Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 09:37 PM) Who said Northwestern is better than Boise? If that is what you've walked away with after all the discussion about this topic then it is really pointless to discuss this further. I'll try to make it brief since I dont have the energy to get into a long discussion right now. Boise plays in a conference where for 7 games they place a "C" game and win. If a team like Ohio St,Iowa,Wisconsin plays a "C" game vs an Illinois,Northwestern,Purdue then they probably lose. Boise plays in a conference where they dont have to worry about sleep walking for 3 quarters and then realize they are in a dogfight for the final 15 minutes. I remember a Miami game in 2002(season they lost to OSU) and Ken Dorsey was playing with a broken hand(non throwing) and they were at a 1-7 Rutgers team. The game was 17-14 Rutgers going into the 4th quarter. Miami won 42-17. Boise never has to worry about not showing up for a game and being in danger of losing to a bottom feeder in the WAC. That cant be said for top teams in major conferences. The implication is that anyone in the big ten is vastly superior to anyone in the wac (hence why, despite actual statistical models proving otherwise, you keep saying how top big ten teams have such a tougher schedule to go through). And again, explain to me how illinois, minnesota, indiana, northwestern, purdue, etc are THAT much better than the WAC teams. GMAB. No one is claiming that the WAC is a better conference. The argument is that when a team plays 2-3 tough games against quality competition, and has a cupcake schedule the rest of the way, it's not THAT much different than a BCS type schedule.

do they call 3 seconds in the lane in college anymore? Ohio State camps 2 guys in there for about 5 seconds.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 04:56 PM) Wow, no need to get personal. Maybe if you and your small school lovers werent too busy sitting on the curb drinking your vodka out of paper bags......... FYI, I went to a small school, I've watched more MAC football than most people on this board. You clearly dont understand my argument. And I still havent seen your statistical analysis except for SOS which is universally known as a flawed statistic. And by no count am I saying that BSU and TCU cannot compete with other large programs across the country, this is what you are clearly misunderstanding. I am simply pointing out that week in and week out the players and teams they face in conference arent as tough as schools with similar records in the B10 or SEC, which SOS doesnt completely factor in. And the fact that you completely discount the difference in the quality of players clearly shown by both recruiting rankings (also flawed) and the number of NFL players currently playing from those schools. The schemes and "team" aspect of a team goes a long way in the quality of the program, but at some point there is a talent gap at the player level that has to be taken into account on the differences between playing a WAC schedule and playing an SEC schedule regardless of the record of the teams they play. If you have a mathematical formula that tells me that Louisiana Tech is the same quality team as a team with a similar record in the B10 such as Illinois then I would love to see it. I will tell you that if they have the same record I look at the quality of players in that program to show me how they play, with what speed and physicality to determine who i think is best. I am lucky enough to have several family members who played at one of the best college football programs in the country in Mount Union and I can empirically say they could stick with several bigger schools during a one game contest, but over the course of the season, the talent level and size difference would really take its toll. And since I am clearly striking a nerve with you, I'll back off this subject moving forward. Frankly, this entire argument is irrelevant. We're not debating who would win in a 10 game series. We're saying based on the results of the games that were played, who has proven themselves more?

