here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
- Member for
- 2 years 49 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Technically a monopsony.||
|17 weeks 5 days ago||I haven't read the article by||
I haven't read the article by Granderson, but I think Seth's point has to do with Omitted Variable Bias. If you add a race variable and attempt to measure the effect of race without also controlling for variables that are correlated with both race and the output variable, your estimates will most likely be biased. If you don't include a measure of poverty, then you won't be able to parse out what portion of the effect is due to race and what portion is due to poverty. Since both are also correlated with region, I think Seth made a prudent decision to keep his model simple and basically say, "it's hard to tell what's happening."
|22 weeks 4 days ago||Thou hath jumpeth the shark.||
Thou hath jumpeth the shark.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||He asserted it, but that||
He asserted it, but that doesn't make it true.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||1) There is peer reviewed||
1) There is peer reviewed research to support the claim so it's not unfounded.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||How does this differ than a||
How does this differ than a workplace sexual misconduct finding that results in termination? I'm guessing there might be a legal precedent that gives students additional protections, but from my layperson's perspective I don't see much of a difference. In both cases it makes sense that an organization would set up their own system to resolve the complaint.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Especially when you consider||
Especially when you consider that most rapists are repeat offenders.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Then why are you discussing||
Then why are you discussing it on a board that forbids politics?
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Do you think it's a problem||
Do you think it's a problem that 19% of undergrad women report being victims of sexual assault during college? I do. And I think it's clear that the justice system has been unable to curtail the epidemic. So schools are stepping up to ensure a safe environment. I think schools should definitely consider the costs of potentially expelling innocent students, but that should be weighed against the benefit of protecting potential victims.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Observing that the DoE||
Observing that the DoE directive was a factor is perfectly fine. Going on rants about kangaroo courts and asserting that it's understandable that Lewan attempted to intimidate the victim (indirectly via bile statements to her friends) is what prompts the claims of extremism. That and saying stuff that's not true.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Given your more conservative||
Given your more conservative leanings, you should read this piece by Gary Becker: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/the-ncaa-as-a-powerful-cartel-...
|23 weeks 5 days ago||As UW acknowledged, the||
As UW acknowledged, the police report is difficult to decipher because all the names are redacted, but it appears that Lewan made multiple threatening comments to the victim's friends. Then UM police warned him to stop and notified the Dean. So, the police interpreted his actions as threatening to the victim.
And regardless of the hair-splitting about exactly to whom he made those offensive comments, they are still completely disgusting and reprehensible. And yet, you insist on defending him - "you get him." I cannot even fathom it.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||Why should I waste my time||
Why should I waste my time rebutting a biased opinion piece, when you won't address the fact that sexual assault is rampant on college campuses? Or the multitude of cases in which university administrations are accused of ignoring/covering up rape accusations? Or defend your claim that Gibbons was falsely accused? Or explain why rape jokes are OK if you're really pissed off?
|23 weeks 5 days ago||What's the deal with the two||
What's the deal with the two letter deal you always put at the end of your comments?
|23 weeks 5 days ago||Section 1 is a parody of an||
Section 1 is a parody of an insufferable old man yelling GET OFF MY LAWN. In many instances (i.e., concussions, exploitation of athletes, Title IX), it has been my observation that Section 1 rides in on his rather high horse to defend the status quo. But that's just like my opinion, man and I didn't feel like writing a wall of text to articulate it. So I mocked him. Because he's ridiculous.
If I had been so inclined, I would have pointed out that James Taranto is indeed a journalist, but more specifically, he's a conservative columnist. And the quoted piece was an opinion column in the WSJ. WSJ's news department has a good reputation but their editorial page is extremely conservative. Both WSJ and Taranto have an agenda and the tone of the column belies the writer's bias. I could find lots of colums from Slate or Mother Jones on the issue of rape on college campus that draw the opposite conclusion, but I don't think they would be very effective at changing Section 1's mind.
