Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I bet you're loving how the college football season has played out so far.

This.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This.

Sometimes a thesis comes to s screeching halt when the author demonstrates he doesn't know what he's talking about. Here, thats when he talks about viewers paying more to get a basic cable channel.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sometimes a thesis comes to s screeching halt when the author demonstrates he doesn't know what he's talking about. Here, thats when he talks about viewers paying more to get a basic cable channel.

Huh? What's wrong with that point? If Big10 TV manages to talk itself onto one tier or another, more people will end up paying more. OF course, cable operators may fight over that just like they fought over the NFL network. But that doesn't mean the basic concept is wrong . . . it may just not play out like the Big10 expects (just how many people are going to push their local cable operator so they can watch Maryland or Rutgers play?)

[Hank Chinaski]

the show must go on? the show, you know, it's important if we can do it?
the show will happen as long as nothing too bad happens in my life.

p.s. who is fiona apple?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Huh? What's wrong with that point? If Big10 TV manages to talk itself onto one tier or another, more people will end up paying more. OF course, cable operators may fight over that just like they fought over the NFL network. But that doesn't mean the basic concept is wrong . . . it may just not play out like the Big10 expects (just how many people are going to push their local cable operator so they can watch Maryland or Rutgers play?)

It could happen, but so far the big ten network is only basic cable, I think.

So if you want to say viewers watching ads on the channel are "paying more" I guess you can. But no one is paying out of pocket more. Not is that what the network wants.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

It could happen, but so far the big ten network is only basic cable, I think.

So if you want to say viewers watching ads on the channel are "paying more" I guess you can. But no one is paying out of pocket more. Not is that what the network wants.

Do you get basic cable for free? I don't.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you get basic cable for free? I don't.

No, but my bill doesn't go up every time they add a channel or down when they remove one.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This.

In any event, can we all agree that college sports have taken a time machine back to the '80s? Indiana is #1 in hoops. ND is #1 in football. I wonder if the Cutters will win the Little 500.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

In any event, can we all agree that college sports have taken a time machine back to the '80s? Indiana is #1 in hoops. ND is #1 in football. I wonder if the Cutters will win the Little 500.

Rutgers? I suppose it has a better basketball program than several of the original big 10, but they shouldn't add without getting something on the scale of the top teams, not the bottom end. Nebraska, okay, Penn State, sure, even Maryland. But Rutgers?

[ferrets_bueller]

A sports question: Grinnell College defeated Faith Baptist Bible in a defensive battle, 179-104. The high scorer was one Jack Taylor, with 138 points.

The question: You are coaching for Faith Baptist. At what point in the game do you make it known to the other coach that if young Mr. Taylor takes another shot that The Lord, or perhaps one of your bench players, will verily smite Mr. Taylor so as to preclude additional gratuitous scoring opportunities? Alternatively, how would you propose to halt this unsportsmanlike display?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

A sports question: Grinnell College defeated Faith Baptist Bible in a defensive battle, 179-104. The high scorer was one Jack Taylor, with 138 points.

The question: You are coaching for Faith Baptist. At what point in the game do you make it known to the other coach that if young Mr. Taylor takes another shot that The Lord, or perhaps one of your bench players, will verily smite Mr. Taylor so as to preclude additional gratuitous scoring opportunities? Alternatively, how would you propose to halt this unsportsmanlike display?

Grinnell is notorious for scoring very high, and running and shooting every play, no matter their lead. When Faith Baptist schedules Grinnell it knew that. At least this time there was a reason to run up the score, the kid was trying to break a record. So while it did suck, it sucks less than when they run it up for no reason. (edit- just checked last year's scores and it looks like a 75 point win is extreme even for them)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Rutgers? I suppose it has a better basketball program than several of the original big 10, but they shouldn't add without getting something on the scale of the top teams, not the bottom end. Nebraska, okay, Penn State, sure, even Maryland. But Rutgers?

Is it Rutgers because no one would attend the University of New Jersey?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the show must go on? the show, you know, it's important if we can do it?
the show will happen as long as nothing too bad happens in my life.

p.s. who is fiona apple?

Entertainment business speak for "We didn't sell enough tickets."

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

A sports question: Grinnell College defeated Faith Baptist Bible in a defensive battle, 179-104. The high scorer was one Jack Taylor, with 138 points.

The question: You are coaching for Faith Baptist. At what point in the game do you make it known to the other coach that if young Mr. Taylor takes another shot that The Lord, or perhaps one of your bench players, will verily smite Mr. Taylor so as to preclude additional gratuitous scoring opportunities? Alternatively, how would you propose to halt this unsportsmanlike display?

Tweet him a picture of Gronkowski in a cast?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Rutgers? I suppose it has a better basketball program than several of the original big 10, but they shouldn't add without getting something on the scale of the top teams, not the bottom end. Nebraska, okay, Penn State, sure, even Maryland. But Rutgers?

Clearly, the league felt the imperative was to get something in the New York/New Jersey area. I can't think of any of school in that area that would qualify, with playing football as a prerequisite.

Granted, Rutgers isn't much of a toe hold in that area, nor is it a team with a long record of playing big time football, but it's really the only potential qualifier that fits the stated goal.