For the record I'm a huge Big Ten fan (Illinois) but still don't understand why people think a team like Northwestern is better than a team like Boise simply because they lose to "better" teams in a better conference. I'm also not calling for Boise to get an automatic BCS bid. I'm saying they should be in the discussion. After the Nevada loss people basically are giving them a mediocre bowl bid, which is ridiculous IMO.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) For some reason I don't recall him wanting Cheney and his cronies executed for outing Valerie Plame. One outed agent is the same as dozens of state department secrets being revealed? Really? And there really is a difference between saying someone wants another person assassinated, and a person actually saying that he believes he committed treason and should be punished by execution. Just saying.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) Measure fails in an Illinois House vote. EDIT: And where are all the Tea Party libertarians on this issue? I was against it only because it was limited to medical marijuana. Should be fully legal. Absolutely stupid that in 2010 it's not.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 01:03 PM) I hope Arizona enjoyed those two good years, because they are going to suck for awhile. Hell, they weren't even a good team when they made the super bowl, just won a terrible division and got hot at the right time. I don't think they were TERRIBLE. That just goes to show you how great Warner and Fitzgerald were.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 12:41 PM) No it doesnt even out at all. And NFL players DOES add to the argument. Thats exactly like saying 1-A undefeated high Schools teams are on the same talent level as an 8-A team loaded with D-1 players. The WAC teams that BSU plays week in and week out have almost zero players that will play on sundays, zero. If you dont think that makes a difference well then you will never see through your underdog glasses. And the fact you have to go back 5 years to find an example of an upset that doesnt come close to proving your point, well then there you go. Any team can upset another team in any one game. Going through a conference schedule filled with much more size, speed and skilled players is harder than a lesser conference. Lets put this in perspective: Bottom half of WAC: Louisiana Tech 5-6 Idaho 5-7 Utah State 4-7 New Mexico State 2-10 San Jose State 1-11 Bottom Half of B10: Illinois (tied with PSU) 6-5 PSU 7-5 Michigan 7-5 Northwestern 7-5 Purdue 4-8 minny 3-9 Indiana 5-7 Bottom Half of SEC: Bama 9-3 Miss St 8-4 Tenn (3 way tie) 6-6 Georgia 6-6 Kentucky 6-6 ole Miss 4-8 Vandy 2-10 Do you really think that the teams in the conferences are equal in terms of talent and difficulty to play week after week? You can look at SOS all you want, the roads for BCS conference schools like the B10 and SEC are harder week after week than any team in the WAC. You're ignoring the fact that Boise actually played some tough teams. And it's not like Ohio, Western Michigan, Marshall, Indiana, Minnesota, etc are SO much better than the WAC teams. GMAB dude. My argument is that the differences aren't as big as you seem to think. Do BCS schools have more talent? Sure. Does that mean they're automatically better teams. Hell no.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 11:29 AM) I already responded to the SOS argument, but no one really wanted to discuss it: I consider 10 games against good teams more difficult than 2 games against really really good teams and 8 against crap teams. If both teams come out with an 8-2 record, IMO the team that plays the 10 good teams has a more impressive record. It's tough to be consistent in college football.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) First of all the reason they arent getting a BCS bid is when they lost not who they lost to. Bring up money all you want, it has nothing to do with that. Secondly, SOS only tells a fraction of who a team plays since its heavily weighted by record. If you think a 6-6 non-ranked BCS team is the same as a 6-6 non ranked WAC team, then thats your problem. There is a clear difference not only in the size of players but the overall talent of players that they play week in and week out. Above everyone was jumping on Iowa as a team that would get rolled by Boise. Iowa will put more players in the NFL this season than Boise and Nevada combined, there is a significant talent difference between even the top WAC schools and a second tier Big Ten or SEC team. You don't think that all evens out? A 6-6 bcs team will have (likely) 3 horrible non-bcs games (worse than the WAC), a couple of top 25 games, and then middle of the road games. That's the same schedule as Boise. You're letting your major conference fandom cloud your judgment here. We have upsets every single year in college football. The level of play from BCS to non-BCS programs isn't THAT dramatic (especially the top non-bcs schools). And the number of NFL players means nothing to this argument about which TEAM is better. Ask Oklahoma from 2005 if it mattered.

