Developments over the last couple of weeks show that yes, there are plenty of bad ideas.
State Rep. Tex Fischer, (R-Boardman) wants to ban most Ohio State football games from starting before noon. He told WOSU public radio he wants to see more night games because they create a better atmosphere for fans. The annual rivalry game with Michigan would be exempt, but otherwise, he wants to levy a $10 million fine against TV networks or conferences if any game starts before 3:30 p.m.
Last season, Ohio State played at noon seven times, once on the Big Ten Network and rest as part of the Fox network’s Big Noon Kickoff program.
Scheduling has also drawn the ire of Sen. Bill DeMora (R-Columbus). He’s introduced SB 94, which would ban any state university from showing athletics events exclusively on a streaming service. Peacock had the exclusive rights to stream last season’s OSU vs. Michigan State game.
I understand the OSU love. But why is it necessary to dictate which networks can show a college football game and when they can start?
I don’t like streaming exclusivity because it costs me, the fan, more to see an event. On the other hand, these arrangements bring more money to sports programs now more professional than amateur. Interfering with the free market — a bad idea in this case — takes cash away from a program with ever-rising payments to its athletes.
What would you rather have? A game on streaming every season, or fewer dollars to the athletic department, and a less competitive team? For fans, that’s an easy answer. Sacrifice the one game.
The starting time bill seems like it was conjured up by someone bored because football season’s over. If you’ve been to a noon start at the Shoe (I have), the party starts early in the morning and continues long after the game’s over. One survey found Ohio State has 11.26 million fans, far more than any other college program (Notre Dame is second at 8.21 million).
How many of those fans do you think boycott their team over the time the game starts?
I’ll take zero.
Then, there’s the head-scratching effort by the group, Ohio Citizens for Property Tax Reform, to abolish property taxes. Petitioners are in the process of gathering the 413,000 signatures necessary to get the proposed constitutional amendment before voters. If the measure somehow passes, Ohio would be the first state in the country to abolish property taxes.
But the amendment doesn’t address a critical question. How will local governments replace the more than $18 billion they collect annually to pay for education, public safety, infrastructure, and more?
Any tax is as popular as a root canal without an anesthetic. Take a look at how angry the community discussion boards become when a local school district asks for a levy.
But we can’t simply do away with property taxes without a study on impact (that’s obvious; stuff doesn’t get funded) and how the state would replace the revenue.
On its website, the property tax group advocates for property tax reform, which makes sense given Ohio has the eighth highest property tax rate in the country, according to the Tax Foundation.
But reform is a long way from abolition. Who knows if the group can collect enough valid signatures to get it before voters, but if they do, anything can happen when a referendum goes before voters. The anti-gerrymandering bill to make elections fairer, which many thought would easily pass, failed when Republicans in Columbus masterfully twisted its intent.
All of these initiatives show that, yes, there are such things as bad ideas. Say no to all of these.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday.