08.Jul.2017 Athletic Director, Scott Barnes, Ignores Fans …Proves to be a Total Douche Whistle

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

AB reader “Scotty” and myself both wrote Scott Barnes an email inuring how SEC umpire (Greg Street) was allowed behind the dish in an OSU/LSU game. I also asked about the Luke situation. Barnes didn’t reply to Scotty at all; when he replied to me, it was an accidental response meant for someone else.

Um for the 3rd time we discussed 3:45 that makes us 15 to 20 min late . It starts at 5pm and takes 1:30 to get there.

Who talks like this? “Um”?…”for the 3rd time”?

Sounds like an abusive personality at worst and at best a total douche whistle.

I wrote him back:

Um, I think you responded to the wrong person/email.

Is this how you talk to the people you know, Scott?

It is very rude.

His response is catty once again.

Ab

My email below was obviously not intended for you.

Meanwhile, he never addressed the actual email I sent him with legitimate questions.

So, fuck this guy. Can we get a new AD?

Jump to Bottom
  • BeavGirl BeavGirl says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 9 votes)

    Haha. I love Angrybeavs…these people can’t get away with anything.

  • Deskahutez says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

    Honestly, I am appalled. Classless at the best. Any executive witb a brain has a well trained secretary who filters their email and responds courteously and respectfully. As someone in a position who gets hundreds of stakeholder emails a week, I have a clear understanding of how important timely and respectful communication is.

    I am not sure how some of these jokers get into leadership roles.

    #GoBeavs

  • Jack Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -3 (from 11 votes)

    Yes, but he’s a regular guy. He just gets it. He’s just speaking our language. Why don’t we just give him a chance? Calling him names is what makes his supporters back him even more, ignoring anything and everything that is real for the facade of dumb that he’s created.

    I could go on and on for the justifications for someone being a complete dumbshit grifter for decades. You want me to get upset about this?

    • Homefry Homefry says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

      I see you working, Jack. I know who you are thinking of….

      • Jack Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -4 (from 14 votes)

        It’s not hard to figure, even for 4D5’s deplorables. This imagined slight made into armageddon by people who couldn’t get cold enough to even be considered snowflakes is taking up my time for some reason.

        I’ve seen 1000 times worse from POTUS, yet I’m supposed to be upset about some random email shit about some random whatever.

        Excuse me if I completely disrespect you.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -3 (from 13 votes)

          On the plus side, we’re clearly no longer the leader of the free world.

          So there’s that. I mean… that takes work.

          Fuck stick hates work, if you’ve been paying attention. So we’re good now. Twit away.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -5 (from 11 votes)

          Let’s go, you deplorable snowflakes!

          Nut up buttercup!

          Be a man!

          Walk your fucking talk!

          Or just e the fucking whining whiners you are.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -4 (from 12 votes)

          You fucking bunch of pussies.

          I bet some of you wear clothing with the American flag on it.

          … yeah….

  • DubiousBeav DubiousBeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Awful. For all his faults, at least BDC never came across as a jackass. He also didn’t have a punchable face.

  • Old Yeller says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    What the hell is a douch whistle? I’m trying to visualize something in my mind and I can’t come up with a thing.

  • scotty says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

    “Barnes didn’t reply to Scotty for days”

    More like still hasn’t replied at all. Shouldn’t they at least have some sort of stock response loaded? Not that it would be tons better, but it would be something.

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -8 (from 12 votes)

      Who the fuck cares?

      You’re whining about something that will never get an answer… and has never had an answer previously… because it is dumb… and you are dumb if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

      Our AD is supposed to be bigger than everyone in the history of sport, and he needs to supply us with some quick catchphrase in order to satisfy our non-our-AD-sucks mentality… because that’s a mentality… apparently.

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

        Are you off meds today or something?

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -6 (from 12 votes)

          Yes.

          That’s completely it.

          Until I took my meds, I was thinking the people on this blog were whining about some insignificant “mom, he’s looking at me” level shit.

          I was wrong. It’s more piddly than that.

  • pinger says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Where was he supposed to be at 5? For the third time and all.

  • Jack Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

    Are we done crying tears loud enough to be seen in print?

    Normally whines this dumb don’t even get print. Apparently we’re better than that.

    • Sparkd73 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

      Did someone hide Jack’s meds?

      • Jack Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

        Yeah… the guy complaining about the pussification of AB is the one needing meds.

        At least you’re original.

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

          Or maybe no one is actually crying and instead just wants the athletic department to have a basic level of engagement. Completely ignoring emails from alumni kinda sucks.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

            Yeah… that’s it.

            Did you read your email?

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

            It’s not terrible as a thought exercise. But you hit send, and you think it deserves an answer that isn’t wholly WTF?

            WTF?

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

            Yes. Neutral officiating is an issue the athletic department should have some stance on, especially when its absence ended what was shaping up to be one of the best seasons in Beaver sports history.

