Beaty is toast. Any chance he had to save himself is gone with this poor performance tonight, even with a win.
justanotherfan
3643 posts
TMZ is a celebrity gossip news site. It's MSM in the same vein as Style Magazine or Cosmopolitan. It's not MSM the way that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. are considered.
Even most younger people that follow TMZ regularly don't consider it "news" at least amongst the college students I have talked to. They look to it for celebrity news, like who is dating who in Hollywood, etc.
Ohio State is just another major college football program from a power conference to have a scandal that was swept under the rug in the name of winning football games. The list is too long to even try to name without leaving someone out, but even off the top of my head I can come up with Penn State, Baylor, Colorado, Florida State and Miami, and that's without even thinking about it.
It's pretty sad what the temptation of all of that money does to those charged with providing oversight.
The trouble is that, by and large, guys that are stars at lower levels are cast in much different roles when they arrive in the NBA. They are expected to be role players - specialists almost.
Tyson Chandler was a superstar high school player. He became an All Star by becoming a dominant defender.
Michael Beasley was a revelation in college, but he has bounced around the league.
Tyler Hansborough was a superstar at one of the most recognizable schools in the country. He never averaged even 22 mpg and now plays in China.
College hoops just doesn't prepare you for the NBA. The roles are different. The talent is more condensed. A guy that can dominate college games (oh hi there, 2005 JJ Redick) becomes a role player in the NBA (oh hi there, 2011 JJ Redick). Some guys can make that adjustment. Others simply cannot.
Does college help some guys? Of course. But I think it also hampers some guys. Andrew Wiggins has never fully taken himself to the level his athleticism dictates. Some guys get better. Others develop bad habits along the way against lesser competition. It's a mixed bag, really.
jaybate 1.0 said:
Last season, Nova had SIX guys like Devonte and Svi!!!! Hell, two were in the paint!! 🤬
Actually, Nova really only had three guys like that - Bridges, Divincenzo and Brunson. They had two interior guys who could shoot, but feasted more on the fact that many teams would not send their 4 or 5 man out to guard them, as opposed to being outright knockdown shooters. They had one other guy that benefited from a stretched defense (Booth) by getting good, unguarded looks.
Nova benefited from being able to stretch the defense in so many ways that someone always had an open look. I think Grimes, who is a better player than all but probably Bridges (and maybe Divincenzo) will get the same benefit, which is probably worth a couple percentage points.
KU will benefit from open looks. Vick hits open looks. Grimes will. Moore does. Dotson probably will. The Lawson's might.
There are enough capable shooters that KU should have adequate shooting. It won't be great, but good enough to get the job done.
I think Grimes will be an improved shooter in college.
In HS, Grimes often had to create his own shot. He has excellent form and shot the ball pretty well, but he had to do a lot of work off the dribble. He is a good catch and shoot guy, and should have a chance to use that skill more often at KU.
Dotson/Moore will be the best PG he has ever played with on a consistent basis. That takes the burden off him to playmake every trip, which should help him be more efficient.
He will also have D. Lawson commanding double teams inside. That should help bend the defense in his favor. Remember, in HS Grimes was always the focal point offensively. At KU, he will have opportunities where he is the second or third option, or will have plays where the defense is drawn away from him.
@KUSTEVE raises the point of shooting, which is a key factor. I think Grimes and Vick are going to be able to stretch the D. Lawson may be able to help as well. KJ, Moore and Dotson are good enough shooters to keep the defense honest. KU doesn't have a Graham or Svi to hold a guy outside at all times, but KU has enough solid shooters to keep the defense from packing it in.
Crimsonorblue22 said:
Can Zion stop doke?
He's strong enough to hold his position against Doke in the post. Whether his technique is sound enough to do so without fouling is beyond me because we haven't seen him tested like that.
Because Doke doesn't have a lot of post moves (he's not Kevin McHale down there), if a player can handle the strength, he can be guarded.
It's just that 95% of the players in college BB can't handle Doke's strength. Zion is one of the strongest incoming freshmen I have ever seen.
Jacobs will be a solid P5 player, but he will be more suited for a mid tier P5 program than a power program. I was hoping he would hit a growth spurt and get to 6-1 or so, but that hasn't panned out. I will still be rooting for him to do well wherever he lands because he seems like a solid person.
Trump is trying to get support from the business community to help protect him if/when things get worse.
Right now, there's no chance of impeachment because Republicans will still hold between 47 and 52 Senate seats. I doubt the Democrats try to impeach (even if they win the House) if they don't have a path to 67 in the Senate. I don't see that path right now because I don't see 15+ Republicans that will vote to impeach. So that point is premature, at least right now (the news seems to change quickly, though).
Trump support could erode amongst his base, however. The areas that are experiencing the most economic growth are focused around the larger cities and their suburbs. Those were areas where Trump did poorly compared to the 2008 and 2012 elections. Meanwhile, the areas that are not growing economically are "Trump counties" - typically more rural areas.
