Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 10:23 AM) Just for the record, again, the NW players aren't asking for the abolition of the NCAA or college sports, they are asking to be recognized as a bargaining unit so that they can have a say in scholarship rules, rules that govern the athletes' responsibilities, health coverage, scheduling expansions, etc. They are explicitly not asking for pay. I acknowledged that in my first post. But that's going to be the result if they're considered employees of the school. I think you'll find someone out there - be it a congressman, an IRS agent, or the University itself - asking for the law to be changed so that scholarships/stipends are considered pay, not financial aid or grants. I mean, logically, how can you on the one hand say that these guys are employees because they lack any connection to the educational aspect of a scholarship, but then turn around and say that the scholarship and stipend are not pay for services, but aids to their education costs? That makes zero sense.

I love how f***ed up their logic is: "This is a temporary increase, we just need the money to last us a few years!" "You can't take it away! How are we ever going to raise another 4 billion? We absolutely need that revenue to survive!" edit: it also sickens me that every time a Democrat in this state wants to increase a tax, implement a new tax, or keep a tax from being repealed, it's ALWAYS labeled as a revenue generator for education. It is such a bold face lie that moronic citizens of Illinois continue to eat up. Remember how the lottery and gambling were going to fund education in the state forever and always?

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 10:11 AM) Again, I think this is inaccurate. Recently we found out that dozens of tech companies basically organized a cartel to not steal eachothers managers and developers because wages were getting too high and cutting into profits. Software developers and engineers make great money! Their income was going up in those years! But the fact is their wages were deliberately being kept lower than they should have been in ways that was not affecting the CEO pay or bonus structure - which was being set by the market. In professional sports, the top athletes salaries by and large eclipse the coaches and general manager pay. If the schools suddenly want to tax player income and TRULY feel like athletic scholarships are money out of their pocket, rather than listen to athletes demands, I'll happily watch it blow up in their face. But you realize if college went to a pure market system, 99% of the athletes would probably be worse off right? The vast majority of student athletes don't make a dime for the school. They COST the school money. If we go for a pure market system say goodbye to 90% of a school's athletic department. They'd offer mens/women's basketball, football and one other female equivalent sport to abide by Title IX. Everything else is scrapped and put towards mens basketball and football. And even then, the money is going to the 1% of kids that are actual stars, and the rest will share the crumbs. How is that system any better?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) Back in 2012, Obama appointed three people to the NLRB during the controversial recess appointments. Before that, the board didn't even have enough members to reach a quorum and could not rule on anything. Any appointment was blocked to keep it that way. Last year, the nominees were finally confirmed by the Senate and the NLRB has a full board(of five) now. Chicago Tonight had a segment on yesterday with a law professor from IIT discussing the ruling. Appointing people to existing vacancies is part of the job of an executive. I don't think that can really be considered "stacking." I didn't mean to imply that he was doing it for some nefarious purpose, but he did put his people in that share his beliefs. It's not like the NLRB is going to be some non-partisan, non-political body deciding this issue.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) Actually my company pays me in money, in addition to "perks" like providing a computer, phone, internet, pays for some of my phone and gym bill, gives me an office to work in, etc. I was referring to the bonuses that AD's and coaches and staff get. In most businesses management gets a share of the profits generated by the grunts.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 09:52 AM) It's pretty commonplace so its not picking on anyone. AD's get bonuses when sports win national titles, so do coaches, support staff etc. Everyone gets a performance bonus except for the kids that perform. And that's how every business in the world works. Why should student athletes get special treatment?