            I may have to reconsider in light of your argument, though. You should definitely be an expert in messages that deserve to be ignored or get a “WTF” reply since you post them twenty times a day.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            You’re asking someone who can’t comment on something to comment on something. And the email you sent sounds accusatory and assumptive.

            Then you wonder out loud why you get ignored?

            I’ll admit the mistakenly sent email is funny. But it doesn’t rise to the level of even pretend applied douchebaggery, let alone this screed.

  • Jack Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -5 (from 9 votes)

    If I gave you 4D5’s Twitter feed and and told you we were now a second rate country in the eyes of the world due to one man’s stupidity, would you buy it as a topic for a whole post?

    Of course you would. Because that’s some serious shit, and this is just piddly whining about some weird, unimportant anxiety involving some interpretive dance… or something. If I wanted to read this much whiny stupid, I would just go to one of Peter Schiff’s “blogs” and try to read it with a couple skewers in either eye.

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +12 (from 12 votes)

      Trump is living rent-free in your head, dude.

      • Jack Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -5 (from 7 votes)

        He always has. Do you think this moron just started imposing his stupidity on society two years ago?

        We know who this putz is. He’s a loser of immense proportions. He’s a moron more than he’s a loser. And he’s lazier than a puddle of spit. Anyone who tries to defend him denies history.

        http://deadspin.com/5370591/donald-trump-goes-all-bitchcakes-on-a-third-rate-espn-filmmaker

        That… and he is the only person who could be POTUS and lose the mantle of leader of the free world.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

          Two guys in the history of football couldn’t make football work. But at least Vince McMahon didn’t fail at running a casino too.

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 6 votes)

          Trump sucks, most people don’t like him, yada yada, we know. You’re obsessed. This isn’t trumpybeavs.com.

          • beavlover69 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            To be fair, it’s not barnesybeavs.com either and yet Barnes has set up a nice cozy loft in your head

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

            It sure looks like it with this whinefest.

            I only talk about the Loser-in-Chief because this insignificant manufactured outrage about our AD rises to Trumpian levels. It’s as stupid as he is.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

            You’re kidding, right? I’d say the OSU athletic director is relevant to a site taglined with “A Critical View of Oregon State Athletics”. Hundreds of Trump posts by Jack(s), not so much.

            I guarantee I will move on from Barnes LONG before Jack(s) will move on from Trump.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Oh… so just because you sent a dumb email to the OSU AD makes it relevant?

            I love how you just glossed over the “Critical” part of the tagline.

  • Angry@angry says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 12 votes)

    you want a new AD… I want a new guy in charge of this site. How did the attempted sale go? Big offers?? How about some proof that this email exchanged ever happened?

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -4 (from 10 votes)

      In your world, I sit around making up fake Scott Barnes emails and have tried to sell the site.
      You get crazier by the hour.

  • mckalk mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)

    I didn’t interpret this as anybody being butt-hurt about anything. I just found it kind of humorous that Barnes had Angry’s e-mail open, but was obviously not going to respond to any of the concerns being brought up and then forgot to close it out and typed a sort of assholish response to whoever he was going to the event with.

    I think it’s interesting that BDC would engage in conversation with Angry and Barnes apparently is not.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)

      Exactly.
      Voice of reason.

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -6 (from 8 votes)

      There’s some humor to be found here. But the context of the inquiries should have an expected rate of zero responses not equally ass-holish, if any at all.

      I mean… you’re an AD, and you get an email that complains about something justifiable then ends with, “It’s hard to fight for an athletic program that will not fight for itself.”

      And then you whine about not getting an answer? It’s highly inappropriate for an AD to write, “You know what? You are not the only person who has shared these concerns. But you are the only one who deserves a hearty Fuck You.”

      But that’s the deserved response.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

        Why is that the deserved response?
        The deserved response is addressing the question and letting the fanbase know what he’s doing to correct it. From memory, Scotty is a donor and attends games.

        • mckalk mckalk says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I might be mistaken, but I believe that BDC would engage in civil back and forth with Angry and had the time for it. Barnes might consider the same.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            He was great about it, even taking my suggestion for lowering minimum donations to get volume from smaller donors, admitting they “dropped the ball” on that, and put it into action shortly after.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

          Scotty is a donor and attends games… and sent an email that ends with a straw man that deserves “WTF?” as an answer… and wonders why someone who professionally should never respond to any donor who attends games that way doesn’t respond to his straw man.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          I really doubt Barnes didn’t respond because there’s a strawman at the end of a sentence.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            The straw man is a whole fucking sentence.

            “It’s hard to fight for an athletic program that will not fight for itself.”

            Hello? Where the hell did that come from? “Go fuck yourself,” is the deserved response. “Is this a fucking joke?” would also be appropriate.

            Excuse me for thinking no response is more professional than either of those.

