this guy evidently hired to work for AD
- Member for
- 5 years 24 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 days 2 hours ago||OK. Now I'm reeeeeeeeealy||
OK. Now I'm reeeeeeeeealy not going over to check out FootBall Scoop.
|4 days 3 hours ago||I was going to go check out||
I was going to go check out the FootBall Scoop blog but since you've been such a douchbag, I think I'll pass.
|1 week 5 days ago||I canceled but did it weeks||
I canceled but did it weeks ago. That place has become a tire fire fueled at first by Tom Beaver's increasing paranoia and narcisism (I know... even for him) and now by a crazy sense that GBW is central to the coaching search somehow.
I need less crazy in my life, not more.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Isn't it obvious.... it||
Isn't it obvious.... it is....
|10 weeks 3 days ago||On the contrary, I didn't see||
On the contrary, I didn't see any compelling argument for not boycotting. Their three "reasons" consist of: Don't hurt the players, support the players, and we are the leaders and best (so trust the AD).
Could someone explain to me how playing in front of 80,000 fans rather than 110,000 fans "hurts" the players? Aside from pride, etc. how is anyone hurt? Does anyone lose a scholarship or suffer any other harm, other than simply knowing that some fans chose not to go to the game?
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Do you really think that||
Do you really think that firing Brandon right now would fix anything on the field??
|10 weeks 6 days ago||Nope. No sting.... just||
Nope. No sting.... just acceptance of what I knew was coming at this point.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||If he believes he is the guy||
If he believes he is the guy to get it done (as you state) why would he voluntarily resign?
I get that everyone wants him gone (me included) but this notion that he should just resign is silly. Has anyone ever done that mid-seasons.... just say, "You know what? I suck and the fans deserve better so I'm gonna quit."
|10 weeks 6 days ago||It was interesting for me to||
It was interesting for me to watch yesterday, since I assumed they would lose and didn't have a whole lot of emotion about it. I was as close to a passive observer as I can be.
In that state it is simply clear as day to me that this is simply a poorly coached football team, in all phases. I don't know how else to put it.
Given that, I can't disagree with you more. This isn't about creating a culture. It is about a group of coaches who aren't very good at coaching.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Good for them.||
Good for them.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||So play that out. Revenue||
So play that out. Revenue equals worth (a silly and narrow definition, and you know it, but OK). You must be the biggest Brandon supporter out there, then, right. I mean, he has greatly increased revenue.
That is rhetorical, of course. You don't like Brandon because you understand that the "worth" of something goes far beyond the dollars it brings in and even though he has increased revenue he has diminishd the "worth" of Michigan football.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||And the fact that you think||
And the fact that you think "worth" is defined entirely in terms of revenue (within an educational context like a university) tells me even more. I ran track at Michigan. Was my team worthless?
|11 weeks 3 days ago||The fact that you think those||
The fact that you think those sports are worthless tells me all I need to know about you.
|11 weeks 5 days ago||Guys, it is irrelevant||
Guys, it is irrelevant whether or not he actually had a concussion. Irrelevant.
He COULD have had one, showed symptoms of having one, and needed to be evaluated fully before being allowed to return to the game. He wasn't. He stayed in and then was re-inserted after being out a few minutes. Full evaluations for concussions don't take 1-3 minutes and they can't be done while the player is on the field playing.
He shouldn't have ben in there and certainly should not have been put back in no matter what LATER evaluations say about a concussion.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Wait.... you saw that!?||
Wait.... you saw that!?
|25 weeks 2 days ago||I'm shocked you don't (can't)||
I'm shocked you don't (can't) see the harm. Let me guess.... white guy?
|25 weeks 2 days ago||.... also known as pursuation||
.... also known as pursuation and logic. Or just go with the tin hat version if that works for you.
|38 weeks 2 days ago||They would have to claim,||
They would have to claim, somehow, that unions violate their religious principles. How could they do that given that the other employees at Notre Dame are in unions (including the faculty)??
|38 weeks 2 days ago||Seems to me this conflates||
Seems to me this conflates "fairness" with "equality." Everyone has to play by the same rules (fairness) but there is no reason to expect that all will be equal. The Yankees operate under the same rules as everyone else, but they are not "equal" by a long shot. The Yankees have all sorts of advantages over other teams and use those to win a lot (relatively speaking).
|38 weeks 2 days ago||Wait... I might have missed||
Wait... I might have missed something obvious but what does church and state have to do with it? Are you saying the faculty and staff at Notre Dame are not unionized (of course they are).
|38 weeks 2 days ago||I wonder if there is another||
I wonder if there is another private university in the midwest (where this NLRB ruling occurred) with a cash-cow, money-generating football program that might also be affected by this ruling....
[faint sound of "Wake Up the Echos"....]
|38 weeks 2 days ago||All fo this will be||
All of this will be collectively bargained by those designated as emplyees by the NLRB. They are employees. Nothing you wrote contradicts that. You just seem to think they are already fairly compensated. The players don't think that. Fine. Let's negotiate.....
|38 weeks 2 days ago||You miss the point of all||
You miss the point of all this. The Northwestern players are NOT petitioning to be paid. They are petitioning to be allowed to collectively bargain with their employer. Period.
If they ever are paid over and above the scholarship, etc. stuff they get now it will be as a result of a negotiating process and will be an agreement made between the parties. It could result in no extra pay, or 10% of revenues, or 50%, or 99%... along with some other things the players give up. That is what negotiation is.
|38 weeks 2 days ago||You are inadvertantly making||
You are inadvertantly making the players' point for them. Given what you say, it is even more clear that the Universities are bringing these players to campus not as students (primarily) but as employees doing a job. How else could you explain the academic discrepancies you detailed.
Once you get there and agree they are primarily employees (not students) they are allowed to try and organize.
People are continually failing to realize here that the issue is NOT whether or not players are currently compensated fairly for their work. Maybe they are and maybe they are not. The issue is that, given that they are there primarily to do a job (and receive compensation,) they are employees and have the same rights as other employees.
|38 weeks 3 days ago||I'm not arguing whether or||
I'm not arguing whether or not it is a good thing (jury still a long way out on that), just that the observation that these athletes are already being compensated for their labor leads to the opposite conclusion from that intended. It means they are employees and can organize.
|38 weeks 3 days ago||The NCAA doesn't force this,||
The NCAA doesn't force this, the professional leagues do.
|38 weeks 3 days ago||Everyone arguing that||
Everyone arguing that athletes already recieve compensation is (seemingly without knowing it) supporting the notion that they should be recognized as employees.
As soon as you stipulate that they are being "paid" for their "labor" and start arguing about whether or not it is at "market" rates, you have already agreed they are employees. If they are employees, they can seek to unionize.
|46 weeks 1 day ago||A violation of FERPA is not a||
A violation of FERPA is not a felony.
|46 weeks 1 day ago||"Is no longer attending...."||
"Is no longer attending...." is fine.
"Due to a violation of University policy" is not.
The first is directory information. The second is information from his academic record.
|1 year 1 week ago||Right. Then click on Texas||
Right. Then click on Texas A&M and you will see the main reason Mack is out (not discounting losses, but when you can't outrecruit A&M at UT you are done).