@FarmerJayhawk Normally I feel as you do, but for the hurricanes I will be happy to hold my nose! Best way to generate lots of ticket sales is by this type of thing.
mayjay
7180 posts
@wissox For a long time, "athletic" (or some other physical attribute) was used almost as a code for black athletes, while whites were "gritty" or "cerebral". There are lots of interesting articles discussing racial code words, or the prominence of each type of word used by commentators over the years.
Still needs to be granted a waiver by NCAA.
@wissox I just figured that a team that broke THAT many Commandments just had to be backsliding!
@kjayhawks Just so you know, I get real discouraged about the team, so it is hard to gin up something to write about from this distance (except for attempted wry comments because laughing is better than crying). But I really do appreciate your discussiions and analyses. It is always nice to see youthful optimism, and the info gives me things to look for on the occasions I can catch a game here deep in SEC country!
Close game. ISU 21, KU 15.
@kjayhawks "It really doesn’t matter at this point."
If widely adopted, that reasonable type of thinking could kill conversation on most sports forums!
That gasping sound you hear is poor befuddled el pollo attempting to tell yet one more person that Wigs is not an NBA player....
@wissox Baylor Backsliders--love it!
Includes JoJo highlights from the 76ers victory tonight, including a 33 ft 3 ptr and a monster dunk. Scored 22 pts in 15 mins, 7 rebs. Not a bad return to action!
@KUSTEVE Or just let kids get drafted and play college if they don't sign.
@justanotherfan Let's just go with speaking before thinking. Kinda stupid to not be more careful in his word choice, but although I have long considered Ditka an idiot I am going to conclude he probably just thinks things are not oppressive anymore.
I am equal opportunity in my willingness to forgive idiotic exaggeration. Kaep similarly pushed my limits with some of the stuff he said and with his Castro shirt. I liked his silent dignified protest better.
@Fightsongwriter The difference comes from how many people are willing to pay to watch athletes or entertainers use their skills (and how much they will pay).
@Lulufulu You have missed some really fun games!
@Crimsonorblue22 I tuned in right after the end. The announcers started the post-game analysis with FM highlights, and said he is clearly NBA ready, that he will definitely prove he deserves playing time, and that they expect he will be in the league a long time.
@Fightsongwriter SHHH! No political affiliations allowed in public any more, except fascist 'Murica-lovin' gun-totin' Trumpublicans, and Godless commie SJW Antifacrats. No room for anyone with the ability to see another side to things.
I hope this clears up any cognitive dissonance you might feel.
Everybody: this was an equal-opportunity skewering of the extremist views on both sides for humor only, assuming we can laugh at ourselves! If anyone decides to get serious, please go to political section.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Now you have done it. Penn State agreed to join the B10 in 1990, starting to play games in 1993?
So, I am thinking that I didn't realize it was so recent! Wow, I thought!
But finally, I then realized 24 years is not, sigh, that recent after all.
So thanks for making me feel old. :anguished:
@Texas-Hawk-10 Here is what you wrote that I have been trying to confirm: "When the Big 10 expanded in the early 90’s with Penn St., KU and Missouri were both very legitimate options at the time and had invitations, but both schools declined and chose to remain in the Big 8 and move with the rest of the league members into the Big 12." (Emphasis added.)
Your statement (and another that there was a general consensus that KU had an "open invitation") was about an invite in the 90s. I couldn't find anything about that at all. My post referred to 2010 because of all the B12 angst back then, but again found only one source regarding actual talks, dating from 5 years later in 2015 by someone who claimed those talks occurred. No contemporary sources.
Finally, we all know there might be issues with Keegan, but again, it is quite a blanket statement to say on the one hand that all the other reporters covering KU knew about it and that Keegan alone was out in the cold. No one talks to him and they haven't for decades? I think the LJW would cut him if they knew he had to make up everything.
Again, even one specific source would help here.
@Fightsongwriter My priorities, and those of millions of Americans, are probably just fine. Now the priorities of NBA owners--well, I ain't vouchin' for them.
