Big Ten gives TV what it wants: Friday night games

Ray Stein

Mr. Stein: When I learned that Ohio State would be playing a football game on a Friday, I wondered why. Hoping to find an explanation, all I was able to get from the sources I accessed was, “It’s all about money.”

Maybe I’m not very smart, but that clarifies nothing for me. How does playing on Friday instead of Saturday, which is very unusual, generate more money for the university? And if it does, why aren’t more games played on Friday?

Mike Adamkosky, Columbus

Mike: The issue is not that Friday games are lucrative; they’re not, especially for a brand like Ohio State. But it’s the grand scheme of things: When television says jump, college administrators respond, “How high?”

Editor: Last (Friday) night I went to a local high school football game. It was a good, fun-to-watch game with the outcome in doubt until the eventual winning team got the ball with 40 seconds left in the fourth quarter.

It’s my intent to watch college football on Friday nights only if the local high school team isn’t playing. However, when I do watch a college football game on a Friday night, it will be with paper and pen close at hand.

That way I can write down the names of the sponsors and remember what companies to avoid for at least a week or two, if not forever.

Edward Devennish, Blacklick

Edward: The pen indeed is mightier than the sword, especially when it helps keep track of a consumer’s economic clout. By the way, what will you be giving up in this boycott, besides automobiles and insurance?

Ray: I’m a longtime reader of yours and Buckeyes fan going back to the 1960s. A group of my friends always play the “leaf game” the morning after each football game and, of course, compete to guess the most of your leaves

“correctly.” Mostly, we tend to get about five of seven correct, and occasionally more.

That said, ALL OF US were blown away by your rankings after the Northwestern game. We all had either four or five leaves for the offense and defense (I predicted four on offense and five on defense).

OSU won 52-3 with almost 500 yards and holding Northwestern to less than 200! If these were really both three-leaf performances, as you indicated, then what would it have taken for a four or five in each?

I do know that you had a short turnaround time, but with all due respect, we think you missed this one!

Ronald L. Smith, Columbus

Ronald: Interestingly, I originally awarded four leafs each for offense and defense, then changed each to three. It’s all subjective, of course, but the way OSU ran the ball and struggled to stop the run through much of the first half left me unimpressed. Spoiled, huh?

Ray: Artemi Panarin and Sergei Bobrovsky are gone. Good riddance.

So why on Oct. 24 is Mike Arace still invoking Panarin in lamenting the Blue Jackets’ scoring challenges? If memory serves, we also had scoring problems with Panarin, not to mention power-play deficiencies.

How about a moratorium on references to former Nos. 9 and 72? This team has a lot to be excited about. The fans have moved on and like what this team brings.

Hopefully the media will join us and stop dredging up the past. Mike is a great writer, and I am sure there is a lot of great stuff he can share with us.

Brent D. Rosenthal, Westerville

Brent: I think your point would be valid if Arace had spent 600 words pining for Panarin’s presence. But he did not. He merely pointed out cogent numbers — 1.06 points per game and a 17-6 extra-time record — relating to what Panarin’s absence means for a new-look team.

rstein@dispatch.com