      • mckalk mckalk says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I thought Barnes response to whoever he was going to the event was “assholish”.

        “Um, for the third time”! Unless it was one of his kids and then it makes complete sense!

        As for the rest of the stuff, it remains to be seen. I will say this, if Barnes was responding to an employee, sarcastic put downs are not a leadership trait that work well in the long run (although I love them on this site).

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          So?

          I know… let’s extrapolate that to be his demeanor always and forever… just because.

          It will be fun.

          • mckalk mckalk says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Could be a glimpse, might not be. Kudos to Angry for putting the vehicle into motion! I’m not taking it all that seriously. Are you? And since when did this site get so uptight that we can’t speculate?

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Speculation is fine. Coming to a conclusion of contempt and pretend outrage due to said speculation is called what?

          • mckalk mckalk says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I’m not outraged. Do you think Scotty and Angry are? I don’t see it that way. Angry has a presence, I just think it will be interesting to see if Barnes will ignore him as policy or will engage like BDC did. That doesn’t see crazy to me.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Um…

            So, fuck this guy. Can we get a new AD?

            Hello?

          • mckalk mckalk says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I thought it was more exaggeration for effect, which one needs when blogging to get people’s juices flowing, but that’s just me.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 7 votes)

          Asshole for:

          1. Ignoring Scotty
          2. Talking to his friend/whoever that way.
          3. Planned to ignore me until he accidentally responded to me thinking I was the friend/whoever he could talk to like that.
          4. When he realized it was me, sends a chippy comment.

          What did this guy do well? 0-4 is a bad day at the dish.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            What were your emails? I could agree with some of this if I could see your chosen verbiage. I can’t conclude anything about 2 for the same reason. For all I know, he was responding to some lunkhead who wasn’t comprehending the words that were coming out of his fingers.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            And since when did we start thinking that anyone talking about officiating wouldn’t treat it like touching the third rail?

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Bad day for sure, but I’m not ready to write him off. We’ve all gotten busy and curt sometimes.

            I’ll be close if he doesn’t give you some response to your email though, since you know he received it, and HE knows you know he received it. Not responding is about as much of a “yeah I’m going to intentionally ignore you” poke in the eye as you can get.

          • mckalk mckalk says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

            Enough of this back and forth!!!! i’m ruling that Barnes WAS an ASSHOLE on this day. Take it to the circuit court if you want to challenge. He will at least need to respond to Angry one time with a thoughtful comment in the next six months for me to overturn this decision.

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

        It’s basic PR and engagement for any organization.

        Someone in your base (a customer, constituent, alumnus, etc.) takes the time to write and express concerns and ask questions. You respond, or you delegate to someone to respond. It’s not hard.

        All it takes here is even a token reply, along the lines of “I acknowledge your concerns”, “We believe in fair officiating” (not throwing anyone under the bus), or a freaking form response to be better than ignoring.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

          The problem is you ended with an accusatory and assumptive straw man that deserves only reproach as a response.

          So… you address something that he can’t talk about publicly then close it with something dumb that he can’t respond to correctly because of his position. Without that straw man, you likely would have received some expected milquetoast legalese given the subject.

          And you would probably whine about that too.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            I don’t know why I’m bothering to argue with you, but really? “The problem is you ended with an accusatory and assumptive straw man that deserves only reproach as a response.”

            I’m saying it’s demoralizing, as a Beaver fan, if our own athletic department won’t stand up for common sense rules like having neutral officials at championship games. I made no personal attacks and used no profanity. Yes, there are certain things the department probably can’t talk about, but there are plenty related to what I wrote that they can. They chose not to, and combined with broken contact pages and bouncing emails, that says a lot about how the department is being run.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Who says they haven’t stood up for themselves?

            … I mean… besides you… in an email that had little to do with standing up for anything up to that point.

            Broken contacts and buttons are a valid concern. But you sort of reduced your credibility to zero by accusing him of not doing his job without a shred of evidence and taking a huge leap in logic to do so.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            If they did something regarding the issues I addressed, it would have been a prime opportunity to say so. Also, I said it’s hard to fight for an athletic department that won’t fight for itself. I never said they weren’t fighting. Rather, I was asking if and how they were fighting. I wanted to express the importance of addressing these things. There was no accusation except for the one you’re choosing to infer in your mind.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

            You show me someone who says anything publicly about officiating, and I’ll show you someone in the process of being fined or sanctioned.

            Don’t be selectively naive about this just for the sake of your straw man.

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Great, then just reply back acknowledging the concern and thanks for the heads-up on the broken contact page.

            Beyond that, Jack, don’t tell me they can’t say ANYTHING about officiating or how officials are decided for games involving different conferences. That would be “selectively naive”.

