Soxbadger

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) Posner addresses #2 and #3 in his opinion. Essentially, avoiding places where guns are banned, when the bans are limited, does not present a substantial burden. Most people can generally avoid those places. Not so when they're banned everywhere but your own house. What if I live near a school? What if guns are banned in hospitals, how can I get treatment? No guns are allowed in court, how can I feel safe when I am there? I am a lawyer, is that not a substantial burden for me not to be allowed to arm myself at my work place? QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) But you have a defined right to keep and bear arms. Not so for "avoiding people who are keeping and bearing arms." I have a right to life. Which many argue gives the right to the govt to make laws to protect my life. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) Except that the government should have a good reason to deny me my rights, not the other way around. The sooner gun rights people actually want to limit govt power the better. The problem is that many gun advocates are the same people who want it to be illegal for me to due lines of coke off a hookers chest after I got done gambling at the local casino. Otherwise, guns are good leverage for me to hopefully get what I want in the future.

I disagree. I believe I should have every right to vote for a law that limits my exposure to gun violence. If that is not true, then we should have no right to vote for any laws to limit guns. The entire idea of limiting to particular places is silly. Would the law be okay if I limited it to only cities with a population over 50,000? Would the law be okay if I limited it to "not carrying a weapon within 1 mile of a school"? Would the law be okay if I limited it to "no guns in a courthouse"? Because if the answer is "yes" to any of those, this is just a waste of our time. Either guns are dangerous and we can have laws to limit where they can be, or they are not dangerous. I really do not care that much, when I was younger I was super pro-gun rights. My stance is more out of anger towards pro-gun anti-drug people who try and some how rationalize that guns are okay to own, but drugs are not. Ive consistently stated that if pro-gun people want to promote pro-drug policies, Id gladly support them owning tanks, nuclear weapons or whatever else they need to feel safe at night from the bogeyman.

We have some cost saving tips from Utility Willie. http://flapship.com/willie-bloomquist-ultimate-utility-guy/