If that trend continues, even as he continues to promise that "he alone" can save their economy, he may start to lose some of that support. Now, perhaps not because Trump is, let's call it unique. He may be able to avoid that erosion and hold on to his base in those areas. As I have said before, Trump's biggest issue is that because he is so divisive, he has almost zero margin within his base. Even a small erosion of enthusiasm or support within his base likely crumbles his support because he's already in such a tenuous position. Trump won in 2016 because he put together a perfect coalition of states. However, he won some of those critical states by less than 50,000 votes or so. In a state like Pennsylvania, with almost 6 million votes, if Trump loses even 2% of his base, he loses the state. If less than 1% of Trump's base in Michigan were to erode, he loses that state. a 2% erosion in Wisconsin flips that state.
If Trump were to lose 3% of his base, Florida would be in play. Push that to 5%, North Carolina and Arizona are in play. Those 6 states are worth 101 electoral votes. You need 270 to win, and Trump won just over 300. Put simply, flipping those six states would push the margin back towards the 2012 Obama margin in favor of the Democrat.
Trump is threading a very narrow window here. He may well keep his base intact and survive, but he can't afford a single misstep. Losing even a modest percentage of support (even if they don't support the Democrat) changes the outcome in six states. Having those people actually flip to the Democrat (i.e., if a net of 25,000 people in PA were to switch from Trump to a Democrat opponent - less than 1% of the total Trump support) Trump loses Pennsylvania. That number is 5500 in Michigan, and about 11,000 in Wisconsin. These are tiny numbers in a statewide election.
JayHawkFanToo said:
Amazing development which begs the question...why is it that Zenger could not get the same deal that did not take the new AD very long to get it done?
I work in the contract world quite a bit. If you negotiate one deal, it's tough to go back and negotiate a different one later without giving up the farm.
A new person, however, can often get a better deal just because they didn't negotiate the first deal, so they aren't tied to the first negotiations.
Perhaps the deal Zenger got was the best deal at the time - I don't know. Perhaps it was a lousy deal to begin with and he left too much on the table. Again, without knowing the options, I can't say.
But his likely mistake was not keeping the deal short enough to allow him to renegotiate once he did have more leverage.
It would not invoke double jeopardy as you correctly state, but it could be a political problem to try them in state court for the same crime in federal court. I think Mueller is trying to avoid this appearance.
I should probably clarify my previous statement.
I say that more because I would rather see the first and second place teams from a mid major make the tournament as bubble teams than seeing the sixth or seventh place team from a P5 league make the tournament.
Also, even though millenials get blamed for participation trophy, the true architects were not millenials - it was their parents. We were the kids that got participation trophies, but not of our own doing - we got them because our parents wanted to have something to brag about to their friends, and put up on the wall to point to when the grandparents came to visit.
Millenials couldn't invent participation trophies - six year olds aren't in charge of that sort of thing. Their parents did.
The only way this is superior is if it rewards wins more than "quality losses".
A middle or low tier Power Conference team should not be rewarded simply because they have lost to the top teams in their conference. Teams should have to get some quality wins. You shouldn't be able to play a middling non conference schedule, then finish below .500 in conference and still qualify for the NCAA tournament.
I would still like to see the committee require a .500 or better conference record to qualify for the NCAA tournament, but money probably rules that out.
Doubtful they ever get that far. If they are pardoned, they would have to appear to accept the pardon. They could be arrested on state charges immediately upon accepting the Federal pardon.
It is notable that the charges against all of these people are fairly slim considering the accusations and evidence that is publicly known. My guess is that each of these individuals knows that they would potentially face charges in state courts if they do accept a pardon since double jeopardy would not apply for crimes that have not been charged at the Federal level (double jeopardy applies only to sovereign courts, so state vs. Federal would not invoke jeopardy, but it could be a bad look for a prosecutor in such a visible and divisive prosecution). It sort of a "pardon insurance" to make sure that no one involved in this feels they are immune to prosecution if (not saying he has, but just IF) the President promised anyone a pardon prior to being tried.
Not before midterms. He won't want to run the risk of swinging races to Democrats.
Put me down for November 7, 2018, please.
KU has an advantage early because most of their "new" players were there last year. How that plays out come March is anyone's guess.
By March, Quentin Grimes could be the best player in the country. He could also be spending possessions camped outside the three point line waiting for a kickout that never comes.
By March, Zion Williamson could be unstoppable at the college level. He could also be injured.
Every team has these question marks. KU just has more ways to answer them than most teams do at this point.
Its not the system. It's the issues.
Foreign policy is complex.
Domestic budgets are complex.
Economics are complex.
All of these levers that operate civil society aren't just simple things. Pull one, that may throw another off kilter in the same way that adding one chemical to a mixture will cause a certain reaction.
