Jenksismyhero

It helps when you have a hype machine named Viacom.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) This is expected from someone that doesn't follow a team in detail. I'm sure Illinois has issues that I don't know. But Michigan's talent level is far from lacking. Their performance thus far has not lived up to said talent. A few notes on Michigan's season you might not know: 1. Their starting CB from the first two games was kicked off the team (failed drug test is the word). Not suspended, just flat out kicked off. 2. Michigan is now starting a true freshman at CB. Obviously, it takes time for a true frosh to develop. Illini fans should know this as they have several talented freshmen that have played in the past two years. They don't turn into stars overnight. 3. QB Chad Henne missed 3 games (2 full, 2 halves) and is just now getting back to 100%. 4. RB Mike Hart did not play for almost two full quarters against Appy St with a deep thigh bruise. Said bruise lingered for several weeks, even with the success he has had. 5. Michigan's best DE and sack leader barely played the first two weeks while sitting in the doghouse. Reserve DT Marques Slocum who was to provide depth also was in the doghouse the first 4 games. The lack of depth up front and Brandon Graham's time in the doghouse (DE) cause them to use their best LB Shawn Crable as a DE. 6. Two other starting LB's have missed 2 games with injuries. 7. Michigan's top THREE RG's are all injured, causing their RT to shift to G, a position he has never played before, not to mention he is a RS Frosh starting his first season at T. 8. Kick Returner and RB Carlos Brown broke his hand before the season started. He missed Appy St and played with a cast the next few weeks. He fumbled twice in his first few carries with the cast, so they had to keep him on the bench stunting his role and development. 9. Mario Manningham and Brandon Minor both missed a game for breaking team rules. 10. Both backup LB's were hurt and did not play against Appy St. Jonas Mouton, expected to play 3rd downs because he can cover has yet to recover fully and has had minimal PT. 11. They have had as many as six starters out at the same time. Nine if you count the backups to the injured starters. 12. There have also been some team unity type issues. Not sure what is going on, but more players have had disciplinary problems than in recent years. Not sure if you have some younger players not following the lead of the vets or what, but it certainly has affected things. Look I know these are excuses and that every team has such issues. However, I doubt many teams have had as many problems. It is definitely fair to say their early season play has been affected by all of this. They seem to have most of their problems ironed out other than at RG. Judging Michigan by what they have done so far is not going to give you an accurate portrayal of what they can do. I have seen the signs each week that this team is ready to bust loose and become the team that everyone rated highly before the season. It may not happen and they definitely won't make it as high in the rankings, but that's okay. I am very confident they will finish the season strong. That is, as long as they don't take Illinois lightly this weekend. The combination of a night game on the road with a hungry, talented, young team coming off of a loss scares me. If they handle business this weekend, watch them finish VERY strong. Fair enough, but everyteam has issues, injuries and distractions. All I'm saying is if you look at whats happened on the field I don't see why Michigan is a sure bet to win, or why Michigan is all of a sudden "back" in the Big Ten Title race, especially when they still have some difficult games ahead and a lot of lingering issues with their team. At the same time though, with logic like mine (who have you played and beaten lately) you'd go crazy, especially with this years college football season. I'm sticking with my pick, and my opinion of Michigan, and we'll see what happens Saturday night.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 05:42 PM) What would you thyink about him being taxed higher? I would have no problem with it. Flat tax is unfair imo. 20% on someone with 100 million versus 20% on someone with 50k on paper seems fair because its the same %, but in reality the standard of living has changed for only one of those taxpayers. Of course I also have a problem with the fact that something like 20% of people in the country pay $0 in tax, but whatever.

