ptatc

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 02:25 PM) Interesting discussion, but I think that there is subtext to Lee and other confederate generals. Washington, Jefferson, etc should definitely receive criticism for being slave owners. They also are afforded the defense of "they lived in a different time." But the 1840s were also a different time. Lee and Stonewall committed treason, to protect slavery. Again they are both afforded the defense of "they lived in a different time", but in the time they lived people were much more outspoken against slavery, and had Lee not resigned from his post in the US, who knows how history would have changed. People are judged by their actions and the future is generally unkind to those who held power in the past. Even those who had "good" intentions, often are seen in a much more critical light because it is hard to justify their decisions when you live in a different time. Even Lincoln falls victim to this. Confederates are responsible for almost as many American deaths as every other war/conflict the US has been involved combined. That is something that you cant defend, no matter what time they lived in. I agree with this. It's the people who see everything related to the Confederacy as slavery. There was much more to it. The treason part is where it always catches me. However, in the military there is always the "following orders" orders defense. Which doesn't work here as they could have been in the union army.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 11:29 AM) Teaching history is absolutely different from exploiting racist images. So a statue of great generals in history would be exploiting racist imaging but a statue of General Washington or any other President who owned slaves is not.

QUOTE (Real @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 04:01 AM) I love your framing of the narrative. How about "Oh hey, let's change an obviously racist insensitive team mascot because it's the right thing to do." Just curious, do you have any confederate statues lying around your house? Generals Jackson and Lee are used extensively as experts in military strategy. Should this information not be taught because they were Confederates?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 04:32 PM) Uh, yeah well in my opinion if you are going to be an organizational body for these two, you have a duty to make sure the universities are treating players well. Isn't this the purpose behind creating policies on amount of practice time? But they can't punish a university (through it's mechanisms of their participation in the NCAA) for lack of oversight in the case of abuse of athletes? Like does the NCAA have jurisdiction to investigate things like the abuse of players under Tim Beckman's watch? If not, then why, and if so, then how would they not be able to play a role here? They do have the power to investigate. But they really don't have any legal means to do anything other than in the athletic realm. They could take away scholarships and things along that line. Some players said he pushed them back to playing after injuries and threatened to take away scholarships. When they couldn't play he didn't take them to the Bowl game. He was investigated and fired by the university. What more would the NCAA do? Part of treating the athletes well was firing the coach who was behind it. The NCAA is there to make the university handles it properly.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 02:56 PM) This is an interesting discussion. When I first heard that as with UNC, the NCAA did not really have jurisdiction to have a ruling I was a bit angry about the sham of it all. The NCAA is such a sham institution, neither 100% university aligned or student aligned, but concerned about itself, then universities, then students. And the only true protection it will give students will be token and reactive. This really underscored how little protection student athletes have in situations like these. Basically they have title IX and absent that they have media. Wasn't this the exact purpose for which it was created? An independent organization created to make sure that neither the athlete nor the university gets unfair advantages. Granted, I too think that they've gotten so far off thier original purpose and have made rules too cumbersome. However, this was necessitated by either group continuing to find ways to cheat the system. Once, someone cheats, the NCAA made a rule to combat. Where the NCAA has gotten it wrong is that they have been too reactive and not proactive.