Chisoxfn

Alright...I'm predicting it right now...Rose wins comeback player of the year and Bulls lose in the finals to the Spurs. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baske...1024-story.html PS: Again, another article and again Rose is saying the right things. Maybe someone finally got through to him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 24, 2015 -> 07:54 PM) 1) Seems Duke is always involved in some crazy games. 2) Thanks to GaTech and USC for pushing Iowa up in the rankings...but I have this sneaking suspicion that they will be tripped up at Indiana next week. Jimbo Fisher, you and Nick Saban are everything that's wrong with college football. 3) Poor Nebraska...growing up with Oklahoma as my second team because my dad went to school there, I can for the first time ever say I'm starting to feel sorry and pity for their great fanbase. They definitely deserve better. That program was so good that they were like the Patriots of twenty years ago, and for most of the Osborne years. Iowa isn't near as good as the polls would indicate. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are winning and I hope they keep winning and their defense is good, but they have their own issues and are one of the most beatable teams I've ever seen ranked as high as they are this late in the season.

In that whole article, I actually thought Rose's quotes were as good as I've heard in years. He seemed pretty on point and in general everything was as if he had a PR guy helping him or he decided he was going to start "caring" what people thought again. Rumor is he just got so tired of all the people questioning him that he decided he just didn't care anymore and wasn't going to put in the effort at these things. I suppose to an extent I can understand that sentiment given how much heat he took for things which only he really knows (in regards to how good he felt and whether he was ready to play, etc).

One rumor that he might have showed up on drugs and then was immediately cut and then came back. No idea whether it is valid and it has not been picked up by any major publication, rather pure message board fodder. .

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2015 -> 01:52 PM) It takes something special to make you feel sorry for Jay Cutler. Not really. If you hear a lot of the quotes from his current teammates and some past teammates, its really seems that so much of the stuff you hear about Jay was a bunch of bull. Dilfer and others have said it as well, he is a hard working dude and the perception was negative in Denver, but their was a lot more smoke their. Jay isn't a top leader and clearly has some confidence issues which is clear. What was said in that article was consistent. If you watch football, you'd see that Jay is a warrior on the field. You can talk about his football game however you want, but you can't debate that by and large Bears never did anything to build around him. And someone could say, oh but Jay whined or got mad...well, look at Brady or Rodgers...they are brutal and no one ever cares. City of Chicago meathead fans are the worst on the planet.

Really good piece from Bleacher report by the Bronco's GM who drafted Cutler. Very interesting when you read about what Mcdaniels did and why Cutler wanted out (justifiably). http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2580349...ened-from-there

I thought this past weeks Walking Dead was very entertaining.

Wanne...just saw the one you made. That one is cool too. I'll leave it to a vote. Which one does everyone want? The other can get used in a few months.

Voila!!! Thanks Shy

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 03:21 PM) Great news! Now give us back the catch-all thread. NEVER...MUAHAHAH.

I like it, a sense of humor from Rose.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) the WS win.... Honestly, I think I go for the multiple playoff appearances. Its more fun when your team is relevant. Yes, I like to win, but I also enjoy baseball and to have just one season that I enjoyed a lot and then 8 crappy ones or 7 or 8 seasons that I enjoyed (maybe not as much as that one), we'll I'll go quantity over quality in this case. Now no one ever knows that, but if you asked me as a fan, I'd always say give me multiple playoff chances (because I think the post-season is a crapshoot anyway).

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 11:40 AM) Thanks! I can, but I kind of like the symmetry of having the team's best position player, starting pitcher, and reliever on there. I also wanna make sure that this would go up and I wouldn't be wasting my time. I'm going to add the updated version you posted to the site later today. If members prefer an alternative view with the other players, I am fine with that. This is a site for the people.

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/tesla-downloads...-034758750.html While I love the idea of self driving cars, this seems like a not so tested idea. Drivers need to be prepared, etc. How many are going to know that? How many are going to hit the button, close their eyes, and end up on a road without markers and bam. Maybe I'm just thinking of the worse but would think their would have been extensive testing done and government approvals, etc. Maybe their was (I'm sure Tesla wants to protect itself from suits by doing plenty of due-diligence) but the quote about the drivers being the "testers" scares the hell out of me.

QUOTE (Mike F. @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 10:09 AM) I personally never understood why Coop is regarded as one of the best pitching coaches in the game. Did he have his fair share of reclamation successes? (Thornton, Putnam, etc) Yes. Have pitchers struggled under his guidance? (Samardzija, Danks, Downs, Belisario) Yes. I don't see the love for him personally. Downs was an old bum. Belisario wasn't some ace. Danks was very good under Coop and then had a shoulder surgery. Shark is about the only high profile failure under Coop I can think of. He's had guys he hasn't been able to correct but he is really good at what he does.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 10:09 AM) The rumor is that HE was the reason it was bad. No idea if that is actually true or not. You know, maybe I'm just beyond cynical, but if that was the case, why wasn't he fired before the season? It isn't like we were lighting the world on fire. The team was expected to compete (maybe that was the wrong expectation, but bottom line, that was the tone that came from the organization) so if you had an issue like that and had someone doing it wrong, you pull the trigger sooner vs. later. I find this whole thing head scratching. If the clubhouse was an issue and Parent was the cause, the fact that they didn't act was just terrible. And if it wasn't an issue, then just state that you are going separate ways with Parent when his contract is up to get a new voice, whatever it is. Obviously none of us know the truth in the matter but with what has been reported, I don't like the way this was handled.