@Texas-Hawk-10 A bit of googling has come up with several sources talking about KU and 4 other B12 schools approaching the Big 10 in 2010, and that the Big 10 was interested, but those talks never got anywhere because of revenue distribution issues, and no one thought it could occur in less than 3 to 4 years. All of the sources I found with that story based it on a 2015 article in the Omaha WorldHerald, whose reporter talked with an unnamed former Big 12 AD involved in the 2010 talks.
Luke Winn of SI discussed the fate of KU/KSU during the anticipated possible demise of the B12 with HCBS and Frank Martin (then of KSU), and they were urging a revitalized B12. No one suggested KU was pondering a B10 invite.
Finally, this from Keegan 2016: "One problem with fantasizing about joining the Big Ten: The conference never has shown any interest in welcoming Kansas and nothing suggests that ever will change."
If the press corps from 2010 knew about the invitation you allege, I just cannot imagine how it never found its way to print, or how Keegan missed it so completely. Which is why I wonder if it was innuendo and rumor only.
It is possible that there are sources I easily could have missed, since this was only a perfunctory 5 page Google search. If so, I would love to see them because I really had never heard of KU turning down the B10.
@KUSTEVE I care! Nice upbeat news for Houston, and Altuve especially deserves it.
@Texas-Hawk-10 So, I don't mean to sound combative, but I don't know how else to ask, so don't take it personally. Here we go: general consensus among who? @ICTJayhawk asked for any source of that type of assertion. I have always thought it was a wish among fans to be invited, that over time aged into a regret at having turned it down, without the inconvenient intervening steps of an actual invitation or KU decision.
@Texas-Hawk-10 "Maryland and Rutgers were absolute door mats of programs when the B10 announced their additions to the league which were solely based on their locations."
Adding doormats to get DC/Baltimore and New York Metro is not the same as adding a crawlspace vapor barrier in order to get KC.
I like your theory about upgrading the stadium. I see it as almost an emergency for the athletic dept (not for the university or state, however, so private funding only).
Crimsonorblue22 said:
You mean it's too loud?
Screw the noise. Maybe the whole scoreboard should just be turned off. Then we could at least pretend we still have a chance for an entire game.
@BShark Been there, done that.
@BShark Is there a link in your post?
@JayHawkFanToo Too bad it is not a World Wide Web or anything! Of course, I guess he could be in a country that restricts access to subversive open forums (fora) such as ours.
DanR said:
7 official reviews in the first quarter alone. Total BS. Why even have refs on the field at all if they are that useless.
You know, these games would be shorter and the lopsided outcome the same, if opposing coaches would just concede every review to KU's favor. Why bother?
@HighEliteMajor Oddly, he hasn't been on for over 6 months. I always remember the Cole avatar!
OU, UT, TT, WV
@BShark I think you are being a bit unfair to @jayballer54 by suggesting he made it personal. @HighEliteMajor dumped major truckloads of accusatory and denigratory dirt on the majority of referees, a group 'baller obviously is proud to be associated with. Any time your group gets attacked, you are going to take it personally. So, the response was predictable to an incendiary attack.
@KUSTEVE Re your signature: Lots of nearby attractions for the spouse, too!
@JayHawkFanToo I do think HCBS takes a relaxed approach to it, but his observations to the team are no doubt very pointed and no player should not take him seriously. Letting them go like playgrounders probably sets up a few compare/contrast video moments to show the difference between structured vs unstructured offenses, and disciplined vs headless chicken defense.
Of course, most years they would not have already practiced and played a bunch of games, so my theory is probably not applicable to this crew.
@JayHawkFanToo Now, that is really funny because after I drafted my guilty plea, I was going to add a reference to that story as a mitigating factor, but I didn't have a strong factual case, i.e., it would have been a baldfaced lie.
@JayHawkFanToo Boy, was I WRONG! Temporary temporal distortion. I think I was just hoping they could sneak 5 years in. Or maybe I was just an idiot!
And, you do deserve this, thank you for the correction!
@BShark I wonder how promises like that would get enforced? And it seems like it would sort of piss off ZW to hear that. "Sure, Z, we promised being the focal point to two other guys. But you will be the MAN! More than a focus! You will be central! Svi, Vick, Devonte--they have all signed agreements to not want to be a focus!"
@jayballer54 I don't think Lebron ever backed away from a challenge, but if anyone ever went to a team of his because they thought they could beat him out for playing time...well, that guy should have asked a few questions.