This argument is just getting stupid. Team A's w/l record isn't as bad as it seems. Team B's record isn't as good as it seems. GMAB. Boise State played a schedule that puts them in the middle of the Big Ten, but better than BCS-likely teams Ohio State and Wisconsin. You can ignore that objective measure if you like, but that's the situation. To complain that they play lesser opponents is dumb. Over the course of the season it evens out. Here's the big ten strength of schedule (key number in parenthesis): Here's Boise State: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm I don't think anyone is arguing that Boise should be playing for the championship. They screwed that up by losing to Nevada. But I do think there's a legit argument to be made that they should be looked at equally (in terms of football accomplishments) as Ohio State, which will get that 2nd BCS bid. I'm fine with it, cuz it's all about money and viewership. But stop this ridiculous "they don't play anyone, my team plays everyone" nonsense. Boise State is a great program and in the discussion for top ten in the country right now. If you don't agree you're just ignoring reality.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Not sure what you mean...what do you expect to see in "the next round" that would be more serious? Locations of certain defenses, specific diplomatic strategies, something that might affect the relationship with country A as a result of working with country B. Who knows. He's let go of 2 "rounds" of documents thus far. I'm guessing he's got more in his pocket, but maybe not.

I'm interested to see where this goes from here. I did my law school "thesis" project on prior restraint and the pentagon papers. Obviously it's too late for this batch of leaks, but I wonder how serious they'll get for the next round.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 11:37 AM) Ohio State's SOS was higher than Boise's as of this weekend, so not sure how that changed a whole bunch. Plus OSU is not playing for the national title which was the topic of discussion. The comparison should be against the highest rated B10 school and that is Wisconsin. And Gee's point was about a national title game, and the only teams that are eligible for that are not only better than BSU, but have much harder schedules. Apologist's should keep crying though, you lost your chance to make a run at the title game. If people are really foolish enough to think that WAC schools are as talented as Big Ten schools week in and week out thats their problem. It doesnt take a genius to see the difference not only in size, but talent. Boise clearly sees themselves on the same level as those MAC schools above as they request the exact same amount of money to play OSU. Playing a good (and ranked) Nevada team versus playing a terrible Michigan team will do that to you. I didn't post this in reaction to any other discussion here. I'm saying that OSU will probably be the second Big Ten team in a BCS bowl, whereas Boise State won't, despite having a similar SOS and more quality wins. End of the day it's about money, but if I'm a Boise State fan I'd be mad too. And the strength of the WAC has nothing to do with it. SoS clearly evened out over the season.

Food for thought: http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/11/29...5-win/#comments

