Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
- Member for
- 4 years 48 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Let me educate you..||
A "monopoly" (per investopedia) is "a situation in which a single company or GROUP owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. It is true that the strict academic definition limits a monopoly to a market containing only one firm. But that is an overly strict definition. The NCAA is an umbrella organization which acts as a monopoly. Sure, you could call it a cartel too. But this argument is pointless splitting of hairs and irrelevant.
As for your second point, it is again irrelevant. Does your company collude with other companies to limit your compensation? Does your company belong to a cartel which exerts monopolistic influence over your industry and suppresses your wages? If so, then you have a gripe and should seek legal remedy. Otherwise, wtf are you talking about?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||See above...||
but frankly, this issue is pretty clear and if it's not obvious to you initially, I doubt further reading will clarify it further for you.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||The NCAA..||
is a group of colleges and universities which are ...... wait for it.... businesses! When these businesses combine to form a group called the NCAA, they form a monopoly. Get it???
And how is individuals making millions while suppressing the earnings of employees in the name of "amateurism" not hypocrisy??? If "amateurism" is so great, why shouldn't everybody involved follow the rules of "amateurism." Just look up the definiton of hypocrisy.
If you're a thinker and interested, here's an informative reasoned article on the NCAA monopoly and it's corrupt practices:
But I should give up. The non-thinkers outnumber the thinkers here.
If you're a non-thinker, feel free to neg-bang or respond with some stupidity.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Say what?||
"Dude, this isn't an ESPiN chat board... take that bush league shit somewhere else."
WTF does that mean?
Why aren't there any rational responses here?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||There are rules..||
against monopolies aren't there? Why is the NCAA granted an exemption?
What if you faced such a monopoly and had no other choice to agree to their "rules" if you wished to pursue a career in certain sport? You don't really have a choice do you? Either sign away your basic economic rights or you may not be able to pursue a professional career using your god-given talents.
The NCAA acts like a totalitarian state. It sets rules that players MUST agree to, They have no choice. Do you have ANY sympathy for people living in totalitarian states or do you just tell them to follow the rules and stop complaining?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Are you serious?||
Come up with a rational argument and then post. And if you can't read a couple paragraphs then maybe you should go back to school.
The NCAA is a monopoly. It has been granted an illegal exemption in this regard. Just because some court said "hey we're not going to uphold the law" doesn't make it any less illegal. And just because the government flouts the law by arbitrarily granting exemptions from the law in other ways, it's no less illegal. Either we are "a nation of laws" or we're not.
But I don't want to get into some insane legal argument here. Some lawyer here will step in and explain how the law can be twisted any way the government sees fit. Or how a court putting a stamp of approval on something makes it constitutional or legal. I respectfully disagree.
And if you don't know what basic rights are then you should not join the discussion.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||The NCAA should be..||
abolished. It is an illegal monopoly which exploits student-athletes and deprives them of basic rights. I love college football and basketball but I can't stomach the corruption and hypocrisy of the NCAA. Amateurism is just a sham to preserve the power and wealth of the NCAA and its cronies. It's so blatantly obvious. In something like 40 states, the highest paid public official is a college sports coach.
If you throw away the BS about amateurism and try to look objectively at the issue, you see that certain players who "broke the rules" are in the right and the NCAA is in the wrong. Manziel, Webber, et al were just exercising their basic economic rights. That's why Webber won't apologize for anything. The university was profiting immensely on his back while he as prevented from doing likewise and then condemned for legally taking a gift. The university and the NCAA should apologize. Any time he sees his Michigan jersey for sale, he must get ticked off. I think the BK commercial was one big screw you to the NCAA and the unviersity. They should apologize to him.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Congrats for a phenomenal season!!||
It's hard not to be sad at a moment like this. But that's the nature of college basketball. One unusally superior shooting night by your opponent and/or some questionable calls and you're done for the year. But that's just dumb luck and it doesn't tarnish what these guys have accomplished. Stauskas, Morgan and anybody else who leaves will be sorely missed. But they've given us incredible memories and two fantastic runs at a championship. They've rebuilt an elite program that will remain at the top for years to come.
