help i've been transported back in time to Jim Tressel's hiring help
- Member for
- 5 years 21 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|9 weeks 6 days ago||Uhhhhhh, what?||
|9 weeks 6 days ago||He had a good number of off||
He had a good number of off the field issues at Miami. But he's a 7th round boom/bust, it's a good gamble.
|10 weeks 7 hours ago||I took Dinosaurs and Other||
I took Dinosaurs and Other Failures as a mini-course about 2003. Probably one of the easiest classes I've ever taken.
|10 weeks 7 hours ago||Agreed that Lassiter and||
Agreed that Lassiter and Porter were both excellent. Two of my favorites in the department,
Porter's History 318 (Europe in the Era of War) was easily one of my favorite classes ever.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||The government is not seizing||
The government is not seizing his property. There is no discussion of a crime on his part. This is completely irrelevant. He owns a team subject to rules of the NBA. He (allegedly) broke those rules. He also would be forced to SELL (not have seized) his team. I'm sure he'll get a good amount of money for it.
Again, the NBA can defend this action if they are not acting illegally. If they have league rules set up in place and follow those procedures it is likely they are acting appropriately. His ownership of the team was subject to those rules.
Yes they are "his" profits, but there is NBA revenue sharing, though I'm not familiar with the specifics. Also, there's a good argument that the NBA's image as a whole (and therefore other teams TV contracts, ticket sales, etc.) will be hurt by associating with Mr. Sterling. Finally, there's probably rules in place for owner conduct detrimental to the league, or simply allowing him to be removed for any non-discriminatory reason.
He might challenge all of this. People often do if they don't like how something is playing out, but, in my opinion, he'd probably lose.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||For what "beliefs"? Against||
For what "beliefs"? Against prosecution from who? Protects who against said prosecution?
Title VII and other relevant employment laws protect against discrimintion based on a protected category. Those are defined by statute and have been fleshed out in great detail in case law. So in answer to "who decides which beliefs we are going to protect" the answer is the US government.
I think you're conflating criminal and civil issue.I have not defended any sort of criminal prosecution in this case, so the references to though police and re-education camps seem silly (at least they're not double speak).
You're also apparently under the false impression that people are "protected in their beliefs" from any sort of non-criminal action. That's simply not the case. Unless the NBA is violating a law in enforcing its governing documents and procedures for removing Mr. Sterling, they are within their rights. Make mistakes and people may choose not to associate with you. Do it at your own perogative if you own an entity worth hundreds of millions of dollars and take action that may draw the ire of those in your association.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||I realize you're not a||
I realize you're not a lawyer, but you're conflating a lot of different issues. "Life, liberty, and happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence and is not some sort of Constituational right.
This happens all the time in the employment context. My happiness may involve wearing jean cut off shorts to work, but my employer forbids that. That "infringes on my pursuit of happiness" but if I want to be employed then tough luck (as long as the rule does not violate a law, rule, regulation, etc.) I'll just wear them to the stadium on Saturdays. It's not exactly identical to this situation, but the concept is the same.
I am unclear of who the "you" is refering to. The NBA? Me? The government? Anyone?
If it's the NBA, then it depends on what the rules of the voluntary organization they set up say. Contrary to your statement, you may be able to "punish" individuals for their toughts. While Mr. Sterling certainly is entitled to his thoughts, a voluntary business association that has specific guidelines governing the conduct (and removal mechanism) of its owners is not obligated to keep him in the group.
You may have a right to your thoughts, but that does not mean there will be no repercussions.
And, in my opinion, I doubt this will be "overtuend in a heartbeat."
|11 weeks 4 days ago||Title VII protects||
Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination based on national origin or religion. So...firing them would be a bad idea.
|11 weeks 5 days ago||People also seem to think||
People also seem to think that everyone is entitled to do what they want and that there can't be repercussions because they "own it."
A lawyer would ask under what conditions does he own the team? Is there a mechanism in place under which the league can remove him? Are their certain criteria that can force sale of a team. And so on.
There are legal documents that govern the structure of the league and address these situations. Especially in a setting where value of a team is based upon the entire league itself, these type of things are important.
Between this and the Northwestern union issues the internet has become even more abuzz with people talking about lawsuits and legal issues without actually knowing the facts.
Read the documents, then maybe form an opinion.
He may sue, but there is no way I'd ever suggest that my common sense could answer such a complex legal question without having a better understanding of all the facts
|12 weeks 1 day ago||This is a very common||
This is a very common response to a union organizing campaign, and generally speaking, is legal.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||It is not. Speaking from||
It is not. Speaking from experience... This is a pretty typical, and legal, response by an employer.
|18 weeks 5 days ago||Game theory||
For anyone interested: http://mentalfloss.com/article/54823/6-elements-arthur-chus-jeopardy-str...
|19 weeks 6 days ago||Congratulations on making the||
Congratulations on making the most semantically-based horrible defense I've ever read on MGoBlog. And that's saying something.
