I did not make this headline up
- Member for
- 5 years 32 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Decide whether you want to be a LAWYER, not whether you want to go to law school. Then do the math and make sure it makes financial sense. Then look REALLY hard at the school you plan to select.
- Probably don't go to law school.
|3 days 10 hours ago||Those two events occured in that order||
But that;s not what happened. Adams was a question mark all the way through the process. Some people had him as a first rounder. Some didn't. Also, he had a couple of previous suspensions.
|4 days 11 hours ago||I thought he was already gone||
In any case, now he gone.
|5 days 2 hours ago||Yep||
My advise is generally this:
|1 week 2 days ago||Well||
I would do something about the Hoke hire, but my time machine is still in the shop.
|1 week 4 days ago||I don't care||
I don't care
|1 week 4 days ago||I've got that with my shoulder||
It just kinda slides in and out.
|1 week 4 days ago||My guess||
The expected points of going for two, even with the added hail mary, is still lower than the all-but-guaranteed one point with the extra point.
|1 week 4 days ago||They're making a point||
About the terrible-ass call in the divisional playoffs.
|1 week 4 days ago||But even for people with term contracts||
If I want to quit midway through a term contract, I can. The company can't make me keep working (after all, 13th Amendment and whatnot). And I can go work for another company doing the same stuff. I might owe financial damages, and I'm forbidden from using trade secrets and stuff, but that's it.
This is essentially a mandatory industry-wide non-compete, which is a no-no in any industry.
|1 week 4 days ago||Indeed||
That's my point. It's the difference between "you can't go play for a team we play this year" and "you can't go anywhere."
|1 week 4 days ago||Very true||
Lots of employers make their employees sign non-competes, and most employees (a) don't read them, and (b) assume that they are actually enforceable. But courts take a very restrictive (and increasingly more restrictive as time goes by) view of what is actually enforceable. Basically, a non-compete has to be limited to prevent UNFAIR competition, not ANY competition. If you are taking your working knowledge of trade secrets and other stuff to go work for a competitor next door, your employer can limit THAT. But if you know that the Number Five is the best sandwich, yor boss can't tell you shit.
The reason people are pissed at JJ's isn't because they are suing people who go to work at Subway. It's because they are making their employees THINK it is a breach of contract for them to go work at Subway. No court in the world would ever actually allow this to be enforced, but its a heavy-handed way for JJ's to "incentivize" their people to stay.
It's also a trick to prevent other employers from hiring you. A potential employer might ask "do you have any non-competes?" And if the applicant says "yeah, it says that I can't can peaches anywhere else for years," a risk-averse employer might think that even though it's unlikely that the other peach canning company will sue, and almost impossible for them to WIN, it's not worth the risk or hassle.
|1 week 4 days ago||You keep saying "incentives"||
I ain't see no carrots here. These be sticks.
|1 week 4 days ago||I'd prefer Denard stay...||
...if Denard WANTS to stay. But my overriding priority is that these kids not get doinked by the system that often seems designed to doink them.
No one else is subject to these kinds of absolute restrictions. If my company tried to make me sign a document that I wouldn't do my job anywhere for anyone for one year after I left, even if they FIRED me, a judge would throw that crap out the instant he was able to stop laughing. And to your point about these being like pro contracts, I can think of two teeeeeeensy little differences between college contracts and pro contracts. The first is that a pro career is limited theoretically unlimited, and a college career is capped at 4/5 years. The second difference is that one is a negotiated contract between parties of somewhat equal bargaining power (where the employee gets, like, paid and stuff), whereas the "contract" with a college is... not.
|1 week 4 days ago||It may have been "out of hand"||
But only if you think that the thing they were trying to keep IN hand is reasonable to begin with. I still don't see a viable reason why a played shouldn't be eligible immediately anyway if he wants to play somewhere else.
Besides, how are things getting out of hand for the NCAA? They have sole discretion on whether to approve these things. They can just look at all of the dubious applications, say "NOPE," and things are back in hand.
|1 week 5 days ago||Also||
While moral absolutism isn't en vogue right now, it's worth pointing out that waving a gun during a dispute is OBJECTIVELY WORSE than drinking alcohol. Unless you're drinking alcohol and driving. Or tending to a nuclear reactor or an oil tanker. Or juggling infants. Though even if you're sober, you probably shouldn't juggle infants.
|1 week 5 days ago||You're conflating two issues||
You're conflating the action and the school's response. If a Michigan player or a Michigan State player does a bad thing, that's not something to celebrate or joke about. This kid is in serious trouble for doing an amazingly dumb and reckless thing. Michigan players under Hoke did amazingly dumb and reckless things.
What we CAN point at and make snide comments (and our rivals can as well) is the respective schools' responses. If tomorrow Connor Cook went out and got arrested for an epic jewelry heist, and he was back at practice the next day, we CAN chide Dantonio for that.
In my opinion, under Hoke the punishments generally fit the crimes. And with violent crimes, people were generally treated pretty severely. C'sonte York was gone. Frank Clark was gone. I don't see too many Glenn Winston situations on his record.
|1 week 5 days ago||Two things||
1) This is part of prominent ongoing conversations about (a) college kids (including those in the Greek system) being dumb, and (b) campus sexual crimes being a serious, under-resolved and difficult-to-tackle problem. The fact that it happened at a major institution in our conference that previously dealt with issues of underreported sexual crimes tends to make it of interest and relevance here.
2) The green arrows point up. The red arrows point down.
|1 week 5 days ago||Mmmmmm...||
|1 week 5 days ago||Physics and biology||
The problem is the movement of the brain inside the skull, which is a result of how fast your head accelerates or decelerates, which material science can't affect much. The damaging impact is the impact between the brain and the skull, and Riddell can't put much padding there.
|1 week 6 days ago||Wait||
So your argument is that someone you know GOT CAUGHT DRINKING IN A WAY THAT GOT HER IN LEGAL TROUBLE, so Glasgow was stupid for getting caught drinking in a way that caused legal trouble?
|2 weeks 3 days ago||OT: Madness at Michigan (the PC police)||
OT: Madness at Michigan (the PC police)
Already posted. Already deleted. Also, no.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Earff||
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Ah, yes||
This is a conversation I know REALLY well.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Me||
2. 2011 Chevy Traverse & 2005 Malibu
3. No. My extremely average genitals provide me with sufficient self-worth.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Yeah||
This is just really wrong.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||You asked a question||
Of whether what this particular busload of buffoons did qualified as "thoughts." And they do. The first amendment protects the expression of even the most hateful dumb-fuckery you can imagine. The Nazis get to march through Skokie. The Klan gets to stand on Capitol building steps and scream about the subhuman nature of other races. It sucks. But there is absolutely no way to prohibit that speech and protect the "good" speech without some objective determination of good and bad speech, which is completely antithetical to the very essence of free speech.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Maybe||
But they can't get around the Constitution with a "Code of Conduct." If the speech is protected, that trumps any rules/laws/policies to the contrary. The only real out is if it met a CONSTITUTIONAL exception (incitement to violence, fighting words, libel, etc.), and I don't think this does.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Constitutionally?||
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Agreed||
In this case, the law is on the side of the guys everyone wants to see kicked in the nards.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||So||
How did you feel about the really late JoePa Era (before that whole... series of events, that is)?