You guys won't believe it!!!! Chris O'Tule is back for a 6th year!!!!!!!!! Woooooo-hooooooo!!!!!
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/ncaa-grants-marquettes-chris-otule-a-sixth-year-b9971887z1-218936991.html
Thank you Michael Hunt for this awesome scoop!!!!! Every MU fan has been waiting with baited breath for this story!!!!
And this is why newspapers are completely useless and dead in the USA. Posted by Michael Hunt Aug. 8, 2013 10:03 p.m.
Total worthless journalism at its best!!!
That's fukking awesome! They are on top of their sh!t. My aunt has really done a good job covering us.
Quote from: JoeSmith1721 on August 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
kkunt*
Hey, it is good news. It certainly does not happen often that you get the services of a 6'11" stud big for 6 to 8 years at the college level.
Was it ever made "official" by the NCAA before yesterday? I know we took it as a guarantee, but I can't remember if the NCAA ever made an official ruling. If they hadn't yet, maybe now it's official and that's why the article was written.
Quote from: wadesworld on August 09, 2013, 07:17:05 AM
Was it ever made "official" by the NCAA before yesterday? I know we took it as a guarantee, but I can't remember if the NCAA ever made an official ruling. If they hadn't yet, maybe now it's official and that's why the article was written.
Fox Sports Wisconsin had this official news on May 22. In Hunt Years, yesterday was breaking for the JS.
http://www.foxsportswisconsin.com/collegebasketball/marquette-golden-eagles/story/NCAA-grants-Otule-sixth-year-of-eligibil?blockID=904539
The article was really about MU being part of the super bowl eve series. Otule was just the hook to get the people to read the article. Besides that while the hard core fans here new Otule was coming back, I am not sure the general sports fan were aware of it.
Quote from: bilsu on August 09, 2013, 08:14:49 AM
The article was really about MU being part of the super bowl eve series. Otule was just the hook to get the people to read the artical. Besides that while the hard core fans here new Otule was coming back, I am not sure the general sports fan were aware of it.
If true, maybe that is because the Journal didn't cover it when timely???
This has nothing to do with why newspapers are useless. This is just lazy ass journalism.
And just because general fans didn't know about it doesn't mean it can't be reported in a timely fashion.
No idea why people find so much joy in the sinking newspaper industry. Very odd. By the way, where do you think the majority of bloggers get their "scoops"? Yup, from newspapers' websites. Once newspapers vanish, those same bloggers will have to finally leave their parent's basement and uncover their own damn news.
Quote from: Groin_pull on August 09, 2013, 08:27:48 AM
No idea why people find so much joy in the sinking newspaper industry. Very odd. By the way, where do you think the majority of bloggers get their "scoops"? Yup, from newspapers' websites. Once newspapers vanish, those same bloggers will have to finally leave their parent's basement and uncover their own damn news.
Twitter is a much bigger source of blogging material than any newspaper website.
Quote from: Groin_pull on August 09, 2013, 08:27:48 AM
No idea why people find so much joy in the sinking newspaper industry. Very odd. By the way, where do you think the majority of bloggers get their "scoops"? Yup, from newspapers' websites. Once newspapers vanish, those same bloggers will have to finally leave their parent's basement and uncover their own damn news.
You are thinking too narrowly about the industry. Newspapers are no longer an industry on their own...but simply a vehicle to get information out to the people. There are plenty of web-sites that do this, not to mention Twitter, that don't revolve around printed documents.
It'll be great to see O'Tule impart all of his knowledge and experience to the rest of the team. He's the only player on the team that remembers drinking at the 'Lanche.
Quote from: WI_inferiority_complexes on August 09, 2013, 09:03:13 AM
It'll be great to see O'Tule O'Toole impart all of his knowledge and experience to the rest of the team. He's the only player on the team that remembers drinking at the 'Lanche.
FIFY
I am an '08 grad (December) and Otule is the only player left who was playing (his first semester at MU was my last) while I was still a student.
I love that I just had my 5 year reunion and Otule is still playing for MU.
Quote from: Groin_pull on August 09, 2013, 08:27:48 AM
No idea why people find so much joy in the sinking newspaper industry. Very odd. By the way, where do you think the majority of bloggers get their "scoops"? Yup, from newspapers' websites. Once newspapers vanish, those same bloggers will have to finally leave their parent's basement and uncover their own damn news.
Call me lazy, but I think you just answered your own question.
