bartshan-83

I don't really disagree with any of this actually. And the bolded part is where I think the crux of the matter lies. Whether or not people think of big money college sports as minor leagues, the fact remains that they are closer to that then they are to being representative of the school in general. So I think you have to make a choice: 1. Tear the entire system apart and make college athletics subservient to the academic requirements of the school. Meaning, students who choose to participate in their school's varsity teams would come from the pool of students who were accepted to the college. If you can run a 4.3 but got a 950 on your SAT, you aren't going to a school that requires a 1150. College athletics would be about students competing against other students. Setup true minor leagues where 18 year old athletes could pursue their profession the way anyone else does and get paid the way anyone else does. I thought it was so great when Brandon Jennings went to Europe to play basketball 2 years ago (if you aren't familiar, Jennings was a top-10 recruit to initially verballed to Arizona. Then he decided he could make money and improve his game by signing with a European team. He did that for 1 year and then entered the NBA draft and was one of the best rookies last season). 2. Accept that college will always be the vehicle for big time athletes trying to make the jump to the pros. This is much more likely and I can't even say I don't want this. But something needs to be done to help fix this. There is no reason give guys enough money to buy and Audi in college, but pretending that you've done enough by offering a scholarship when obviously impropriety is rampant is ignorant and irresponsible. I liken it to people who don't believe in teaching their children about birth control and think abstinence is the only form of sex education a child should get. Of course no one wants their kids having lots of sex at a young age, but taking the hardline, all-or-nothing stance does far less to combat the problem then accepting that it's going to happen anyway and the best thing you can do is make sure they are fully informed of all the risks and know about using protection, etc. Colleges pretending that they have fulfilled their end of the bargain by offering a scholarship and then washing their hands of any future consequences is irresponsible. They are silent collaborators in a broken system. I'm not trying to coerce them into bribing their athletes to stay away from "improper" money, nor am I absolving an athlete who takes something from a booster. I just think that there needs to be a little give here and that it would go a long way. There would need to be a universal cap on the stipend that applied to all NCAA schools. Otherwise there would be bidding wars and the problem would just change forms. I am no expert whatsoever in Title IX, but I would think that the argument for a stipend would be it could only apply to athletes from sports that generate a net profit. If the football program is funding the rowing team, the swim team and the women's volleyball team, then it's logical where the compensation should be applied.

The Obsessive Compulsiveness in me makes me dislike having seasons and statistics be incompatible with each other. I like things matching up and being consistent. I like the idea that Marino and Dickerson's yardage records seem to be just out of reach. But yeah, stats are for losers. So my OCD aside, I have no other beef with it. It's more about dropping 2 preseason games. There is no reason why the most violent pro sport should have an exhibition period that is 25% as long as it's entire season. Definitely increase roster limits.

Spot on. I mean, a New England sports writer who loves basketball and doesn't care about hockey isn't popular in WNY? Shocking! Simmons can run hot and cold and gets a little too ADD sometimes, but he has a great, conversational writing style that is both funny and creative. Many "sports" writers try to infuse pop culture into their articles and end up looking ridiculous (see Reilly, Rick) but Simmons pulls it off better than most. And IF (yes, that's a big IF around here) you care at all about the NBA, you won't find a more invested, passionate writer.

You're both right. Clayton didn't contradict himself. The article he contributed to and put his name on was created in such a way as to turn his contribution into seemingly contradictory statements. I grossly misconstrued the situation and I apologize for the original post. Mea culpa.

YESTERDAY: 1. mephiSTOPhelean telecomMUTE imMODEst reINFOrcements cENTERpiece balLISTics 2. SWEDEN MONACO SERBIA CYPRUS POLAND NORWAY (WARSAW is the capital) 3. 1/4...nice job links with the graphical proof. TODAY: 1. Each answer is a seven-letter word or name that ends in O. Each answer starts with a different letter of the alphabet. 1. Canadian province 2. Hot sauce 3. Keepsake 4. Hitchcock film 5. Inert medication 6. Below freezing C. 7. Hellfire 8. Fake courage 9. Beethoven opera 10. Spicy sausage 2. One arrangement of the letters in the word PUPPET is UETPPP, but this ends with the letter P. How many different six-letter arrangements of the letters of the word PUPPET are there that neither begin nor end with P? (213)

I'm aware of that, Deano. My point was far be it for ESPN to actually release something that makes sense when the final product is assembled. I was just poking fun at Clayton and ESPN...it's not that serious. You're actually in charge of educating children?

Easy.... Don't lump Collective Soul in with those martians.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=0 The Bills ranking is unimportant (#31, need a new QB blah blah blah), but what is this mess: Clayton, your whole assignment here is to write 1 sentence each about 8 teams. And the only rule is don't contradict yourself. Good work, ESPN. Get back to giving LeBron an hour to talk about himself.