I remember when the "tea party" wave swept across the country in 2010. The thing that struck me more than anything, as a person that had previously very much been in support of shorter terms for politicians, was the lack of overall competence demonstrated by many of these newly elected "leaders."
They didn't know even the basics that you learn in junior high social studies or civics. Because of that, many of them were dependent on certain special interest groups to tell them how to vote on bills that they had no personal knowledge about.
One newly elected legislator, when handed a new bill in committee asked "how am I supposed to know what this bill does?" A veteran legislator told him he needed to read the bill. At that point, the freshman legislator asked "and then how do I know how to vote?"
While it may seem like getting rid of career politicians would limit the special interests, in reality, the opposite is true. Because the special interests are experts in their field, they can generally sway newer legislators more easily.
One year here in Kansas, the NRA sponsored a bill about knife length and crossbows. Before knowing that the NRA was behind the bill, the bill couldn't even get a committee hearing. Once the NRA came out backing the bill, the bill flew through committee and passed through the House easily. When questioning the bill on the House floor, the response "this is the NRA bill" was given to answer the question of why this bill needed to pass. Like I said, it passed easily.
Term limits don't eliminate lobbyist influence. They increase it.
As for the idea that @jaybate-1-0 poses to allow government workers to educate and keep things operating, in this partisan climate, that is troublesome.
I have seen non partisan workers skewered by politicians simply for telling them that something would not work, or that it was a bad idea. Because an idea like lowering taxes is partisan, telling a legislator that its a good (or bad) idea is seen as partisan rather than sound policy advice. That's how it is on most hot button issues - advice is viewed through a partisan lens rather than sound or unsound policy advice.
This cripples the internal bureaucracy because they can't just advise without sounding partisan if they disagree with what certain interest groups suggest.
I'm afraid a citizen legislature is nearly impossible in today's environment.
How many people do you know that can leave their career for 2-4 years, then return and pick right back up? I know maybe a couple of people that are in that type of position.
And even if people could, how many people could truly pick up the expertise necessary to run a country this size (or even a state like Kansas). The Kansas budget ↗ is fairly complex. Even that limited summary would be over the heads of most people if they were to pick it up cold.
And that doesn't even contemplate other state services (roads, commerce, taxes, etc.). Here in Kansas, there are maybe a dozen legislators that truly understand tax policy. That's one of the reasons its difficult to move good economic policy through the legislature. Very few legislators understand the policy implications!
A true citizen legislature would make that worse. The instant someone starts getting some subject matter expertise, they are term limited out. It would be a constant churn.
Imagine if KU had to change basketball coaches every 5 years. There would be no way to maintain consistency. Instead of KU having eight coaches in 120 years, they would have had over 20! Chances that some of those guys were bad would be incredibly high. Chances that KU would be working on a 14 year conference title streak would basically be 0. You just can't maintain that kind of consistency with that level of turnover. Politics is the same way.
JayHawkFanToo said:
Wouldn’t term limits and a ban on lobbying for 5 years afterwards solve the problem?
Actually, no.
Term limits might encourage people to cash in quickly (or cash in towards the end of their final term) whether the pay is high or low.
A lobbying ban is also problematic because that makes it difficult to transition from the public to private sector.
Let's say you leave politics after 10 years. You're now a 50 year old person. Your salary was decent, but you're not set for life to be able to retire right now. You have some policy expertise in a couple of areas, but if you are hired in the private sector, you have to be completely disconnected from the government/policy side of things - what do you do for 5 years?
You'll be 55 when your ban is up. Nobody wants to hire you to a low or mid level job, and you can't really do the stuff at a higher level because you have to screen away from any governmental involvement.
That's why you see people either retire in many of these jobs, or leave for lobbying positions.
The PG rotation is Dotson/Moore (or Moore/Dotson if you prefer) followed by Grimes and Garrett (probably in that order).
The wing rotation is Grimes, Vick, KJ, Garrett, Agbaji, mixed and matched to your preference.
The big rotation is Dedric, Doke, KJ, De Sousa, Big Dave, Mitch, also mixed and matched to your preference.
Agbaji is probably the odd man out on the perimeter. Mitch is probably odd man out inside.
That gives us a rotation of Moore, Dotson, Grimes, Vick, Garrett, KJ, Dedric, Doke, De Sousa, with Big Dave getting spot minutes inside, and either Garrett or one of the PGs getting short minutes on the perimeter.
Because China has been in its current form (geographically, at least) for centuries, it is far more stable than the former Eastern Bloc ever was.
This long history also means that, ethnically, China is actually quite homogeneous. The Han-Chinese make up over 90% of the population. While China is linguistically very diverse (nearly 300 languages, probably twice that if you include local dialects), most Chinese speak Mandarin (about 70%). Based on that, more than 60% of the population is both ethnically and linguistically united.
