- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,533
- Reaction Score
- 8,382
Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!Am I the only boneyarder who spit out what they were drinking onto their computer screen when they read this?
Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!Am I the only boneyarder who spit out what they were drinking onto their computer screen when they read this?
This reminds me of something absurd I saw at a rooftop bar last week. They had three levels of drinks. Premium, Super Premium and Ultra Premium. So "Premium" is the bottom shelf stuff. Meanwhile, looking at the bottles, nothing they had was even what a normal person would call "premium".Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!
So much for truth in "advertising". Pretty silly approach by that establishment - I think it shows what they think of the customers. SMH.This reminds me of something absurd I saw at a rooftop bar last week. They had three levels of drinks. Premium, Super Premium and Ultra Premium. So "Premium" is the bottom shelf stuff. Meanwhile, looking at the bottles, nothing they had was even what a normal person would call "premium".
At 1:41 on a work day? I don't think so.Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!
I'll wager there are some in your profession who would. Mine as wellAt 1:41 on a work day? I don't think so.
This reminds me of something absurd I saw at a rooftop bar last week. They had three levels of drinks. Premium, Super Premium and Ultra Premium. So "Premium" is the bottom shelf stuff. Meanwhile, looking at the bottles, nothing they had was even what a normal person would call "premium".
They're reaching for the same audience that fell for "this one goes to eleven".So much for truth in "advertising". Pretty silly approach by that establishment - I think it shows what they think of the customers. SMH.
I'll wager there are some in your profession who would. Mine as well
Isn't this why desks have drawers?I'll wager there are some in your profession who would. Mine as well
I agree…between the ACC, the PAC, and the Big 12, the only conference where all its members seem fully committed to its survival is the Big12. In truth, that is probably because no current Big12 school is likely to garner interests from the BIG10 or SEC so they know it’s ride or die with the Big12.
Our time in the old Big East taught us what happens when some members aren’t committed long term to the league. Seems the current PAC and ACC have those issues and the Big12 doesn’t.
Yeah because that's worked out so well for us in the past.
If we had success, sure, i would think so. We have seen with our BB we captivate the region. FB has never attained that level, but the closest juggernaut to here is Penn State. If we had a magical season in a P5 league everyone would notice. The transfer portal is real game changer in making something like that possible. You don't need 3 or 4 years to remake rosters anymore.I just want us in the Big12 scheduling every game opposite Rutgers. Not entirely serious, but I do wonder if success on the football field and our continued success in basketball is something is something that would impact the Big10 in any way concerning Northeast market share and media value. Sure it's a minor consideration given their brand identities are schools in other markets. But it seems like an opportunity was wasted once choosing Rutgers. If we do get a B12 offer would the Big10 take any notice?
Even more so for football. The big programs used to hoard players and had enough talent on the bench to field a quality team. Most of those kids used to stick it out and hope they get their shot. Not so much anymore. Sitting on the bench at Bama, UGA or Ohio State doesn‘t have the appeal it once did. Most BB teams don‘t have talent that doesn’t play on the roster, but football has loads of it.If we had success, sure, i would think so. We have seen with our BB we captivate the region. FB has never attained that level, but the closest juggernaut to here is Penn State. If we had a magical season in a P5 league everyone would notice. The transfer portal is real game changer in making something like that possible. You don't need 3 or 4 years to remake rosters anymore.
Football use to be worseEven more so for football. The big programs used to hoard players and had enough talent on the bench to field a quality team. Most of those kids used to stick it out and hope they get their shot. Not so much anymore. Sitting on the bench at Bama, UGA or Ohio State doesn‘t have the appeal it once did. Most BB teams don‘t have talent that doesn’t play on the roster, but football has loads of it.
Did the scholarship limit help??Football use to be worse
The NCAA cut total allowable scholarships to 85 in 1973. Prior to that you could be an All Stater and 5th or 6th string at a top program. I worked for man years ago who son got a football scholarship to Ohio State but never got into a game in four years or probable even dressed for one .
There was no limit and some schools carried up yo 150 football scholarships
Title IX ended that practice
Yes but they still carry non scholarship kids who could probably be on scholarship elsewhere.Did the scholarship limit help??
But that’s their choice. Back before 1973, a kid signed a scholarship and he was stuck. At least now the walk-ons know they have an uphill battle to climb.Yes but they still carry non scholarship kids who could probably be on scholarship elsewhere.
This adds nothing new in terms of what’s out there.
Of course. But the portal has just made it easier for kids to choose not to wait to see if they will crack the lineup at a school like Michigan, when they can go to Northwestern and see the field.But that’s their choice. Back before 1973, a kid signed a scholarship and he was stuck. At least now the walk-ons know they have an uphill battle to climb.