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    OT: With less than 7 weeks till Football, Jim Wilson tweets:

    “OSU Football opens @ CSU, PSU & Minnesota at home, @ WSU. Great opportunity; not a ‘preseason.’ Makes incumbent Marcus McM man to beat at QB”

    Per Cap’n Obvious, seems Wilson has talents beyond simply improving Parker’s performance!

    • Beavlover69 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +8 (from 10 votes)

      You might as well label actual sports info “OT” round here nowadays lol

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

    Slightly OT:
    I’d like to know if poster “Beaver fan with an opinion” ever wrote and hand delivered his letter to Barnes, as he intended when posting on 6/27.

    BTW, I’m in the camp which feels both scotty and angry deserved a response which showed that Barnes was aware and concerned with their legitimate concerns.

  • Mammothboner6969 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 10 votes)

    Other side of the coin, Jack. You wanted Hillary or Bernie in office. Yikes!

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

      Just Bernie.

      Simple math tells me that most governments in the world spend between $4500 and $5500 per person for single-payer, non-profit health care. They also provide better services and have healthier populations than we do. We spend $10000 per person on health care, and our government spends $7000 of that $10000. If our government wanted to do so, it could easily spend 20% less on health care than it does now and provide better service and outcomes than it does now, subsidizing corporate profits. And just cutting that $7k the govt. spends will not change the overall cost of $10k per. It will only change the $3k you already unnecessarily spend to a higher amount to make up the difference.

      Why does that sound like some pie-in-the-sky stuff to “reasonable” people like you?

      Yikes, indeed. 20% less government spending plus $3k of unnecessary personal spending per person plus better health outcomes are not noble endeavors at all.

      Shall we now discuss how for profit colleges/universities/tech schools have been ripping off Vets and bilking the US govt.?

      • Mammothboner6969 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 11 votes)

        You have no clue what Bernie would have done in office. I can go into more detail why Bernie was not the answer, but all I’d have to do is look who followed him. I’m sure I can get a nice picture of your background just off of that.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          Just provide links. I’ve probably read them already. But I’d like to see whose ideas you think are valid enough for you to be wholly indifferent to straight up numbers.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)

            Good luck with getting a response. Boner probably knows he’d lose this one.

          • Mammothboner6969 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            Easier said than done as most things are. Again, no one is debating our health care system needs work. However, the entire presidential election and campaign doesn’t/didn’t only ride on health care. I’m hoping you didn’t vote for Bernie solely on that premise.

            Based on estimates of past proposed single payer US health systems, Bernie was expected to increase federal spending by $18 billion. He was expected to increase revenues through taxes by $15.3 billion. His plan would have caused a bit more debt than Hilary’s, and probably less than Trumps according to independants, so he doesn’t seem that bad at first glance. His policies also massively benefit the poor.

            The issue is that his tax plan would have mostly got its revenue from the rich and dramatically increased taxes on the richest of the rich. This in itself might not be TOO problematic if the rich were given something in exchange, but that money is being redirected to pay for the poors healthcare. America should have had a healthier happier workforce as a result of Sanders, but he would have driven investors away and reduced the total size of the economy in the short term.

            The BIG problem with Sanders plan is more that during a recession the rich end up paying way less in tax revenues, how much they pay in tax revenues has a ton to do with the economy. So if suddenly the bottom falls out of the worlds economy, and you’re stuck with Sanders take from the rich to give to the poor tax plan, you’re fucked.

            On top of this, he pledged to break up the banks.

            Obummer actually phrased it best when you said you can’t break apart an economy, put it back together, and expect everything to work the same. Sanders was proposing the single largest peacetime increase in taxes, while switching to a wildly more progressive tax scheme, and was going to break up the banks. Maybe it could have all worked out, especially since congress would likely have tamed Sanders ambitions, but I doubt the wisdom of that sharp of a change in how the US does things. I feel even if you’re a leftist, a more gradual change is better for the economy, and thus better for your gibs in the long run.

            P.S. No luck needed, bendbeaver

          • I am Jack's deluded mind says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

            Have fun trying to have a debate with a librul since their mind is already made up. Sanders is totally happy giving taxpayer $ from the rich to the poor but has no intention of giving up his lavish wealth he created through politics from stupid people not capable of rational thought.

            Jackass should read up on how damaging socialism is to any society before opening his pie hole

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            So basically boner, you don’t want higher taxes for the wealthy, and that’s why you think Sanders wasn’t the answer. Not much of an argument, but okay.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You’re packing a lot of simplistic ideas into micro problems and suggesting they make sense in a macro world.

            They don’t.

            This is why the US is screwed for now. The supply-siders have convinced everyone that running and economy is just like a business or sitting around the kitchen table. Those are micro studies. They will work on the macro level like cancer works on a body. It’s what has been happening for the last 40+ years. Some of the bone-headed policies that are bleeding us dry were from the little neo-liberal group who worked for Nixon–Rumsfeld, Cheney, Carlucci, et al. They managed to turn the very language of economics into some layman’s version of plainspeak. In doing so, they emit this rubbish… like tax cuts will create higher revenues (never ever happened… never). I’ll bet you think corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. It doesn’t exist. It never has. And if you want to throw Ford v Dodge or ebay v Craig at me, remember those are two decisions in a century of time that still don’t address the core of that pretend issue that people believe exists.

