blows up the thread by calling anyone mildly critical of Flo a "hater." Currently listening to FRL and I felt this deserved it's own thread because of how amazing it is. So, CP spends the first 10 minutes of the show responding to Earl's article on TOM. For his response, he points out that no media outlet has invested more heavily into wrestling, paying coaches and athletes specifically. This is correct, and is a feather in their cap. He then pointed out some examples of how they cover events they don't livestream. Some of these examples are legit (Nomad going to Pan Ams for example). Most of them are a bit disingenuous. CP uses examples of campus visits and Bader show appearances to support they cover content they don't stream. This is obviously disingenous because the charge is that they don't acknowledge actual specific events they don't stream, not "schools we don't have streaming rights with." Overall, CP does a good job highlighting all of the good Flo does for the sport. I'm not going to critique their contribution. It's good. But, then something absolutely glorious happened. Ben Askren, in his typical fashion of not being able to filter a single thought that pops in his head, cuts off CP and completely blows CP's whole premise up by confirming that they purposely did not promote the BTS event because it was streamed by a competitor: "I'm sorry some people don't understand the business world. If they understood more business, they would understand why Flo did not cover Rumble on the Rooftop...We shouldn't! What? Are we going to make our competition stronger? Are you guys idiots?" (11:30 in the episode) The dejection in CP's voice is audible as he realizes Ben, in the span of a bout 30 seconds, completely undercut the argument he spent 10 minutes making. This is of course the crux of the debate. Nobody is denying that Flo's contribution is overwhelmingly positive. The frustration is that their content team LOVES to present themselves as altruistic growers of the sport (as evidenced by CP's introduction). The reality is pretty obvious. They love to grow the sport as long as growing the sport coincides with their interests as a business. That's fine. That's capitalism. It's the gap between their self-branding and their actual practice that upsets people. CP should have just said the obvious from the beginning: "Listen, we do a ton for the sport, but we are only able to do that because we are a functioning business. And we can only remain a functioning business if we protect our interests. We believe that not covering certain events, though it obviously isn't helpful for growing the sport, is a necessary price that we pay so we can do all of the other great stuff we do. It's not perfect, it's the way things are yada yada yada." He completely misunderstands why people are annoyed. Just be honest.
  13. If you want to concede the broader claim I made (that Metcalf's shove could be penalized), to win the point that the penalty wouldn't be a "slam," I'm happy to give you that lol. I hope you feel like this was a great use of your time.
  14. You're still shifting the goal posts by trying to limit the hypothetical to the specific version of the Ellis Coleman flying squirrel. The hypothetical still stands with any of these examples. Under your strict interpretation of a slam, they could just spike their opponents or throw them away like Metcalf without control of their return to the mat because they weren't the ones who lifted them there in the first place.
×
×
  • Create New...