Jump to content

illinilaw08

Members
  • Content count

    2,166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

illinilaw08 last won the day on June 29 2018

illinilaw08 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

54 Good

About illinilaw08

  • Rank
    Benchwarmer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Denver, CO

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Sox Minor League Affiliate
    Charlotte Knights (AAA)

Recent Profile Visitors

613 profile views
  1. illinilaw08

    2020 College Football thread

    At North Carolina, what percentage of revenue sport athletes are steered toward majors that require less of their attention on the academic side so they can spend more of their time on football or basketball? I'm not making a point that most of these athletes go on to play professionally - every NCAA tournament, we get commercials about how most athletes are going pro in something other than their sport. I'm making a point that the universities are profiting off their labor while not even allowing the kids to profit off their own likeness by pushing the argument that they are students first and athletes second. Conferences could create college football bubbles, but the very first step is pulling all the athletes out of the general college population and that undermines the amateurism argument that these kids are students first and athletes second.
  2. illinilaw08

    2020 College Football thread

    It can work - but only if you acknowledge that these guys are athletes first and students second. On-line classes, their own residences, strict no interaction with campus at large - basically, they would need to be bubbled off from the rest of the university. But that obliterates every bad-faith argument in favor of the NCAA's amateurism model.
  3. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    This. Restaurants, bars, breweries, etc. need a bailout badly. State and local governments need a bailout badly (because the pandemic is crushing tax revenues). Without either of those things, state and local governments are going to continue to operate as if dining indoors is safe, and the hospitality industry is going to continue to operate indoors with distancing. The reason the US can't get on top of this thing is because on policy, the party in power is more concerned with getting people back to work than they are with providing the resources for industries that are not safe to operate - and the people employed by those industries - to stay home until it is safe to reopen. This issue is only going to get worse when winter hits. Nothing in the last 6-months gives me any hope that we won't see major flare ups this winter. And I don't see many people wanting to eat and drink outside in December in Chicago.
  4. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/deciding-to-go-out.html CDC says inside is riskier than out. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/health/virus-aerosols-who.html WHO on how long the virus can linger inside. I think there's a false equivalence in your post - that if nothing is safe then everything is equally risky. Everything I have read recently is that inside is riskier than out - that doesn't mean outside + crowds isn't risky, but the virus spread is worse inside.
  5. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    To me, it seems like you have to start over. Lock down again to get the current wave under control, pass a giant round of stimulus that allows non-essential workers to stay home and non-essential businesses to stay afloat while shuttered, and this time, instead of debating opening the economy vs. fighting the virus, use that time to set up the procedures other countries implemented to stay on top of the virus. Right now, in CO, test results are taking 5+ business days to come back (and I think that's consistent around the country) - you can't effectively contact trace if you have to wait 5 or more days to get your results. Once virus numbers are down to manageable levels, if the infrastructure is in place, you have a chance to trace the virus in the community and limit spread. There's no political will to do that, so it's never going to happen. But the above seems to be the only real option...
  6. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    I don't disagree with this. There are obviously companies and industries that are essential to people living. People have to eat, and the food comes from somewhere. Everyone in that supply chain is essential. The feds needed to intervene early to make those conditions safer, however. At least 8 workers at a meatpacking plant in Greeley, CO died from COVID. That's just unacceptable. Mask up the employees, enforce as much social distancing as you can, and furlough your at-risk employees who are taken care of by a beefed up unemployment system, and whose jobs are waiting for them when it's safe for them to return to work. The solution to this problem is not insulate the meatpacking plant from any liability for COVID deaths - it's make it safer for them to operate. We also have to come to terms with the fact that there are industries which are essential - like the food supply chain - and there are industries that are not essential, and in fact as designed are set up to be spreaders (looking at you bars and clubs). I love bars. I spend a lot of time at bars. But there isn't a safe way to sit at a barstool inside right now. Businesses shouldn't fail because of a pandemic - so how do you balance public health and the bar/restaurant industry? You get massive stimulus on a federal level. Long story short. We need to make working conditions as safe as possible for the industries that need to work for society to function. And we need to provide funding to the industries who are not essential to the functioning of society so that people don't lose their business because of a global pandemic.
  7. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    Colorado hasn't seen a huge spike - though we have seen an uptick - and Polis shut the bars (defined as no food) back down, a mere 12 days after they were reopened (still can do carryout and delivery). The feds have to step in with some serious additional stimulus. The choice should be the feds pay businesses to stay closed and workers to stay home (bmags stated it perfectly above) - not we lose businesses that equal 10% of GDP or we have constantly renewing outbreaks. Extend the $600 UI benefit indefinitely, target direct grants to businesses that have been shutdown, and let's have a national, across the board, strategy for containing the virus going forward. Because the first try at reopening... hasn't worked.
  8. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    I've been on the trails around Denver the last couple weekends. Getting to trailheads around 7, so we have the trails to ourselves early, and then pass crowds near the end of the hike. I'd say 50% mask usage? Most people with masks have bandannas or buffs they can pull up when you cross paths with somebody and back down when you are back by yourself.
  9. illinilaw08