Simply put, it is unlikely that China would break up even in the event of a revolution because of its longstanding historical borders. Many of the subgroups are so small that it would be difficult to break off into a separate nation, particularly for those that would be entirely surrounded by mainland China.
I think those factors contribute to actually stabilizing China substantially. Even in the event of a change in governance, China would probably still have a population over 1B, making it a substantial world player either way.
The salary of a politician should be high enough that they cannot be easily bought, but low enough that it doesn't cause people to run just for the money.
If the salary is too low, corruption will be high because there's a temptation to take a little on the side because the job itself isn't worth it.
If the salary is too high, corruption will be high to obtain the office, because the desire to get and hold the power (and the great salary that comes with it) will attract people that have no public interest at all.
You're threading a very thin needle here.
The big thing China has is people. China has nearly 1.4 Billion people. The US has less than 360 million, or roughly one quarter the size of China.
This means that as the Chinese economy grows and people earn more, the Chinese economy has much more room for growth. As the author put it, China has moved from bicycles to cars only in the last three decades. Now those same people, whose parents may have been the first to own a car, are now young professionals in the city. There's nothing to stop China from becoming one of the largest, if not the largest, economies in the world, simply because of population. Even if the average income in China is a third of what it is here in the US, because there are so many people in China, that would still make the economy in China larger. Just imagine what happens if that income grows to half, or 60%?
The real issue is whether all of those people are getting to experience that growth. If they are, China will remain united. If not, if certain regions are left behind, it could divide the country along those old lines.
KUSTEVE said:
@jaybate-1.0 I don't see Dotson going to the NBA for at least two years. Such is life for the short guys.
There was an excellent article ↗ last week addressing just that - that the NBA's smallest guys are getting bigger, making it tougher for smaller guys to succeed in the pros.
That's also bad news for the career prospects of a guy like Frank Mason, who is certainly on the small side for an NBA player. According to the article I linked to, 6-2.25 is the average size for an NBA PG.
Dotson is listed as either 6-1 or 6-2, depending on who you read, so likely a little below average size for an NBA PG. That doesn't mean he can't make it in the NBA. It does mean that it will be that much more of a challenge for him to make it in the NBA.
Also, it should be noted that while presidential candidates traditionally release their taxes, it is not traditionally expected that they release their birth certificate.
The notion that Obama should have released his birth certificate simply because someone with racial motivations decided to question it is in itself a form of racism - that as a minority, Obama should have to answer any question with proof, no matter how absurd or ridiculous, in order to prove his legitimacy.
People often overlook this as a subtle form of racism - that minorities must provide proof any time any non-minority questions them or what they are doing, or satisfy the questions of every non-minority before they are legitimized - somewhat like police requiring ID when they stop minorities doing every day activities, but that's another issue for another day.
I have heard, throughout the years, that Obama should have released his birth certificate, his college grades, his law license and his admissions letters to college simply because someone questioned it, and "he could clear it up by releasing the documents."
President Obama rightly recognized this as a form of racism, that if he provided proof for every challenge, the flood of challenges would never cease.
The O's were awful before the Machado trade. This just guaranteed they would not get better.
You make a great point. In 2012, Georgia ↗ had to have prisoners in the state's penitentiary system pick fruit due to a worker shortage.
The thing about harvesting crops is that, when doing so by hand, because you are paid by volume, as the article says, you have to 1) work very hard and 2) be very good at it to make a decent wage.
Many workers in the US don't want to do that because the time and effort it takes to become skilled enough in the job to make a decent wage is very taxing.
There's another ↗ round ↗ of articles ↗ out over the last year ↗ detailing ↗ the same ↗ problem ↗.
Part of the issue with this is perception. Many people, once they see a minority class doing certain work, devalue that work, making it less desirable as a career.
Not voting for a president on policy grounds does not make you a racist. The trouble with President Obama was that a lot of people claimed to disagree on policy grounds, but then trotted out silly arguments like:
-
He's a Muslim (untrue, but even if true, there's nothing in US law to prohibit a Muslim president)
-
He was not born in the US (also untrue).
Simply put, lots of people (not pointing at you, just outlining the arguments) said their quibble with Obama was policy, but argued things that were simply veiled racism like anti-Muslim rhetoric and birtherism. Both attempt to suggest that Barack Obama was not "American" enough to be president.
It was hard to take some prominent politicians seriously when they said their issue with Obama was policy related, all the while seeing them "like" or even personally circulate jokes comparing President Obama and his family to gorillas, etc. Those are not policy arguments. Those are arguments rooted in racism. Again, not saying you did any of these things, just that lots of people did do these things while also arguing that their issues with Obama were policy driven.
Now, I will say that too many people painted with too broad a brush regarding racism against President Obama. There were some reasonable criticisms of the President. He was not perfect. I had my own criticisms of him, even though I supported him throughout his presidency.
Part of that, however, was that too often the chorus against him was led by individuals with racial undertones to their arguments, making it very difficult for individuals with true policy issues to make themselves heard.