Thanks BB and JA...very helpful. That is more or less what I thought was the case, I just don't understand the ins and outs of cycling etiquette and physics. Clarify further for me though...is it more about and etiquette or more about difficulty? Could Schleck have taken down Contador if he decided to ignore the etiquette and go for it? Was it humanly possible? And how does the team play such a huge role in "protecting" its leader? For example: What does this mean? How would Astana be able to thwart Schleck? Is it simply a matter of getting in his way or it more about the peloton and being able to move more efficiently and quickly in a group? How does that work? Did I answer my own question above? Can the peloton easily chase down any lone rider who is out in front by himself? And finally, despite the "last stage etiquette" is there a certain point where it is fair game? What if the lead is 3 seconds...or 1 second? Will they duke it out then or still call it a day?

Why is a lead of 39 seconds (such as Contador held) considered insurmountable? It is an etiquette thing? As in, do all the riders treat the last stage as a victory lap and really consider the time trial to be the end? Is it because it's just impossible to make up that kind of time on a short stage? I read that if Schleck had made a charge, Astana would have blocked him. What does that mean? The other riders on the team would have just tried to stay in front of him and not let him pass? I've never understood this...

LAST WEEK: 1. SCHOLARSHIP 2. LECTURE 3. CUM LAUDE 4. PREMED 5. ALUMNI 6. DEAN'S LIST TODAY: 1. Form six longer words by filling in the blanks with six short, common words that appear on many TV remote controls. 1. MEPHI _ _ _ _ HELEAN 2. TELECOM _ _ _ _ 3. IM _ _ _ _ ST 4. RE _ _ _ _ RCEMENTS 5. C _ _ _ _ _ PIECE 6. BAL _ _ _ _ ICS 2. LINK 3. LINK

Respectfully disagree. College sports (especially men's basketball and football) are money-generating enterprises that rain cash down upon several parties. The schools, the conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, etc. Nothing about this resembles an amateur situation. These are high-profile minor leagues. And the shameless revenue-whoring and money-grabbing that all of these parties partake in is viewed with hardly a batted eye. I don't agree with the "free education" argument because the behavior of the parties involved belies its equity. Every college football program in the country uses up their scholarship allotment because they know it's a steal on ROI. No college in the country is doing any star high school athlete a favor by offering him a scholarship. Quite the reverse. And scholarships have been the standard compensation for generations. Yet the amount of money generated by the sports has increased astronomically. And the main point is that modest payment to players would do more to combat impropriety and this cesspool culture that pervades college athletics. I'd wager that the vast majority of misconduct (or temptation to engage in it) occurs with players who have nothing and want just a little. It's easy to cast them as spoiled and greedy with their free education, room and board and perks of being an athlete. But it sucks having no money in college (anytime actually). I knew guys at ND who were ballin on the field but didn't have 10 bucks to grab a pizza. They can't get jobs, FOOTBALL is their job and I guarantee it's like working 40 hours and going to school full-time. How tempting would it be to take $1500 from a booster when you're scoring TDs every week but can't afford to take your girl to dinner and a movie? I don't condone it, but I understand it. Paying for condos and buying kids cars is not the reality of college cheating. It's the 1K payments, the plane tickets or the cushy no-show job. Let's say you work at the Gap in college 35-40 hrs/week...you might pull in $1000 a month. I bet if colleges paid players that amount there would be a huge drop in impropriety among NCAA athletes. The only obstacle (and it's pretty major) is Title IX and how you would deal with only compensating athletes from revenue-generating sports. I'm not sure how to answer that. But the system we are in is broken...it survives only because people don't care enough to upset the status quo.

I haven't watched the whole speech (43 mins) and I wasn't aware she said that. That sentiment is something that needs to go away. I'm sure there are a ton of people who hate Obama because he is black (or half-black). Those people are called racists. But if tomorrow Obama resigned and Joe Biden became president, would millions of conservatives suddenly be less angry? From what little I've read about Sherrod's life, it sound like she has had to deal with a lot of actual racism. I can see where some of her jaded comments might come from. And to your last point, you're right. But I also don't think this is something Obama wants to deal with. Not exactly an ideal distractor.

Ab-so-fugging-lutely.

I gotcha. I don't think he is stupid either. But I do think he underestimated how this would turn around and make Sherrod into a martyr. I think his initial plan was to expose the NAACP as having racists among their ranks. In order to do that, he had to paint Sherrod as a racist. I do think that the WH comes out looking the worst of everyone. They jumped the gun and paid the price. But I'd really, really like to believe that had they actually done the right thing (waited to get all the facts, talked to Sherrod, talked to other people involved) that they would not have been tarred and feathered as racist-apologizers in the mean time. I'm not so sure though.

