- Member for
- 6 years 7 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|19 weeks 5 days ago||Glad your daughter is safe||
On the other hand, this:
"I am reminded that we have the freedom to enjoy football games and many other things in our country because of sacrifices made by all military forces."
Is not an apolitical statement, however much you may want it to be. It's also not really true unless you restrict "all military forces" to "US-allied military forces", which then goes back to the whole "apolitical" thing.
|29 weeks 3 days ago||+1 dig dug||
|38 weeks 6 days ago||Eh||
10: Goal line technology would be OK but (and this applies to many of these suggested "improvements") it moves you incrementally towards the US 4-hour "sports experience" where everything is litigated to the last mind-numbing detail, so no.
9: No. See 10.
8: No. See 10. I *love* how the last 15 seconds of a basketball game take 15 minutes, and the ontological debates over whether the edge of someone's foot is in contact with a small piece of painted hardwood.
7: Eh. Diving is what it is, and it's already punishable. You could shift the balance via advice to referees. But the thing a lot of people miss about soccer (beyond the Pepe incidents) is that if someone disrupts you with minimal contact, you should often go to ground a) to protect yourself and b) because you've been put at a disadvantage.
6: Eh. "Replace it with ... I don't know" is not super compelling. If money in sports bugs you, you can support your local club.
5: No. Keep the rules simple.
4: No. Smacks of Arena Football "innovation". Also see 5.
3: Eh. This used to be solved with replays, and we did away with those. All the various Golden Goal-type experiments tend to lead to ultra-defensive play. Plus you get to see great players choke in career-defining ways (or not).
|41 weeks 5 days ago||There's a subset||
that literally cannot go without it. It's like no-one's told them there are other websites out there with lots more of this stuff.
|41 weeks 5 days ago||Political correctness gone mad!||
Must we be condemned for a healthy attitude towards attractive human females over the age of 18?
Why, any day now, Human Resources will be demanding I remove the Pirelli calendars from my office walls!
|43 weeks 12 hours ago||Back to back CLs coming up||
Just like Forest in the 80s. Book it.
|43 weeks 5 days ago||I don't know||
I don't have a dog in this fight particularly - I think football probably does cause some brain deterioration, but probably not a huge amount more than other contact sports - right now I'd let my kids play, hypothetically speaking, although that's probably because they don't have the build to play in the trenches, where the worst effects seem to be concentrated.
Having said that, I think one thing that passionate football supporters cannot afford to do at this stage is to adopt a siege mentality. This kind of research is long overdue (the NFL basically suppressed it for years) and people should absolutely study the long-term effects on the brain, which also means understanding the short-term effects. Complaining about scare tactics will not play well in that context.
|43 weeks 5 days ago||Not only that||
There's also a kind of "but... but... FOOTBALL" thing going on, where people assume that the sport will live forever and so this type of research is useless/irrelevant.
Cool story bro time: my high school was one of the last to feature a boxing team, which ceased its activity right around the time I got there. Now boxing is no more.
In the 1800s competitive long-distance solo walking was insanely popular, as were sculling races in London. Times change and sports change with them.
|45 weeks 3 days ago||A little ironic||
that people would complain about the advertising on soccer jerseys in this context.
That would be the advertising that you see on jerseys during games that run for two uninterrupted 45 minute halves.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Exactly||
Moreover, the state contribution is of the order of $300M.
I'm frankly surprised at some of the comments about how easy it would be to walk away from this money, or increase financial aid payouts from the endowment, or whatever, because "it's a small percentage of the total". A small percentage of a huge number is a *lot* of money. The endowment payout rate is set at 5% (or whatever) for long-term fiscal prudence. You can argue about the appropriateness of that number but it's not like going to 6% is a decision you make off the cuff to throw out of state families a bone.
The summary of the LSU situation is that, at least in theory, you do actually need a functioning university in order to have a university-affiliated football team.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||Did he expound||
on the importance of labor unions in promoting the cause of the oppressed?
|1 year 6 weeks ago||No Subject||
I logged in solely to point out that I looked for a Maryland blog in the sidebar to check out the opponent fan analysis, but then remembered that Rutgers and Maryland aren't listed in the Big 10 blogs. Awesome.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||I think the solution is much simpler||
Allow all teams to practice the same amount after the regular season, and schedule a scrimmage against another non-bowling team if they want to. Or maybe just a New Year's trip to the Bahamas for the football team. Much cheaper than the forced ticket allocation. I reckon the sham bowls would dissipate pretty quickly.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Come on dude||
Are you essentially claiming that people of European ancestry living in North America cannot be anti-racist without being hypocrites?
Because that seems, like, a stretch to me.