It was fitting that their last bucket was a supreme team effort with several amazing rebounds before tying the game on a Morgan tipin. Just amazing heart and toughness.
|3 weeks 5 hours ago||Great freshman season...||
And his ceiling is high. He seems to have all the qualities to be great. He has great athleticism and a great basketball mindset. He doesn't seem to get rattled. And he has a superb shooting stroke.
I can see why he was a top 40 player (per rivals) coming out of high school.
I think he was unfairly criticized by some earlier in the year by people who forgot he's just a freshman. And not Trey Burke. At least not yet..
It will be fun to seem him grow as he's called on to do more playmaking and creating.
|3 weeks 6 hours ago||No...||
people have argued that it's a no call rather than a charge. I see your point but it's not a block according to the rules. If you call it a block, you get Shaq ball where the bigger player just bulls his way in. That's not basketball. I also don't agree with a no call. Refs need to enforce the rules all the time not just when they feel like it. And they need to be more consistent on this call. I think if there's any doubt, the call should be a charge.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||Yeah...||
WTF??? It wasn't even close. Still shaking my head. Reminded me of some of the calls in the NC game.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||We are already||
at the very top. There is no next level. We outplayed Louisville in the NC game and only "lost" because the officiating was abominable. Now, we're in the Sweet Sixteen despite losing arguably our best player and projected lottery pick to injury for the whole season. Only luck separates us from any fictitious "next level."
To maintain at the very top level, we need to still get some top 50 players and top 100ish players every year. We did that again last year with Chatman (top 30) and DJ Wilson and Doyle (top 100ish). We have another top 100 redshirt freshman in Donnal. So, we're doing fine. It would be great if we got even more top players and it's a mystery why we don't. But we have plenty of talent for a phenomenal coach like Beilein to keep us at or near the top.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Not surprised and not disappointed...||
He was leaning away from Michigan for awhile and always seemed like a long shot. Plus, he seems like a likely one and done. I would prefer a player who stays a couple years or more. So I would prefer to get another top target like Jalen Brunson, Jalen Coleman or Eric Davis.
Just looking at the objective results recently, Michigan would seem to be the most desirable choice for any basketball recruit these days - best coach, clean program, best talent development and the most elite on court results. But every kid makes a decision on an emotional level or for other reasons unrelated to basketball. And a few other schools like Duke are close to Michigan in all the above areas.
|6 weeks 20 hours ago||Never just a shooter...||
I agree with others here that Nik was never "just a shooter." Last year, he showed his ability to drive and create but that was not his role with Trey and THJ around. And I don't think Nik's success is a product of "player development" by Beilein and his staff but innate talent. After seeing some recruiting film and youtube video of Nik before he got here, I was convinced he was underrated and would eventually be in the NBA. Nik is an example of Beilein's ability to identify unusual talent rather than develop it. But Beilein does provide the proper environment for talent to fully blossom.
|11 weeks 2 hours ago||I strongly disagree with several assertion under #1||
First of all, the assertion that reported rapes are far more likely to be actual rapes than false accusations is unfounded. It's possible but the opposite is also possible. There's literally just no way to now without trying each case in a court of law. There are numerous well-publicized cases of false accusations. Such assertions presume guilt without any chance to prove otherwise and defames the entire male gender. Secondly, I would also question the assertion that there is no reason to doubt the university's conclusion under the standard of "preponderance of the evidence." The standard, as often applied, is seriously biased against the male. By the usual university standards, the majority (if not all) sexually active college males can be presumed guilty of rape. If both parties are intoxicated, the presumption is that the male is a rapist if the female makes such a claim. And heresay, rather than objective evidence, can result in this conclusion as well. Even in a court of law, such biased standards weigh against a male defendant. Thirdly, there is not adequate reason to conclude Gibbons is guilty of rape. He has not been tried in a court of law and under the law, stands innocent, as innocent as any other readers here not facing such an accusation.
The process here is seriously troubling for anybody who values justice. I have no idea whether Gibbons is guilty or not. The proper arena to make that determination is in a court of law and that is not possible. If he is guilty, that effort should have been made years ago. And unless this occurs, I find fault with the university's actions.
Rape is a terrible crime and I wish we were in a world without such assaults on another person's humanity. But figuratively lynching people in the public square without a fair trial is equally, if not more, terrible.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Here's an example..||
of FIRE winning a lawsuit against a university for violating a student's rights through an inappropriate expulsion.