That's what makes racism so ugly. We can't even have a reasonable policy discussion because those peddling their hate suck up all the airspace around the issue, preventing reasonable people from actually talking about the issue.
Aretha Franklin was both a talented and gifted.
Talented in that her vocal ability was basically unmatched both in the past and even now.
Gifted because she was able to tap into that talent to a degree that few can.
Few are able to maximize such extraordinary talents. She was a one off genius, as @jaybate-1-0 so eloquently put it.
Don't underestimate Grimes, either. With him having more talent around him, he will be able to exert more energy on defense without having to worry about trying to score 50 points a night.
The defense should be nasty.
KJ adds an element of versatility that most college teams simply do not have. He can punish smaller guys inside, and terrorize bigger guys on the perimeter. At the same time, he's quick enough to handle small guys on the perimeter, but big enough to handle 4s in the post.
He gives KU a distinct advantage on offense (will probably always have a MUA) without giving anything back on the other end, where he will likely never be at a disadvantage.
As for my predictions:
-
Quentin Grimes averages 13/5/4, but is a first team all conference player based on incredible efficiency, as he shoots 50/40/85.
-
Dedric is Big 12 POY, again based on startling efficiency, as his numbers don't blow anyone away 15/10/3, but he shoots 55/35/75
-
Doke shoots over 80%, but is on the bench at crunch time.
-
KU's crunch time lineup is Dotson-Grimes-Vick-KJ-Dedric
-
Dotson does not start early in the year, but becomes the starting PG right after Finals.
-
Vick's averages drop (from 12/5/2 to 10/4/2), but, consistent with the trend above, his efficiency rises as he improves from 49/37/67 to 52/40/70.
-
KJ Lawson is second team all conference despite not averaging double figures in points or rebounds, and despite not ranking in the conference top 10 in any major statistical category.
-
Charlie Moore averages more assists than points, as he makes a name for himself feeding Doke, the Lawson brothers, Vick and Grimes off the bench.
-
Devon Dotson turns heads on the defensive end. With the team having so many weapons, Dotson becomes the tip of the spear on the defensive end, leading the team in steals and playing the type of defense we haven't seen since Russell Robinson.
-
Marcus Garrett shoots better from three (around 33%), but plays limited minutes.
The fear of being primaried ↗ is something that has been talked about for years. This research paper ↗ suggests that what I am talking about is true. Republicans tend to primary more often, and also tend to primary people who are not necessarily to the left of the party or district overall. And note that this paper was written 10 years ago. The tea party movement had the affect of primarying several incumbents. Eric Cantor wasn't to the left of his district, but he was challenged (and lost to) someone to his right.
This paper ↗ suggests that the GOP has more ideological primaries, particularly recently
A quote
In recent years, high-profile ideological challenges have been more common in the Republican Party because Democratic multi-issue groups have concentrated on protecting vulnerable incumbents.
Simply put, Republicans have tended to attack any incumbent that was not sufficiently opposed to President Obama, or compromised in any way with Democrats. This effectively drove the party further right, as any move to the center was seen as ideological betrayal. Meanwhile, Democrats tended to tamp down ideological challengers effectively preventing a significant move left.
Further, the Republican party has gotten more conservative in the last several decades. In 1974, 45% of Republicans described themselves as conservative. In 2012, that number was 70%. About 75% of GOP primary voters describe themselves as conservative. (source, NY Times article ↗) Regardless of what anybody says, the GOP has moved further right ideologically, and that is represented in the GOP electorate and the GOP elected representation, all of which are further right now than they were in prior years.
Where the Democratic party has shifted is in the way in which it is represented. The Democratic caucus looks like the party itself - more minorities in office, more women, members of the LGBTQ community, etc.
This has the effect of making people feel that the party is moving further away simply because the party looks different. Bernie Sanders is pretty far left, politically. The govtrack report card ↗ rates him as the second most liberal member of the Senate, trailing only the now resigned Al Franken.
Yet if you asked people who they felt was most liberal, names like Elizabeth Warren (20th most liberal), Kamala Harris (8th most), Dianne Feinstein (15th most), Cory Booker (18th most) would come up.
What's even more notable about the report card is that 1.00 represents most conservative, while 0.00 represents most liberal, with .50 being perfectly centrist.
Guess who scores a .50 - Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who is being cast as enormously liberal in her current Senate race. Also notable, McCaskill is not the most conservative Democrat, and ranks 59th in the Senate in terms of being conservative. That means that, on the whole, the Senate is actually further right.
We can also look at the report card and see that only one GOP senator rates below a .60 (Susan Collins - ME). There are 9 Democrats that rank higher than a .40. The GOP is, on the whole, further right (51 of their 52 caucus members are .67 or higher). In the House, 230 Republicans have an ideology score of .57 or more, and no Republican is less than .46. For the Democrats, there are 24 with scores higher than .43, and several have scores above .50. Again, the GOP is further right than the Democrats are left.
