Frankie Andreu: I love EPO
 

Thanks Patriots
 

Oh, stop. Don't put it on the players. If it was simply a matter of redistribution of player salaries, the owners wouldn't mind if the cba was copied straight up from MLB. Are you arguing that NFL players are in as favorable a position relative to owners as MLB players? I doubt it.

I believe that part of what makes the NFL so successful is the PARITY.* And one of the reasons why they can have that PARITY** is because teams can cut players and void their contracts. Teams often sign players to long contracts who have huge potential, giving them little guaranteed money. There is very little risk for the team, since if they perform to their potential, you've most likely got them locked in to a bargain, long-term contract. If they perform below potential, but are still workable players, you tell them to restructure. If they get injured or perform below what you can replace them with at a discount, you simply cut them.

If that player exceeds expectations, he is expected to honor the contract. Please explain to me how this makes sense for anyone but the owners. It's great for teams, because they have minimal risk. But it's a disaster for a great deal of players who come into the league, get injured and are thrown away. Demanding insurance is a red herring because it's simply a matter of assigning the cost of insurance. Either you ask for more money and do it yourself or it comes out of your salary and the team does it for you.

True value for the players would be giving them a better bargaining position w/r/t their contracts. And the NFL doesn't want that.

TM

*Damn it. Damn it. Damn it.
**Did I say "Damn it" already?

Thanks Patriots
 

I can't tell whether TM is serious or whether he's writing a parity.

eta: Anyhoo, Burger's point is that (from an economic perspective) the players are going to demand the same share of overall revenue, whether contracts are guaranteed or not. TM's point is that NFL players incur a lot of risk that players in other sports do not. You're both right. If contracts in the NFL were guaranteed, you'd have players who cannot perform because of injury collecting money. So everyone would make a little less. The interesting question, IMHO, is whether NFL players prefer to roll the dice and accept larger, riskier contracts, or whether the lack of guaranteed contracts is something of a historical accident that evolved into a norm.

Celebrity Sighting
 

Understood.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3...-j-bullock.jpg

By the way, Cyndi still looks pretty good.

Then:

http://cyndi.com/items/2910.jpg

Now:

http://girlsnewsdaily.com/LydiaCornellPhoto033005.JPG

TM

Thanks Patriots
 

IF NFL players had any skill (other than raw speed or size) they wouldn't be playing in the NFL and wouldn't have this problem. If they don't like it, tell them to learn how to hit the curve ball or dunk.

Celebrity Sighting
 

Lydia (Cornell)? She's a pretty lady.

Thanks Patriots
 

Tell me about Deion Branch. And Terrell Owens. And continue the list.

Also, what about Ty's point? Guaranteed contracts are not prohibited. While unguaranteed is the norm, there have been guaranteed contracts in recent years (few, true). But, surprise, for a lot less money. How can you say that they aren't making a reasonable choice of risk/reward?

Does it benefit owners? Sure, because they won't have to pay out to injured players. But does it benefit players? Yes, because the owners aren't paying out a bunch of dead money, and they can play that to performing players.

Mild rant
 

Why, why WHY do I so frequently end up behind George Bush (I) in line at the grocery store? Persons unfamiliar with modern grocery technological inventions such as the "credit/debit card swiper" and "need to push 'yes' to complete transaction"? Jeeeeeeeeezus. I almost just swiped and pushed for him, but I thought it might seem rude.

Mild rant
 

What's a grocery store? I guess the people who buy the food in my house are told what to get by the people who cook the food. Or maybe the house manager tells them both what to cook and buy.

Mild rant
 

As long as you keep it that way, it will work out fine.

ETA actually, do whatever you want w/in the greater TCOTU area. No skin off my back, George.

Thanks Patriots
 

I'm still bitter about the money, time and effort wasted on Tony Boselli's year on injured reserve.

Cool.
 

Harvard Ends Early Admission, Citing Barrier to Disadvantaged

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/ed...rtner=homepage

TM

Mild rant
 

At first I thought he was referring to people from certain locales who don't call it a "grocery store", but rather just a "grocery". The same people use a "vacuum" instead of a "vacuum cleaner". I think they also go to the "show" instead of the "movies".