I know it's not the same. But I'm too tired to do a larger search. And I don't know the odds of winning a civil lawsuit. FIRE is not a wealthy organization and is fighting against the tides of political correctness. I do think it's unjust for the university to expel a student for an alleged crime which didn't even result in criminal charges let alone a conviction. And I would think that unless the student contract expressly allows such an action by the university that it would be grounds for a lawsuit. I also think that such an unjust policy even if legally defensible might eventually be repealed as more male students are unjustly victimized.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||You make an interesting point||
But I don't think you understand my entire viewpoint on the matter. If somebody engages in non-criminal misconduct, they may suffer bad consequences - suffering the scorn or ridicule of others for instance. If somebody engages in criminal misconduct, the responsibility and consequences are appropriately determined by a criminal court. That is the case here since the alleged misconduct is a criminal matter.
As for the other cases you cite, I do have trouble with how the civil legal system operates. There should be a similar high standard of guilt as in criminal cases. Inflicting financial injury (as well as injury in terms of personal time and emotional distress) on somebody by means of a lawsuit should not be taken lightly as it is today. In the OJ case, I do disagree with the use of the civil legal system to determine guilt in a criminal matter for which he was exonerated. In my mind, it's a form of double jeopardy. And I believe OJ was guilty as sin and the criminal legal system failed miserably in that case. As for his employment with ABC, an employer should have great latitude to discontinue employment for any reason.
But I respect your arguments and viewpoint.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Again...||
you failed to pay any attention to my argument. How can a charge of a sexual crime have "nothing to do with the criminal legal system?" That's illogical. By your logic, if somebody was accused of theft (or some other crime) and no criminal charges were brought after a thorough police investigation, the university can still conclude guilt. I disagree. And a jury in a civil case might be expected to disagree.
Does a student sign away all his/her rights when enrolling at a university? Can a university legally expel somebody without adequate evidence of wrongdoing (as determined by the proper authorities)? I highly doubt it. This type of university misconduct has been successfully fought in the courts by... FIRE. So that's why they're relevant. Certain legal rights supercede even a policy order from the Obama administration.
As for your last point, I would suggest that you bone up on your Latin It's a Latin phrase which can be used in a narrow legal manner or more broadly. Or is there some law against doing so? Hey, maybe it's against the university's code of language conduct and could be grounds for explusion. And I wouldn't easily dismiss the notion that this isn't a case of negligence. The university's conduct might be judged to be grossly negligent by more than one party here.
I think you've made up your mind without adequately considering the merits of my argument. I can't grant you an open mind so let's just agree to disagree.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Whether he's innocent or not..||
there's a principle of due process or lack thereof, a principle of appropriate procedure and fairness which seems to be sorely lacking here. It is a fact that no criminal charges were filed. If the expulsion was purely based on the criminal accusation which was not found to be credible enough to warrant criminal prosecution, I would say that it is wrong by definition. So that's why I would hope he wins. It would deter similar misconduct and bias by the university in the future. It would protect future innocents from similar targeting by overzealous anti-rape activists. It's a matter of basic human rights. Sexual assault is a terrible crime. But punishment for alleged sexual assault without adequate proof is at least as much of a crime.
We may have to agree to disagree. I just hope that we learn to have respect for everybody's rights, both accuser and accused.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Are YOU paying attention?||
The expulsion is apparently related to a charge of sexual misconduct for which evidence was found lacking by the justice system. Again, how can a university come to a different conclusion? What was the violation? Being a male and having sexual relations? How can the university reach this conclusion 4 years after the fact???? On the face, this looks very unjust for the accused. How can you assure due process in a non-criminal proceeding for a criminal accusation??? You can't. Re ipsa loquitor.
And there's a nation-wide pattern of serious university misconduct and bias against the accused male in these cases. The male is presumed guilty even without any objective evidence.
I would suggest you do some more reading on the subject. I would suggest FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Preponderance of the evidence||
seems to be an inappropriately low standard for such a case. If there was inadequate evidence to even bring charges (and the bar is low even for a criminal charge in such a case), how can the university conclude guilt or culpability?
