punttheball

14 hours ago, theguru said:

Melvin Miles and Bryan Shotwell but not Greg Spencer. 😂

I was trying to give Greg some glory. Lol. 

Seriously, he is a great dude!

1 hour ago, theguru said:

Conner was better in the early 80's, does anyone know if Conner and CCH played then?

Yes they did. And from my memory Conner was pretty good. Believe they won the 3A State Championship in 1983. Had Melvin Miles and Greg Spencer leading the way. 

2 hours ago, The Double Deuce said:

Eugene Luke appreciation post!!  

I remember Coach Tassini strongly telling our kick off guy... “whatever you do, don’t kick the ball to Eugene Luke!”  The rest is history. 

9 hours ago, GottaLuvFootball said:

Also think Conner beat CCH in 1985? It wasn’t officially playoff but last game of the season and winner won the subdistrict. 9-0 CCH lost and was not in playoffs. 

It was Lloyd that beat Cov Cath in the last game of the season in 1985. 9 and 1 and did not go to the playoffs. 

Notre Dame wins the State Championship 1 to 0. 

2 minutes ago, theguru said:

Says you!

And me. Lol

Just now, theguru said:

That one looks way better than the one back in the day. 

Nice!!

The second blue bus is the one from back in the day. 

1 minute ago, theguru said:

Is it still blue?

2 blue busses. 1 short yellow Bus. 

3 minutes ago, DragonFire said:

Froze your own kicker......

Yes they did.

37 minutes ago, sportsfan41 said:

Anyone else heard of his story?  A walk on who is now a junior and recorded one solo tackle in their opening game last week against Illinois. The interesting part though is that Jackson spent 4 years in the Navy, as a SEAL before going to college.  
 

When his time in the Navy was coming to an end he started writing various top 25 colleges and telling them he wanted to try out. Oh, one other important detail, he didn’t play football in high school. He actually played soccer and baseball.  Just a cool story and the Navy actually has an article and video about him on their website. 

That is awesome! D-1 football aint no joke.

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Agee with a HUGE 79 yard touchdown run!

From the QB position?

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Gohmann is hit at the line of scrimmage. No gain.

4th and 6 Lex Cath on the Cov Cath 35 yard line.

Can Lex Cath's kicker hit from 52 yards out?

1 minute ago, colonel-fan said:

I like the combination of Agee and Hummell in the back field.

 

Hummel has been solid all season.

2 minutes ago, colonel-fan said:

Definitely took 2 steps.

Did he have all 3 feet down. LOL

3 hours ago, Big Red said:

Agree, Ryle NDA was a fun atmosphere.  Ryle defended very well and frustrated the panda attack.  I heard it was the first "night game" with their new lights ever hosted at NDA.  Good game and cool night.

That is true...first "night" game. Lights were installed at the end of last school year. Very cool!!!

8 hours ago, brown4 said:

Who else would you like Bell to use?

Suarez and Aquino hit like pitchers, so maybe they can pitch?

Sorry, I just realized I insulted pitchers all over the world. Lol

10 hours ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

So an update for you guys that are bored this Thursday morning. 

They are not bringing back the Vending department, nor our Vending Manager.  Instead, its being absorbed into Concessions.  There wasn't very much direction at all but turns out they will only have 10 Vendors each game, if they can get 10 Vendors to work.  I say it like that because it is going to be very tough to make the time lucrative enough to be worth it because of changes they've made....

The won't allow beer vendors in the seats.  So our job now is to hang out on the concourse and just basically try to help keep lines from getting long.  So you will still have to get up to go get a beer and if you're already up, I don't know why you're stopping at me instead of just going to whatever stand, especially when we'll only be carrying 25oz Bud Lights and 1-2 flavors of Anheuser-Bush seltzer, water and peanuts.  Personally I think its going to be pointless and a big waste of my time there.

I said I'd work on Saturday because I'll at least give it a fair shot but I'm very disappointed that this is what beer vending at GABP has turned into.  I think I'll draft my email and just hit send when I get home about not working future games unless we are in the seats (sounds like HR is having a really hard time getting guys to agree to come work under these procedures).  I understand there would be changes but not allowing me in the seats, there is not real point in having us unless its Opening Day or a Concert.  Maybe when the Cubs are there but other than that, dumb. I'm thinking I'll may 65-70% less per game.  

I'm told Phil Castellini doesn't like having vendors in the seats, but who knows what's true.  Just bummed and can only hope it changes in the future.  

How much is a beer at GABP?

If I was in charge I would do what ever gives me the best chance of selling as many beers as I can, especially at that price!

11 hours ago, DevilMayCare said:

 

When you select from high school, college, pro, or break room, look in the upper left corner of the screen, under BluegrassPreps.com. There should be a darker blue arrow/tab labeled 'forums'. Give it a tap and it shows all forums on the same page.

Works like a charm. Thank you!

6 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

Is that new with the upgrade? I think mines been like that on mobile for a while. 

Before the upgrade I think I got all forums on one screen.

Since the upgrade, while looking at BGP on my phone I can't get all of the forums to display on one screen. I have to go to forums then select High School. Then go back to forums and select College. And so on. On my laptop when I go to forums I can scroll down and select from all of the forums.

Any advise?

40 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Well Justice Kavanaugh entered a concurring opinion along with Justice Gorsuch's official court opinion that was MUCH less "way nice". Kavanaugh kinda took the NCAA out back to the wood shed, honestly. 😂


June 21, 2021

Justice Kavanaugh, concurring.