When did I claim that he didn't give anything? And why use an admittedly made up figure against me? My point was that he, being a rich guy who could easily make millions a year if he wanted to, is in a better position to afford the cost in giving money away. Therefore it's acceptable, IMO, for people to hold him to a higher standard or to expect that from him, especially since he's such a big advocate of helping the less fortunate.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) Last year, according to tax returns, John Edwards's family earned somewhere around $1.2 million in income last year, and donated roughly $350,000 to charities including Habitat and the International Rescue Committee. Please. He and his wife hold $29.5 million in assets, which is their worth if they cashed out today. They probably make 350k a year in interest on their investments. He gave a whopping 1% of his worth; a 1% he can make in about four days.

Perhaps I need to remove my orange glasses, but who exactly has Michigan beaten? I know they've lost to a I-AA team, at HOME. They've beaten a 1-6 Notre Dame team. They barely beat a team that lost to DUKE of all teams. Ah yes, they beat a completely overrated Purdue (who also had not beaten anyone of note before being outed by Ohio State) and that oh so difficult match up with Easern Michigan. So that leaves Penn St, whom they barely beat at the big house, and who Illinois also beat. Illinois 30 Michigan 17 Book it. (and that's not an unrealistic view of Illinois' development, it's a realistic view on Michigans talent)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) For an example of how it matters, take John Edwards...who grew up in a decidedly middle class family but was able to go to college and become a highly successful attorney before entering politics. He now gets criticized for advocating anti-poverty programs because he's still rich and hasn't given up everything he owns to help the poor, but he also is, as we've heard many times, the son of a mill worker. Is it really wrong to expect someone like that to give up some of their earnings? The problem is people with money fail to distinguish between their peers (people with millions) and the normal everyday joe. He's asking people to either a) give up more money out of their own pocket on their own initiative, or B) give up more money out of their own pocket in the form of increased taxes and more social services programs. He fails to understand that people aren't as fortunate as him. He's asking the public to give up .5% of their income when he gives up .0005% (made up numbers yes, but you know what I mean). I think it's fine to expect him to do more than the average joe. The argument is the same for the guilt-ridden as*holes out in hollywood.

Wasn't Carter middle-class?

I guess I don't understand what the big issue was with Rush's statement. From what I read a called was distinguishing between soldiers who were in Iraq and soldiers who were not, to which Rush replied, "the phony soldiers." It sounds like he was referring to someone in particular who has been campaigning against the war even though they never stepped foot in Iraq (Jesse MacBeth, a war critic who falsely claimed to be an Iraq veteran). Is there really a problem with this? Do we honestly think every soldier in America is "real" in the sense that they've actually seen combat, or are even actively involved in any sort of war effort?

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Oct 15, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) i can understand wanting mcgee to play more and reading zook's comments yesterday i think he's going to. i don't think alternating series is a good idea, however. i've never seen a circumstance where you switch QBs every series and it works out well for the offense. in terms of the qb position, i can sympathize with those who want to see mcgee, but i'm not in that camp yet. there's no doubt our lack of a passing game has hurt and juice is not yet an accurate or consistent passer (although i do think he's improved at about the rate you can expect). however, what our offense does best is run, particularly run the option. from what i've seen of both, juice is much better at running the option than mcgee is. yes mcgee had the nice run against psu, but he is not the option runner juice is. so i guess you make a choice: do you downgrade the run game to upgrade the passing game? and is the upgrade of the passing game enough to offset what you lose in the run game? at this point, i haven't seen enough out of mcgee to know that's the case. keep in mind he's now twice thwarted comeback attempts by throwing interceptions on or near the goal line. With respect to the run, here's how I see it: Penn State wasn't ready for the option. At the half, they made adjustments, crowded the line and effectively contained it. Illinois didn't move the ball at all in that 2nd half. Couple of lucky (or good, depending on how you look at it) turnovers changed the game and they won. Wisconsin is just terrible on D. They had a poor gameplan and even if they did stack the line they don't have enough good tacklers to stop anyone. So what does Iowa do? They have a really good D-line and some good LB's. They stack the box and contain just about everything Illinois tried to do. That's exactly what Michigan will do this next week and any team thereafter. I said earlier I'd be amazed if the option could be stopped, but I guess I didn't assume teams would literally throw eight or nine guys up on the line because they know the passing game is terrible. The only way for the team to get back to a good running game is to open up and keep the defense honest. Juice hasn't shown at all this year that he can do it. He can throw the out, he can throw a little slant, and he can run. That's it. Mcgee on the other hand gives them that option. Everytime he's played he's thrown a big pass. Yes he's made some stupid mistakes but this is his first season. Juice turned the ball over a ton last year too. He didn't thwart comebacks in the Missouri game and he didn't thwart the comeback in the Iowa game. In my mind he was the one that initiated the comeback (especially in the missouri game). I don't think its fair to peg a failed comeback on him when he did so much. I guess at the end of the day I don't want to see Juice benched. I think he does run the option well. But it really wont matter how well he runs the option if it doesn't gain positive yards. Locksley and Zook need to call plays that all him to complete some 10-15 yard passes in the beginning of the game. Maybe a play-action bomb; anything to get the defense to play on its heals a little.