So what of the tens of millions or whatever the number is of illegals here already? You're ok with penalties/fees/back taxes, etc? What about people that can't afford it (i'm sure the majority)? Give them a pass? Seems like a pretty gigantic benefit to me. And they demand stuff all the time. Drivers licenses, access to public education and loans, etc. They demand rights all the time despite here illegally. And you say competition, but it's not competitive. They skirt the rules. If i didn't have to pay any income tax I can do a lot more than someone who does. If i don't have to pay for my families health care or education I can do a lot more than someone does. The idea that they'll come here and compete is a joke, especially when you just open the flood gates like you seem to want to. Just like the rest of our society, some will absolutely prosper, but most won't, and a high number will just be tacked onto the government payroll. I agree they shouldn't have to wait that long, but I also think I should be able to smoke a bowl or drive 85 or do any number of things that society tells me I can't, so I don't. And yep, having zero choice in becoming a slave is EXACTLY like coming into this country illegally and being "denied" citizenship by the evil Americans who just want to horde human freedom for themselves. That's not the argument I'm having. I'm having the argument of letting the illegals of today suddenly become legal without any sort of penalty, and not allowing non-citizens come here specifically to get their child citizenship. No, because you believe in amnesty and I don't. That's the bottom line.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) There's a difference between amending the rules and simply getting rid of them, which is what you're proposing. Our country initially didn't have immigration restriction because there wasn't a need for it. Immigrants came to the country without ANY expectation of assistance from the government. They arrived here, got a job and lived their lives. There was endless opportunity to be successful. Today illegals come here and DEMAND that the government provide for them, simply because they're here. I think it's perfectly reasonable to attach some restrictions to that. And there's not nearly enough opportunity anymore for the people that are already here, let alone the people that want to be here. I'd be more sympathetic to this view if there wasn't an easy alternative here. There's a right way to immigrate to this country, and there's a wrong way. They continue to choose the wrong way, and I don't think it's right nor fair to everyone else to just ignore that. Indeed we do. I don't see the words "the United States of America will provide you with those things no matter where you live in the world." The "right" thing there just scares me. You have no "right" to enter a country and demand citizenship and the benefits that follow from that. Why? Where do you get this idea? This is a country. We need order and procedure. No other country in the world operates like this, and for good reason. EDIT: And really, we already provide the opportunity. You just have to do it the legal way. You're confusing things here. No one is "denying" illegal immigrants the right to anything. We've set up a procedure and force people to follow it. You're arguing that we're somehow impeding their right to freedom by not allowing them legal status in this country. Nothing is stopping them from going to any other country. More importantly, nothing is stopping them from immigrating to this country the legal way (and I say this with knowing and arguing that the immigration system needs to be reformed to become more efficient).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 08:10 PM) Of course immigration needs management. All those who seek to become American's need to be processed and provided the proper paperwork. But as Ive previously shown, the times of greatest immigration in the US correlate with many of the greatest economic booms in the US. Immigrants are consumers, immigrants are new pieces to the pie, they are new residential developments, new job opportunities. They are what allowed us to settle this country and expand at a rate that allowed us to surpass our European forefathers within 100 years of our countries inception. Yes some countries do allow children of citizens to apply for citizenship. But are we really going to leave these people to the whims of other countries? Its an unacceptable proposition. All humans deserve to live in a country like the United States if they desire. And I will do what I can to make sure that this can happen. We are not truly free until everyone can enjoy the same freedoms that many in our country take for granted. I dont believe that immigrants can destroy America, because I am an immigrant, because 90% or more of us are immigrants. Immigrants are America, and when we lose sight of that we have lost sight of our identity and our uniqueness. I appreciate your position on this issue, but in reality you're just completely devaluing what it means to be an American citizen. It's not simply a title. To play in this game, you have to follow rules. If you don't follow the rules, you can't play the game, period. We don't treat criminals who break the law any different simply because they had good intentions. That's what you're proposing we do. And "leave it to the whims of other countries" - are we the only modern society on the planet? Why is this our problem? If our rules of immigration are so tough and unfair (they're not), then go to another country. Is the US the best country on the planet? Yes. Can you enjoy freedom and success and make a better life for you in your kids in a lot of different countries? Yes. This idea that unless we absorb these people they'll be living in squalor isn't reality.

Another good read on the topic: http://www.slate.com/id/2275839/

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) Looks like Kate Beckinsale to me? ahhhh, yes

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 04:40 PM) Who is that? Looks familiar. Liv Tyler?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) Alright seriously, could you stop with the hyperbole? No one is saying that, at all. I'd love it if we could have a discussion in here without people turning everything into an extreme. Yes, I know that was in green, but you are clearly trying to say the only opposition to this is that its somehow racist. Well, that's the reality of this issue. It's not based on law. It's not based on science. It's "do you feel as though person X should get Y." When it comes down to feelings, that's what you're left with. One side says "you're not logical," the other side says "you have no soul" (or you know, the modern "you just don't like brown people). That's just my cynical take on the issue.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 12:30 PM) They need full body scanners and enhanced pat downs. Every once in a while the problems there seem bigger, sometimes smaller. I don't have a good feeling about this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Illegal immigration is a huge financial issue. With all of the social programs we have, and the financial situations they are in, this might be one of the biggest financial bombs out there. This is literally a trillions of dollars question. Racist!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) 80% of the American public also thinks Obama raised taxes in 2010. They don't understand complicated ideas. If self-identified Tea Party supporters don't like how it sounds when they hear other people define the movement, they should try having left of center political views and hearing Tea Partiers define even the simplest left-wing ideology. It varies between hilarious, annoying, and sad. That's the problem here. If you've been to a rally, you know the message, and just because Palin or O'Donnell or whatever has jumped onto the bandwagon (and the hater-media has jumped onto them jumping on the bandwagon) the message has gotten lost. That doesn't devalue the message, or require that the original supporters explain themselves. It requires people educate themselves and not rely on the moronic media to tell them about it.