    2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

    Saw Jordan live three times. Once a pre-season game against the Bucks at Chicago Stadium (1988 I think; I apparently talked about how many dunks Jordan had in the game incessantly - I was 5). SRO to win 53 (Bucks again!) during the '95-'96 season. And the home loss to Utah on Super Bowl Sunday in 1998 when my cousin won tickets.
  10. illinilaw08

    COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

    Also gave the green light to re-start the Bundesliga in less than 10 days. Germany has done a great job.
  11. illinilaw08

    2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

    What are you arguing here? Where have I said Shaq is the best big of all time? Or even a good passing big? I've argued consistently that if you took 2000 Shaq, gave him a guy like 2016 Cavs Kyrie, and surrounded him with shooters, that team would compete for a title. I used the 2000 assist stats to show that Shaq - under the right circumstances - was a willing passer (ie, he'd be willing to pass out of double teams to open shooters). For me, this is less a referendum on Shaq, and instead an argument about whether you can build a contender in 2020 around a dominant big who doesn't shoot threes.
  12. illinilaw08

    2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

    Did I say Shaq had to become the best passing big in NBA history? Edit: Also, calling Shaq a 50% shooter from 2 misstates the facts as well. He's shooting almost 60% from 2 in 2000 - not 50%. Also, if teams were comfortable giving up efficient looks at the rim in 2020, there would be no drive and kick game. Second edit: In 2000, Shaq averaged almost 4 assists a game (I was surprised to see that number). That's hardly a guy who wouldn't pass.
  13. illinilaw08

    2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

    I don't think we're that far apart. Shaq would be a great player in today's NBA. We agree on that. The idea I initially responded to was this "Shaq would eat...but like that's fine. Their volume and percentage of threes make up for it." That idea seems to be - you can't win a title with a star who doesn't make 3s. And I just don't think that's true. Yes, you can't win a title with a team who doesn't make 3s - that I agree with. But in the modern NBA, teams wants shots at the rim and 3s. Shaq would be great in today's NBA - without adapting his game - at getting shots at the rim. There's no reason to think his FG% would slump - he's probably still shooting at least 58% from the floor on volume. If you surrounded 2000 Shaq with a host of shooters (granted, Shaq would have to be a better passer), and a second scorer, why can't that team win a title? It wouldn't beat the Curry/Klay/Durant Warriors who might be the greatest team of all-time - sure. But why isn't that team in the conversation for the 2019 title?
  14. illinilaw08

    2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

    I'm not modernizing Shaq to today's game - I'm modernizing his teammates to today's game. Embiid averaged 18 attempts per game last year, and the Sixers were a Kawhi buzzer beater away from the Finals. I don't see why Shaq shooting 58% on 20 attempts/game (Shaq only averaged more than 20 attempts/game twice in his career) with a Kyrie type second guy (because you obviously can't win without a second guy), and the role players shooting 35% from 3 isn't a workable outcome offensively. But leaving that aside if Shaq modernized to today's game is shooting at a "much higher fg%"... is he shooting 68% from the floor on 15 shots/game)? How incredible is that guy? As far as the Nuggets go, I think you are underselling Jokic some. He's the best passing big the league has ever seen. His playoff numbers last year were great. He needs a second guy to be an All-NBA type to take some of the scoring load off of him (Murray making a leap is the most likely route, but MPJ could get there as well). Without that second guy, the Nuggets are the DRose Bulls at the moment. But Jokic can absolutely be the best guy on a team that wins the title.
  15. illinilaw08

    2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

    If 2000 Shaq was in the NBA today, wouldn't a team just build around him the same way the Bucks built around Giannis? The modern NBA wants shots at the rim and 3s. Shaq would get what he wanted at the rim, and if he's surrounded by shooters, the Warriors volume advantage isn't 12 to 4. If you teleported the 2000 Lakers here, sure, I'd agree with you that the 2018 Warriors run them off the floor. But I don't think that's responsive to Jack's premise that you can't win with a dominant center because teams only shoot 3s. Shaq might struggle more defensively now because he wouldn't be able to switch, and teams would scheme to put him in pick and rolls. Lakers would have to scheme defensively with Shaq the way the Nuggets do with Jokic. That's the biggest issue IMO - would the Warriors have to adapt to Shaq (ie, forcing them to play a more traditional big defensively) or would Shaq have to adapt to the Warriors?
×