The NBA has basically no interest in how kids are recruited to colleges. As long as the NCAA continues to provide a free minor league, the NBA will enable it to do so.
. . . is just too perfect. I totally forgot what this thread was even for by the time I got to this comment, so I read it as backlash against a conversation about WD's tinder life.
[Edit: was supposed to be responsive to #51. Fail.]
So, yes. 10 state championships, playoffs pretty much every year. I didn't play, but it was a big deal. Lots of people went to games, most people knew how the team was doing, etc.
And, you know, they had a discussion, as people do? And maybe the stipulations have something to do with the private reason that he left the team in the first place, so he doesn't want to discuss them now either?
And by that, I mean an Ole Miss player rolls up on Saban's leg, tearing Saban's ACL, followed by Alabama deciding he is no longer is living up to his commitment and encouraging him to pursue a new opportunity, perhaps at a community college or Gorgia Southern.
I hear you, but I think it's a good policy, as it fits in with the theme of the universities making a full, up-front commitment to educating the athlete regardless of the path of his or her athletic career.
My question is, does anyone know how this plays in with NCAA schlarship limits?
If the medical staff decided that Morris was not concussed following a proper test (I'm not saying that a proper test was administered - I have no idea), I don't see how we can villify anyone for Shane playing on a busted leg. Football players play on hurt feet/ankles/legs/whatever all the time, and generally that accepted as ok if the player is willing to go, yes? Case in point: this here blog singing the praises of Gardner for playing a great game against OSU last year on a broken foot.
[EDIT: for the record, I'm only responding to the post above because of the "head, leg, whatever" statement; not saying you're villifying Hoke for playing Shane on a bad leg, but it seems like some people have been doing so.]
Took the hit under the chin, almost fell over and had to be held up by a lineman, never left the field, took the next snap (as I recall). If my recollection is correct, big problem that Hoke didn't take him off the field.
He might be making sure he preserves his record K/walk rate. Another walk w/o a K and he wouldn't have the record. Name in history books >> relatively small sum of money for him.
The NBA doesn't care about the education of its' players, and it doesn't care about whether its future players go to class. It cares about giving players more time to develop as basketball players before they enter the league so that teams have more time to evaluate guys before drafting them. That's not hypocrisy, it's good business.
Harris had so much potential, and just never developed because he was forced to go one-on-one in the last 8 seconds of the shot clock for most of his career.
Also, Courtney Sims. Big dude, pretty skilled, but soft.
I don't think he was questioning work ethic so much as he was pointing out the likely difference in mentality (and the difference it might make when your job is to hit someone else as hard as you can on a repeated basis) between someone who had to scrap to survive growing up (and may have been rasied in more violent surroundings) and someone who didn't.
"Legitimate" is such a flexible concept. And I think I need further guidance vis a vis acceptable food baskets and clubs. Would a "Peanut Butter of the Month" be ok?
But I don't think it's necessarily true. Raking Meyer over the hot coals for having "this guy" on his team for four years, sure, but not over what he said. What Hoke said was a non-statement.
I genuinely don't get it. Demanding a different non-response ("no comment" and "family issue" are both "none of your business," aren't they?) doesn't make any sense to me. Hoke was in a difficult spot - he had recently (probably) found out that one of his players was expelled for something terrible that happened many years prior. Ignoring the input of lawyers and FERPA, I'm sure he wanted to avoid giving reporters a reason to jump all over one of his (now) former players while that player was dealing with a life-changing problem (even if that problem was deserved). I generally understand concerns over half-truths and lies, but here, no purpose would be served by "no comment" that wasn't served by what Hoke actually said.
Per the policy, the matter was dropped if the complainant was not involved. No ugly questions for at least two years (except, perhaps, about the policy itself).
Recent Comments
The actual drawing is done in front of a representative of every team and with a bunch of media members. It's pretty well vetted for legitimacy.
#NENTBA
This gives me an intense desire to play Kerbal Space Program.
The NBA has basically no interest in how kids are recruited to colleges. As long as the NCAA continues to provide a free minor league, the NBA will enable it to do so.
Sausages!
. . . is just too perfect. I totally forgot what this thread was even for by the time I got to this comment, so I read it as backlash against a conversation about WD's tinder life.
[Edit: was supposed to be responsive to #51. Fail.]
Those are awful.
in this case, if memory serves.
"They're loud, they smell, you can't understand them - they're like tiny cab drivers."
-Dr. Perry Cox
So, yes. 10 state championships, playoffs pretty much every year. I didn't play, but it was a big deal. Lots of people went to games, most people knew how the team was doing, etc.
Oh Mylanta.
. . . is that the NBA would have to make the rule and they have absolutely no reason to do so.