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) No, because you find so much wrong with a guy who was the coach for 7 years got the school 5 top 20 finishes and 3 top tens. That's not good enough. You aren't ever going to think what is coming is good enough. And what I keep trying to explain is that is a very simplistic way to look at the argument. Does the man make the times, or do the times make the man? In my opinion, the times made the man. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. But I have watched every second of Bielema's Wisconsin career, and I think that many coaches would have done better given similar circumstances.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) Wow. You are going to be a very angry guy during football season the rest of your life. Why would that be? Because I dont just say 74% is good without actually knowing what is really behind that number? If Wisconsin wins, if they lose, they are still going to be my team. I am not a Wisconsin fan because Wisconsin is the greatest football/basketball school on the earth, I am a Wisconsin fan because that is where I chose to go to college. So win, lose or draw, I will still root for my team.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) And Bielema won 74% of his games, 3 top ten finishes (same as Alvarez) In fact, his "embarrassing" 8 win season, gives him just 2 less than Alvarez in less than half the time. Look at some of the seasons Alvarez had after turning the program around. If you are expecting more, you better up the ante on the coach's salary, because obviously you think you are a top 10 program. If you think Bielema is such a great coach, then start writing letters to your alma mater why they should hire him. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf...tabase/1715543/ Bielema was being paid $2.6million dollars at Wisconsin. That is more than the Head Coach at Florida, Notre Dame, USC and Penn State. I am expecting Bielema to be better than those coaches if he believes he should be paid more. As he is not better than all of those coaches, what exact reason is there to give him a better raise? Bielema doesnt recruit well, he doesnt coach well, he just happened to be in charge of Wisconsin when the rest of the Big10 fell apart and thus he looks good. You keep saying he won 74% of his games, that is basically the worst he could do. Think about the schedule (well use 12 games for easy math): 12 games - 4 ooc games against unranked low opponents, all wins. 4/12 = 25% of his wins are guaranteed. That leaves 8 games in the Big10. 4 of Wisconsin games in any year in the Big10 are against, Indiana (same division), Northwestern, Minnesota (protected rival every year), Illinois (same division), Purdue (same division) So lets say his 4 wins are against Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue and Indiana. Bielema goes 8/12- 75% by beating no one. Yet you argue his 74% win rate is something to brag about. It is basically the worst he could do. Here are the facts, 2012- Wisconsin played 1 rank team, Nebraska and was 1-1. 2011- Wisconsin played 5 ranked teams, 3-2 2010- Wisconsin played 4 ranked teams, 2-2 2009- Wisconsin played 3 ranked teams, 1-2 2008- 4 ranked teams, 1-3 (Not sure rankings stats are right before that year so not going to include them as 06 and 07 show Wisconsin playing no ranked teams) 5 year total against ranked teams- 7-7 To me that track record is not worthy of being paid as a top 20 coach.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) You would think Wisconsin fans would know what embarrassment is considering what they were before Alvarez. Not counting his first few years in which he was building the program, after his first conference title, Alvarez, who is kind of God like around Madison was 4-4 or worse in the Big 10 six times. The Badger fans faces must have matched their shirts. Alvarez took over in 1990. That is 22 years ago. A lot has changed at Wisconsin in the last 22 years, including Wisconsin football becoming respectable. Alvarez's record is different because he took over a losing program. People respect him because he won 3 Rose Bowls, after Wisconsin did nothing for decades. You give deference to the man who built the program. You accept .500 records from the guy who through his own hard work built the program. He earned the respect he gets at Wisconsin. Because without Alvarez, none of this happens. I am sorry but we expect more now, as we should. It would be like arguing that after Bo Ryan leaves, it will be okay if the next coach doesnt go to the NCAA tournament or win Big10 titles, because prior to 1999 Wisconsin basketball hadnt been in the NCAA tournament for 30+. Wisconsin has higher expectations now.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 11:58 AM) If Wisconsin thinks one 4-4 season in the Big 10 after 2 legit Rose Bowl appearances is grounds for firing, good luck to them. They will be going through more coaches than Al Davis. Reminds me of when Self left Illinois. All of a sudden Illini fans said he wasn't a very good coach, couldn't win big games, slept with cheerleaders, good riddance. I think Self is a better coach than Bielema, but like him or not, his record at Wisconsin speaks for itself. His successor will have his work cut out for him just to match. I dont think Bielema was going to be fired. I think that Wisconsin was going to be stuck with him for as long as Alvarez was the AD. People keep talking about Bielema's record, as if he beat good teams. The guy thrived on beating the worst teams. He was 68-24 but lets look at that record: Bielema is 2-4 in bowl games Bielema is 1-5 lifetime against Ohio State, and has a losing record against Michigan State and Penn State as well. While he went 3-2 against a down Michigan program, Bielema was only a combined 1-10 on the road against those four aforementioned teams. Bielema was being paid top 20 coach money. He was not a top 20 coach. I personally believe that he should have been held more accountable and that he was given way to big of a pass due to Barry Alvarez. Whatever the case, Bielema was not going to be fired this year. But another 1 or 2 3rd place Leader division finishes there would have been trouble. Most Wisconsin fans do not think that this year is some sort of victory. Its an embarrassment. We finished 3rd, we got lucky. Its pretty terrible that Wisconsin finished behind PSU after all the trouble PSU had.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Dec 6, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) How was Bielema in trouble? I know you don't love the guy but he has three straight Rose Bowl appearances. He wasn't going anywhere unless he decided to anytime soon. That is not really true at all. This year he was 7-5. Just because everyone else was disqualified does not mean that he earned a Rose Bowl trip for Wisconsin this year. Had Wisconsin lost to Nebraska, youd be talking about a team that went 7-6. That is not acceptable with the talent that Wisconsin had this year. You have to remember that he accepted this job before they were going to the Rose Bowl, then asked if he could coach the Rose Bowl. The guy full expected Wisconsin to lose to Nebraska. Also (and this is just words from other people) he was pretty disliked by the big Wisconsin boosters who he never fit in with. The only reason Bielema was safe was Alvarez. Even last year Bielema cost Wisconsin, 2 of their 3 losses were directly his fault.

Another coach who was in trouble in the Big10 getting a golden parachute from the SEC. What is going on.

Yeah which is also why hes the perfect Alvarez candidate. Alvarez coached at Iowa. I have no real reason to believe it, Alvarez has said he wants a guy with HC experience.

I have no clue. The only source I have is connected to Chryst which is why I know he wont be coming to Madison. That being said, Rhodes is definitely a name that is being mentioned a lot on message boards, along with Al Golden, Mel Tucker and a litany of other guys. Without any inside information I would say an interesting name is Bob Diaco, ND Defensive Coordinator. He just has a resume so similar to Alvarez, that it seems like theyll be love buddies.

Yeah its getting ugly. When talking about the move Bielema supposedly said on Bruce Murray Radio Show (no idea what that is) "My father always told me its better to play in excellence than excel in mediocrity." Pretty hilarious coming from a guy who never won a Rose Bowl. In fact Id be shocked if he won more than 5 games against ranked OOC opponents. (Im not even sure if he has won one, the game that is sticking in my mind is when he beat Miami at a bowl game. They may have been low 20s.)