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on August 09, 2013, 08:16:59 AM
If true, maybe that is because the Journal didn't cover it when timely???
It is out of season, so it was not pressing news. I am not defending the newspaper here, but the "STOP THE PRESSES'''''JOURNAL SENTINEL BREAKING MU NEWS" is an over the top reaction.
Quote from: bilsu on August 09, 2013, 09:45:48 AM
It is out of season, so it was not pressing news. I am not defending the newspaper here, but the "STOP THE PRESSES'''''JOURNAL SENTINEL BREAKING MU NEWS" is an over the top reaction.
Sending out a blog post saying that Otule was granted a sixth year, especially when other sources mentioned it at the time it happened, should be standard procedure.
We went to the Elite Eight back 2 back?
Quote from: Terror Skink on August 09, 2013, 08:58:15 AM
You are thinking too narrowly about the industry. Newspapers are no longer an industry on their own...but simply a vehicle to get information out to the people. There are plenty of web-sites that do this, not to mention Twitter, that don't revolve around printed documents.
True.
But Twitter doesn't make money.
A vast majority of blogs don't make money.
A majority of web-only publications don't make money.
A large majority of online components of print publications don't make money.
For most newspapers/magazines, print essentially subsidizes online. If/when print dies, those sites (and the people who find, report, write, edit and publish the news on them) go away.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 09:14:15 AM
True.
But Twitter doesn't make money.
A vast majority of blogs don't make money.
A majority of web-only publications don't make money.
A large majority of online components of print publications don't make money.
For most newspapers/magazines, print essentially subsidizes online. If/when print dies, those sites (and the people who find, report, write, edit and publish the news on them) go away.
I don't agree with that. A lot of legitimate online sites with quality reporting are connected to other types of media (television for instance), or don't have any print media associated with them (Yahoo.)
And last I heard, Twitter was profitable.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 09:14:15 AM
True.
But Twitter doesn't make money.
A vast majority of blogs don't make money.
A majority of web-only publications don't make money.
A large majority of online components of print publications don't make money.
For most newspapers/magazines, print essentially subsidizes online. If/when print dies, those sites (and the people who find, report, write, edit and publish the news on them) go away.
Is this a post from 2007? Cause the view of the web's monetary value seems like its coming from then.
There are many many blogs that make money, especially in niche subjects.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 11, 2013, 10:36:11 AM
Is this a post from 2007? Cause the view of the web's monetary value seems like its coming from then.
There are many many blogs that make money, especially in niche subjects.
The vast majority of blogs do not make money.
Show me how I'm wrong.
Quote from: Terror Skink on August 11, 2013, 10:31:47 AM
I don't agree with that. A lot of legitimate online sites with quality reporting are connected to other types of media (television for instance), or don't have any print media associated with them (Yahoo.)
Yahoo produces very little news of its own. It aggregates, mostly from newspapers or wire services.
Outside of a couple of national networks (i.e. CNN), most web sites affiliated with television news organizations are money pits. You don't believe your local TV affiliates web site is profitable, do you?
Quote
And last I heard, Twitter was profitable.
I should have been more clear (and you less pedantic, because I'm pretty sure you know what I meant).
Twitter does not generate revenue for the person who tweets, except in that it could direct traffic to a place that does generate revenue. Nobody will ever make a dime by simply tweeting out news.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
The vast majority of blogs do not make money.
Show me how I'm wrong.
Come on you can't post your big long statement of how nothing makes money and then change it to the portion that you would be most correct with. Stick to your argument and be stubborn or address the portions where you're wrong.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
Yahoo produces very little news of its own. It aggregates, mostly from newspapers or wire services.
Outside of a couple of national networks (i.e. CNN), most web sites affiliated with television news organizations are money pits. You don't believe your local TV affiliates web site is profitable, do you?
I should have been more clear (and you less pedantic, because I'm pretty sure you know what I meant).
Twitter does not generate revenue for the person who tweets, except in that it could direct traffic to a place that does generate revenue. Nobody will ever make a dime by simply tweeting out news.
I'll respond to the rest later, but you should google celebrities and Twitter to read about how they get paid for promotional/product tweets all the time.
Also, it's called Twitter advertising. You originally said twitter doesn't make money then changed that to people who tweet.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
Yahoo produces very little news of its own. It aggregates, mostly from newspapers or wire services.
Outside of a couple of national networks (i.e. CNN), most web sites affiliated with television news organizations are money pits. You don't believe your local TV affiliates web site is profitable, do you?