The administration's mandate makes of a mockery of justice and is leading to inappropriate kangaroo courts and discipline without adequate evidence of any wrongdoing. I don't know if that happened here but it looks like the process is terribly wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if Gibbons sued the University. If his rights were trampled (as it appears they might have been), he should get millions.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||Preponderance of the evidence?||
That's an inappropriately low bar for an accusation of criminal conduct. Besides, if there was inadequate evidence to even press charges let alone convict, how can the university fairly make such a determination? is there due process? Is there cross-examination of witnesses? There are so many questions here and the process seems to be terribly unjust. The government's mandate is a travesty of justice and fails to recognize the importance of a high bar for proof in these matters. On the surface, it looks like the univerity has seriously mishandled this case and possibly ruined a young man's future. I would expect a civil lawsuit by Gibbons against the university and I hope he wins.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||Great empathy||
You don't think facing criminal charges for sexual assualt wouldn't be scary? You don't think the threat of losing your freedom and personal reputation isn't scary?
Empathy is a positive trait. Try it sometime.
Sometimes women choose to have intercourse and then cry rape. Sometimes men are perfectly innocent and they are convicted anyway and sent to jail for many many years. Sometimes they are perfectly innocent and acquitted but their lives and reputation are still destroyed. Sometimes a woman makes an unproven allegation and the accused is expelled from school without due process.
EVERYBODY deserves the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. And everybody deserves to be treated fairly whether they are the accuser or the accused.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||Great observation...||
If the university is like others in this country, it's basically like a kangaroo court. As I noted in another comment, it reminds me of a recent Auburn case. If the evidence is inadequate for criminal charges (and the allegation is already quite old), then what gives the university the right to play judge, jury and executioner?
Again, maybe he's guilty or maybe he's not. But there's a proper way for this stuff to be handled - through the courts. Period.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||What about due process?||
This reminds me of a recent scandal at Auburn where a male student was expelled over a sexual assault allegation. There was a complete lack of due process and fairness in how it was handled. Basically, he was presumed guilty despite a lack of evidence. Here's a link on the case:
This is apparently more the norm then the exception on college campuses today. A male student basically is presumed guilty when accused of a sexual assuault. In the past, women had fewer rights. Now, men have fewer rights. If both individuals are intoxicated, the male is presumed to be a rapist. If there is literally zero evidence of force or coercion, the male is still presumed to be guilty of rape if accused. It has to be scary to be a sexually active male in college these days. Maybe a videotaped consent AND a witness might help. But I doubt it.
I have no idea whether he's guilty or not but shouldn't the law decide not the university?
Student rights are abused all the time by universities. FIRE is an organization which fights such abuse.
|11 weeks 5 days ago||Great write-up||
My only disagreement is with your assertion about Stauskas "struggling to get separation" from Harris, etc. He had to work for separation against a great defensive player but ultimately succeeded spectacularly. He succeeded against a well-coached Izzo team obviously focused on limiting his touches and impact. Then, he destroyed them.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Yes it is||
GR III has made significant strides since last year. He's stronger and more complete. He's still not as aggressive as he could be but he's a better player than he was when he was projected as a lottery pick. Stauskas has always been underrated. Maybe NBA scouts have a bias against lily white Canadians. Actually, there's no maybe. Anybody who's watched and followed him closely can see he's a special player. His tireless devotion to the game, always learning and perfecting new skills, is unusual. He has very good size at 6"6' and exceptional ball handling/driving ability for a shooting guard. And he's arguably one of the top 2-3 shooters in the country. If any team passes on him late in the lottery or later in the first round, they will regret it. As for McGary, there's more of a case to push him into the second round since his health is an unknown. Odds are though that his back will not be a long term problem (just looking at the statistical probabilities from a physician's perspective). If questions about his health are resolved positively, he should be a late lottery pick. He is a uniquely skilled big man.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Has Chad Ford||
been a reliable predictor of the draft? He seems seriously delusional or ignorant regarding the prospects of Stauskas, GR III and McGary. But hey, if it means more time at Michigan there's a silver lining.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||No apologies necessary||
I think it's unfortunate when people are criticized for just saying the truth. There are just too many people today who can't handle the truth.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||It sounds like you're||
describing Larry Bird. We all know how crappy an NBA player he was. LOL
Seriously, do you even watch Michigan basketball?
Did you go to the Joe Dumars school of NBA drafting?
I would be willing to bet a month's pay that Stauskas has a long successful NBA career.