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 02:56 PM) This is an interesting discussion. When I first heard that as with UNC, the NCAA did not really have jurisdiction to have a ruling I was a bit angry about the sham of it all. The NCAA is such a sham institution, neither 100% university aligned or student aligned, but concerned about itself, then universities, then students. And the only true protection it will give students will be token and reactive. This really underscored how little protection student athletes have in situations like these. Basically they have title IX and absent that they have media. Being a professor in academia, I was happy with the ruling. An external group (not being an accreditation group) has no business telling an instructor or institution how to teach a course. They are there strictly to determine if an athlete received an advantage over the rest of the student body.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 02:24 PM) I fail to see why the NCAA should be concerned with MSU hiring a rapist/pedophile if it also can't go after UNC for cheating on academic standards it requires. With the UNC decision the NCAA basically said our rules are shames and however you want to pretend like you meet them we can't do anything about it. Nassar didn't change how MSU gymnastics performed. So why should the NCAA care what it did or didn't do after hearing of the accusations? Same with Penn State. That's a criminal issue, not an athletic one. (To be clear, I'm saying the NCAA SHOULD and MSU SHOULD get a death penalty if these accusations that they knew and did nothing are true, just like UNC should have been hit with a death penalty for clear and obvious cheating.) I agree with this. It should be a legal and university issue. It is tangentially athletics as the AD and administration is there to protect the athletes while they are there at the university, so I sort of see why the NCAA would be involved but it's a stretch. The UNC issue is a little trickier but the NCAA was still correct in their decision. The athletes did not get an advantage over any other student in the classes. The NCAA is not there to determine the academic rigor of courses. If the athletes got preferential treatment, that is a different story. The classes were easy with little to no work but that was for everyone in the class and the class was not just for the athletes.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 02:06 PM) They require their members (and students) to meet certain academic standards to be eligible. "Student-Athletes" and all that bulls***. Also, there are true student athletes in sports other than football and basketball. My daughter is at a DI university running track and cross country. She would not be able to attend that school without the scholarship and is maintaining a 3.6 GPA. The issue is the "student-athlete" who doesn't want to be a student.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 02:06 PM) They require their members (and students) to meet certain academic standards to be eligible. "Student-Athletes" and all that bulls***. Well that's a different topic than than monitoring academics. The minimum standards are really low. Personally, I think there should be an alternative to college athletics. Only kids who are going to spend the 4 years should even be allowed to go to college and participate in collegiate athletics. However, with the money generated by football and basketball it would really hurt the universities. The NCAA and pro sports should get together and form minor leagues for football and basketball. This way the universities still get some revenue but they aren't the minor leagues for those sports. Maybe there should be a rule that if you attend a university for football and basketball you can't participate in pro sports for 2 years after you leave. Edit: It really isn't the fault of the NCAA. It's that the pro sports won't allow the athletes in their sport until a certain age. You can't fault the NFL as the athletes aren't physically mature enough yet. Also, athletes who go to the universites with no intention of focusing on the college education.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jan 24, 2018 -> 08:53 PM) Johan Santana was the best pitcher in the game for a 5 to 7-year period. I think he's a Hall of Famer and it's criminal that he's off the ballot already. I think his time was just too short. He only pitched over 160 innings or so for 5 seasons. He was only a full time starter for 8 seasons.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 25, 2018 -> 01:51 PM) I love that the NCAA is in the morality/legal arena, but not academics. Makes sense. What would the National Collegiate Athletic Association have to do with academics? It is by definition the Athletic governing body.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 24, 2018 -> 06:24 PM) Thome only behind Bomds, McGwire, Ruth and Giancarlo in HR %. Higher OBP than Rickey Henderson. All time leader in walk off HR. Same amount of postseason HR as Big Papi in 102 less plate appearances. Did it clean. He is more than worth. Very deserving. No doubt. No one more deserving.