The web site is not profitable as a stand alone, but the vast majority of affiliates have them. That isn't going to change. And Yahoo has national reporters that have broken sports stories in previously.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
I should have been more clear (and you less pedantic, because I'm pretty sure you know what I meant).
I didn't. You should have been more clear.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 11, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
I'll respond to the rest later, but you should google celebrities and Twitter to read about how they get paid for promotional/product tweets all the time.
Also, it's called Twitter advertising. You originally said twitter doesn't make money then changed that to people who tweet.
Celebrities also get paid for wearing certain shoes.
Ergo, wearing shoes is profitable.
#logic
I'll take some time trying to figure out how Lindsay Lohan tweeting about her new purse has to do with Twitter as a news medium.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on August 11, 2013, 11:52:37 AM
Come on you can't post your big long statement of how nothing makes money and then change it to the portion that you would be most correct with. Stick to your argument and be stubborn or address the portions where you're wrong.
Umm ... he specifically called out my comment about blogs making money.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 12:49:39 PM
Umm ... he specifically called out my comment about blogs making money.
Ummm...and then you changed it to "most blogs don't make money." Which was not my dissent. Of course
most don't, there more than 150 million of them!
That still doesn't prove your original comment that blogs don't make money and they need to subsidize themselves with print. You think Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call make their money from the all the print publications they just give away in DC? You essentially don't believe in online advertising. There are mommy bloggers and teacher bloggers that earn six figures a year EASILY.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 12:44:18 PM
Celebrities also get paid for wearing certain shoes.
Ergo, wearing shoes is profitable.
#logic
I'll take some time trying to figure out how Lindsay Lohan tweeting about her new purse has to do with Twitter as a news medium.
You said people don't get paid to tweet. Which is wrong.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
Yahoo produces very little news of its own. It aggregates, mostly from newspapers or wire services.
Outside of a couple of national networks (i.e. CNN), most web sites affiliated with television news organizations are money pits. You don't believe your local TV affiliates web site is profitable, do you?
Yeah, and they get paid a TON for their advertising. Being one of the main portals for web traffic = bank. Which is why AOL is still very attractive, jokes and all. I believe they still take-in the most advertising web dollars of all, at least up to a few years ago. And then look at the AOL-Huffington Post. Huff Post started mainly doing aggregation, and still do, but they're freaking loaded to the point that they've added nearly a new country/service every 3-4 months. And why? Because they could deliver a huge market of the internet to advertisers. The same works for niche blogs and networks - people/companies can pay to reach very specific subsets of our population. That's very valuable.
Jesus, how were newspapers profitable before the internet? ADVERTISING.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 11, 2013, 01:43:44 PM
Ummm...and then you changed it to "most blogs don't make money." Which was not my dissent. Of course most don't, there more than 150 million of them!
That still doesn't prove your original comment that blogs don't make money and they need to subsidize themselves with print. You think Politico, The Hill, and Roll Call make their money from the all the print publications they just give away in DC? You essentially don't believe in online advertising. There are mommy bloggers and teacher bloggers that earn six figures a year EASILY.
I never said "most blogs" don't make money. Nor did I say "Blogs don't make money." I've said "the vast majority" in each instance. Go read it for yourself. It's just a handful of posts above.
Likewise, I never said blogs "subsidize themselves with print" or anything close to that. I said most print publications subsidize their online operations with print revenues. Again, go read it for yourself.
Reality is, according to this survey, only 8 percent of blogs earn enough to support a family, much less enough to support an entire news operation. I'd say the other 92 percent qualify as "the vast majority."
http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Infographic_81_percent_of_bloggers_never_make_100_45309.aspx
Could you point me in the direction of these numerous mommy bloggers who earn six figures easily? I'm sure that maybe there's one or two out there, but isn't that sorta the exception fallacy?
As for believing in online advertising ... you're missing the point, which is that online advertising - with the exception of a very few outlets - doesn't pay the bills for even the
online operation at most outlets, much less the entire operation. This is why media companies are (finally) creating pay walls. The hope that online advertising would pay the way - as it did for print media in its heyday - has proven wrong. Companies are not getting back in online advertising revenue what it takes to create the product.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 02:18:31 PM
I never said "most blogs" don't make money. Nor did I say "Blogs don't make money." I've said "the vast majority" in each instance. Go read it for yourself. It's just a handful of posts above.
