All Activity

The real issue here is that a liberal won a seat on WI supreme court and she along with the others denied the Ds the ability to redraw district maps for the 2026 election. That is the core argument here. RV was convinced that this new liberal court would right all the wrongs perpetrated on the Ds. I just found this result refreshing. mspart

Sorry for slow response. I appreciate your points. I disagree with much of it, for reasons I've given, but understand where you're coming from. Here's my final thoughts, and happy to give you the final word. I do think some of your criticisms of the one study are just factually wrong, and the "just media articles" I mentioned themselves refer to other studies, e.g. lower average return on IG posts, black folks having a disproportionate share relative to participation. There's also a Penn study in 2021 that also found a stark race disparity, a WVU (Sports Marketing Quarterly) in 2022 also finding whites earn "a disproportionate share of NIL deals," and others. I'd be more open-minded to a critique if there was some contrary data that you're citing, but there really isn't -- just your off-the-cuff, 15-minute anecdotal once-over of a list you saw online, compared against actual studies by people who have an actual responsibility to be scientifically accurate. (My own 15-minute once-over points to a different conclusion, albeit an unscientific one). You openly admit there's a racial disparity among women but not men, but again cite no data. All of that said, I'm not sure our disagreement is really all that stark. First, you say "will you at least acknowledge that your claim of 'people of color only get 16% of NIL dollars' is complete nonsense?" That isn't my claim. It's a claim from a study cited in an article, and it specifically says it was an analysis from 2021-22. I have no reason to say that it was untrue back then, so I suspect it is accurate. But is it true today? I don't know. but looking at anecdotal evidence, it seems unlikely. That was a very different landscape then. That leads to a second point. The landscape is changing *dramatically*. June 2025 compared to say, June 2023, would be an enormous difference, and going all the way back to 2021 is essentially the stone ages in the NIL world. Much of the o the research I've seen is from 2023-24 or earlier. So I will agree with you generally that research from back then is of limited relevance to today. Does that mean they've magically cleared up the racial disparity? No, it doesn't, but the world is so different now, I think it's just hard to extrapolate. (I think that is especially so as the prevalence of individual NIL donors started to give way to collectives that coordinate more closely with universities, causing pressures for equal treatment.) So if your core point is that the 16% figure of 2021-22 is likely higher today, I'd give that one to you on suspicion. Third, just because a racial disparity may have a non-racist explanation does not mean it exists. If you asked 100 10 year old black boys their biggest sports hero, do you think more will name a black athlete than if you asked the same question of 100 10 year old white boys? Does that mean either are racist? There's lots of studies on this too, but it's a social fact that people tend to relate more to people who look like themselves. I suspect that translates to NIL. It's ultimately marketplace driven, and the moneyed marketplace is still predominantly white. So if a given black and white athletes are of identical ability, I think you can expect to see the white athlete have a stronger social media following, which in turn translates to more NIL dollars, which has an objective basis. That's why you've got these white guys who aren't necessarily the best FB players getting the most money. It's the same rationale as gender disparities, e.g. how women in the WNBA or Women's MLS get way less. We say "the market doesn't support it." It's less pronounced in race, but it's always been there. In the professional sports context, there's a treasure trove of research that black athletes earn less in endorsements (relative to representation) than white athletes, ostensibly because white athletes are seen as "safer" and "appealing to a wider audience." None of this means NIL money isn't predominantly a meritocracy. Of course it is. Donors want their school to win. But even if there's a 5% racial disparity, it's still a disparity. How big is it in 2025? Dunno. Lastly, and some may disagree, but I think there's a racial element even to some of the explanations we are hearing. Saying "Well he's in the Manning family, of course he's getting a lot, that's not race," ignores the likely racial difference among those who are the biggest fans of the Manning family. Saying "Livvy's super hot, of course she's getting a lot, that's not race," ignores the fact that there's a racial disparity among who her biggest fans are. Even "they're highly paid because they're QBs not because they're white" is a fraught thing to say. Yes, black QBs command a NIL premium too, but is there a racial component to that? I recall reading a few years ago an article saying that black fans' favorite position is RB and white fans' favorite position is QB. Wish I could find that, but query whether there's a racial element to which positons are most valued, based on the race of the perceiver. Also, there may be a racially-grounded difference in perception of QB abilities too. There's evidence of racial bias inhibiting perceptions of who's the best QB (e.g. here). Even in the NFL, where black QBs have dramatically outperformed white QBs relative to draft position (see article here). Cheers.

Yah. I said who on here, as in this forum. Very few people want to ban guns.

What if Cael gets fired and they bring in DT? OSU fans would be in shambles.

"who said men don't have an advantage in most sports?" RV your question reveals that you are saying that men have an advantage in most sports. That is how that deconstructs. That being the case, why is it your position that we should not stop men from competing against women in most sports? Then why allow them to compete. Because it is such a small issue? Shouldn't it not be done because of what you just said, that men have the advantage? I could deconstruct your statement further to say - men have an advantage in most sports and that is why there are mens and womens sports because they are for men and the other is for women. This is also what you are saying. So why do you support men competing with women? It doesn't matter how many do it or whatever, it is wrong and you have now admitted that it is wrong and your position that this is not an issue that we need to be concerned about is wrong. When under 15 can completely destroy adult professional women in soccer, there is no question to this topic. It is not a strawman, it demonstrates the fallacy of those accepting men (trans women) competing with women saying they are women too because they say they are women. There are plenty of people that have said Trans Women are women. There is not even a question about that. mspart

Interesting that Iran has a negotiated deal with Israel. I thought they didn't recognize Israel. I guess they do now. mspart

But did you take naked photos of your teammates and put them in a team snap chat channel without their approval? I’ll bet good $$$ you didn’t do that either. what did Seinfeld say….. but there is nothing wrong with that?

I believe The new commie running for mayor of NYC does

We never did that. Speak for yourself.

What % need them for self defense? Either way, I don't think anybody on here wants to take ur gun away. I certainly don't. Looks like another winger strawman to me!!

The most common reasons why Americans have them are self defense, hunting and recreational shooting.

We all saw Ferrari do this on live TV, multiple times. Didn't even get penalized by the ref. in the match, much less disciplined by the program. It ain't right, but can be chalked up as an incidental part of the sport.

In the real world, guns are rarely used for that purpose

absolutely nothing is going to happen to the coaching staff... guaranteed. even willie said this is p*ssy sh*t and if he was in beau's shoes, he would've handled starocci himself. ended all that on the spot.

100% True. But wait till cnn gets a hold of that. Is that good for the sport or what? Wait till don lemon is interviewing some psychologist about the potential down side of excessive oil checking and holding down your teammates for hours at a time. To the point they transfer. That will play well on the news for kids wanting to start this sport.

Somebody made that claim there? B.s. I'm not wasting my time.

justify the ball cradling too....

There's not a single poster on this board who didn't have a teammate with an overzealous butt-drag.

go to the college forum and find the thread about 'with all this trans stuff going on... or something to that effect

hell of an endorsement for our fine sport.... and yes I know I'm picking something out and not using in context of overall point, but still

lol if only.

#1 - it's not Basset's decision, it's God's decision and He works in mysterious ways. #2 - law school

At the very least it's a caution and 1