QUOTE (zisk @ Jan 24, 2018 -> 08:53 AM) Weed stays in your system in trace amounts longer than booze. It is also much less harmful to the human body than booze. I don't even smoke weed but it shouldn't be tested for IMO. If you show up to work sober, I couldn't care less how you get your buzz on. Doesn't matter. I don't care what it is. If you're employer has a policy and you fail it 3 times, you get what you deserve.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 24, 2018 -> 08:37 AM) Apparently, sons of former MLB players that are named after said player themselves become very good baseball players. At least that's what Guerrero Jr. and Tatis Jr. seem to be showing. I think Griffey Jr. already had something to say about that.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 23, 2018 -> 06:46 PM) Is this for pot? If so, this is so stupid. After a third failed drug test, you deserve what you get.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 23, 2018 -> 10:42 AM) Should WR be the #1 target for the Bears in round 1? Or OL, or DB? With that high of a pick, go impact pass rusher. Leonard has not stayed healthy. They need to pressure the QB.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2018 -> 10:23 PM) Okay, PTAC, you're as "middle of the road" as it gets around here. What's the compromise on immigration that the Republican House and Trump can actually sign off on without risking a total rebellion from their base of supporters? Unfortunately, the politics have become so "us against them" I'm not sure what the compromise would be they would agree on. I know what I would probably view as a compromise but I'm not sure they would agree to it. The Democrats all seem to fall inline and can agree what they want. However, the Republicans are split in a "moderate" and really conservative group on this issue so they can't agree amoung themselves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2018 -> 07:37 PM) Deporting hundreds of thousands to a country they've never known and tearing families apart entirely because of who they are is exactly what America represents to the rest of the world right now, with good reason, because that's who we are. You make it sound like the US is the only country where immigration is an issue. The main push for the Brexit was around the same issues. The people in the UK wanted to kick out the LEGAL immigrants to stop taking their jobs and paying for them in their economy. If anything the issues of immigration are worse the here, it's just that there are more here due to the size of the countries involved.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 21, 2018 -> 01:21 PM) The Jags defense can easily cause havoc on the Pats offense, we've seen defenses win big playoff games recently. But it's so hard to believe Blake Bortles can win a game like this, especially against Belichik who will have something up his sleeve for him. Pats 20-17 Wow did the refs do everything they could to give the Patriots another posession before the half.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 06:40 PM) The F***? Are you actually not counting the explosion in franchise value? Where they went from neat playtoys to billion dollar assets? Thats what the article was referencing.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 03:01 PM) Before I respond, I'd just like to preface by saying that I'm not one of those people who doesn't understand Yelich's value- the combination of his contract, defense, and hitting makes him one of the most valuable assets in baseball. That said, Rutherford/Hansen/Cease is probably fair value once you factor in Jeter's ineptitude. I wouldn't do it because we're not yet at the point to sell prospects for premium assets, except for in some crazy case where Mike Trout were made available. I'm not as down on Rutherford as you, but I especially disagree on Cease, who I believe can still be a starter. I don't put much stock in his 2017 numbers, which were tainted by a comically bad defense behind him. I would never trade 2 possible high end starters in one trade for a position player.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 03:01 PM) The average salary has only jumped 28 times after inflation since they were artificially held down in the 60s? I'm stunned it's that little. And "Since the first CBA" is a pretty terrible standard to use for this - the players salaries jumped by factors of 10 in 1967-1982, and again by factor of 10 from 1982-2000, then only by a factor of 4 over the last 17 years. Either revenue growth has dramatically slowed or the share going to the players has decreased dramatically. It's still double what the owners received.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 02:25 PM) Why do we begrudge the worker gains, but not the owner? I don't think anyone begrudges worker gains. It's just a fact that their salary is so much more than the average person that people have money envy. If you think people don't begrudge the owners money you haven't read the posts on here about JR being a billionaire and too cheap. Or the comments about the McCaskey's being too cheap. This town dislikes most owners because they are rich and "cheap."

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 02:21 PM) Yet everyone seems to feel bad for the owners having to spend money, even though they are all 10x richer than the players. Yes. they are the owners not the employees. They spent the money to buy the team and assume all of the risk if the team doesn't do well or if the team loses money. The players have zero risk. The will make their money regardless of what happens with the team. They can sign a 100 million dollar contract, get hurt and never play again and still collect all their money.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 01:39 PM) When expressed as a percentage of what the total profit is, yes, they are. That could be true but that's not what a salary is. The comment was that the salary is less and less. The salaries are not less. I had the same discussion in the financial section. I can't believe how many people think that employees should make as much as the owners. It boggles my mind. Also, the players have fared much better than owners since the first CBA. Here is some info from this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhause...8/#5e48ba273e48 It marked the latest coup for sports’ most powerful union where the average salary has jumped 20,700% (2,832% after inflation) since players signed the first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in pro sports in 1968. Baseball owners have also experienced dramatic gains during that time however they have not kept up with the growth in salaries. The values are up 11,300% on average, or roughly half the increase in salaries.