Talk:2210: College Athletes
This was posted way earlier than usual. Still technically Wednesday 00:02 UTC, but usual posting is mid-late afternoon UTC. 18.104.22.168 01:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I noticed that too. That's really weird... I wonder what caused it? 22.214.171.124 06:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the joke about how to pluralize names ("Steph Currys" vs. "Stephs Curry") is also present in "How to win an election" in the "How to" book. There it's in the form of "Bob Caseys" vs. "Bobs Casey". 126.96.36.199 07:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
So glad this site exists! I came here thinking the explanation would be about how to cook curry :-)188.8.131.52 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think 'signature play' was an intentional pun on the signature (aka type) of a function, but great catch. 184.108.40.206 12:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the category Category:Comics featuring real people applicable here? It does seem to feature some comics where real people are only mentioned... Others with real people are not in that category... --Lupo (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Added to the category. Makes sense to me. 220.127.116.11 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- "... but he curries on..."?? ==
The explanation includes the sentence "Ponytail doesn't believe him but he curries on...". I don't see a reason for the use of "curries" vs. the normal "carries", except that the explanation writer is adding an additional (unnecessary) pun. I'd suggest changing it back to the idiomatic "carries on". -- 16:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Ummm, ... for you non-nerds in the audience, his use of "currying" is a deliberate software joke. Check the Wikipedia page for "currying" (software option) Cellocgw (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it was a joke. Like in the incomplete reason etc. But I have not problem you removed it. Hope someone got a laugh first, and now it is preserved here ;-) --Kynde (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The explanation states that Cueball is implying that his school is from a state other than California, but I don't see any such implication in the comic. 18.104.22.168 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Second panel "Our state gave..." Bugstomper (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- The laws misunderstood?
First, the California law, which "gives athletes rights to their names and likeness". In reality the athletes always had rights to their names and likeness. What the new law allows is for the athletes to license their names/likeness to commercial companies, and receive renumeration for that. Thus, Cueball's summary of the law, even though not incorrect, if taken literally can be misunderstood that the athletes had no rights to their names before.
Then the "other state"'s law, which "gives players rights to use the names and images of ANY California athlete". This is not a real law, so there is a considerable latitude in its possible meaning. This law's summary is intentionally constructed in such a way as to mimic the California's law summary, but that doesn't mean its meaning should be taken literally. I believe that it is *unlikely* that Randall intended this law to be taken literally, mainly because such law would likely be unconstitutional (if one state recognizes name/likeness as a property, then another state may not violate those property rights). What I think the law actually means is that that state's athletes can use *as their own* the name/likeness of another player, provided that they licensed that name/likeness legally. Thus, it's a pun on the word "use": usually when companies "use athlete's name/likeness" means they produce ads featuring those athletes; whereas in the Cueball's state to "use athlete's name/likeness" would mean to adopt it as your own.
Such interpretation is confirmed in the last panel: "one player got the rights to his name, ...". Thus, the first player had to obtain those rights, presumably paying to the original name owner. However, once that player adopted the name as his own - he is now free to license the name to the next player on his team, and so on (presumably at a huge discount). 22.214.171.124 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~) (Also please do not add sections to the discussion...)
- Of course it is a joke law. But Cueball presents it to the others as a real law from his state. And no Randall did not intend this to be believed as a real law, and the explanation already mentions the flaw with other state vs own state and that it is either a mistake or Cueball just running along to setup for his currying joke! --Kynde (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a nit that, IMO, "carrying" in bball isn't about passing or not (that would be traveling) but its other name is "palming" Oddly, WikiP has it as "[carrying] occurs when when the dribbling player continues to dribble after allowing the ball to come to rest in one or both hands." which makes it sound like double dribble. I guess they're all related somehow, I guess I thought of carrying/palming as holding the ball up, while dribbing, for an improper period of time. I guess it's com-pli-cated - see #5,6 & 7 https://www.sdhsaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Officials/Basketball/MostMisunderstoodBasketballRules.pdf Afbach (talk)
There have been a ton of changes since I made my fist version of the explanation where I did change some parts and added several new things... So I'm pretty happy to see that no one really changed the idea behind my explanation, but just added and improved. Cool :-) --Kynde (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)