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 09:35 AM) I'm not really swayed by your arguments, but I did think the reason this would fall is the conclusion of whether any scholarship is a form of employment. But I actually think you can split that. I think the last line is completely irrelevant. Students on full academic scholarship get 61k in scholarships, work-study programs and an awesome education without the expectation of traveling all over the country, staying over breaks, mandatory team meetings, twoaday practices, charity work, media interviews, mandatory workouts, etc. The student athlete's obligations seem to me to be dictated by their athletic work. That they have minimum standards applied to being a student doesn't really matter to me. As for this just going through because it's an Obama stacked board, LOL. I doubt he's even been able to appoint anyone. But when an organization becomes a billion dollar revenue company largely through the free labor of amateur athletes while paying themselves lavishly, the shoe is gonna drop at some point. My arguments have been used in the past and won. That's why this new decision was so shocking to everyone. Listening to ESPN's legal analyst on Mike & Mike this morning, I find it odd that the players were asking to be deemed employees of the university, but they dont want a salary or their scholarship to be considered income. Obviously they want the ability to bargain for "benefits" but not have those benefits deemed income that they have to pay taxes on. I think if i'm NW or other private universities, perhaps that's the angle I go - you want a seat at the table? Fine, but we're collecting income tax out of everything we pay you and for any trust you want you're paying a share too. ESPN's guy said the schools would never open up the tax box because they don't pay taxes on their earnings, but that was sort of ignoring the point that the schools are usually not for profit and re-invest that money into the school. And it's not irrelevant. The whole point of this movement is how unfair it is that these poor athletes have all these restrictions on them and they make the school so much money and they don't get a slice of the pie. And we all know that's bulls*** because they do get a slice. The question is how big should the slice be. I'm more open to the idea of allowing the player to make money off of his own image if he wants (subject to rules protecting the various trademarks of the schools and conferences), but I don't care to have a college sports system that becomes a semi-pro league. If the majority of these guys were going to go pro, I might have a different opinion. But right now it's an insanely low number of D1 athletes that go pro. The rest play the sport to obtain a scholarship that provides them with a degree. It's illogical to conclude that their only purpose then is to play sports and make the school money. Also, Obama did stack the national NLRB board according to ESPN's guy. 3 of them in fact, out of a 5 person panel. All very pro-union.

I have tempered enthusiasm about it. I love the show, but it's gotten pretty slow and I feel like last season it was going over the same themes (and plotlines) that we saw in seasons 1-3.

Jesus Hibbert, take a good shot.

This has been a crazy last 5 minutes

Obvious carry on George

Elbow by Bron Bron on Hibbert was intentional. He also traveled, but no call.

Lol, it's funny you guys mention that. My wife and I were watching it. She was in the middle seat, I was next to the window. Every time there was even a chance of a boob she quickly bent forward to "block" anyone seeing it. I was cognizant of it, but I didn't care as much as she did.

Also, he made a big deal - and we'll see how far this argument goes at the national NLRB level and the courts - about how the scholarship and football aren't related to education and graduation. He ignored (as far as I can tell from skimming through the opinion) the eligibility requirements and GPA requirements for staying with the team and on scholarship. Not really sure how that's not related to education. Yes, the ultimate goal is graduation, but I knew of guys in college that dropped out after a year or two but still received their scholastic scholarships despite not graduating or "caring" enough about the educational aspect of college. To me that's a pretty faulty argument. And again, you're talking about Northwestern, and you're talking about 99% of student athletes who DO care about education because the sport is not going to be their ultimate career.

Eh, I think this gets overturned. The NLRB guy makes a distinction between student athletes and regular students because of various restraints put on athletes to keep their scholarship. Well, that applies to regular students with scholarships as well. Hell, anyone receiving financial aid from the school could be considered an employee if scholarships are now considered payment for services (though this guy distinguishes scholarships from financial aid and talks about a case that held financial aid is not payment). He also points out how a winning football program makes more money and notoriety for the university, but Northwestern is a pretty awful example of that, since it's been a highly regarded (and popular) school for decades despite really s***ty sports programs. Also, LOL at these guys not being compensated fairly. $61k in scholarships a year plus $1,200 to $1,600 a month in stipends. That's $300k + to play football and get an awesome education.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 24, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) Plus over half the world's population live within 50 miles of an ocean. The shipping industry is tight lipped about the number because it is bad for business but estimates range from 700 to 10,000 shipping containers (80' x 8' steel) fall overboard every year. That's quite the range.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 06:49 AM) Steve Masiello has apparently been O'Leareyed by South Florida. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball...-steve-masiello Apparently if you lie to the NCAA on multiple occasions and cheat, you can have a job. But lie about getting a piece of paper 15 years ago, you can't.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) I'm interested to hear what Allen says in his press conference. It is very curious to me that he chose the Bears over a chance with the Seahawks. Obviously I don't know what the hangup is with the seahawks(probably amount of money) but you would think he would take less to play on a instant SB contender I bet it was a combination of money, playing time and style of play. In Seattle he would have been in a rotation. I think in Chicago he's going to get 95% of the snaps. And those snaps are going to, hopefully, be about getting after the quarterback, not stopping the run game because of Chicago's superior offense.

