Crimson K

quote:

---

So what's your explanation for why the Big Ten is dominant over the SEC in the NIL era

---

Holy hell man. I have repeatedly said that the Big 10 has and is spending more money in the NIL era. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it from a rules perspective either. I just took issue with the notion that Big 10 teams weren’t paying before. It’s a weak excuse for why the SEC dominated. My saying that NIL potentially being capped would hurt the Big 10 goes hand in hand with this. Big 10 teams (at the least the few that are willing to pay big $) are successful because they can outbid for transfers, and since the tampering stuff is going on everywhere, they can get more developed players who want to cash in or target specific HS players they feel are can’t miss. It’s a smart way to handle this window of opportunity. Calling the ability to outspend other teams a more level playing field is a little silly though. If there were something like a salary cap, Big 10 teams wouldn’t be able to poach nearly as much as they currently are.

I asked you to back up the assertion. I asked you point blank if you thought the actually competitive Big 10 teams like OSU, Michigan, and Penn State weren't illegally paying money for recruiting. Is that your assertion?

When you make a claim, then fail to back it up, then demand someone else refute your claim, that is a well known debating sidestep. Disprove my assertion or it must be true is a junior high level talking point. HOWEVER, I'll answer your question. I am sure SEC teams were dropping bags. I might even be willing to say that more SEC teams were willing to do so. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to think that it was on a level way higher than the big name teams in other conferences. Your issue is that you want to assume that the Big 10 only lost because they weren't cheating. They had some natural disadvantages, but the Ohio States of the world still managed to get 5 star players from the South to places like Columbus. It is a plainly nonsensical logical argument.
Now they have the biggest advantage possible with more money to spend. You have been reinforcing that very idea. There is actual data to back this up. Are you claiming that Big 10 schools couldn't figure out paying players before, or are you willing to die on the hill that they just had too much integrity?
Somehow, you have equated being able to purchase the best players for championships today to mean that all previous champions had to have been paying more too. You can't show that. That's why I and anyone else can and should question your claim.

quote:

---

This must be what it is like to try and "prove" to Greg McElroy that we did indeed go to the moon. Let's look at some data points shall we?

---

You really think this is a zinger, don’t you? It’s an argument to the absurd, which often introduces an argument with little merit.

quote:

---

1. How many SEC teams have been busted for infractions in the last 50 years? Look it up

---

So your answer to provide the receipts for your claim is look it up. I can’t wait for you to hit me with “it’s not my job to provide the proof for my assertions, just trust me bro.”

quote:

---

2. Let's look at the culture. The SEC cares about winning only . The Big Ten actually requires that all of their schools are members of the AAU indicating a certain level of academics. See point 1.

---

So the SEC only cares about winning, but the Big 10 has academic integrity, so this proves cheating. Can you see the absolute disconnect in this logic, ESPECIALLY considering that your assertion is that the Big 10 will spend more money now? It is extra funny considering how Big 10 teams have multiple instances of real world criminal activity related to sports programs.
So now the Big 10 cares about winning because they can pay players, but before they were just academic bastions. Do you not remember “We don’t come to play school?” I’m sure all the 5 stars were just flocking to that AAU accreditation.
You assert that SEC schools were allowed to get away with paying players, so that is why they won, but then go on to say they get busted for paying players more. It takes a special kind of smart to argue against yourself.

quote:

---

3. Finally, who has been winning since NIL made paying players legal?

---

This was not in question. Stating A in no way proves B. This is akin to me saying that the SEC winning championships proves they didn’t cheat.

quote:

---

Everyone can equally cheat now

---

In detail, tell how it was “unequal cheating” before. We’re all those big brains up north incapable of coming up with paying under the table? Or are you suggesting that they were all pure as the snow? You keep making the claim. Back it up, big boy.

quote:

---

B1G fans are saying once the playing field is more even, they are winning

---

How is richer donor bases spending more money a more level playing field?

quote:

---

Do you feel as if it was college sports when only certain schools were allowed to pay for players and not get penalized for it? This is the fallout from the bullshite that happened for years

---

Big 10 teams were often punished significantly less than others. Is it honestly your feeling that the OSU's and Michigan's of the world weren't paying players?

quote:

---

Snowflake

---

Criticize the guy all you want, but you don’t seem to understand this word.

quote:

---

gonna be tough to pull off in live action

---

Seems like it’ll need a LOT of CGI. All the aliens, dungeon monsters, magic spells, crazy settings plus Princess Donut as a main. Story has been really fun, but casting is going to need to be spot on. Really curious who could voice the AI.
If it’s successful, they already have 7books to work with and another coming out pretty soon. The author has been absolutely cranking them out, so no GoT issues either (damn I hope I didn’t jinx it). Poor guy playing Carl is going to have a decade wearing nothing but boxers.

So is this set before the Superman movie? Dog looks like a puppy. Is this told in flashback?

quote:

---

You got all that from a two minute teaser? Just frick off and go bitch somewhere else.

---

This would hit a little harder if you didn’t have a post talking about how much heart and soul were poured into this just a couple of posts earlier.

As an HP fan, it looks OK. Some good and some bad. Outside of the obvious with Snape, Hagrid looks good, but sounds off. Too gentle and soft spoken. No good looks at Hogwarts. If the blonde kid is Malloy, he looks well cast. Would have loved to have heard a little from Hermione. All the kids are going to have to overcome the cemented mental picture of the previous cast. Not sold on Harry or Ron, but hopefully they nail it.
Dumbledore looked great. Definitely prefer his look to the later movie version.we will see how Lithgow does with a Brit accent. I do think the concern of casting that old is going to be an issue if this is a 15 year run to cover all books.
Olivander and what I assume was McGonnegal were OK, but the glimpse of each was too short to really judge. I hope they take the time to introduce s9me of the other Diagonal Alley characters like Fortescue.
Curious about the other kids like Seamus, Dean, Neville et al. Also, the rest of the Weasley clan; seems like there was just a brief shot of Molly.

I want it to be good, but I have some reservations. I was really dubious about Fallout, and to me Amazon has knocked that outta the park. Maybe HBO will do the same.

It’s pretty much because they already have a nuclear arsenal as you said in the OP. Weird that the Clinton deal from the 90s to avoid nukes for NK didn’t hold up.