|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 5, 2024 8:54:30 GMT -6
ISU looked like us at the end of that game. And they paid the price we're used to paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 4, 2024 20:21:55 GMT -6
I am really worried about next basketball season. If things continue on their current trajectory, I wont even get to enjoy an October full of optimism.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 3, 2024 18:06:50 GMT -6
Oh, and we also have an AD that won’t accept a check from an alumnus, get off his ass and walk down the hall to get it to the appropriate personnel. What’s that story?
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 3, 2024 13:02:56 GMT -6
That doesn't pass the sniff test at all simply because, as ujim said, they could do a whole lot better for that money. Yeah, nobody would ever mismanage money like that.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 2, 2024 20:52:03 GMT -6
There's no doubt ISU got screwed by the NCAA selection committee, but the question is "Are they better off playing in the NIT?" Not sure how the financials compare, but ISU has had a favorable NIT position. As one of the first four out of the NCAA they get an automatic No. 1 see in the NIT, which guaranteed them home games as long as they were winning until the final four. The NCAA sure would have dicked them by giving them a 11-12 seed. They might have made a run but likely no more than 1-2 games. Yeah I had the same thought. I’d rather win the NIT than be a first round exit like Drake was.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Apr 2, 2024 20:10:44 GMT -6
I went to the semi final tonight and I am officially jealous of ISU. The fieldhouse was packed and I’d estimate it was 90%+ ISU fans. It was electric and ISU is a very good team. They very rarely force a stupid shot. Night and day between us and them right now. And I dont think Sparks alone is going to move the needle enough. We need some guards ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 24, 2024 17:40:44 GMT -6
Let’s get Sellers back too. And Jacobs probably needs a masters degree, right?
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 14:33:03 GMT -6
Yep, stick with it. At this point it's too late to change course. I'm not too worried about it. I think, even on this board, most people will easily see the point. But while we are on book recommendations, might I suggest this one to you: Did you find it helpful?
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 12:52:49 GMT -6
Here is what is funny. Our friend Sherman made a fairly innocent mistake in suggesting that spending $15 million on a separate project meant that $4,000/basketball player was readily available. Not much of a big deal really...$4,000/player is a small amount and probably is available. But he made a mistake in saying that because $15 million had been spent it followed that more could be obtained. But you see, I knew...KNEW...that he would be unable to admit a mistake because I've seen enough of him around here. I admit that I then wrote the "economic textbooks" post to goad him because I knew he would be incapable of handling his mistake gracefully. I knew I would have further amusement from his subsequent posts trying to obfuscate his mistake and justify himself. And I did have. Maybe you could say I'm a dick myself for taking advantage of his weaknesses like that. Maybe so. Sorry, but the prior and recent example of a $15 million donor expenditure DOES in fact tend to suggest that the department in question can generate donor money when it needs to. Particular the much lower amounts being discussed in with MAC NIL. You are being a dick, but more in the way of being unable to understand and obvious point. Yep, stick with it. At this point it's too late to change course.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 12:09:58 GMT -6
Oh, I see. So for example SEC football has spent much more money on NIL and on athletics generally as compared to the MAC for the last couple years. So the concept of scarcity would then suggest that the MAC must have a lot more money left to spend on NIL and athletics going forward. Here is what is funny. Our friend Sherman made a fairly innocent mistake in suggesting that spending $15 million on a separate project meant that $4,000/basketball player was readily available. Not much of a big deal really...$4,000/player is a small amount and probably is available. But he made a mistake in saying that because $15 million had been spent it followed that more could be obtained. But you see, I knew...KNEW...that he would be unable to admit a mistake because I've seen enough of him around here. I admit that I then wrote the "economic textbooks" post to goad him because I knew he would be incapable of handling his mistake gracefully. I knew I would have further amusement from his subsequent posts trying to obfuscate his mistake and justify himself. And I did have. Maybe you could say I'm a dick myself for taking advantage of his weaknesses like that. Maybe so.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 10:52:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 10:44:15 GMT -6
BSU's ability to recently pry $15 million out of donor's hands DOESN'T suggest to you that donor money can be found for athletics purposes? Well, whatever you say. What is suggests to me is that BSU has already spent $15 million of the funds that were available for athletics purposes. Hence, there is less available for other athletics purposes. Sowell might be a little advanced for you. First, start researching a concept called "scarcity."
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 9:31:55 GMT -6
Add the following: Toledo6'2" Tyler Cochran (isn't he out of eligibility???) Is eligibility still a thing? I think during one of the play-in games last night they said a guy was in his 8th year and was 26 years old.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 9:04:44 GMT -6
Maybe if somebody ever effectively counters one of my arguments here, then I'll turn to some middlebrow political books for pointers. Ok. Arguing that because money was spent on one thing means that money exists to be spent on another thing makes no sense. It's actually the opposite. Money spent on one thing reduces the money available to spend on another. Better get cracking on those books...
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 19, 2024 21:25:39 GMT -6
Well I have partied with James Buchanan (the economist, not the president) and I can assure that Libertarian thought would be basically agnostic on whether or not the indoor facility is stupid. It's a question of cost/benefit, not principle. It has nothing to do with libertarianism. I highly recommend his book Knowledge and Decisions. It will hopefully help you make stronger arguments.
|
|