            I don’t have time to correct all the inaccuracies of what you think are nuanced stances. But I will address two things. Saying Sanders’ plan would have raised taxes here without also saying he would have cut spending twofold what he would have raised is disingenuous. His plans to bring the country back to whence it was financially stable by raising the top marginal rate is another subject separate from healthcare. And his idea to close the loophole in the FBA of 1933 which allowed the SCOTUS to make the decision it did in Marquette v First Omaha is as solid and conservative an ideal as there ever was.

            I don’t understand the fear from the self-anointed conservatives who are really just anarcho-liberals spewing newspeak created by Lee Atwater. They say they fear nothing, yet they whine about how they fear everything. And they like to just sit around and smell each other’s farts.

            That last is not verified, but it just looks like it.

            If you want to see how government would work under Sanders, you could look at North Dakota. They had this discussion a century ago, and the Non Partisan League set them up for a century of very conservative economic structure which held up well in depression, let alone recession.

            Anyone who thinks Clinton’s Third Way isn’t just a slower imposition of supply-side econ hasn’t been paying attention. HRC’s economic plan would have just been death by a thousand cuts. If it was anything like her husband’s methods, it wouldn’t even be that. It would just be bait and switch–much more subtly than Trump has done.

  • Beavlover69 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 12 votes)

    You guys are just a buncha babies. Big deal BDC responded to your e-mails in the past. Did he ever actually DO anything that you requested he do? You’re all mad because Barnes didn’t write you back and say “Wow excellent e-mail, I’m glad you brought this to my attention!” I’m all for telling Jack to fuck off somewhere else with his repeated Trump whining (and I hate Trump) but this is just as ridiculous. And don’t even try to pretend that this falls under “critical view of OSU athletics”. This post calls the AD a “douche-whistle” because he doesn’t respond to snarky e-mails criticizing him for not picketing the NCAA after his school didn’t win the National Championship. Could you imagine the uproar around here if UO did this?

    Football starts in about a month. Until then why don’t you guys just go outside. One of the best starts to an Oregon summer in quite some time

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      It comes down to this:

      1. The department is deliberately ignoring emails from alumni and donors. My email and angry’s, which we KNOW he received, prove this. No one expects picketing or “MY GOD YOU’RE RIGHT! THE OFFICIATING SUCKED!”

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      Sorry, I accidentally hit a button to post prematurely.

      1. The department is deliberately not responding to emails from alumni and donors. My email and angry’s, which we KNOW he received, prove this. A lot of us justifiably expect the OSU athletic department to respond to emails from alumni and donors about OSU athletics. No one expects picketing or “MY GOD YOU’RE RIGHT! THE OFFICIATING SUCKED!” types of replies. We expect *some* reply, even delegated, with whatever information or acknowledgement they can give.

      2. The contact page did not work when I tried to contact the athletic department. I tried two different browsers and must have performed that CAPTCHA challenge at least half a dozen times. The contact email listed there did not work, either. It bounced. Combined with point 1, this shows a department that does not want to engage with the fanbase.

      Pointing these things out is very relevant to a “critical view of Oregon State athletics”.

      Yes, it is beautiful out, and I’m going outside soon 🙂

    • mckalk mckalk says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Did you see/read Angry’s comment where he verified that BDC liked his e-mail suggestion regarding smaller donation amounts and put it in to practice?

      • Beavlover69 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

        Fair point but notice how Angry offered up a logical, well thought out solution for BDC to accept and implement whereas these e-mails are simply complaining that the Beavs got hosed. If ADs had a dime for every e-mail they got from fans who think sports are rigged against their team just because they didn’t win, they wouldn’t need to be paid a salary in the first place

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

          “If ADs had a dime for every e-mail they got from fans who think sports are rigged against their team just because they didn’t win…”

          There was an SEC umpire at a CWS game between an SEC and non-SEC school. His calls were so horrible, they made national sporting news. That is not expressing concerns about the integrity of the officiating “just because they didn’t win.”

          • Beavlover69 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 9 votes)

            Well I’d be willing to bet a fair amount that you wouldn’t have e-mailed him had the Beavs won the championship. Is it strange? Yes, but it only becomes a conspiracy once the fan base needs to find an excuse as to why we lost. There’s shitty calls in literally every game in literally every sport. If you think that that’s because every sport is rigged then just stop watching

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 11 votes)

            Lol. A Greg Street apologist. I guess that attitude is why he still has a job.