Mild rant
 

I go to the cinema. I enjoy films.

Thanks Patriots
 

Bullshit response. The few players who hold out are typically viewed as assholes, even though they are trying to make an adjustment based on their actual value just as teams do without penalty. It is beyond uncommon and players only do it when they are way undervalued.

Jesus. Are we really having this argument? Guaranteed contracts aren't prohibited, true. But when so few players are in a position to demand them because they aren't required by the cba, of course there will be fewer guaranteed contracts and of course players will have to give something up to get them. What is your point? If guaranteed contracts were required by the cba, some contracts would go down, but other players' contracts would go up. And non-superstars would have some security.

Right. But you're not saying anything. It benefits a very few players. Guaranteed contracts benefit the lion's share of players. The current system overwhelmingly favors the teams.

Maybe it's better that way due to the violent nature of the game. That's an argument I can accept a lot more than the one you're pitching.

TM

Cool.
 

Purely so they can have a self-satisfied holier-than-thou smirk. There is absolutely no reason that the early admission program inherently creates barriers to disadvantaged. Rather, it was Harvard's greediness to increase its yield rates by taking loads of students early that creates the problem.

If they wanted, they could take fewer students early, and make sure that there were plenty of spaces left for students who might not want to apply early (or might not be aware or otherwise couldn't get in) and take them during the regular application process.

A Modest Proposal
 

I would but I wouldn't watch footsoccerball so I am disqualified.

Cool.
 

Read the article. I'd rather not just quote straight from it in response to your self-satisfied holier-than-thou post.

TM

Frankie Andreu: I love EPO
 

Is this surprising???

He needs to correct a misquote.....

When he says...

“There are two levels of guys,” Andreu said. “You got the guys that cheat and guys that are just trying to survive.”

It should be.....

“There are two levels of guys, You got the guys that dope and get away with it and guys that get caught doping.”

The guys who are just trying to survive are called Cat 1s.

Cool.
 

In thanks for when my grandfather paid for the new wing to the Medical School, Harvard pre-admitted the next 4 generations of Chinaski Men.

Cool.
 

That is generally correct, although Harvard does not lock you in. You can still apply elsewhere, and compare offers in April/May. Most other places are early decision, which is binding.

See my explanation above as to why this is less of a problem if schools showed some restraint as to the number of early admits they take. (And nothing bars a person from waiting until the regular pool and applying to a bunch of schools, and then comparing aid.)

ETA: See below for question. That's really weird that this posted before RT's query

Cool.
 

The whole early admission thing is a fucking silly gimmick to push parents toward certain schools and give those schools early bookables and extra fees. Who DOESN'T apply EA anymore? It was kind of unique when I was going to school, but now everybody does it. They ought to just move up the application and decision deadlines.

Cool.
 

Sneaky, sneaky Harvard.

Cool.
 

Derek Bok has made a career of it, so I suppose so.

But I don't think that they're being as public minded as they're spinning it to be.

Cool.
 

Did I get stuck in penske's time machine?

Cool.
 

If you are in one of those schools [Delbarton, St. Peter's Prep, Pingree, Choate] that type of school, why wouldn't you want to do EA if you are doing the Ivy circuit? Look. disadvantaged, bright kids do EA as well. I know that they are coached by guidance counselors and bright kid programs as well.

Thanks Patriots
 

Are guaranteed contracts required by the cba in MLB or the NBA? No. A lot of players--the younger ones--in MLB do not have contract guarantees any greater than those in the NFL--one year contracts. Long-term guranteed contracts don't show up until free-agency, or close to it.

I agree that if contracts were guaranteed, some players' salaries would go up and others would go down. Of course that would happen. But the ones that would go down are the new players, and the ones that would go up are the aging veterans who would still be hanging on. It benefits the insiders at the cost of the outsiders. Remember a few years ago when the salary cap came in, and all kinds of veterans were getting cut because they had high salaries? Exactly--you'd get a bunch of over the hill veterans on the payroll instead of exciting younger players. But to say that it benefits the "lion's share" of the plaintiffs is even more bullshit. It benefits the existing players at the expense of potential players. Do they not count at all? If not, Hank has some union-shop auto plants to sell you.