The NCAA has long restricted the compensation and benefits that student athletes may receive. And with surprising success, the NCAA has long shielded its compensation rules from ordinary antitrust scrutiny. Today, however, the Court holds that the NCAA has violated the antitrust laws. The Court’s decision marks an important and overdue course correction, and I join the Court’s excellent opinion in full.

But this case involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA’s compensation rules — namely, the rules restricting the education-related benefits that student athletes may receive, such as post-eligibility scholarships at graduate or vocational schools. The rest of the NCAA’s compensation rules are not at issue here and therefore remain on the books. Those remaining compensation rules generally restrict student athletes from receiving compensation or ben- efits from their colleges for playing sports. And those rules have also historically restricted student athletes from re- ceiving money from endorsement deals and the like. I add this concurring opinion to underscore that the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws. Three points warrant emphasis.

First, the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules. As the Court says, “the student-athletes do not renew their across-the-board challenge to the NCAA’s compensation restrictions. Accordingly, we do not pass on the rules that remain in place or the district court’s judgment upholding them. Our review is confined to those restrictions now enjoined.” Ante, at 14.

Second, although the Court does not weigh in on the ultimate legality of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules, the Court’s decision establishes how any such rules should be analyzed going forward. After today’s decision, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should receive ordinary “rule of reason” scrutiny under the antitrust laws. The Court makes clear that the decades-old “stray comments” about college sports and amateurism made in National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), were dicta and have no bearing on whether the NCAA’s current compensation rules are lawful. Ante, at 21. And the Court stresses that the NCAA is not otherwise entitled to an exemption from the antitrust laws. Ante, at 23–24; see also Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U. S. 445, 449–452 (1957). As a result, ab- sent legislation or a negotiated agreement between the NCAA and the student athletes, the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules should be subject to ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. See ante, at 18–19.

Third, there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny. Under the rule of reason, the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification.

The NCAA acknowledges that it controls the market for college athletes. The NCAA concedes that its compensation rules set the price of student athlete labor at a below-market rate. And the NCAA recognizes that student athletes currently have no meaningful ability to negotiate with the NCAA over the compensation rules.

The NCAA nonetheless asserts that its compensation rules are procompetitive because those rules help define the product of college sports. Specifically, the NCAA says that colleges may decline to pay student athletes because the defining feature of college sports, according to the NCAA, is that the student athletes are not paid.

In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive. The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work. See, e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1, 5 (2006). Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monopsony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition.

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing. See Brief for African American Antitrust Lawyers as Amici Curiae 13–17.

Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules.

If it turns out that some or all of the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules violate the antitrust laws, some difficult policy and practical questions would undoubtedly ensue. Among them: How would paying greater compensation to student athletes affect non-revenue-raising sports? Could student athletes in some sports but not others receive concurring compensation? How would any compensation regime com- ply with Title IX? If paying student athletes requires some- thing like a salary cap in some sports in order to preserve competitive balance, how would that cap be administered? And given that there are now about 180,000 Division I student athletes, what is a financially sustainable way of fairly compensating some or all of those student athletes?

Of course, those difficult questions could be resolved in ways other than litigation. Legislation would be one option. Or colleges and student athletes could potentially engage in collective bargaining (or seek some other negotiated agreement) to provide student athletes a fairer share of the revenues that they generate for their colleges, akin to how professional football and basketball players have negotiated for a share of league revenues. Cf. Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U. S. 231, 235–237 (1996); Wood v. National Basketball Assn., 809 F. 2d 954, 958–963 (CA2 1987) (R. Winter, J.). Regardless of how those issues ultimately would be resolved, however, the NCAA’s current compensation regime raises serious questions under the antitrust laws.

To be sure, the NCAA and its member colleges maintain important traditions that have become part of the fabric of America—game days in Tuscaloosa and South Bend; the packed gyms in Storrs and Durham; the women’s and men’s lacrosse championships on Memorial Day weekend; track and field meets in Eugene; the spring softball and baseball World Series in Oklahoma City and Omaha; the list goes on. But those traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.

BOOM!

1 hour ago, Runcible Owl said:

Only one game completed on Friday ~

Lewis Co. 10 

Wolfe Co. 6

"The situation," as they say, "has been fluid."

Revised bracket dates and times 👇

Fluid is a great description. LOL

33 minutes ago, Runcible Owl said:

🥎 Per KHSAA Main ~

"Semi-state Softball - Saturday Games postponed."

"Due to inclement weather, Saturday's games will move to Monday at UK."

Butler vs. McCracken Co. (in progress) - 10 am

Warren East vs. Henderson Co. - noon

Green Co. vs. Henry Co. - 2:30 pm

"Sunday's games remain as scheduled."

Did they get Friday's games in?

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

Owen Nally gets caught in a pickle between 3rd and home, and ends up scoring.

Strike three called on the following pitch to end the inning.

3-0 Cov Cath after the 1st inning in Park Hills.

Loving the updates! Thank you.

14 minutes ago, punttheball said:

To be honest, I do not follow college hoops like I used to. To me it did not seem like Brannen was winning  as much as UC is use to winning. I could be wrong about that for sure. What was his record for his 2 seasons at UC?

Sorry Deuce, I did not mean to quote you. Meant to quote VOR.