Not sure what to say about that Illini game. My observations: -Except for Leman and Vontae we really don't have much closing speed on defense. I hope Zook is concentrating his recruiting efforts on getting some more athletic playmakers on D. Martez Wilson is sick. He must blow coverages on occasion because he's so athletic he should be in the game just about every down. He reminds me so much of Simeon Rice with his gigantor wingspan and speed. -McGee needs to be playing every other drive. He has an arm and it's accurate. The long bomb was called back on the luckiest of penalties. The ref just happened to look at the TE for a split second. It also annoys me because that's one of those penalties that just should not be called. The resulting play had nothing to do with that penalty. But those are the rules - it was a killer. Even so, the fact that we drove down the field 70 some yards to set up a potential game winning TD was great, especially since we couldn't move the ball all day. It's all set up because McGee can pass which forces the defense back a little. If only Juice could show some touch and hit a man deep once or twice in the beginning of a game - the option play will open up even more. -Zook keeps sticking with Juice even though its pretty evident that he can't pass and that he hasn't made much strides in the passing game. How much does that have to do with promises of playing time? -I'm on Zooks side with the penalty situation. You expect your team to hold on a 3rd and 7. You try to play the percentages and give the ball to their QB, supposedly the weakest link on their offense. -Play calling was pretty bad - they established that they could contain the option for 3 quarters. Yet when Mendenhall was given the ball on a dive or power play it was successful for 4-5 yards a carry. It was like Ron Turner was making the play calls. Winning teams adapt to whats happening on the field. They scrap the gameplan for what is working. To me this has been a problem all year. -I'm most upset because next week could have been special. Gameday would have been there probably. A win at Iowa and a win against Michigan would have pretty much guaranteed a top bowl and a huge game against Ohio St, with the winner going to the Rose Bowl. I still think we have a shot, but we'll have to win out and play OSU real close to have a chance. Either way the game sets an opportunity to beat 3 (or more) ranked teams in one season. It's been a long time since Illinois has done that.

I guess I'm just surprised with the reaction of the fan base. I'm a big Illinois fan, but I don't follow recruiting much. For the last 2-3 years it seems like the expectations for Webers recruiting have been so unreasonably high (essentially each class must have 3 or 4 5* recruits). I'm surprised everyone is happy about three guys who aren't at that level.

QUOTE(Brian @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) No disrespect to any Illini fans here, but I hope Iowa does win because I have a few friends who went to Illinois who are impossible to deal with right now. If Illinois beats Michigan, I'm in for a long week after. come on, we've been the bottom feeder of the big ten for 6 seasons. We're allowed to swim in euphoria and be annoying. I think we've earned it.

so how good are these guys? the IB and scout boards are going crazy, but I look at their rankings and they seem pretty average (both 3*). Should I be expecting a change in the rankings?

i've got two other friends that are dressing up with me, we're either going as the dude, walter and donney from the big lebowski or bret, jermaine and murray from flight of the concords

I think there is a problem of perception with this issue. On the one hand not every American kid is upper-class and against working a job 'beneath' them. On the other we all think that every illegal makes pennies on the dollar when in reality a lot of them make some good money.

