The kid is very well spoken as well. They interviewed him on one of the BTN talk shows in the 5-8 time slots. Very little in the way of "hmmms" and "uhhhs." His career should be fun to watch.
Which doesn't make me sad.
I've read posts on another Buckeye site that Water's nickname was Clark Kent and that the Superman theme was played today, even though the band was chastised by the bureaucracy for having done the same piece at skully last week.
I'm in Mousketeer country too and while I don't like to see my friends miserable, I don't like them to get too confident. Most are just starting to get the idea that joining the Big 12 might not have been the best idea.
That's also why I think they cover. 1st team needs the reps.
While this isn't technically my take I happen to agree 100% with it: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/solange-knowles-ray-rice-compare-contrast/
So the offensive game plan is the "Home Run Ball?" That doesn't really seem like getting back to
Stanford "Ohio State Football."
I'm a bit rusty on this aspect of men's rights and bear in mind I understand there aren't unlimited funds. But it isn't entirely about funds. My understanding is participation in sports must correlate to enrollment. So if you have to great a difference between the percentages of male and female in the entire school population and the male and female student athletes the school will be in violation of Title IX. This is of course regardless of whether you can field a women's soccer team despite offering and funding said team. A school with plenty of money to fund plenty of teams might find itself cutting men's teams simply because they are unable to field women's teams.
This is more specifically the misuse that I'm referring to. Title IX has been twisted into creating an equality of outcome and not simply and equality of opportunity. That it got so twisted up is a problem far greater than what may or may not be wrong with Title IX itself.
Now this is several years old understanding of the problem. Presently schools are facing budget issues and when looking to cut teams must cut men's teams to remain in compliance. I don't have any recent events going on to point to. I should in no way be taken as being unequivocly in support of "just cut he men's team." Particularly given the difficulties boys and young men presently face in education.
Title IX warriors seem to have no interest in fighting on behalf of males even when it is quite obvious that boys and young men are getting left behind. So my sense of fairness and equality are being offended on a number of levels by the things going on around all of this. But the problem is much bigger and neither begins nor ends with the issues with Title IX.
While it may not seem so and this isn't really the place to go into it much further than we have, we probably agree on considerably more about this than it might seem.
The proportionality ruling debacle is part of what I'm meaning by misused. Title IX is meant to prevent "you can't have a team because you're girls" but somehow that became "we have to deny opportunities to men to prove we're letting all the girls play who want to play."
A Title IX violation is being used in many cases to seek justice for men caught in that horrendous erosion of due process. See: http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/
"Sexual Harrassment" is being pretty loosely applied everywhere. The definition has become so broad as to cover everything.
Slim. His being a straight (assumption on my part I think I read he has a wife) middle-aged white male was simply a bonus. Somebody was going to be an example as soon as this got any visibility.
I do not think Title IX is silly. I think some pretty good things have come out of it and that it is the thing most likely to protect young MEN from a rather horrible edict from the DOE. Title IX is being grossly misused to push an agenda not in keeping with the spirit of the law.
I'm pretty new here so this would be my first time running into Catch. Thanks for the heads up. :-)
I don't think this is correct. There may be some differences for PSU coming off sanctions but you're not echoing my understanding of this.
You may only have 25 new scholarship athletes per season per NCAA rules. At start of fall camp you may only have 85 (barring some sort of scholarship reduction) players on scholly.
On signing day for B1G schools you may only accept as many LOIs as you can show you have room for. Graduate 12, lose 3 to injury, 2 guys are transferring, for example means only 17 LOIs. You can apply for an additional 3 signees under certain circumstances.
The SEC allows each school to accept 27 or 28 LOIs on signing day (down from however many they care to when folks started becoming aware of this.) This is the "oversigning" we hear about. The SEC makes room for these players over the 85/25 limit by let's say "creative use" of medical scholarships (Bama is a leader in medical shollys,) grayshirting, and so on i.e. cutting players.
Some new scholarships are back datable to the previous year dependent on some stuff I don't quite know well enough to ramble on about.
The SEC method essentially allows them 5 classes to every 4 classes the B1G gets. (Not all SEC teams operate like that such as UGA who you will note hasn't won the conference in some time.)
The B1G is the defending Rose Bowl champs but no one was saying Oregon had to win on Saturday or the Pac12 would be considered unworthy of the playoff. MSU an underdog and lower ranked team on the road (more miles probably than the entire SEC will travel in non-conference) had to win or the entire B1G would be deemed unworthy. There is a bigger mountain to climb here than just winning games.
MSU beat the Domers on a fake field goal self-inflicting a heart-attack on Dantonio.
It is a fool's prerogative to say that the emperor has no clothes. But the fool is still a fool and the emperor is still the emperor.
Spot on. I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is a fundamental leadership no-no. The guy in charge has to uphold the authority of his subordinates.
Why would you or anyone deserve to be slapped by a female for wearing a Rice jersey?
Why just females? I notice you didn't say you'd deserve to be slapped by everyone for wearing a Rice jersey.
I did not know that she was arrested. Is there a link you can point me to with that aspect of the story? I have been following this story but have totally missed that information.
And this double standard is why women are getting knocked out in elevators. Female violence against men is permissable if the man "deserves it."
The sequence of events I saw in the "new" TMZ video link.
She slaps him before getting on elevator.
She says something else to him that gets her a bit of a light slap (like what Hyde did.) -- Out of line on Rice's part.
She goes ballistic and attacks him.
He HITS her.
I think he over did it and IANAL but I'd still call it self-defense.
I'm not on board with the whole banish from the league or incarcerate Rice bandwagon. The last person to attempt to strike me (5'10" 200lb) in anger was a 5'0" 100 lb (maybe) woman and I've heard far too many horror stories of what happens to men with violent spouses. Our society is far too willing to forgive violent women and dismiss their parts in incidents like this. She doesn't go after him, she doesn't get knocked out.
Overboard on his part. But not worth losing his career over, the one he supports her with, considering how she went after him.
Female violence against men is permissable for wearing the wrong jersey?
Are men permitted to defend themselves from violent women?
He didn't get beat on these plays. This analysis doesn't tell us what was going on all the other snaps.