Netflix to get Disney movies in 2016: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-deal-...-035400659.html The more I read the article the less I understand what is going on. haha

I cant think of a comparable example in another sport, this would change the game entirely. I have no actual stats, but I have to imagine that converting a 4-15 is much more likely than an onside kick.

I had no idea it was on ESPN. I got a message on my way home from someone who knows people in the program, thought Id share.

I have it on pretty good authority that Alvarez will coach the Rose Bowl and there will be a press announcement tomorrow.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) I saw 6 years, $3.2 million/year. that looks to be right. sounds like there is a good amount of guaranteed cash due to buyout.

Hickory, Alvarez will coach the Rose Bowl, but that is it. Most people dont think he wants the grind of every day college football. I would say that Alvarez taking over is very unlikely. Rex, I was thinking about this last night, and I came up with the hypothetical that if I had left the day before the season and only heard the following: "Wisconsin 7-5, Bielema leaving Wisconsin" after the season, I would have thought he had been fired. I do not know what Bielema's ceiling is. Reading between the lines it appears that there were 2 issues he had, 1) assistants not being paid enough and 2) facilities. The first part partially answers the why did all the assistants leave last year. Bielema will argue it was because Wisconsin wouldnt pay them, Wisconsin would argue its because they wanted to coach for their boy Chryst. The answer may be in the middle, but who knows, Bielema is known for rubbing people the wrong way. The facilities are probably his excuse for not recruiting well. And by that I mean not landing very many high ranked recruits. Will he do better in Arkansas? Who knows, I am sure that is what he thinks, but Madison is a pretty nice/unique campus, so sometimes its not all about facilities. This is just one of those odd moves. My best guess is that Bielema was starting to feel heat at Wisconsin over what transpired the last year and he wanted to leave while the going was good. His talk of championships makes no sense. Those are rare unless you are at one of the elite programs, which Arkansas is not. Further last year Wisconsin had a legitimate chance to be there, but they lost 2 games in the final minute to MSU and OSU. They lost the Rose Bowl due to coaching error. This year really did nothing to prove that Bielema was an elite coach who could take Wisconsin further. Due to a fluke Wisconsin is going to a Rose Bowl. But in reality they were a 3rd place team in their own division. They lost to PSU, OSU, Nebraska, MSU and Oregon State. Outside of the Championship game they only won games where they significantly outmatched their opponent. Is that the mark of a great coach? I am hoping that Wisconsin gets a legitimate name. I do not think they will be promoting from within, I also do not think Bielema will take many assistants, because if his beef was he couldnt get better assistants last year because of money, it stands to reason hell use Arkansas cash to buy some better ones. (Edit) And I usually do not have inside information, but I do have a friend whose father is friends with Chryst. Today he posted that "Paul is not going to happen." So I would say Chryst is not going to coach Wisconsin next. (edit 2) Contract details are unclear but some are reporting $4.6mil. If true, that is just crazy money.

The problem is Wisconsin is in a tight spot. Most of the guys who would have been likely choices were hired in the last year and have made statements that they are going to stay (who knows if it is true.) Wisconsin last 2 coaches were considered underwhelming hires at the time, although both have turned out to be very successful (Bo Ryan and Bret Bielema). This is really Wisconsin's first hire as big time program and its just a major moment for the program.

I know, its just a bad spot for me because no matter what I say it sounds like sour grapes.

That may be true if I actually had any control over who the Wisconsin coach was. I really thought hed be the coach until Ferentz left Iowa, my disdain for him is pretty well known.

If that is his goal, his move makes no sense. The top dogs of the SEC arent going to hire in conference from little brother. Ive read this theory other places as well, but I always felt Bielema's ceiling was University of Iowa. I literally thought Wisconsin was stuck with him until Ferentz retired. Maybe Im missing something here, but I have never been a Bielema fan. The guy generally finds a way to lose by doing something stupid. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/bie...-136556583.html "Basically what happened was, I know his foot touched the line," Bielema said. "It gets down to an issue of where the ball is. I was trying to get a read from my sideline official if we could review forward momentum. He didn't understand the question where I was at, and that's why they charged me a timeout." Because UW had burned a timeout four plays earlier when the staff recognized the Badgers weren't aligned properly, the Badgers were left with just one timeout for the final 25:45 of the game. "They knew that what I was trying to get answered was answered the proper way," Bielema said, "so they came back and (charged) me another timeout instead of using the challenge. So that's where it was at." -----

Bielema told players he is leaving so he can win a "championship." The odd part is, if Bielema was a slightly better coach, Wisconsin would have had a chance last year and possibly this year. But I guess hell have a better chance in the same division as Saban and Miles. Good luck Bielema, you always have been classless.

If anyone has a galaxy 3 from AT&T jellybean update is finally available.