There's really no factual basis to argue that the GOP has not moved further right, or that the GOP is closer to the center than the Democrats. Absolutely none.
Best might be stretching a bit, but they have a very good collegiate frontcourt.
Konate is a tremendous shot blocker at the collegiate level.
Esa Ahmad is healthy, and probably their best overall player.
Andrew Gordon was a top juco player, and is a very good defender (and shot blocker specifically).
They have six guys that can likely play up front, which is perfect given their style of play.
So although I don't think WVU has the most talent up front of anyone in the country (particularly top line talent), they are going to be a pain to deal with because they are deep and athletic up front, and they have multiple shot blockers they can deploy at the back of that press to shut the door on any run outs.
Having shot blockers at the back of a press makes the press that much better. Usually, if you break a press quickly, you get an easy layup. Having a guy back there to stop the layups means you can break the press, but won't necessarily get the reward at the end. And we know how tough WVU's press can be already.
A lot of the labels were self created, but have been used as insults by the other side.
At one time, being progressive was a good thing. Now, it's wielded as a weapon by conservative Republicans against more moderate political opponents.
Alt-Right was created by the people within that group to distinguish them from those less conservative.
Same on the other side. Liberal was created by those on the left, but now is used as a weapon against them. In many of the more conservative places in the US, anyone who is not a conservative is automatically called a liberal.
In a way, it takes the meaning out of each term, because there isn't really any distinction in the way the words are deployed.
@mayjay makes a tremendous point that the real break came when "compromise" became a dirty word politically. Even attempting to work with the other side was viewed as disloyal and would draw you a primary opponent. I would observe here that Republicans have used this far more often than Democrats have, which is why the GOP has moved further right over the last 20-25 years than the Democratic party has moved left - the threat of being "primaried" is far more profound in the GOP.
I was curious to see if I could figure out which game you were talking about, and I can actually see why that Kent State game had the line it did.
I couldn't find the exact game because Kent State didn't have any wins over 40, but they certainly had a habit in those two years of getting blown out, or blowing people out.
In 1993-94, they won 5 games by 15 or more, but also lost 5 games by 15 or more (no surprise, they finished almost .500, going 13-14). In one bizarre three game stretch, which I think is where you probably bet on them, they lost to Ball State by 5, then lost to Miami (OH) by 29, only to follow that up by beating Western Michigan by 18 four days later. Western Michigan was 11-5 coming into that game, but went 3-9 down the stretch to finish 14-14.
I don't know what happened, but I think that was the game you bet on because Western Michigan, going into that game, was almost certainly believed to be better than 8-7 Kent State, who had just gotten the doors blown off them earlier that week, so I can see Vegas giving them the line, but Kent State was at home, so a win wasn't out of the question. Still, that's a pretty cool story to have.
mayjay said:
Term limits would simply mean that elections will get more expensive more often. If a seat is up for grabs every two terms or so, there will be no end to the number of people trying to buy the seats.
There is a theory that term limits increases corruption because the new politicians may not know a particular issue well, which means they can be influenced by one side or another if they get to them first. That won't lead to good governance, either.
Compromise has to become a virtue rather than a scourge. That's the only way to make sure that people can work together from both parties. And both parties have to compromise, otherwise neither one will.
The lines for smaller conferences used to be off quite a bit because they were not always consistently updated since there wasn't much action on the line.
If you caught a line that was off, you could sometimes slip in a bet before the book adjusted the line. For years there were some professional gamblers that would follow mid major basketball lines just to catch one or two that were off, then bet hard on them.
Vegas is better about that now, but every now and then, you can still catch a bad line.
To piggyback off @mayjay, events are regularly pulled off the book if irregularities are spotted. Soccer and tennis matches are frequently pulled in Europe because of this. Every now and then a college basketball game will be pulled if a large amount of money starts flowing in randomly into a certain bet, with no money flowing the opposite way.
We should not abolish the presidency. I disagree with this president, but I am not of the mind that we should end the institution because one person is not doing a good job.
Term limits are good in some respects, but they are also bad because a person usually takes 2 terms in the House to develop expertise in a subject area. As a result, term limits would eliminate the ability for an individual to develop the kind of expertise that allows for good governance. On the other hand, no term limits gives us career politicians that aren't really answerable to their constituents.
The answer to that, however, is not term limits, but rather competitive districts. Right now, we know, using Kansas as an example, that KS-01 and KS-04 will be represented by Republicans. KS-02 and KS-03 are more competitive, but still will more than likely be Republican. As a result, the Republican that represents KS-01 or KS-04 in the House is incentivized to be as extreme to the right as possible to ensure they will not have a primary challenger, since the districts are Republican enough that a moderate or Democrat can't win them. That doesn't afford you much of a voice if the incentive is to be as extreme as possible to avoid a primary challenge. Democrats have the same problem in places like New York and California, and in large cities such as Chicago or Philadelphia, where entire districts are so heavily Democratic that they rarely have a Republican challenger.
