- Member for
- 5 years 11 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|11 weeks 4 days ago||Wait.... you saw that!?||
Wait.... you saw that!?
|12 weeks 3 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?
|12 weeks 3 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.
|25 weeks 3 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)??
|25 weeks 3 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).
|25 weeks 3 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).
|25 weeks 3 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"....]
|25 weeks 3 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.....
|25 weeks 3 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.
|25 weeks 3 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.
|25 weeks 4 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.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||The NCAA doesn't force this,||
The NCAA doesn't force this, the professional leagues do.
|25 weeks 4 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.
|33 weeks 2 days ago||A violation of FERPA is not a||
A violation of FERPA is not a felony.
|33 weeks 2 days 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.
|40 weeks 5 days 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).
|41 weeks 1 day ago||What does unacceptable mean||
What does unacceptable mean in this context? You will stop being a fan? You will have a temper tantrum? You will give someone a piece of your mind? What?
|42 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah, or it defines , "trying||
Yeah, or it defines , "trying to win."
|42 weeks 1 day ago||Again.... A goof.||
Again.... A goof.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||Wow... You are the next OC...||
Wow... You are the next OC... smarter than everyone. We will win championships with you are the helm. You are a God!
|42 weeks 1 day ago||You need to get a life if you||
You need to get a life if you can't enjoy that game. Truly.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||You were watching a different||
You were watching a different game. Or, you have no idea why the "home" rule of thumb exists.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||Then you'd be bitching about||
Then you'd be bitching about how predictable it was. Get over yourself and enjoy a classic football game.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||You are wrong. If it had||
You are wrong. If it had worked you'd be the loudest in favor... Hindsight is a security blanket for some. Hoke made the right call, not the easy one. That is why he is our coach.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||I like "gimmicks" that are||
I like "gimmicks" that are within the rules and give us the best chance to win. If you don't, then you are a goof.
|42 weeks 1 day ago||You are relying entirely on||
You are relying entirely on hindsight. Human nature, I know, but still flawed. The entire stadium though we'd go to Butt or Funchess. It didn't work, but it was our best chance to win.
|42 weeks 5 days ago||I'm really not sure you want||
I'm really not sure you want to go here. Borges was with Bob Toledo basically from the beginning of his head coaching career, so not a good place to start. Then Borges had a cup of coffee with a disasterous Cal team and Indiana before heading into big-boy land. At that point, his effect looks Malzahn-esque. Take a look....
Before Borges -- 59%
During Borges -- 82%
After Borges -- 57%
Before Borges -- 47%
During Borges -- 62%
After Borges -- ??
|43 weeks 5 hours ago||These aren't really serious||
These aren't really serious questions, right? Please tell me you are just stirring the pot.
If you have to come to a message board to ask these questions I have to ask one myself:
Are you a grown-up?
|43 weeks 8 hours ago||If you really didn't care you||
If you really didn't care you wouldn't have taken the time to write a long diatribe about not caring.
|43 weeks 6 days ago||Same rules as any other play.||
Same rules as any other play. You can have a man in motion if he is an eligible receiver. Gibbons was still back pedaling a little at the snap but that is OK since he is eligible and not moving forward. If line was moving, that is a different issue, and not allowed.