Likewise, I never said blogs "subsidize themselves with print" or anything close to that. I said most print publications subsidize their online operations with print revenues. Again, go read it for yourself.
Reality is, according to this survey, only 8 percent of blogs earn enough to support a family, much less enough to support an entire news operation. I'd say the other 92 percent qualify as "the vast majority."
http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Infographic_81_percent_of_bloggers_never_make_100_45309.aspx
Could you point me in the direction of these numerous mommy bloggers who earn six figures easily? I'm sure that maybe there's one or two out there, but isn't that sorta the exception fallacy?
As for believing in online advertising ... you're missing the point, which is that online advertising - with the exception of a very few outlets - doesn't pay the bills for even the online operation at most outlets, much less the entire operation. This is why media companies are (finally) creating pay walls. The hope that online advertising would pay the way - as it did for print media in its heyday - has proven wrong. Companies are not getting back in online advertising revenue what it takes to create the product.
Firs off, "most" to me equals "vast majority." Those words don't change anything. By the way, 8 percent of 150 million is 12,000,000 for christ's sake.
You're right on the subsidize part. I know "blogs" don't. I was just combining those two to make sure they were included in my next point.
There's more money-making bloggers than you think, especially in niche markets. I'll see if I can find enough examples for you. Sure, there's not 50 mommy bloggers making money, but there's still FIFTY full-time money-bloggers writing on a subject that no one specifically-covered in the newspaper-only era. And there's notably more than two that make good money - probably over a dozen. There are negatives to the blog era, and there are many positives (focus on smaller subjects is one of them). With so much inventory and activity on the internet there will always be bad examples you can point to.
BUT we don't need 500 super-profitable blogs anyways. We need 50. And I think you will certainly see that exist. Almost inevitably with way more than 50 to go along with all the small/personal niche blogs that make minimal or zero amount but still provide a valuable service.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 11, 2013, 02:43:27 PM
Firs off, "most" to me equals "vast majority." Those words don't change anything. By the way, 8 percent of 150 million is 12,000,000 for christ's sake.
Where are you getting this 150 million blogs figure? The story I linked placed the number at 31 million, and notes that many of those blogs are dead or dormant.
That said, even if there are blogs that earn enough to support a family, don't you think that's vastly (mostly) different than enough to support a full news organization?
As for the rest, while I won't disagree that blogs can succeed financially by targeting some niche markets, that's mostly (vastly) different from how the conversation started.
Twitter brought in $350 million in revenue for 2012. The web business is on pace to surpass $1 billion by 2014. I'd say there making plenty of money...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01/twitter-said-to-expect-1-billion-in-sales-in-2014-on-ad-growth.html
Quote from: Pakuni on August 11, 2013, 02:18:31 PM
I never said "most blogs" don't make money. Nor did I say "Blogs don't make money." I've said "the vast majority" in each instance. Go read it for yourself. It's just a handful of posts above.
Likewise, I never said blogs "subsidize themselves with print" or anything close to that. I said most print publications subsidize their online operations with print revenues. Again, go read it for yourself.
Reality is, according to this survey, only 8 percent of blogs earn enough to support a family, much less enough to support an entire news operation. I'd say the other 92 percent qualify as "the vast majority."
http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Infographic_81_percent_of_bloggers_never_make_100_45309.aspx
Could you point me in the direction of these numerous mommy bloggers who earn six figures easily? I'm sure that maybe there's one or two out there, but isn't that sorta the exception fallacy?
As for believing in online advertising ... you're missing the point, which is that online advertising - with the exception of a very few outlets - doesn't pay the bills for even the online operation at most outlets, much less the entire operation. This is why media companies are (finally) creating pay walls. The hope that online advertising would pay the way - as it did for print media in its heyday - has proven wrong. Companies are not getting back in online advertising revenue what it takes to create the product.
According to the article, there are 31M bloggers. For argument's sake, let's assume only 8% make any money and the blog to blogger ratio is 1:1. That means 2.48 million blogs make money and 28.52M do not.
So, pray tell, in what world would the statements "a vast majority of blogs don't make money" and "there are many many blogs that make money" be mutually exclusive?
If I had 2.48 million of anything, I think the vast majority of people would agree that I have "many, many" of that item.
^^^
This is why basketball needs to hurry up and start.
Quote from: spacecrusader on August 13, 2013, 10:50:57 AM
^^^
This is why basketball needs to hurry up and start.
+ 1 kabillion