Caught some movies on plane rides this weekend: 12 Years A Slave - good solid movie, but something about it keeps it from being in the great category. I don't think it was as "deep" as it could have been. It was more of a " and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened" kind of movie. 10 more minutes of some back story would have been helpful to engage me a little more with the characters. I'm also not really sure why Nyong'o won for best supporting actress. Admittedly I'm not sure about her competition, but I really didn't see anything special about her performance. Especially since her screen time seemed relatively brief. Frankly out of everyone in that movie I thought Fassbender did the best. Ejiofor was also good, but I felt like he overacted a bit at times. (the "i'm trying to survive" or whatever line was way over the top). Also LOL at Brad Pitt. Christ is he awful. Maybe that's why it wasn't great. His addition was so distracting it immediately took me out of the movie. Wolf of Wall Street - again, good solid movie, very entertaining, but not great. Why Leo was nominated is beyond me. He's literally just playing Leo from every movie he's ever made. Same with Hill - he was funny, but what was so great about that performance? Minor gripes, since the movie itself was pretty good. Typical Scorcese though, 20-30 minutes too long.

No discussion of the recent Knight controversy? He said the NBA "raped" college basketball. I get he has a history of saying stupid and offensive things, but I don't really see much of an issue here. Can "rape" no longer be used as a verb these days? http://thebiglead.com/2014/03/25/bobby-bob...ege-basketball/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2014 -> 02:54 PM) So I have to admit, I only saw a few minutes here and there of Kentucky during the regular season, and saw basically none of Wichita State (aside from highlights). But I watched the full Kentucky vs Wichita State game. My impressions of Kentucky is that they have a lot of talent, though not as much maybe as they are hyped to have. They have a ton of size and athelticism. They also play very lazy, and are either poorly coached and/or very uncoachable. Possibly just a lot of not-very-bright guys. Wichita State, to me, looked exactly like a team with enough athleticism, skills and novel game play to beat any medicore team and most good teams, but not enough size or talent to beat elite squads. And for that matter, I didn't think Wichita State looked very well-coached either. Kentucky looked like a team nearly impossible to seed, ranging from a 2 or 3 seed down to a play-in seed, depending on what they felt like doing that day. Wichita State looked like a 5 seed to me, in this tournament. Just my impressions. Do you watch a lot of basketball? To me that was one of the top 2-3 games of the entire season in terms of quality of play from both teams for 40 minutes. College bball always has some ugly shots/turnovers, but that's to be expected since they're not professional level players, and those that are still haven't mastered the game.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 24, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) They are officially from 16-32 so I do not consider them a contender or a top 4-5 team. I've had my team lose early and I thought the same but the fact is you cannot prove it when you lose so early. Thats the nature of the tournament and nobody will remember them as a championship caliber team nor will they care who they got knocked out by. I dunno, they broke a record for the most wins in a season without a loss right? That'll be remembered. Wich St fans will remember the run. All i'm saying is when you look at this as a fan of basketball, you can respect Wich St.'s season and see how well they actually played. They were deserving of a #1 seed despite losing in the round of 32.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 23, 2014 -> 10:05 PM) Well then give out a regular season trophy instead. All I said was they are championship caliber. That means one of the top 4-5 teams out there. And they proved that, despite losing. That was easily the highest-level of basketball so far in the tournament. Kentucky doesn't have the skill level/potential of an 8 seed, so its a bit unfair to use the round of 32 argument. s*** happens in a one and done format. Is Mercer really better than Duke? No. For 40 minutes on one occasion they were.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 23, 2014 -> 05:35 PM) Nobody is championship caliber losing in the round of 32. I don't buy that at all.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 23, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) You will now go down as an overrated team unfortunately for them. Great season, but not enough. I don't think so. They still should have won that game. Tons of huge plays down the stretch. Championship caliber IMO.