Here is what I don't get. They say the clubhouse wasn't good and Parent was the scape goat for the poor clubhouse. To me, the manager's biggest responsibility is managing the clubhouse so if that went wrong, how is anyone other then the manager the scapegoat? PS: So the poor clubhouse is the bench coaches fault? It's probably the players fault but if you had this poor clubhouse that resulted in a bench coach getting fired, well...that just seems odd to me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 08:55 AM) The theory was crap to begin with. No one "shops" medical costs, because the entire system is set up such that you have NO idea what things will cost upfront. That plus the highly inflexible demand curve mean the shopping concept just doesn't work with health care. I fully agree and I have that conversation with some key people in HR at my company every single year. It is an awful concept and not one that I will do. I have a million other things to spent time on. When I need a procedure done, I'm picking the doctor I'm comfortable with and not shopping by cost. Its my health...once I pick the doctor as long as I'm covered, deal with it. You can never get a straight answer on costs anyway.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 03:51 PM) They would have had no chance anyway. I thought their might have been a 5% chance based upon my look. Would have taken the perfect throw and a good (legal) block of the plate. Would have been tough but I don't know for sure...you are probably right but we'd never know cause defense never had a chance.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 03:44 PM) The thing is, the ump immediately throws his hands up and signals dead ball. You can't do that and then say play on, that's not fair to the defenders Holy defensive meltdown batman That was my issue...the ump called time. Horrible that he did but defense never had a fair shot.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 03:42 PM) The two errors by Andrus are just unacceptable, especially for a good defensive player like him. The 2nd play was not an error on Andrus, it was an error on the 1B.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 03:35 PM) That ump had the biggest wad of chew in his mouth I've ever seen. Yeah...that was absurd.

Did it actually hit the bat? I didn't think it did but I also didn't understand how the run could score since the ump called time. I'm not saying the 3B could have made the play but he clearly stopped going for the ball as soon as the ump threw his hands up.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 02:52 PM) yeah, my father retired as an attorney a few years back. He did quite well, but he was clear with me in my high school / college years that he wouldn't recommend the field, and it only got worse later. He would tell me in the last decade or two that it was nearly impossible to make partner anywhere anymore, and even just getting a job in private law was very tough. Which is odd when you think of how litigious society has become, but apparently (as you said) there was just a huge wave of law school grads added to the system. A lot of lawyers find corner market jobs now. Like FBI, or contract work with firms that specialize in surge needs. A critical component is where you went to school. I have a lot of friends who went into law and a lot who struggled, typically those that struggled went to the lower end schools (I'll call them the online schools even though they aren't but they are in my eyes the equivalent of an online school). Those that graduated with good grades from the bigger schools, did what you'd expect (i.e., got good jobs at mid to large firms, eventually went private sector and make good money), those that didn't, if they got really good grades, they did alright, if you didn't get really good grades / have the right personality, holy s*** you are screwed. The cost is the same for the turd school vs the elite school and you end up getting a job for 35-40K (if you are lucky...and that is after a few years of trying) and while that is fine and dandy if you got an undergrad at a state school and are just starting out, but when you had a cost of $150K+ (plus any undergrad debt), you really are digging an early hole for yourself (when trying to do more). The chief flaw is in those schools who reaped major economic benefits and robbed people blindly. In fact, a lot of those law schools are now getting sued by former students for the false claims / pretense that were made. They totally fed off of people who were looking to take a step forward and often times were first generation lawyers and didn't have the perspective of what the industry was really like and how difficult it would be (in the current environment) to make it from the smaller schools. My rule of thumb...undergrad, save the money and get good grades at a state school...major in a skill (something others can't do or isn't easily thought...ie, something that differentiates you from other candidates without that specialty...so major in accounting of finance vs. management or some form of engineering) and then if you are going to spend your money, spend it when you get a masters but only do so if you are going to a top program (or your company is paying and you get an immediate benefit).

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) Interesting post. I have no knowledge so I can't comment. Your comment intrigues me. Are young people really majoring in art and Poly Sci? I mean cmon. Badger might tell us ... are there tons of jobs for young lawyers? What about nurses and doctors? Anybody know? What about architecture and engineering and geology? The article I read said 22-29 year old grads couldn't find work and the over 50s, forgetaboutit. Companies want to keep salaries down, hence are undervaluing the 30-49 crowd. Their are massive amounts of jobs and a major need for nursing so I can comment on that. Similarly, I think their are major needs for doctors. That said, just cause you want to be a DR, doesn't mean you can be, most people aren't smart enough and even if you are, their are plenty who are smart enough but don't want to be doctors (and instead want to be engineers or lawyers or whatever else). Similarly I think their are still a lot of lucrative jobs in the areas of IT security / programming and I would think IT security is just going to continue to get more lucrative (data / network security is critical to prevent the negative PR blunders that come with data breaches, let alone the actual impacts from data breaches or hackers shutting down networks).