Earlier in the thread, I noted that, according to the CDC, 19% of undergrad women will be sexually assaulted during college. And there are numerous stories of women dropping out and/or harming themselves after university administrations refused to take action when there was credible evidence of sexual assault, but no criminal conviction. There are multiple federal suits against universities alleging they've violated Title IX by failing to respond appropriately to rape accusations. Expelling Gibbons is in direct response to those concerns. I think it's fine to question the use of extra-judicial discipline and point out that Gibbons was never found guilty of a crime, but his screed was absurdly over the top.
His priorities are insane. I mean, elsewhere in this thread, the guy defends Taylor Lewan, who joked that he would rape the victim if she pressed charges. I quote, "I GET TAYLOR LEWAN. HE WAS PISSED." He also concludes that Gibbons was falsely accused, because he wasn't prosecuted. Isn't that just as moronic (Section 1's word) as presuming guilt? The guy isn't here to have an honest discourse. He's here to throw bombs and say offensive shit. And he deserves to be mocked for it.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||Section 1: last defender of||
Section 1: last defender of the privileged and powerful.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||Whether or not there was a||
Whether or not there was a cover up, it seems clear that sexual assault is a serious problem on most college campuses. According to the CDC, 18% of women are sexually assaulted at some point in their life and 38% of victims were assaulted during ages 18-24. Additionally, 19% of undergrad women were victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault while at college. Link: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/SV-DataSheet-a.pdf
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Pretty sure she was born in||
Pretty sure she was born in Texas.
|29 weeks 3 days ago||Joe D IS an idiot,||
But not because he drafted KCP. I mean, we're not even half way through their rookie years. Acting as if it's just a fact that Burke is the better prospect and then calling people idiots base on that supposed fact is a little silly.
|29 weeks 5 days ago||Endogeneity bias, yo.||
Endogeneity bias, yo.
|35 weeks 3 days ago||No way. He got beat by a||
No way. He got beat by a girl! What a looser!
|38 weeks 4 days ago||I think the Wisconsin||
I think the Wisconsin situation is not really analagous. They fired they're brand new coach who had installed a new technique. When they fired him, they went back to coaching the old technique that the players had a history of executing succesfully.
|39 weeks 4 days ago||It happens to the best of us.||
It happens to the best of us.
|39 weeks 4 days ago||It was directed at you, but||
It was directed at you, but it was just an observation. I don't know scheme from a hole in the ground. Your arguments seem well reasoned, just think your tone can be a bit vehement and dismissive, which may be why you're getting so much pushback.
To be clear, as BISB said, this is much better than a lot of the arguments on the board. Just a suggestion for further improvement.
|39 weeks 4 days ago||You have a tendency to||
You have a tendency to declare yourself right and others wrong. I think that rubs some people the wrong way. Might be something to consider.
|41 weeks 14 hours ago||I thought this sort of||
I thought this sort of comment was verboten ever since the great bye week purge.
|41 weeks 2 days ago||Im A little short on time so||
Im A little short on time so I'll be brief. I think your post was thoughtful, but I still disagree substantially. I think the semi pro thing is a red herring because the ncaa's existence distorts the market. I also don't think legal associates or internships are analogous because they don't occur to explicit collusion. Medical residents is an interesting example although healthcare is a unique market. In the end, I don't find examples of other market distortions persuasive evidence that we should tolerate this particular distortion.
|41 weeks 2 days ago||I think the existence of the||
I think the existence of the NCAA as cartel creates significant barriers to entry. In that context, your recommendation is basically a nonstarter. You're saying players have other options without acknowledging that these options are undermined by the existence of a cartel.
|41 weeks 2 days ago||And the players are typically||
And the players are typically unionized and negotiate a cba. I think you're being too dismissive of the power of this cartel, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe read that article by Becker and Posner and see if you still feel the same way.
|41 weeks 2 days ago||Absolutely. I wasn't trying||
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to imply that the nfl was a free market. There are two critical differences though: 1) the nfl players have a union and negotiate a cba and 2) congress gave the nfl an antitrust exception.