ptatc

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:52 AM) I agree. Shifts also open up a huge portion of the field that guys making millions should be able to exploit. They do that a few times, shifts go away. Banning them would be stupid. Would every fielder have to play straight up? I don't think many realize the "shift" a middle infielder goes through with a runner on 1B. Would that be eliminated, therefore making DPs obsolete? Yes, because it is so easy to hit the ball where the other team isn't. Batting averages should be at least .500.

It would be one way to increase runs scored without changing too much. Without PEDs and home runs down, the ,league will need to do something to increase runs scored. The average fan likes higher scoring games.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 07:19 PM) Maybe that varies by discipline or institution type, then. Where I've been there have typically been only a number of full lines open, keeping some people stuck in the associate position - or so they said! That is true. I was referring to how they need to go about it. There needs to be available spots open.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 06:35 PM) A primer on professorships and salaries. You have four basic levels of professors: The full professor position has no formal entrance process. A given department will have a number of full professorial spots, given to associates that have achieved even greater excellence in their field, or teaching, or service to the university. These are powerful retention and recruiting tools as they allow more prestige to the individual and more money. A common reason to see a hotshot associate leave his or her position is because another school offered a full professorial spot. Here is where you reach the upper end of salaries, sometimes but not always in excess of $100k at top research schools. Scientists who bring in millions in grant funding will sometimes see their salaries go into $200k range, but of course this is a good tradeoff to the school given the grant funds and prestige from that research. It would be uncommon for a professor to get this position sooner than about 15-20 years after receiving their PhD, and the vast majority of career tenure-track professors never attain a full professorship. There is a formal process to go from associate to full professor. It varies by institution as does most of these description. It usually involves 4 more years of additional employment. It includes at least 3-7 publications, exemplary reviews of instructions by peers, administrators and students, as well as service to the department, college, university and community. It took me 12 years of employment post-doc to become a full professor. I still do not make near 100k, although I am at the states smallest public university. I may get to the 100k level by 30 years, if I hang around that long.

Keep Ernie Banks in your prayers. RIP.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 09:59 PM) Usually with only 1-2 classes and no benefits/health care...and good luck if you teach English, history, poly sci, philosophy, religion, etc. Philosophy is the real low one. UIC had the professors go on strike because they were making 30,000 with 10 years experience.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 09:52 PM) This year, I'm on a 1 year, 0 job security deal, and teaching classes for >700 students. If you add up the money I'm bringing to the university based on the amount these kids are paying for the credit hours I'm teaching I'm easily generating several million dollars in revenue for the university by myself. Probably close to $3 million (although how they budget that is hard to calculate because of the money picked up by different financial aid groups). I agree. However, that pales in comparison to what a football coach will bring in when you factor the tickets, food, merchandise etc. Running admissions for our program I could make the case I bring in all of our students which means it's roughly 2 million per year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:00 PM) Coaches earn 10-20 times the highest paid professor at a lot of state universities. Sometimes 50 times higher. The rationale is that they bring in alot of money. Much more than they cost. I agree with you however that it is a flawed system.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 07:07 PM) How about lowering the cost of tuition? 6 figure salaries for professors and even higher for admin and some coaches? More admin staff than teachers? Quit trying to figure out how to afford the high prices, figure out how to get the prices down. Universities can't lower the tuition. The state continually decreases funding and their needs to be revenue from somewhere. Less than 30% of the public school professors make 6 figure salaries. I'm in a high demand profession with nearly 20 years experience and I don't make near that. Administrators do though.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) I'd rather we get back to fully publicly funded world-class universities than having a bunch of Rube Goldberg 10-20 year tax incentive programs. It seems like a much more reliable and even-handed way of assuring access to higher education for everyone, poor to wealthy. The problem is that most state don't have the funds for this. The state schools in Illinois are down to about 20% funding from the state.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) In the current system, if parents contributed nothing, the kids coming from those who couldn't afford would be better off than the kids coming from those who did afford. I think there is a great place for a 529. I'm a fan of any program that encourages people to save and plan and pay for something in the future. Just as I am a huge fan of us incentivizing retirement (through IRA's) because I think these are all things that we as individuals should control and prepare for. I do realize that you can't always prepare for them and every family has different incomes and needs and clearly a family making 30K can't possibly squirrel away enough money to send their kids to college. But to me the concept of putting me in control vs. the government, which is what these programs do, is great. If you can't tell by now, I like to be in control and responsible. I don't want to be counting on the government to provide the service. I don't mind the tax incentive when it is being used as a way to encourage something critical (in this case minimizing collegiate debt and encouraging savings to provide and educate our future leaders and youth). However, when you put the money into government programs with government schools, my fear is that the overall costs will just increase even more and be even more out of control. The current system of paying for college is based on how much the government and the school determines the parents should contribute. This is done through the FAFSA and cost calculation. The parents are assigned a universal number that they use to determine how much aid/loans is needed for the kid. It's roughly 18% of the net worth. If the kids has assets the formula figures about 22% of those can be used for college costs.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:25 PM) Presume this portion of the benefit is for Illinois residents only. I'm surprised that it works for out of state schools. Of course I'd have to do the math to see what the actual returns are from this sort of policy. Given the insane increases in tuition, you'd think this would be a pretty positive as it provides you with really insurance that you know the cost is covered (vs. estimating what is necessary). Flip side is, its less transparent right, since where your kids ultimately go to school can vary significantly in price so you might prepay and end up paying more and they go to a less expensive school vs. the more expensive so if you just put the money aside, you'd have more that you could roll over to a grand kid or another child (if it went unused). The way it works is that once you finish paying the tuition is guaranteed at any state public school. Even if the kid goes to the cheapest state school, it's a benefit after 10 years of tuition increases. If the kid goes to a private or out of state school the plan pays the average of all of the state school tuition. As I said earlier we paid about 43,000 over the 10 years of the plan and the average of the state schools tuition is about 19,000, so she will get about 80,000 of money from our 43,000 investment. My son is 3 years behind her. we will pay about 60,000 for his plan, so the benefit will depend on how much the tuition goes up in that time. Either way I don't think I could invest the money and get that type of return.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:35 PM) First 11 starts, I have Sale going on 4 days rest five times, and 5 days rest six times. For Samardzija, Quintana, and Danks, I have them going 4 days rest six times, 5 days rest four times, and 6 days rest once. If they can't handle that, then shut down baseball forever. Sale has shown he does need to be shut down for a time during seasons. I would not have Sale and Q going on 4 days rest. Again, they have shown they wear down at the end of the season. The others seem to be able to handle it. You can have them do it but they will pay the price at the end of the season.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 12:25 PM) I mean, if that's the case, that's moronic. That's hurting the middle class, not just the rich. My wife and I were about to start looking into this for our son. But if there's no tax advantage, there's no point. Off topic but if you looking at a college saving plan I would suggest the College Illinois plan. It gives you the current tuition price for when they go to college. You pay over 10 years and it's a great benefit. We paid 43,000 over 10 years for my daughter and she will go to an out of state school and they are paying 19,000 a year for her during this year.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:23 PM) So are you suggesting that we occasionally skip their turns in the rotation and give someone like Scott Carroll a spot start? No. Not Carroll. I say you stick to the 5 man rotation and don't skip the 5th man on days off. That way the Sox will space out the starts for Sale and Q. The 5th man would currently be Danks or Noesi.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 11:38 AM) i have been complaining about this the whole offseason. what are the backup plans for pitchers who never had a full season without injury, now have to have extra innings to pitch b/c of the playoff. that is why i been spouting off on a 6 man rotation to rest the main pitchers. all this crap of, well the pitchers know how important playoff are and will dig deeper. that is bull if their whole resources are spent. A six man rotation for the whole season is too much rest, I think. There is a fine line in workload for a pitcher. I think guys like Samardja can handle it. Guys like Sale and Q need a break. You can't treat them all the same once they've shown you what they can do at the MLB level.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) Disagree. The 5th starter is there to service the other four. Plus there is a Monday/Thursday off day the second week. If the Sox don't lean on Sale, Samardzija, and Quintana for 33 starts, that would be a mistake. Sale and Q have shown they tire at the end of the season. The Sox may have a better overall season with them in that many starts but will pay with poorer performance at the end of the season/playoffs. The 5th serves to space out the starts of the first four. I think it's a mistake to give Sale and Q that many starts.

We do the Souper Bowl takeoff. 1. Siricha (sp?) chili 2. Potato rue based potato soup 3. Chicken and dumplings 4. Sauerkraut/bean soup 5. Seafood gumbo. Along with buffalo chicken dip and other assorted appetizers.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 09:59 AM) After 4/11, the Sox won't need a 5th starter until the 21st. So Noesi will probably be in the pen as an emergency pitcher in between. Very unlikely Carroll makes the club out of spring training. If the Sox are smart they don't skip anyone and give Sale and Q who have been shown to tire at the end of the season more rest early on. With the hope of playoffs this year the Sox may want to decrease the starts a little.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 10:14 AM) Think about it. Even the crappiest rookie call up is making half a million dollars a year. At least. Don't forget the extras such as baseball card license which is usually around 250,000.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 09:10 AM) I don't think there's a spot for him. I feel like you have to take the best 7 and I just don't think he's one of them. I think there is. Many times the spot starter is a guy who you don't want to mess with his routine or don't want to use an option if he is a good prospect. There really isn't another "long guy" to use that spot on that isn't in the long term starter plans.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 05:16 PM) I heard it, you can download it on their podcast on the CBS website. A few weeks ago in crosstalk all of them were discussing Brandon Marshall and whether the Bears would keep him or not. Mannelly started to say he thought the Bears would keep him but Bernstein interrupted him and told him "agree with me and you will look smarter in a few months." Mannelly kind of stopped and said "well ok then" but you could tell Spiegel didn't like it. Today Spiegel blasted him for walking back his strong conviction that the Bears won't have him on the team. He is becoming the Joe Cowley of the Bears. Like cowley was fed all of the Sox info from the Guillen family and only took their side. He is the mouthpiece for someone in the Bears organization and will scream his views. He continues to rip Trestman and the Ravens apart to make the Bears look good. He really started it when Trestman showed up the Bears by announcing the benching of Cutler. It's a shame to because at one time he was one of the funniest and entertaining personalities on the radio. His Saturday morning show was absolutely hilarious.

QUOTE (Mike F. @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 08:48 PM) If everything works out a perfectly, a bullpen consisting of Petricka, Putnam, Guerra, Duke, Crain, Jennings, and Robertson seems damn solid to me. You also have guys like Cleto, Montas, Jones, Carroll, Surkamp, etc who could possibly be in the fold as well. It's nice to have a plethora of options. Plethora? Would you say we have a plethora of men? Do you even know what a plethora is? (said in my best mexican accent from the Three Amigos)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2015 -> 10:56 AM) Which is why you need to maximize the scoring opportunities when you're within the 5 yard line. However, since it's one of the best, your likely of getting it are minimal. It's better odds to get any points while you can because of the defense, thus the field goals.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2015 -> 07:05 AM) McCarthy should have gone for it on those first two field goals. When will nfl coaches learn to start paying attention to win probabilities? Might have sonething to do with facing one of the best defenses in the league.The win probabilities are based upon the entire league averages not against one of the best defenses. This just like all of the stats used in baseball become meaningless in the playoffs when you face the best teams.