Kansas also has this problem in the Senate. Term limits would just change the names, not the political leanings. Whether Pat Roberts served for six years or sixty years, the incentive would be to avoid a primary challenge from the right, because Kansas is Republican dominated (same applies on the left in blue states like New York and California). Having a non partisan method of drawing districts, taking only population and compactness into consideration would lead to less partisan or protectionist gerrymandering, and could lead to more competition in general elections, making people answerable to their constituents.
The biggest problem, though, is not the institutions. It's us.
We are more partisan than we are discerning. Some people would rather vote for a Republican (or Democrat) that they don't like than vote for the opposing party. That leads to politicians knowing they don't have to be responsive to their constituents because they have the right letter in front of their name. As a result, a Republican (or Democrat) that represents a district with opposing party voters could be extremely responsive to their constituents, and still get voted out not because they serve poorly, but because they are from the opposing party and the voters in their district want a representative from their district.
But that would require people to actually look at issues instead of letters.
Racist - a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Nothing in there about having to use epithets.
If a person shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, they are, by definition, a racist.
If a person believes a particular race is superior to another, they are, by definition, a racist.
The real trouble is, many people spend more time worrying about being called a racist than looking inward to see if their words and actions showed discrimination. Whether their words or action expressed prejudice. Whether their words or actions conveyed disrespect or disdain. That's the problem. Maybe they don't even intend to express racist attitudes, but their words and actions suggest this superiority, or an inferiority of another race. Maybe they don't intend to express such a bias, but they engage in behavior that is discriminatory. That's still, by definition racist, but they will only have the opportunity to change that (if they want to) if someone points out that particular words, actions and behaviors indicate prejudice or discrimination.
I don't really care if I encounter someone who doesn't use epithets or slurs. If that person doesn't show me a normal measure of human respect simply because of the color of my skin, that person is a dictionary definition racist, and I don't have to hear them say the N word to prove it.
So don't look for epithets and slurs to see if someone is a racist. Look for words and actions that imply superiority of one race or another, or inferiority of one race or another. And then look for opportunities to encourage better behavior. That will make us all better for it.
Don't you know that basketball (sports in general, really) should be treated like any other job, except when it shouldn't be treated like any other job?
All fun, no malice.
My guess is that even more guys declare, and almost no one withdraws from the draft. You can always come back if you don't get picked, or go get paid.
These rule changes were overdue, but it might be too late.
Sorry for your loss. You and your family have my condolences and prayers.
My argument is not that everyone is paying players. My argument is that there is motive for programs to pay players.
We both have hypotheses that are dependent on willing participation in ventures that are illegal by one or more people. Because of that, I hesitate to cast a wide net saying that everyone absolutely is participating in wrongdoing.
However, there is motivation there, if not by the coach, then potentially by alumni, boosters, administration, etc.
The only question I can really address is a possible hypothesis on why a school like DePaul would offer $200K to a recruit. I can't say that DePaul certainly did do that, or if other, similarly situated schools would, could or have done that. But there's a fairly straight line between talent and making the NCAA tournament, and just making the tournament is worth quite a bit of money.
The thing I like most about Quentin Grimes is his ability to control and manipulate the pace and spacing on the floor to his liking. There are several times in the clip you posted where he changes the floor just by taking another dribble, or pulling the ball back out.
You rarely see a guy able to control the other 9 guys on the floor, but Grimes did that in high school. It's one of the reasons I am so high on his ability. He can control every aspect on the floor.
It's also one of the reasons I see him more as a PG than a SG. He knows how to change the floor to create space for himself and his teammates. He was a "2" in HS because his team was dependent on him for so much scoring, but he has natural PG skills.
By the end of the season I envision KU closing games with Dotson, Grimes, the Lawson brothers and Vick. That gives KU defense, shooting, ball handling and rebounding, and might give KU a MUA at every spot since most college 4's and 5's won't be able to combat the Lawson's, and most collegiate teams won't have enough talent at the wing to deal with both Vick and Grimes. It will spread the floor for everyone and give everyone space to operate - Vick's shooting drags another defender out of the lane to cover the corners.
My hypothesis is focused only on the types of players that could, in a decent situation, move a team up one level (i.e., move a bubble team into the tournament, move a tournament qualifier to the Round of 32, Sweet 16, etc.)
The thing is, there are a finite number of players with that type of ability. Once you get past the top 30 or 40 recruits, the guys left are not talented enough on their own to move the needle.
Take Marcus Garrett for instance. He's a talented player and he certainly helps KU. He was ranked in the 50's or 60's, depending on which service you opt to use. A good player to be sure.