It goes without saying that being technically correct here (I could make an argument to the contrary but its not worth the bandwitdh) does not count as a moral victory. If anything it looks like a defeat.
A simple "my bad, I was wrong" sometimes can go a long way...
|21 weeks 4 days ago||He never said UM was doing it||
He never said UM was doing it because Stanford did; he was pointing out, by example, that the naming of the HC position was not a correlation with irrelevance.
|21 weeks 4 days ago||Right to work laws don't||
Right to work laws don't really have an impact on hiring/firing or "cutting dead weight". Essentially, they forbid requiring a dues payment or union membership as a condition of employment. They are means of economically attacking the larger union base (money).
Regardless of right to work law or not, the corrective action/progressive discipline/termination is going to be covered by the CBA.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Not sure this will make me||
Not sure this will make me happy,,,
|24 weeks 5 days ago||Considering PERA already||
Considering PERA already contains a clarification on graduate student research assistants not being covered and a reference to the 20-point test,, I agree. They would just amend the law accordingly.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||State labor laws cover public||
State labor laws cover public employees.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Did USC give OJ unfettered||
Did USC give OJ unfettered access to a knife collection after a GA caught him stabbing someone in the shower?
|28 weeks 1 day ago||The whole tone of the Chiefs||
The whole tone of the Chiefs defense changed when Flowers went out. Carr is a decent #2, but expected Robinson and Cooper to play starter minutes in anywhere other than the nickel was going to be trouble (and it was). Add in a Justin Houston injury for much of the 4Q (arguably their best pass rusher) and you have a perfect storm of a collapse.*
*That, coupled with losing their best player (Charles) and his backup, and their #2 WR.
|31 weeks 4 days ago||Chiefs were great. Okoye in||
Chiefs were great. Okoye in excellent would bounce everyone off him. Thomas flew around, and Stephone Paige and Neil Smith were very underrated.
|36 weeks 2 days ago||Go watch the play. There was||
Go watch the play. There was nowhere to "tuck it and run forward" without reversing field.
|36 weeks 2 days ago||Gardner is calling slide||
Gardner is calling slide protections now? That's news to me. When did this start happening?
Can you explain what "awareness" is? That's a pretty vague term for something you're a cussing someone of being bad at.
On the particular play you're referencing, I don't mind the decision to change fields - nobody was open and sitting in the (moved) pocket has not been working out. I would have rather seen him cut it up field a little sooner, but that's from the benefit of a top angle camera. Getting to the outside makes sense from a clock management perspective and because he should have a shot at turning the corner on a DE.
|40 weeks 2 days ago||I just keep shampooing my||
I just keep shampooing my hair over and over again for 0.93 yards per shampoo.
|40 weeks 2 days ago||There was a decent amount of||
There was a decent amount of criticism of him while he was at Baltimore for being too conservative. It's a bit of confirmation bias, but if you google for old articles or message boards from when he left Baltimore there's a lot of statements which might sound all too familiar ("enjoy it when he rushes 3 on 3rd and 19 against OSU" etc).
I like Mattison, and think he's a good coach and great recruiter... But I do think he's too conservative at times. Especially with a small lead. It worked against ND, Akron, and UConn when they all made a mistake. It did not work tonight.
|40 weeks 2 days ago||Morris RS was burned in||
Morris RS was burned in Central game.
|41 weeks 5 days ago||I asked myself the same||
I asked myself the same question... I think it's probably not a good sign.
|41 weeks 5 days ago||Bacari Alexander||
Bacari Alexander (@bacari34)
|44 weeks 4 hours ago||Had 2 extra, couldn't sell||
Had 2 extra, couldn't sell them together (pathetically), all scalpels were trying to dump.
Mostly $20 for tickets, I sold a single for $10 as I was walking in, because 10 > 0
|49 weeks 5 days ago||Not sure on the article||
Not sure on the article posted, I was having issues getting my insider to work on my iPad, but I'm a consistent FO reader from the NFL-side. Their metrics are pretty good for that.
On the college side, their 2013 Almanac has UM projected at 7-5 (4-4), and they note that "if blue-chippers click... [Michigan could] vastly exceed their projection". So... I'm not really sure without reading that article what the numbers actually mean, but it's apparently not the same as FO has projected and published on their website.
Edit: got insider to work. Very weird. The metrics BF uses there are not the same as most others FO use, so don't kill FO for it. The FO Almanac is much more upbeat about Michigan, though notes they are young in some key areas.