I think the no politics rule gets stretched pretty thin with this passive aggressive BS.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||Never gets old||
The spectacle of sports journalists sneering at the lowly people who *gasp* actually play the sports they cover and *shock* may not be as pure as the driven snow, which the journalists themselves assuredly are.
Who gives a crap about the HOF.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||I think this conversation is great||
The "no politics" rule of mgoblog is frankly silly (and in any case it really just means " no politics that steps outside of our comfortable space").
|1 year 37 weeks ago||Prediction: this will not end well||
A relevant detail: Kipnis got into trouble for writing an article which was essentially: male professors used to sleep with female graduate students all the time, what's the big deal?
The big deal, of course, is that this was part and parcel of a system where 90%-plus of the top jobs went to men.
I've worked on college campuses for not-quite-20 years. I can just about see where Chris Rock's coming from but to be honest I think the issue he identifies (people not wanting to be offended) is a far smaller one than the general reluctance of people to think outside of a pretty narrow neo-liberal worldview. More often, complaints about "political correctness" continue to be a convenient way for the old guard to defend their positions of privilege.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||Exactly||
Plenty of other countries/sports have figured this out with pre-professional contracts, apprenticeships etc.
The main problem in the US is that there's no incentive for colleges or the NCAA to actually offer terms that are advantageous to the kids and their families.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Sounds defensive||
I didn't stick around for long enough yesterday to respond to this. I'm sorry if my original comment was overly aggressive, but look: if two of Irvin's shots had rimmed out, you would not now be writing an article saying "Zak Irvin's mid-range jumpers are just as likely to go in as early-in-the-shot-clock heaves, so we may as well bomb away".
8/19 is also a very small sample from which to draw any firm conclusions. Again, if two of those shots rim out he's suddenly under 33%, Compare and contrast the treatment of Irvin here ("what a player") with Bielfeldt and his equally tiny sample of three pointers ("very unlikely to continue").
Basically, this "throwing numbers around" approach to sports writing is easy, which is why the hacks do it. I generally find mgoblog to be better than that, which is why I read and (very occasionally) post.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||5 of 8||
Come on. This is a meaningless sample.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||Sigh||
"Tuition should be lower" - sure, and then you lose all your best faculty to competitor X because you have to stiff them with 1% 5 years in a row.
"Reduce unnecessary costs" - why does everyone always assume there's a ton of unnecessary cost to cut? Hint - there isn't. The top 5 public universities already spend ~1/3 per bachelor's degree compared the Ivy League. You're cutting bone at this point.
"Meetings should be more open" - until you go to the first two meetings and realize there's a reason you don't let the voting majority run your state's flagship research institution.
On the plus side, the guy seems nice enough. I doubt he could do any serious damage.
|2 years 36 weeks ago||Not sure about the game plan||
I don't think the US really changed their game plan - I just think they didn't pass the ball well. Giving away possession was more caused by misplaced passing and general lack of vision than by going into some kind of conservative mode, from what I saw.
|2 years 36 weeks ago||I thought both teams||
were bad in possession, but compensated for it by doing a lot of running around. Frustrating to watch, and spells trouble for the US in the next two games.
I also thought Jones left the boot in - fair enough he'd just been clattered from behind, but still a stupid thing to do.
|2 years 45 weeks ago||It's a college actually||
|2 years 48 weeks ago||If they had overturned||
the out of bounds with Stauskas at the end I would have throttled my cat.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||I don't have time to stick around||
for an answer, unfortunately, but I'll point out that the athletes are in fact working to pay for their education (unless I'm mistaken and their scholarships aren't dependent on continued participation in their sport).
The argument, to me, is whether it's OK for colleges and the NCAA to agree on the limits on pay in this particular arena. I suspect that if there was a system in place that limited compensation in your field, you would not think it was particularly fair.
The question of whether people will follow non-amateur sports is a different one, but then big-time college sports are not really amateur at the moment, if you think carefully about it. Athletes are receiving a benefit with financial value in return for their participation in a revenue-generating activity.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||I also take issue||
with the $40K, $50K or (even worse) $200K figure that gets thrown around in this discussion. (In what other context would you talk about someone's 4-year earnings as a measure of value?)
It totally confuses cost with value, ignores opportunity cost altogether, and finally is a tacit agreement that players are already being paid, and that the only debate is around how much and whether it can legally be capped by a monopolistic organization.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||I don't find it particularly surprising||
To be honest, it seems logical that the hypocrisy of "amateurism" in big-time college sports would be in sharpest relief at an institution with high academic standards.
It probably also helps that they're being taught to think critically.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||As long as your build is||
As long as your build is pretty "athletic" you can definitely do well in rugby without being massive. This guy looked fine from the youtube footage.
The only time it really becomes an issue is when you're being asked to defend against a significantly bigger opposite number. Fortunately Jonah Lomus don't come along every day.
|3 years 17 weeks ago||27-23 Michigan||