If you put Marcus Garrett on a team like Oklahoma State (barely missed the tournament) does that push OSU into the tournament? My guess is probably not. He makes them a bit better, but maybe not one or two wins better enough to get into the tournament.
On the other hand you have a guy like Silvio. He was behind the curve coming to KU at midseason, and yet I think most on this board would agree that Silvio helped push KU up a level.
Silvio was ranked in the 30's, which is probably about the cutoff for a player being able to make a difference from one level to the next.
The point shaving you're theorizing about is more complicated because it would be difficult for a freshman to go to a bigger program and do so because their playing time would likely get cut if they were inconsistent, mitigating their ability to change the outcome of the game. Its much more likely that a player already established in the rotation would be able to do that because they have more space for the occasional lapse or mistake that keeps the game close that a freshman may not have built up yet.
Adding to that is the fact that gamblers would likely target guys without pro aspirations - i.e. rotation guys in college. A guy with NBA potential won't risk it over a gambling ring. A guy that is going to fade from the spotlight after college might, especially if they aren't throwing games, just altering the over under or final spread. Most high caliber athletes are too competitive to outright throw a game.
I do not know of any.
But I can see the incentives there in black and white. Or green, more accurately.
Looks like all but one are medical issues. That's unfortunate, but a heart condition (Flomo), foot condition (Aql), and back problem (Dixon) aren't things you want to mess around with for a 20-something kid with the rest of their life ahead of them.
Saulsbury was also medical, but it wasn't disclosed what his injury was.
Only Larry Hughes is transferring.
Losing guys hurts, but only one is actually leaving the program outright. The other four simply didn't pass the required physical because of existing conditions that could put their health in jeopardy in the future.
I wish them all the best, and hope they left the game before permanent damage was done.
As @Kcmatt7 said, it all has to do with salary caps, revenue sharing, and those things.
MLB does not have a salary cap. As a result, the MLB has team salaries ranging from Boston at $228M and Tampa Bay at a little under $70M.
In the NFL, the salary cap is about $177M, with teams spending about that much - there is some complex accounting that goes into cap hits, etc., but the Giants can't spend three times what the Jaguars can.
In the NBA, there is both a salary cap and a salary floor. The NFL has a cap, but no floor, but probably has the best revenue sharing plan of all the major sports (in large part because the television deals are all national deals).
The reason basketball and football can do this is revenue sharing. In those leagues, the money goes into the same pot, so as the pot grows larger, everyone gets an equal piece of an ever growing pie.
Baseball is not like that. They have only limited revenue sharing, which means that a team like the Yankees, operating in the largest market, can capture a much larger payout from its television deal than teams like Tampa, KC and Milwaukee can. The NBA dealt with this problem by tying TV money into BRI (basketball related income) and making that a part of their revenue sharing plan. Since only a percentage of BRI goes to player salaries, the NBA basically guarantees profitability.
To really make things fair, you have to have revenue sharing, a salary cap and a salary floor. The NBA does this best, tying the cap and floor to BRI. As that income goes up, the players share in the increased profits. The NFL has the best revenue sharing, but doesn't share that revenue with the players (why the NFLPA is incredibly weak compared to MLBPA and NBPA).
Baseball probably won't get a cap until they get comprehensive revenue sharing to ensure that a team like Tampa Bay won't get buried by the cap, but they also need a floor to make sure an owner won't just pocket the revenue instead of spending it on salary.
College basketball is big business, particularly at a school like DePaul, which doesn't have football as a money making sport.
College basketball has a thing called "units". Each NCAA tournament qualification earns a conference money, and each win earns the school and conference an additional "unit". In 2017, each unit was worth $265,000. In 2017, it was expected to be about $273,000. And that is paid out each year for the next six years.
That means if DePaul gets Bowen and they make the NCAA tournament and increase their ticket sales modestly, they easily make back a one time $200,000 payment. If they make the tournament and win a game, they come close to doubling up their investment.
Now, the caveat is that each conference may decide to pay that money out by splitting it equally among its members, so for the 10 team Big East, that's $27,300 per school. However, many conferences give the advancing team an extra unit (so the 10 team Big East splits the payout 11 ways (about $25,000 per school) with the school responsible for the unit getting 2 payments instead of 1.
Bowen almost certainly makes DePaul a .500 team in the Big East. Marquette and Butler (both 9-9 in conference last season) were bubble teams in the Big East, with Butler making the field and Marquette left out.
So if the Big East doesn't split, DePaul makes back the $200K in a single year by making the tournament. If the Big East splits the money evenly, DePaul comes up a bit short, but maybe makes it up in ticket sales. If the Big East distributes with double shares, DePaul makes up the $200K investment in about four years.
And that's why the incentive exists. If one guy might push you through to the tournament, that's worth a unit. If that guy might push you forward another round, that's worth another unit. Depending on how payments are split, a $100K or $200K payment might be very profitable, and that's before accounting for things like jersey sales, tickets, concessions, etc.