Computerized balls and strikes.
And just stomped all over it.
So if you quit your job, every single client or customer you serve would be entitled to know every detail of why?
I'd love to know which part of the question you answered.
And, you know, they had a discussion, as people do? And maybe the stipulations have something to do with the private reason that he left the team in the first place, so he doesn't want to discuss them now either?
I bet you'd get negged less if you told us where Harbaugh plays.
Edit: beaten to the punch!
Come on man, some of us haven't seen or read the end of the series yet.
/s
And by that, I mean an Ole Miss player rolls up on Saban's leg, tearing Saban's ACL, followed by Alabama deciding he is no longer is living up to his commitment and encouraging him to pursue a new opportunity, perhaps at a community college or Gorgia Southern.
Clever, dropping this in the posbang thread.
Must be beacuse we're a bunch of quitters.
And how do you suggest we wield more of it?
I hear you, but I think it's a good policy, as it fits in with the theme of the universities making a full, up-front commitment to educating the athlete regardless of the path of his or her athletic career.
My question is, does anyone know how this plays in with NCAA schlarship limits?
While discussing whether to characterize the concussion as "probable," "questionable," or "doubtful."
If the medical staff decided that Morris was not concussed following a proper test (I'm not saying that a proper test was administered - I have no idea), I don't see how we can villify anyone for Shane playing on a busted leg. Football players play on hurt feet/ankles/legs/whatever all the time, and generally that accepted as ok if the player is willing to go, yes? Case in point: this here blog singing the praises of Gardner for playing a great game against OSU last year on a broken foot.
[EDIT: for the record, I'm only responding to the post above because of the "head, leg, whatever" statement; not saying you're villifying Hoke for playing Shane on a bad leg, but it seems like some people have been doing so.]
...that you were continuing the previous list of things that people say that are confusing.
Took the hit under the chin, almost fell over and had to be held up by a lineman, never left the field, took the next snap (as I recall). If my recollection is correct, big problem that Hoke didn't take him off the field.
At 180, 195, and 210.
[Edit: the 180 and 195 thresholds received separate, smaller bonuses.]
How about softshoes with 10 mgopoints per year. And I thought I was bad in that category.
He might be making sure he preserves his record K/walk rate. Another walk w/o a K and he wouldn't have the record. Name in history books >> relatively small sum of money for him.
It's like "with all due respect" - it negates any response. Magic!
A+ material, that.
You're really on fire in this thread.
Something about the combination really ratcheted up the comedy on this one.
is what some may say, but I think you're right.
Yes.
The message is "We believe enough in this guy to pay him a lot, so the athletically-gifted high schoolers of America should believe in him too!"
[Edit: this is a reply to #5]
The NBA doesn't care about the education of its' players, and it doesn't care about whether its future players go to class. It cares about giving players more time to develop as basketball players before they enter the league so that teams have more time to evaluate guys before drafting them. That's not hypocrisy, it's good business.
Harris had so much potential, and just never developed because he was forced to go one-on-one in the last 8 seconds of the shot clock for most of his career.
Also, Courtney Sims. Big dude, pretty skilled, but soft.
Have some fun (assuming they do it after big shots and not just a random three 10 minutes in).
Well done.
I don't think he was questioning work ethic so much as he was pointing out the likely difference in mentality (and the difference it might make when your job is to hit someone else as hard as you can on a repeated basis) between someone who had to scrap to survive growing up (and may have been rasied in more violent surroundings) and someone who didn't.
I see the character of Yeezus is lost on you gents. He needs to bring back the all caps.
All I can say is yikes.
"Legitimate" is such a flexible concept. And I think I need further guidance vis a vis acceptable food baskets and clubs. Would a "Peanut Butter of the Month" be ok?
But I don't think it's necessarily true. Raking Meyer over the hot coals for having "this guy" on his team for four years, sure, but not over what he said. What Hoke said was a non-statement.
I genuinely don't get it. Demanding a different non-response ("no comment" and "family issue" are both "none of your business," aren't they?) doesn't make any sense to me. Hoke was in a difficult spot - he had recently (probably) found out that one of his players was expelled for something terrible that happened many years prior. Ignoring the input of lawyers and FERPA, I'm sure he wanted to avoid giving reporters a reason to jump all over one of his (now) former players while that player was dealing with a life-changing problem (even if that problem was deserved). I generally understand concerns over half-truths and lies, but here, no purpose would be served by "no comment" that wasn't served by what Hoke actually said.
Per the policy, the matter was dropped if the complainant was not involved. No ugly questions for at least two years (except, perhaps, about the policy itself).
Might there have been a backlog of cases to investigate that had previously been closed due to lack of participation by the accuser?