I think it is legit for a player to want to be top dog. And to want guaranteed playing time means really just not worrying that a few mistakes will kick you to the end of the bench.
I am not one of them, but some people here have argued this is what happened to Diallo, Cliff, Bragg (year 1), and even Hunter. Theoretically, they all might have made different choices if they knew there would be a short string.
We do not believe HCBS makes PT guarantees, but what happened to them is no doubt the type of thing presumed OADs wish to avoid when having concerns like those you discuss.
@JayHawkFanToo Whooooosh! Straight from another thread!
Gambling fascinates me. But your friend's comment, as related, was slightly ambiguous. Was he talking about The Streak? Or about any streak?
If the former, good strategy in sports gambling is to bet on a winner on a streak because that winner in a contest has proven it/him/her-self already, and thus has past performance to judge the future.
But if it was the latter, I am wondering if he deceived you about how successful he has been. Games of chance with independent events give no indication of how the next one plays out (assuming an unrigged or non-malfunctioning system, blah blah blah--Thanks, Prof Sherr (sp?), Spring 1977).
I know you know this about the well-known Gambler's Fallacy, so what I was just wondering, assuming it was KU's Streak, if you followed his advice?
@JayHawkFanToo I can read what he wrote. You, however, reworded it and provided lots of irrelevant information (interesting anecdotes, but way afield from these federal charges). So, yes, I can be an arbiter of evaluating what two (or 3) people are argung about. I have some experience in that, and tried to exercise it in a lighthearted fashion. Not ultimate, obviously. You are perfectly free to argue with it all you want. But when someone says, "that isn't what I was talking about" you might want to be hesitant about telling him he is wrong about his own intent about his own statement, particularly when you keep taking it outside the context of results and focus on alleged illicit means (idiot traffic tickets? Really?).
I am adjourning unless recalled by popular demand, which won't happen.
Incidentally, I am interested in your gambling comment in another thread. And thusly, I hie myself thither!
@Kcmatt7 THWEEEET! Sucking up! Technical!
Gad, liberals defending prosecutorial good faith and conservatives taking the "cops and DAs can't be trusted" approach. What a weird day we live in!
@JayHawkFanToo You aren't being unfair. You are just willfully ignoring what he said. He was talking about federal prosecutors being confident of getting a conviction if charges are filed because of a high conviction rate. He then wrote the following paragraph in response to a comment that some of the guilty pleas are possibly for reasons other than guilt:
"I don’t care about generally. What I am saying is that 9/10 cases, someone gets convicted. And yes 95% of convictions are plea deals. So the odds that this goes to trial is irrelevant. How someone gets convicted is irrelevant. All that matters is that the odds of these men being convicted is very high."
That is a limited statement. The context is obvious: conviction rate=confident prosecutor. You are intentionally making it be an assertion that he does not care about jerk cops or prosecutors. Even if they are Satan Incarnate, he says that the prosecutors are confident they will win because they win almost all the time.
Whether they should be? Irrelevant to his inference about their state of mind.
Technical foul times 2 because you are arguing after already being corrected. Ejection!
@justanotherfan Actually, for KU, every other team is the one to beat.
In that article, incidentally, the author discusses a book that calls federal prosecutors "chickenshits" for not filing cases in complicated white-collar cases where they are afraid they could lose. A former federal prosecutor himself, he cites the DOJ manual as directing feds not to bring cases they don't think they will win.
@BShark We went through lots of analyzing and agonizing through the transparent (pun?) family of now-forgotten whathizname who chose Oklahoma. What'd it get us except lots of ups and downs, and the thrill of seeing them think HCBS could not develop a PG. Bitch slap that, FM! Anyway, I just find it hard to get excited or dismayed by anything out of all the "concerns" even if quoted, and then there is social media.
@BShark This is fun! Bill with the announcers, starting out with saying he expected the game to be really bad. Then, in the first 45 seconds, what he calls 3 crappy possessions and a bad foul! HSBS: Head Swami Bill Self.
Lots of certainty here in differing opinions without direct information--what must it be like, I wonder, for a staff to be going through the non-stop reading of the tea leaves?
