sawesome's picture


Member since 27 October 2010 | Blog

Recent Activity

Comment 10 Apr 2015

I guess I'm just kind of confused on the approach you are taking, clearly you're pretty intelligent based off your vocabulary so maybe I just need it dumbed down for me a little bit.

Maybe it's a little bit of a Socratic approach?

I've known a few people on both sides of the fence: one friend of mine has struggled with his upbringing and blames his parents for a lot of his present difficulties; another was abandoned by his mother while he had to care for a cancer-stricken father (who survived) as a teenager. While the experiences in both cases were negative, they've led in different directions.

There is a sort of opposition between entitlement and ownership, although it's not always very clear. Entitlement we understand, although perhaps we impute it too easily to others. Ownership, though, is a little more complicated. My fourth grade teacher made my older brother clean up someone else's litter once, which is pretty unfair—he didn't dirty the hallway. But my brother "owned" the school (he wasn't simply entitled to an education), so it was his responsibility to keep it clean. Sometimes ownership means taking responsibility for someone else's actions, not just your own.

I'm guessing that being a parent is like that, and probably so is being a child. At some point you have to own the mistakes of the previous generation—just like they have to own the mistakes of the following—and make different and better choices.

Comment 10 Apr 2015

What do you mean who taught me that?

I guess I thought the question was self-explanatory. I'm just curious who taught you that

Everybody is raised by someone and if we're a certain way then there is no one to blame except the people we learned from.

I'm not trying to draw conclusions—adulations that I've managed to solve the nature vs. nurture debate to the contrary—just asking where your own came from.

Comment 13 Feb 2015

The article was written by an Alabama fan so how can anyone take it as an impartial analysis?

You're only writing this because you're in Cleveland.

Comment 06 Feb 2015

I don't buy that.  Sure, some of these guys maintain a decent relationship with coaches but that's not why they commit.

Commitment probably comes down to a lot of things, of course, but it's hard to imagine that a minimal prerequisite isn't a good relationship with the coaches that recruit you.

Comment 06 Feb 2015

No your examples are not breach of faith and that is oysters point.

(a) Not my examples. (b) How is lying (by omission or commission) not a breach of faith?

I'm not accusing Drayton of lying; I don't know. But I guess I don't really know what else you'd call it if he did. Weber was apparently under the impression in the eleventh hour that Drayton would be his coach, and he was surprised to find that Drayton was moving on.

Comment 06 Feb 2015

Coaches are supposed to sell the program and the education, not themselves.  I have a hard time believing Weber committed just because of Drayton.

What is the interface between the recruit and the program / education? The coaches. If you have a good relationship with the coaches, then they sell you on the program and education.

Comment 06 Feb 2015

Your examples all break a law.  You should have put more thought into them so that there were in context with the point you were trying to make.

They all involve a breach of faith, which is the greater context. The question before us is whether Drayton lied (by commission or omission) to Weber about whether he would be his coach at OSU following his recruitment. Clearly Weber expected him to be his coach, since his move to the Bears seems to have taken him by surprise.

Perhaps it's not so black and white, but that doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow for Weber—or for fans who hope for a transparent recruiting process.

Comment 05 Feb 2015

I'd be happy to prove it if I knew how.  11W Moderators?  How do we do that?  Let's get to it.

The wizards can use IP addresses and the DB probably has them cached from sign up if they really want to. Not sure why anyone would, though.

Comment 25 Jan 2015

I'm just tired of the Tressel hero worship.

Man, I wrote this huge huge thing here. Then I realized Sawesome Rule of Posting 44™: no one wants to listen to you.

So briefly, I'd note as I have before that law is universal and grace personal. I loved having Jim Tressel as our coach; I think his firing was completely appropriate and should have happened immediately. Even so, I'd guess if you asked his players—like Troy Smith or Maurice Clarrett, or maybe even Rob Reynolds or Terrelle Pryor—they'd list him as a hero without hesitation.

Not all heroes are perfect.

Comment 23 Jan 2015

According to the numbers I've found,

PS—I don't know who DV'd you, but it wasn't me. While I don't think you're more persuasive for swearing (in fact, Sawesome Rule of Posting 43™ says, "Swearing only makes you more convincing"), at least you took the trouble to look up information.

Comment 23 Jan 2015

"Are you meaning to tell me that a 2nd Wisconsin coach in 3 years time took another seemingly lower-tier job...but will be paid more in base salary...because it's somehow easier to recruit?"

Rather that Andersen's departure is probably a little more nuanced than your opinion seems to suggest—although I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly why you think Andersen left.

I don't really understand the antipathy toward Alvarez, and certainly not towards Andersen—who seems to be as stand up a coach as you could want. (I don't know that we should impute the sins of the fans to the coaches, or vice versa.) Maybe he just felt like he couldn't recruit in good faith based on his disappointed expectations about admissions. The Right Thing to do in this case is to leave. Which he did, I note, at the expense of $3M (presumably the other OSU paid this). Who sets the admissions requirements for the athletes? Alvarez or the UW board of regents' Education Committee?

Bielema's departure was also more nuanced than just pay. He was lived on a hog farm as a kid, and Arkansas was and is an ideal fit for him. He's revered down there, and he has more power and freedom and money. Not a hard choice for him, I don't think, although I'm pretty sure he burned bridges with UW when he left. I don't understand why he would, especially given how long they knew each other; but familiarity breeds contempt. Even so, I don't quite understand how Alvarez comes out of that mess looking like a bad guy for so many people.

Comment 22 Jan 2015

You don't leave a school over this.  And you know the academic requirements before you take the job.  He'd only been there 2 years.  So, I find his comments to be complete bullshit.

Do you think Wisconsin's academic requirements are higher than Oregon State's? Or Utah State's?

By all accounts, Andersen cared a lot about his players: when he left Utah State he called each of them personally to let them know he was going to take the position at Wisconsin. Suppose that he forges those bonds during recruiting, and after making an offer to a student has to rescind it. This is a bad place for him and for the student both, and it could be off-putting.

No one says it's the only reason he left, either, but it certainly could've been a contributing factor. He's also got a lot of family ties in the West, and he may have felt more comfortable in Oregon than in Wisconsin. (The weather is probably better, anyway.)

Comment 18 Jan 2015

I think you are missing the most critical point, what message does this send to survivors?

Not having been in their shoes, I really don't know what the victims would think, or how they would respond, or what message they'd take from restoring the wins. I do think, though, that the legal condemnation is probably worth more than the NCAA's punishments: they would probably be a lot more upset if Sandusky's sentence were commuted or Mike McQueary were hailed as a hero, or if they woke up in heaven one day to find Joe Paterno's house next to theirs. (I'm not saying anything about Paterno's final destiny, mind you.)

Justice and vengeance are two different things. The NCAA's punishments extended rather beyond the reach of the perpetrators and affected a number of innocents (one doubts, for example, that the players whose NFL careers were jeopardized by the ruling were complicit in Sandusky's offenses). I can appreciate the doubts about the program as a whole: the culture was and still is in many ways still terribly broken. But does law fix broken culture? Not really; on the contrary, it often enables broken culture by embittering the condemned rather than freeing them. We often make crimes worse by overreach.

Comment 17 Jan 2015
I feel like a mini-quiz that includes such things as recognizing sarcasm would be a great way to decide who can post new threads. Something simple, but at least allows new users a quick way to recognize some of our rules and then start new threads appropriately.

That kind of defeats the purpose of sarcasm, doesn't it?