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            @Beaverlover69:
            -Did you watch the TV broadcast of game 3? See the strike calls in question?
            -Do you agree that plate discipline was one of the traits which led to the Beavs success?
            -Do you think batters can change their judgement of the strike zone for one game after 60?
            -Do you think the SEC is inordinately represented in the CWS field?
            -Are you OK with an SEC ump (not just this Street guy who is hated by even Miss St) being involved in playoff games where an SEC team is involved?

          • Beavlover69 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 9 votes)

            OldBeav,

            1. Yes
            2. Yes
            3. No, but to say the strike zone was the same for the other 59 games is naive. I agree with Angry on a previous point that old guys calling balls and strikes is incredibly inefficient and therefore batters face ever changing strike zones throughout the entire year
            4. I didn’t watch a single pitch of SEC baseball so I can’t say who deserved to be in or not
            5. No I’m not ok with it, but if you watch college basketball you’ll find refs from certain conferences officiate tourney games with teams from their designated conferences.

            All college refs are shitty. Football, baseball, basketball, all of em. It’s not some secret ESPN conspiracy. The NCAA doesn’t pay officials dick and this is what happens. At the end of the day we got beat twice in a row. It sucks. Get over it. Try giving the other team credit. This is SEC level delusion

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            OK 69, I’m more clear on your take now. Thanks.

            Guess I’m just naive enough to believe that the strike zone in game 3 was SIGNIFICANTLY different, both in degree and frequency of errors, than that of the rest of the season. As far as the SEC representation in post season play, I’ll just say the law of averages and other factors supports, for me, the thought that something other than athletic performance is at work here.

            “Get over it”, give LSU credit. No problem, while I enjoy the discussion, this matter doesn’t effect my BP at all and I’d just as soon be talking Beavs Football. LSU is/was a good team, just not better than the Beavs…………IMHO. Cheers.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Yes, I just gave an example of him doing something I requested.

  • scotty says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

    Scott,

    Thanks for writing with regards to the recent CWS. While NCAA rules prohibit me from commenting on the officiating at the games you mentioned, rest assured we are committed to ensuring our student athletes are able to compete on a fair playing field. Other Beavers have expressed similar concerns, and we hear you.

    Go Beavs,

    Scott Barnes
    ————————

    That’s a reply I did NOT receive. I typed it here in literally a couple of minutes while my lunch is cooling off to show how quick and easy it is to reply to a donor’s email. Even if they haven’t done anything about neutral officiating, this sort of short reply would demonstrate fan engagement and professionalism. No one expects a thesis response.

    If anyone at the athletic department is reading this (yeah right) feel free to steal or adapt my pretend message. That way you can at least appear to care about what the fans have to say.

    • Beavlover69 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

      Should he respond? Sure. Is it asinine that he didn’t? No

      That’s great you wrote up an e-mail in a couple minutes. Now go ahead write a couple hundred more and see how much you can get done while your lunch is cooling. Because if you think he gets one e-mail a day then I dunno what to tell you

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

        That’s why there’s a nice concept called “delegation”. Any major organization should have these things figured out.

        • Doozeldorf says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

          You really want our AD to delegate replying to emails? Do you want the replies to appear like they were from Barnes or do want them to be signed by “Executive Assistant blah blah”? Neither of these would be sufficient for me, but I likely wouldn’t know the first option is deceitful so I suppose I would accept it. But if I found out I was getting email replies from fake Scott Barnes, I would not be happy.

    • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

      I was hoping for something like this-

      Dear Scotty.
      Um, thanks for sending me this email. I recently ran out of toilet paper in my executive bathroom and was looking for something to wipe my ass with.
      Sincerest regards-
      Scott Barnes

      Just to bask in the AB meltdown that ensued.

      By the way I would be more insulted with a generic response then with nothing at all. Generic responses are the “fuck off I’ll do what I want” of the email world. If you think your email was actually more then just skimmed over, you’re nuts, angrys return email is a good example.

      • beavergopher beavergopher says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        The big news is our AD wipes his ass electronically with emails! No wonder he has that pouty face.

        • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Who doesn’t have printer paper?

          • scotty says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I really miss dot matrix. Those strips on the side really helped clean up those hard-to-reach places.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Charmin Dot Matrix is awesome.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 10 votes)

    Regarding this liberal/conservative thing: both roads lead to bankruptcy. It’s just which route do you want to take?

    That usually depends on your level of sociopathy/lack of empathy. If you have empathy, you’ll pick them Dem route, and if you lack empathy you’ll pick the Republican path.

    Neither cares about you, neither is solving your problems, and both are putting large groups, if not everyone, on the path to a bankrupt Nation and the inevitable, subsequent revolution.

    End of story, really.

  • BeaverBill BeaverBill says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Stupid question: When does football practice start? And when will we get some practice reports? Hate this time of year.