When you say "GREAT STUFF" after explaining WHAT he did, you can see how it might be construed that you are defending his actions, not his method, no? What is it you think I want to see? And I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I don't understand this distinction of WHAT and HOW. How do you parse this into separate issues? If someone does a ****ty thing, you can still appreciate the way they delivered it? What does that even mean? If anything HOW Breitbart went about completing his goal was embarrassing. His mission was to discredit the NAACP and their cries of racism in the Tea Party (at least that's what he claimed publicly). I have no problem with that. But instead of getting good evidence, he released an edited video and labeled it as something it wasn't. Yes, he was able to make the WH and NAACP look stupid. But at what cost? He damaged his own credibility and gave the NAACP an excuse to try to turn this back on the Tea Party. It was like the LAPD manufacturing evidence against OJ...unnecessary, despicable and counterproductive.

Your first sentence should be what everyone admits, right wing hacks, left wing hacks, Glenn Beck to Keith Olbermann. And it should be said without caveats like your second sentence. This situation is a great instance where multiple parties covering the full political spectrum managed to all look stupid. The WH looks stupid, Breitbart looks stupid, the NAACP looks stupid and people who defend one side look stupid. I don't speak for the left or right or anyone else. I do hope that what people learn from this is that what Sherrod said was okay. It might have been difficult to hear, but it is reality and it's not something people need to go crazy over. Branding her a racist to further a separate agenda was damaging. Just as it is every time racism is unfairly attached to an issue.

The WH F'd up...that much is clear. But I will say that I understand why they moved quickly. Breitbart's video fooled a lot of people. Most people take a cursory look at what is presented to them and react. If it was reported that the White House was investigating the issue and attempting to contact Sherrod to get her side of the story, there would have been cries for blood. People would go nuts that a black woman who appears to have made an overtly racist statement was being treated with kid gloves. They pulled the trigger too soon and rightfully look stupid now. But I imagine the pressure to respond swiftly and harshly as not to create a perception that they were sitting on their hands was very strong. Still doesn't excuse them. Your defense of , and even PRAISE for Breitbart for his "thinking ahead" is crazy. The guy is totally in the wrong and he did a slimy, underhanded thing to further an agenda. He can either claim he didn't know the video was longer ( ) and in that case he acted with extreme recklessness. Or he can claim he did know and did it anyway to make a point, in which case he is a POS. Blaming the WH and Breitbart are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to pick one or the other. Don't defend the indefensible.

Yes...my bad! Good catch!

Michael Floyd is the real deal. He's as close to a sure thing WR as you'll get. Only concerns are injury history (has missed time in both seasons). But he's a Larry Fitz waiting to happen.

Sorry...forgot about yesterday. Buried in work. ANSWERS: 1. C H A P L A I R U N D O E K E S Well done, gringo...restored my faith. 2. 1500 people (all of whom are awesome Nickelback fans ) TODAY: 1. Each of the college-related words and phrases below has been translated into a random cipher alphabet. Letter substitutions remain constant from word to word. Topic: College Starting hint: J = D 1. YFGHZKXYGAS 2. ZBFQLXB 3. FLI ZKLJB 4. SXBIBJ 5. KZLICA 6. JBKC'Y ZAYQ

I think Jordan's point was that he wouldn't have wanted to team up with two of the best players in the league at the time. You're right that you can't compare Bosh and Wade to those legends, but that isn't the point. He could have said Isaiah and Barkley, or Ewing and Drexler. It's the idea of wanting to join elite competition rather than defeat it that Jordan (and now Magic) have spoken out against. I can't argue that...I'm too young to appreciate those Lakers teams. But I think that is a separate argument. Magic and Worthy were drafted by the Lakers. That team was built organically.

I think the Bosh pendulum has now swung back to underrated (or maybe even fairly rated now). He's definitely been over-hyped the past few seasons being mentioned in the same breadth as James and Wade in terms of free agency. But I think the backlash has put things back into their rightful place. Bosh is the best PF in the league and despite his limitations (defense, size), he is a great inside scorer who also has good range and nice soft touch. He could definitely be the 2nd best player on a championship team. The max contract argument is valid, but then again, also skewed. Who really does deserve "max" deals? Are there 5 guys? 10? I think I'd only give max money to a guy who I knew I could build a team around; a franchise player. Bosh is not that. But Bosh is more deserving of that money than say, Joe Johnson and Rashard Lewis.

I'm confused...why do you use 3G at home? Don't you have wifi at your house?

Stop. Pippen was a great #2....the best of all-time. He was a good #1. He was not a dynamic scorer and could not be the best player on a championship team. Wade, he is not. And Horace Grant?? Bosh will never be confused with KG or Duncan, but Grant?? A true #3 whose main role was to grab boards and give you 10-12 pts per game? You think you stick Horace Grant up in Toronto and he gets you 24 and 11?? Ha! The best comparison to MJ, Pippen and Grant is Kobe, Pau and Odom.