May I interject? I am taking a referee role here because I think you both have made some good points and those are getting lost as you build up walls around your positions. Your discussion started with a concern raised by HEM (and others) as to whether there was a valid legal basis for these charges. Matt replied with a comment that he was sure the charges would not have been filed unless the federal prosecutors were sure they would win, coupled with his suggestion that they wouldn't be willing to file if the legal theory(ies) is (are) shaky.
You both have gone far afield, HEM (and others jumping in) citing cases where the legal theory was rejected and other cases where prosecutors were disciplined for bringing cases on shaky evidence. Matt cited the overwhelming portion (>92%) of convictions the feds achieve in cases where charges were filed. HEM has rejected the stats because they don't establish that prosecutors don't bring flimsy cases, so there is no greater likelihood here that these prosecutors aren't trying to push the criminal reach of law into arenas (pun!) where it has no solid foundation. Matt has cited his discussions with justice system participants and their approaches to cases in favor of his contention that the cases here were in good faith and likely will result in convictions, and continues pointing out that other convictions on such fraud theories have been achieved so there are precedents (precedence involves wills and rights to succession, etc., by the way).
Okay, in reviewing this, I am blowing the whistle. One foul on Matt, 2 on HEM. But these fouls were not intentional hacks, just caused by negligent inattention to the ball bouncing between you.
First, we do not know that the prosecutors here believe firmly in their case, or more pointedly, in their legal theory because no one here is inside their heads. Point for HEM. Caution to Matt for certainty on an unknown.
Second, it is irrelevant to cite anecdotal evidence of other cases prosecutors being sanctioned for bringing cases unfounded in fact or solid law if (a) those are state, not federal, cases that (b) are not filed on the same legal theory as here. If valid federal convictions have been obtained before on such facts, the prosecutors are on solid ground if they have the facts. Point for Matt if his research found some, foul on HEM for attacking discussion of DOJ prosecutors based on miscellaneous state and local judges. Those prosecutor offices are a different ethical and llegal world.
Third, as to the use of statistics, fouls on both for trying to use stats, which can reflect generalities, to prove something about a particular case. Matt should have said "Federal prosecutors tend not to file cases where they don't have strong evidence, as shown by the fact that they have a --% rate of convictions and 19 out of 20 people charged plead guilty." Then, HEM could have said, "Yes, that looks overwhelming but some of those pled cases are to lesser charges, which might well be true if prosecutors overcharged or if innocents are afraid, and some are dismissed outright or result in acquittals, so we cannot discount that these charges, which seem shaky to me, are really filed with the goal of uncovering other stuff by intimidation and fear." HEM's foul was to entirely discount the stats cited by focusing on the exceptions, while Matt's foul was to put pure faith in those same stats and assume the exceptions couldn't be applicable.
In general, I applauud HEM's desire to put up an "approach with caution" sign so we can detect if merely scuzzy behavior is being criminaliized, but I also think that the cases will go forward and that the defendants here will end up pleading because I think that the feds would have started small if they didn't have what they need.
As an aside, it is well-documented that advancement in prosecutors' offices is tied to conviction rate, and that the visibility of federal prosecutors, coupled with the supervision of very powerful federal judicial and political forces, results in many (note the allowance for vast numbers of exceptions) federal prosecutors being extraordinarily cautious about bringing federal charges with anything less than a slam-dunk case. This is why you see so few charges dismissed by motion early on--and that happens lots in state cases.
In white-collar crime, this reluctance to file cases where convictions are less than certain has elicited major criticism. (In my own experience, we ran into it all the time when we referred commodity fraud cases to US Attorneys.) Just recently, there was a scathing article on this very issue:
Thank you for listening!
@BeddieKU23 All the articles indicate that the NCAA was unaware of the investigation until the charges were announced by the Feds. We can be pretty sure that the enforcement process will take a long while, especially since they won't have any leverage over any fired or suspended staff and athletes. So the 'AA will have to wait for evidence to dribble out in the criminal cases, and that, too, will be a drawn out process.
Self-imposed sanctions may occur quickly, however, if the schools try to get ahead of the NCAA and forestall more drastic punishments. It doesn't always work--ask Louisville and Syracuse.
@BeddieKU23 Grimes will maybe sign if he doesn't read this thread thinking it is about him.