  • NiceBeaver NiceBeaver says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Saw Isaah Crocker is being recruited by Alabama now. Was hopeful he’d be one of the headliners of our 2018 class, but now I think we can forget any hooes of bringing him in.

    • Doozeldorf says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      It feels like our recruiting is 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. Coaches must get burnt out by that. I wonder if schools like Bama and USC have to work even half as hard at recruiting as our coaches. They probably just sit around and watch the recruiting sites to see who is getting attention. Then they check them out to decide if they want to steal them or not. I don’t know what the answer is but I don’t think early offers are doing us any good.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

        The answer is attending Alabama or USC in the first place so you’re an alum at a winner.
        Or to stop watching NCAA sports. More fans will do the latter over time as they realize their teams can never win.

        • Doozeldorf says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

          True. I certainly don’t have any expectation of the Beavers making it to a National Championship in football, ever. That is unless we have some billionaire donor all of a sudden become a huge Beaver football fan. I have to say, the huge discrepancy in recruiting talent and the media bias has definitely reduced my excitement for college sports in the last 5 years.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I just want to go to a Rose Bowl.

          • NiceBeaver NiceBeaver says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Soeaking billionaire donors, I had read somewhere recently that Turkish billionaire(and OSU alum) Husnu M. Ozyegin gave the commencement speach this year. It was also rumored he is planning to make a sizable donation to Oregon State, although the intention of the money is for academics rather than football. Do you think he’d notice if we funneled several hundred million into renovating the campus’ largest classroom, Reser Stadium?
            For educational purposes?

            Also, saw some photos from inside the valley center’s new team meeting room. I was originally curious if the room looked out over the field, but had never seen any photos. Turns out, it does. Those would be some pretty cool seats if you wanted to take in a game in a more “movie theater” type of setting.

            It’s seen in the short video clip found at this link.
            https://twitter.com/TylerSully/status/884141697579528192

          • orangejulius orangejulius says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            It seems to have been established OSU has alumnus with suitable deep pockets. Getting them on board with athletics is the issue. Not everyone with such funds sees the football team as the equivalent of a ‘mid-life crisis car’ ala PK.

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            “equivalent of a ‘mid-life crisis car”
            or a marketing arm for his business.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Well until the NCAA starts allowing marketing on jerseys, like MLS. It’s going to happen sooner or later. Hopefully that will make the 2025 Oregon State University, Pacific Office Automation Beavers more competitive in the recruiting market.

  • Doozeldorf says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    OT: When did schools stop teaching the class where you learn the difference between “then” and “than”?

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

      I wreck un eye ain’t got that they’re an sir four that. They did unt teach that in Jonnny has two mommyz class.

  • BlkOrange says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I wrote on here awhile back that Barnes is not liked at all on campus. Not a good fit for OSU at ALL.

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      I am interested in what you know or have heard. From my Gopher side I have learned to not discount statements like that. Spill it.

      • helmsley says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        When Barnes was first being mentioned for the AD job, he vowed his allegiance to his then job (Pittsburg?) how much he and his family loved it etc., etc., and not more than a few days later the OSU rumors were validated. I wondered then if he might be a smoke and mirrors guy. We’ll see.

    • Doozeldorf says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      When you say “on campus”, is that the students, faculty, coaches, everyone? I guess I’m ok if some people don’t like him as long as donors love him and he gets shit done.

    • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

      #fakeOSUnews

  • Homefry Homefry says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Practices in Bend July 29 through August 4. 8/4 will have the open scrimmage again.

  • Beav in DE says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Can someone do a Scott Barnes vs. The World Photoshop?

  • PDX Beav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

    Feel like Barnes will be pretty results oriented which I like, so for now I am cool with him. Want to see him take steps to capture momentum in football and also basketball when upturns happen. Think that could be case for football over next 2 years so want to see what he does when we first get to 8 wins. Will he seize opportunities to help OSU ride positive momentum. I am hopeful.

    • WFO WFO says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +11 (from 11 votes)

      Yeah, I mean look at how he stepped up for a 56-6 baseball team, just imagine what he’s willing to do for an 8 win football team.

      • NiceBeaver NiceBeaver says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        We’re getting 8 wins!!??

        • PDX Beav says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Eventually. I got 6 this year, then probably 7 year after with chance at 8. I am saying when we do get there on next 2-3 years will he seize the momentum or will it be like Riley where recruiting class may be no better or even worse. Want to see firm West Side plans once we get 8 wins and commitment for it to be quality. Want there to be a desire to bring Beaver Nation to a sustained place where we expect 8 wins every year soon. That will get us where we have a shot at a Rose Bowl or two like we all want.

        • beavergopher beavergopher says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

          And Tartan! Barnes is huge for Tartan. We are getting Tartan!!!!!!

  • Ignorant fucktards says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 14 votes)

    Hi! I’m Jack and preach about straw man arguments. But only when it doesn’t suit my agenda.

