RockRaines

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 10:46 AM) Brett Bielema is saying what he is saying to make it more acceptable to have an 8-4/7-5 season and "if only they were in one of the easy conferences this team would be in the playoff" Big Ten fans get upset about comments like this and cry and scream "O the unfairness! Oh how mistreated we have been". No big ten winning team has ever had any slight remotely comparable to recent big 12 teams or wac. People cry about strength of schedule of the big ten, but you never actually lose out compared to other conferences. The two Big 12 teams last year had weaker schedules and no champion. And the WAC isnt a power 5 conference. And the only ones who cry about this supposed weak schedule is the SEC who thinks every team in the conference is NFL quality yet both SEC division champions got beaten by the Big Ten last year. Bert has played exactly one ranked OOC team in his 38 OOC games. Hes a f***ing idiot

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 10:32 AM) But the sec started the discussion... The SEC is always starting this discussion and in this particular case it was a middling coach targeting a team he went 1-5 against while he was in the "easy" conference.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 10:05 AM) Is there a talking points memo sent out to Big Ten fans of the weekly items for complaint against the SEC? Its called the Common Sense Times, its a newsletter

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 03:08 PM) I don't want to know what 3/4 the production of a 4.87 ERA is, but I hope Johnson can do much better than that. I think he can. Johnsons stock is very important and his performance was huge.

Let me put it this way. From what I hear the FO is relieved that Shark didn't take the deal that was on the table. That number has come and gone. If he wants a short term cheaper deal including a one year that's his only option with the white sox.

I hate that they are letting the twins decide who goes. And finally Austin figured out that if he's final two with Liz that he loses.

QUOTE (SexiAlexei @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 10:12 PM) The only part of a teams schedule they can control is their OOC schedule. So if you're going to rag on someone for having a soft schedule you probably shouldn't have as weak or weaker of an OOC schedule. He's relying on the perceived strength of the SEC, it's not like Arkansas went out and scheduled any of these 8 ranked opponents. And three of OSU's ooc opponents are bowl teams. Plus I think we all proved last year as long as you don't play Baylors schedule and have a conference title game it doesn't matter. Now next years schedule and those moving forward get much tougher.

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 9, 2015 -> 05:59 PM) SEC coaches bitter, piling on OSUs schedule this year. Get over it. Talking about ranked teams based on preseason rankings is hilarious. Plus OSU beat the bell cow of the conference last season. Back in 06-07 the criticism was that the conference didn't get OSU ready for the title game because the schedule was weak. Now it's that the SEC teams get too beat up in conference. As long as ESPN has a financial interest in the SEC this will be the narrative. It's not like OSU beat 3 of the best teams in the country with the third string QB or anything. It's even funnier that Bert is mad. He is going to win 7 games. OSU most likely won't repeat, but it's ridiculous to talk about the schedule when we literally have no idea how good anyone's opponents are. Many teams are ranked when you play them but then end up nothing in November. This is why playoff rankings shouldn't be revealed until conference title week.

It was clearly the enterprise made to symbolize a dick, I thought it was awesome.

Odds of that actually sticking? He didnt even include Michigan in his top 4.

Thats why I am starting him sunday. I expect him to completely decimate the Bears

All three QBs are going to get some run.

Yeah man love to know how it's going and if there is anything we can do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 03:25 PM) Is NY one of the states that requires a grand jury or can the prosecutor directly indict?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 05:51 PM) You make a lot of assumptions to Kane's innocence in this and even the fact that a settlement would be further proof. You yourself have said numerous times that it is a difficult case to prove (unless you have video evidence, etc), it is essentially a he said / she said. Their are a million reasons she might ultimately want to settle which do not indicate she lied or anything of the fact. She might just want this to be over and move on or she might also fully understand that not only will she have to relive what happened in trial (and deal with Kane's defense trying to call her a liar and everything else) but she might go through all of that and still lose because it is a he said / she said case. Fact is none of us know and yes, some on here are blaming Kane but you seem to be taking the other side and well, I don't think any of us know anything and I think in these cases, where the person who allegedly had a crime committed against them, has such a difficult time compared to almost any other type of crime. I am not taking any side other than my opinion, and in my opinion this is a case that is very hard to prove given what we know already and my experience on this topic. I am definitely not in the camp of prosecuting Kane because of his previous behavior nor am I already burning my Kane jersey. Nobody has any evidence one way or the other. Even in your post here you've mentioned i've said things for both sides. Here is one of my made up studies BTW, I need to find the others I mentioned as each one has its own bias and clearly there is a huge deviation in the "falsely" reported category. Most likely it falls somewhere between 2 and 41 percent instead of one extreme or the other. http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/hando...Allegations.pdf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 05:40 PM) I was quoting your words, since you didn't attach any actual information to it. Again, do you have an actual study, or just more shaming? How am I shaming?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 04:51 PM) Isn't the actual rate of false accusations somewhere around 5%? 41% seems ridiculously high. That's what they said for accusations or reported date rape incidents. I'll find the link when I get back to my office. Ill add something I mentioned before that the difficulty in proving or finding evidence for these types of crimes surely inflates whether or not people got prosecuted for their crime or even get moved past the reported stage. That alone could inflate any number and provide a bias for this type of research. Its a crime where many DO get away with it unfortunately

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) That doesn't mean you have to publicly smear and shame all "victims" since even by your stat (which I have no basis where it comes from) their would be 59% who were properly prosecuted. None of the facts back this up as a money play and I think it is disgusting that people pass this judgement that she is at fault (or flat out call Kane a rapist) as nothing has been proven and to just jump to conclusions without any relevant information / facts is just absurd (on either side). Sometimes it helps to put yourself in other people's shoes or think if it was your kids. And I think given what has came out, on either side, I would be upset if people generally concluded one way or another (whether about Kane or the girl). Who is publicly shaming all rape victims? That's messed up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 04:49 PM) You cited a study, do you have any actual details, or is this urban legend? Oh I thought we were randomly quoting words like you did. It doesn't specifically say how many got to grand jury. But you are more than welcome to check on that. The 41 percent was specifically mentioned as a cross section based on a decade of research from 94-04.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 03:13 PM) What percentage of those "false" cases get to a grand jury? "Many"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 03:07 PM) If there is a complete lack of physical or corroborating evidence outside of witness testimony, a rape case of this stature doesn't even get off of the ground. No DA would have even touched this because of their own political career. And it hasnt gotten off the ground yet. I've seen where almost 41% of date rape cases are falsely accused or reported. Thats an extremely high number and many of those were taken to trial and prosecuted. Its not outside the realm of possibility whatsoever.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) Completely innocent would also mean that there was a pretty big lack of evidence to go with it, which would mean a lack of a case in a crime that is already notoriously hard to prove. Sure or a ton of circumstantial evidence while no real crime took place. It happens all the time, people go to trial with assumptions vs actual evidence. People are wrongfully convicted on shoddy "evidence" all the time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 02:46 PM) Because "proven innocent" isn't something our legal system does. You can be proven not-guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even when completely guilty. We have seen it happen so many times. Fair enough but you can also be completely innocent and proven not guilty as we have seen happen so many times. Still your "third paragraph" didnt have much to do with my point in that its easier for him to pay somebody off instead of sitting through a lengthy trial that keeps him away from his job, even if he's completely innocent.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) FWIW being found not guilty and being "proven innocent" are not the same thing by a long shot. Who said they were?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) See the third paragraph. Why?