Soxbadger

Well it was a fun game.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/libya-re...-153037850.html That cant be good news for US-Libyan relations.

Rock, Was just using the most recent examples of teams getting in trouble. As for Wisconsin, if Wisconsin broke the rules and couldnt play in the postseason I wouldnt expect them to be able to play in the CCG. It has nothing to do with recruiting advantage (I dont even think I mentioned that). Regardless of the small stipend I think the players should get more. Im not sure where they would be tailgating on a Thursday. I know that on Saturday games they have huge areas around the stadium, and Ive never driven so not sure where the lots are. Id say it was the Southwest corner.

Good, Maybe it will make players think about committing to an institution with a shady track record. Im pretty sure that recruiting is the area where a lot of the rules are broken, so as a recruit you have a pretty good idea about what teams are playing by the rules and which are not. You feel bad for the kids who had nothing to do with it, but at the same time does anyone honestly believe that Miami/OSU recruits had no idea what was going on? That they were all shocked? SS2k, Unfortunately the education they receive isnt worth nearly as much as the revenue they bring into the school. Some of the most talented are risking millions in the NFL for thousands of dollars in college. Even worse, a college degree is only worth something if you can use it. Just because a football player has a degree, doesnt mean theyll get hired. Id rather they get some cash in their pocket, that way if they are injured, etc they at least have something tangible for their sacrifice. A college scholarship is great, I just think they deserve more.

Well Im not going to get into extreme speculation that involves absolutely no evidence (money exchanges hands like that at every university) which is why I stated "pay college athletes" because that would make it legal and then we wouldnt have to worry about nonsensical investigations about how college kids were interested in free things. The second part, well its unfair that team decided to break the rules to get an advantage over the rest of the conference. As for the players, they can transfer (which many do). There have to be some penalties for breaking the rules and the NCAA just doesnt do enough.

lol College athletes get "paid". Anyways, the reason they still have to play is that other teams have that team scheduled as well. For example, if Wisconsin couldnt play OSU this year, Wisconsin would be penalized as well. That doesnt seem fair now does it? So the penalized team still plays its games, it just cant reap the rewards.

Well they are presumably banned from postseason is a punishment, so I prefer a conference who actually cares about rules and wants to have penalties. If you want to win the Big 10 conference you have to follow the rules. Otherwise lets just get rid of all the nonsense and pay college football players.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/...play-title-game It makes sense (barring a team who cant play in postseason from the CCG), just surprised the Big 10 actually is doing it.

I start on All- Pro but eventually can win on All Madden when i get a feel for the game.

I doubt theres much difference but got Madden 12 today.

This should be a good season for Dr Who.

It got classy since I left there. No brew and view, now its fancy apartments. Still a great time obviously. And since Ian's pizza is in Wriglleyville now thats not even unique. Make sure to go to Wando's and get a fish bowl so you can vomit Herbstreit style.

Does anyone know the rules about Chandler? If he plays in a friendly for USA can he not go back and eventually play for the German team, or is it only if its a real match?

Do people in Madison even wear shoes? All those damn hippies running around with bare feet. Im proud to say I never owned a pair of Birks.

Cant wear my green shirt without my white nikes with the green swoop b****.

Since its about Rice, Ill put it here. But its an odd odd story. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,6893193.story

Reason #207 why a scholarship football player shouldnt be getting into stupid fights, you dont want the cops searching your s***.

I agree and do not support those rules as well. And the sex based argument is a fair point, which is what I wanted to clarify. The obvious argument is it cant apply to men, but thats circular just like half of this debate.

Strangsox, Thats just not true. If I want to go out and smoke a bunch of marijuana and top it off with a few rails of cocaine, I cant. So the govt doesnt let me do whatever I want regarding my body.

I guess AM sent in their papers. The press release seems somewhat convoluted. Its like sending a letter saying Im exploring divorce, but want to make sure my hotter younger lady will still stay with me.

The other reason I dont get into controlling your own body is the govt already has laws that prevent us from controlling our body. Cant use certain drugs, etc. Northside, Im kind of the same way. I usually have strong opinions, this is one where I just dont see a great answer. Which is why I go with the answer that makes the most sense based on all of our other laws and science.

Isnt pulling some one off the plug and them not having a heartbeat the same as removing a fetus from a womb and it not having a heartbeat? The similarity being that in neither case can the person or fetus survive and therefore some one else has the final say? To me they are similar. Ss2k, I agree about the entire a father cant kill a fetus but a woman can, which is why I really try not to frame this debate in a way where one sex is getting more say than the other sex. I would say that if a mother can terminate before X months than a father should be able to terminate his rights toward the fetus, meaning that the father would have no responsibility. This is just one of those issues where there will never be a right answer, which is why I try and find the best answer based on how our laws treat similar circumstances.

Jenks, Thats not entirely true. Some one who is brain dead is technically considered dead, even if their heart is fine. http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/720341...0-accident.html So under your definition, the firefighter isnt dead, yet his family is harvesting his organs. Would you consider them murderers? Vandy, I agree that its sad regardless. But I just dont see why the govt should get involved until its alive. Its a personal decision, if it happened to you, youd obviously be allowed to keep your child. But if it happens to someone else, should they not have some sort of choice? I guess I dont see how the govt can tell a woman what to do in this situation, until its clear that there is actually something to save. The situation that keeps playing in my mind is that a girl wants an abortion. Shes completely healthy. The govt says no, she is forced to carry the child to term. On the table she hemorrhages and dies, the baby dies as well. Who did the govt protect?

So is a baby in a nicu being kept alive artificially less deserving of protection than a baby in a womb? Not sure why artificial would play any role in that discussion. As for the term born, was being lazy and using it interchangeably with alive. Is using the pill abhorrent, or contraception, or masturbating? Each of them destroys potential life at different stages.

SS2k, In my opinion, yes. Part of the reason abortion is legal is that a woman shouldnt have to carry to term a child she doesnt want to. Thus, if science allows for the fetus to survive without harming the mother, I dont really see why youd need abortion. Youd just have a different procedure, the fetus survives, the mother doesnt have to carry it. The problem is right now we arent there. In the past the "quickening" (when mother first feels babies movement) was used as the measuring stick for when something was deserving of protection. But to me that seems to imprecise, the same way 1st/2nd term seems to be. So Id rather come up with a rule that revolves around when the fetus can survive and that is dependent on science. And that naturally would keep shortening the time when abortion would be legal. The other procedure,well call it Cesarean adoption, would obviously be legal. Jenks, Well I do see why being born does matter. Once you are born, you have rights. Before you are born, you dont have rights. Not to mention if something is brain dead a guardian can pull the plug (ie the equivalent of abortion). So as a society we already partially recognize that something can be alive but at the same time dead. So what is your belief? Havent really seen you put that out there.