    Ever hear of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Jackoff suffers from it. It’s a librul thing.

    Speaking of which I read a post from an internet tough guy here he does not, nor would not own a firearm but was capable of taking down an armed intruder that came through his front door.

    Bernie would’ve been a great president. But not better than Idiot boy or 45

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

      If I fostered the growth of fungus in my crotch and scraped some away every day until I saved a couple hundred pounds, it would be a better president than 4D5. If 4D5 vacated office, and nobody replaced him ever, THAT would be a better president than him.

      I did once suffer from the idea that rational sense was common sense. So your cereal box psychology is close to correct. But you didn’t know there were two sides to the D-K study. You just thought it made for a devastating blow to my psyche because the illusory grandeur of 4D5 has been pointed out for all the time he’s been running.

      I have the best answers. They’re just the best. Nobody has answers like I do. They’re the best answers in the world. Believe me.

      A straw man by any other name would still be a straw man. It has nothing to do with me or what I think. In this case, scotty wrote a decent letter complaining about something he thought was important, then he wrapped it up by telling his reader that he wasn’t fighting for OSU… because scotty says so. It would have been decent to just say, “Hey, I don’t like this.” But to follow it up with, “And you’re not doing your job because not talking about something you can’t talk about publicly gives me license to make up shit about how you feel and act about something,” is just inane.

  • NiceBeaver NiceBeaver says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    News coming out of portland radio this am is about a new ownership group with deep pockets, pursuing adding MLB and NFL both to the Portland area.
    NFL would absolutely kill the current attendance levels at Oregon and Oregon State football games.
    Of course these types of stories frequently pop up with nothing materializing, but it’s likely to be a big story during the slow summer period around here.

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      NFL will not add a team. That means less of the money pie for the current owners. MLB might be dumb enough to add a team.

      • NiceBeaver NiceBeaver says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        They didnt specifically mention if these would be new teams or existing teams moving to a new market. I would guess the latter is more likely.

    • ObjCritic says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Portland already lost what soul it had, why not? Imagine skinny, bearded hipsters attending games between their service jobs, enjoying $10+ Oregon IPAs in in the stadium…

      But seriously, idiots like Canzano will bite, talk about how Portland “needs” this, and then Portland will be likely used to get leverage a better stadium deal in another another municipality…

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Speaking of slow summer period around here, Football Scoop has a piece which will, again, make you shake your head at the way different “scandals” are reported. Thinking Luke H. vs Mike MacIntyre here. Too bad D.Moron doesn’t work in Colorado.

    http://footballscoop.com/news/mike-macintyre-cover-afcas-magazine/

  • Angry@angry says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

    From the title of this thread….sounds like there’s still no press pass for Angry this year.

  • beavergopher beavergopher says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    CFN not digging da Beavs.
    Pac-12 Predicted Finish

    PAC-12 NORTH

    1. Washington
    2. Stanford
    3. Oregon
    4. Washington State
    5. California
    6. Oregon State

    2017 Oregon State Beavers Football Schedule

    2017 Preseason Prediction: 3-9
    2017 Preseason Pac-12 Prediction: 2-7

    Aug. 26 at Colorado State L
    Sep. 2 Portland State W
    Sep. 9 Minnesota L
    Sep. 16 at Washington State L
    Sep. 23 at Colorado State L
    Sep. 30 Washington L
    Oct. 7 at USC L
    Oct. 14 Colorado W
    Oct. 21 OPEN DATE
    Oct. 26 Stanford L
    Nov. 4 at California L
    Nov. 11 at Arizona L
    Nov. 18 Arizona State W
    Nov. 24 at Oregon L
    http://collegefootballnews.com/2017/oregon-state-beavers-preview-2017

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      The CSU game has a must win feel to it to set the tone for the season.

      • Jack Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        Which one?

        It’s hard to respect a site which projects us as 3-9 then shows a 3-10 slate.

        • beavergopher beavergopher says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Haha. Missed that. We get a do over?
          They used to do great write ups. Not as good or as in depth the last few years.

    • AKBeaver AKBeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      They say worst case scenario is 4-8 and yet they predict a 3-9 record?

      • AKBeaver AKBeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Actually they say realistic worst case scenario is 4-8. Does that mean their prediction is unrealistic?

        • beavergopher beavergopher says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          The Russians, obviously, are to blame for the discrepancy.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Because of the Uber partnership, and we don’t have Uber here?

            Or is this something about airports?

  • ObjCritic says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    OT: S-I opines that Alabama’s dominance is bade for the SEC…

    How about the larger questions of the approaches to ESPN SEC television contracts, marketing, and SEC bias being bad for NCAA sports in general?

  • beavergopher beavergopher says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    What is a douche whistle?
    Is it safe to put your lips on one?
    What sound does it make?
    Are they only audible to dogs?

Write a Comment

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives