StrangeSox

Bernstein is dragging Alford's name through the mud because Alford did a pretty s***ty thing in the past. Bernstein doesn't think that thing should just be forgotten. It fits right in with the rest of his common views, concerns and actions, and maybe coming right on the heels of the Stuebenville case, provides that much more relevance.

More importantly, why is the only AMC show you watch the mediocre Walking Dead and not the one-of-the-best-shows-ever Breaking Bad? edit: at least through xbox, they've been offering "season pass" options for TV shows. I know Archer was one, and WD might have been another. $25/season, which is a little steep imo, but the model's out there.

What other side do you think should be represented? The pro-coverup side?

The providers aren't going to go for that, though. If you're carrying Viacom, I'd imagine that they will only agree to an all-or-nothing basket for their channels.

Yeah I thought we settled that whole "nullification" thing around 1865...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) Opening day, the final four, the Blackhawks, the Bulls, Collins to NU and Bernstein talks in Chicago about Steve Alford going to UCLA, probably in the back of his egotistical mind thinking he can derail Alfords new job by rehashing 8 year old stories. No wonder sports radio is horrible. Ok, so what? It's Bernstein's show. If it goes to s***, he'll pay for it. That doesn't mean Alford is off-limits for him to talk about or that the legitimacy of the charges against Alford is lessened because Bernstein really doesn't like the guy. edit: I didn't listen to the show, but he also has, what, 5 hours to fill every day? There's lots of air time for all of these topics. If it means less calls from listeners, the quality is improved automatically!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:43 AM) No he didn't. He believed Pierce to be innocent, because that is what he was told. Maybe it was naive, and probably if you asked Alford, An adult who automatically believed everything he was told? I don't think the word for that is naive. Yes, I'm quite sure that he now regrets his s***ty actions that were exposed. That doesn't really excuse those s***ty actions, it just means he's not a sociopath.

Bernstein appears to have a personal agenda against Alford. So what?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) Yes it was. Nah, his problem was attempting to pressure the victim into dropping the issue so it could be swept under the rug. Poor, poor Alford, unfortunately the girl he tried to pressure really was assaulted! What a tough break for Alford. Poor guy. If he had believed him and said in a press conference "I think he's innocent," fine, whatever. But he didn't stop there, he attempted to intimidate the girl. That is what his problem was. Yeah, because coaches never, ever cover up for the misdeeds of their players. It's unheard of. You can't point to a second incident with the same guy who's already exposed Alford to a bunch of flak for his s***ty actions as evidence of his upstanding moral character.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 05:10 PM) You should check out all the after shows that lolla provides then. I'm annoyed that lolla was so bad about selling out...but am still glad it's here. I'm actually going to be outta town that weekend so I'll have no chance to see anything.

Alford's problem wasn't that "he believed his story," jesus christ. "Unfortunately for Alford"

QUOTE (lord chas @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:45 AM) Exactly. Now that Alford takes a high profile job Bernstein is stirring it all up again. GMAFB Right, now that Alford's been given a high-profile job and his past is being swept under the rug, Bernstein is dragging it back out. Does he stand to gain from that? Sure. So did every media organization that reported on the Penn State scandal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't report on it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:48 AM) 1. Bernstein is an asshole. 2. Alford is an asshole for attempting to cover up a sexual assault. 3. Bernstein advising new media guys that may or may not know of Alford's assholery past is not an asshole move. /end debate. Pretty much.

Mark Kirk, R-Illinois comes out in support of marriage equality http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Repu...-he-4403224.php

North Carolina Republicans file a bill to nullify the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment: http://www.wral.com/proposal-would-allow-s...olina/12296876/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 07:42 AM) He's got molestation and rape taken care of. Anyone else he can take advantage of? Maybe someone can find him some genocide victims to make some money off of? Does the fact that Bob Woodward made a 40 year career off of Watergate mean that he shouldn't have reported Watergate?

(I know! it was an intentionally bad joke)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 07:36 PM) Rich Bernstein, making money off of it. Class act. Finding people who have already been taken advantage of, to take advantage of more. Why wouldn't he take a smear campaign public? That line of criticism makes no sense. Ps his name is dan not rich

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 07:55 PM) Alford stated that Iowa execs forced him to intimidate that coed that was raped. Following orders isn't an excuse

Guy is a piece of garbage and represents the awful side of sports.

if his goal is to (rightly or wrongly) drag this guy through the mud, why wouldn't he be public about it?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) Not when a lot of the networks are owned by them, no. You'd expect to see certain variance based on the number of viewers those channels command, in what they can ask for in terms of group pricing, etc. For example: ESPN+CSN+CSNPlus+Disney+AMC would cost more than FOOD+HISTORY+channels nobody cares about here>, etc., and being that Comcast owns CSN/CSN+, you'd think their own subscribers would get slightly better prices for them, but they don't. I don't think they're going out of their way to "price fix" with artificially high prices, because they'd get caught, but I don't think they're doing much to lower them, either.

Well every time I'm in a hotel for work, our decision to not get cable is reaffirmed. I guess I just don't see much worth watching that I can't get for free or significantly cheaper elsewhere.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) You aren't really paying the same at all, that's the point. Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime + MLB.TV costs a COMBINED less than Basic Cable. I'm not claiming their serving the same content, but taking those 4 services and having all the functionality of them can, for some people, serve everything they need to the point where they don't need Comcast or DTV, etc. And they WILL save money. Netflix + Hulu + OTA (free) is $16 a month IIRC and covers almost everything I want to watch. I can buy Breaking Bad or a couple of other shows on a season pass or per-episode basis and still come out way ahead. If not for MLB's dumb blackout rules, you could throw another $8.33 a month on there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:00 PM) You're just moving the provider around but the customer is still paying the same. When large companies own a variety of networks, they will always be bundled together to make the maximum amount of profit. Demand really doesn't factor in here. And you're still missing the fact that a company like DirecTV or Comcast has a gigantic subscriber base, so it makes more financial sense for the networks to stay with those providers. Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will just become another Comcast or DirecTV, or an HBO depending on if they want to create their own content. Subscriber counts for DTV and Comcast (and probably the other telecoms) are trending down, not up, though.