That is very cool. For a young person like me who didn't "live" through the moment, my perception of Gorbachev was a guy who understood that letting go of Russias power/zeal to become a hegemon was the best thing for not only Russias future but also the worlds (mixed with an understanding that his country was getting poorer by the second). I also find it amazing that relations between the two nations changed so dramatically in 20-30 years (though it loks like Putin is really starting to trash their democratic spirit). Is that an accurate assessment for those who lived through it?

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 08:15 PM) i know that i'll enjoy having my tax dollars spent rounding up migrant workers and then spending more money out of my pocket to go out to eat at Chillis because we've replaced (5) $6/hr workers with (5) $10/hr workers. tied with increasing mortgage forclosures, a 100.5% spending rate (US individuals spend more $ than they make as a whole now) the gigantic trade deficit, the continuing devaluation of the dollar and a gigantic budget deficit, I'm sure that a drop in corporate profits and/or increasing consumer debt & squeezing the middle/lower class is exactly what this country needs. Plus, removing say 2-3 million retail spending consumers (rent, food, local sales taxes, etc) will certainly help the local economies which are struggling now more than ever. There's no perfect answer here. I know you're kidding because of the color of the text, but really most of those arguments don't fly. There's no magic switch that will be flipped for the entire country once illegals are gone to force business like Chili's to increase wages. There are plenty of high school kids who would work those jobs. I don't think there's much cost there. I also think the massive decrease in social services that your tax dollars pay for mixed with a new upkick in tax revenue from replacement workers or illegals become legals far outweight the loss in retail spending that would be lost.

Most of the pundits have added Mendenhall to the short list. I've also noticed a lot of bowl predictions (granted, it's way too early for that stuff) have Illinois in the Rose Bowl (BCS) or Capital One Bowl (Big Ten #2). They've gone from "upsetting" Penn State and Wisconsin to BCS bowl bound in just two weeks.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) b****, if you seriously are comparing the struggles that blacks have had in this country versus a beard or being a Sox fan, then I rest my case. You have no clue the struggles and that is my best argument. People died for civil rights. Not my point. My point was that if you want to say that blacks or other minorities may have a tougher road to "success" in American then I'd agree. But I would disagree if you were saying there are still barriers stopping them from whatever they want to do.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) having a huge weiner.... lol, ok that's one.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) LMAO. OK, I see where this is going. Enjoy your fantasy. I have a beard. I bet 17% fails in comparison to the amount of jobs I wouldn't be considered for simply because I have facial hair. Is that discrimination? I write on my resume that I'm a Sox fan. I bet I'd be denied by a ton of employers for that. Is that discrimination?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) http://tinyurl.com/2q88qr Whoops. meant to send this one: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=247013...TC-RSSFeeds0312 We should add that to title vii - name discrimination. 17% is not a barrier.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:18 PM) Wait until you get in the real world. Give me one example of a barrier that a minority has to overcome that a white person wouldn't have to deal with. Just one. And again, having to work harder than the average joe is not a barrier.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) We can cite facts all we want but perception is reality for minorities in America. Are there any white middle class males that would switch and be Black or Latino? I don't think so. It still isn't a level playing field, and won't be in my lifetime. We have however, made giant strides in my lifetime. While signs proclaiming WHITES ONLY and NO n*****S seem like ancient artifacts, there are many people alive who remember them vividly. And they would make a bigger impact on the people excluded than included. So while taking down the signs are a big step, they do not erase people's memories and attitudes. So long as you mean some people might have to work harder, then I'd agree. But if you're saying there are still barriers to success then I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Minorities in this country are given every opportunity and advantage possible. Discrimination is no longer a factor in 99.9% of cases.