And of course it has to do with the violence of the game. It's a lot riskier to enter into a long-term guaranteed contract in the NFL because so many players have their careers end quickly. Doesn't happen nearly as much in baseball (although the reluctance of teams to give pitchers long-term contracts reflects the same issue).

Uh, I'm not sure what happened. I got a note yesterday that they were moving our servers today but that the downtime was only going to be five minutes.

I assume that's what just happened, and we got do to the time warp together as an added bonus.

[I have a time machine now.]

spooky -- where will my message end up? Where will it end up?

Thanks Patriots
 

I don't understand this. If you figure that the teams have a certain pile of money to spend on player salaries, they're going to pay players more if they know they'll be off the hook if they can cut the player instead. They'll pay the players less otherwise, knowing that they'll be paying 60 (55? 75?) contracts to have 50 players in uniform.

The current system benefits healthy players vs. injured players. Which is a crapshoot.

It may be that the sort of person who emerges from the collegiate football factories to make the NFL is prone to irrationally underestimate his chances of being injured.

Interesting that this would happen during a discussion on early admissions.

My understanding is that because EA locks the applicant into the school if he is admitted, the kids who really need to weigh various financial aid packages before they can afford to make a decision on a school are pretty much locked out of the EA process.

Does anyone else interview kids for their college? I'm one of the local alumni volunteers for my small liberal arts college, and I do about three or four interviews a year. I generally assume that the admissions office will vet the academics and other qualifications, so I usually spend the interview trying to figure out whether or not this is a kid I'd want to be stuck in a dorm with my freshman year of college.

I think what is happening is that Burger and Ty's posts on this thread are stuck at the bottom of this thread, though I don't know why.

Cool.
 

They're stepping back from competition with other schools for public-minded reasons -- don't they get to act holier than thou? Or is greed good?

wait a couple of minutes, and the clock will catch up. My little clock is telling me it's 11:25, not 11:50 (EDT), which is when I am writing this.

Ty@50 ain't got nothing on Burger and Ty at 11:50.

More more pie
 

The last board seems to have hiccuped for some reason, so I'm starting a new thread for the FB a little early. I apologize for the inconvenience, but I'm hoping that there's simply something wonky with that particular thread instead of the whole board.

ETA: This was the first in the temporary board. We're all together now.

Cool.
 

I did, before I responded.

• Several educators said only a university with Harvard’s reputation could take the risk involved with eliminating early admission because it will continue to be the first choice for so many top students.

The unfairness that results from early admission is that the acceptance rate is higher. To some degree that's because more qualified students apply early. And to some degree it's because the school is willing to offer admission to someone who's willing to commit to that school (although Harvard doesn't require that). The second certainly could be biased against disadvantaged students who don't know what their first choice is, or whose first choice might be affected by financial aid offers. So, why can't Harvard dial back its admission of people early, leave more spaces for disadvantaged folks in the regular application pool, and give them more of a preference in recognition of the hurdles they need to overcome?

No, what Harvard is doing is self-interested. It knows it's the market leader. But it's worried because so many other schools have expanded their early decision programs that are binding. So, people are applying left and right to Princeton, Yale, Bucknell, etc., and locking into those schools because of the nature of their programs. Harvard is unwilling to change to early decision (with lock-in), and instead will now push everyone else to eliminate their programs so Harvard will start getting those applicants again.

More more pie
 

Great thread title.

eta: Way to kill the board, Burger.

More more pie
 

It's astounding. Time is fleeting. Madness takes its toll . . .

http://uashome.alaska.edu/~jndfg20/website/rocky.jpg

[Damn - I really wanted to post a Rocky Horror pic in response to RT's time warp comment. How do you do that?]

ETA - Yea! Thanks RT!