Stellar's picture

Stellar


Member since 29 January 2012 | Blog

Recent Activity

Comment 20 Jul 2017
Cleveland doesn't the assets to close the gap with GSW in any meaningful way. No cap space, no draft picks, and no tradeable players other teams want. There isn't really much they can do.
Comment 20 Jul 2017
Where are you going to find youthful defenders with length for the veteran minimum? That's pretty much all Cleveland has to work with at the moment.
Comment 12 Jul 2017
By that logic every single thing that the government does is a "political issue" and shouldn't be discussed here.
Comment 12 Jul 2017
Actually without net neutrality sites like 11W would likely be squeezed out by sites like Rivals, 247, and ESPN that are owned by huge media conglomerates that with far more resources and influence. Rivals.com is run by Yahoo which was recently bought by Verizon. Without Net Neutrality rules there's nothing to stop Verizon from pritoetizing the content they own and slowing down access to competitors like 11W. And that's just a tiny example of what could happen. Without net neutrality your ISP gets to pick and choose which web services work for you.
Comment 12 Jul 2017
This really shouldn't be a controversial issue for most people. If you are an individual who uses the internet then you should be in favor of net neutrality. Unless you happen to run one of the small handful of corporations that own the internet lines then there's absolutely no upside for you in abolishing net neutrality. None.
Comment 24 Jun 2017
Do NBA players really switch teams more than NFL players? Or does it just feel that way because of the outsized impact of a few key players moving teams. When a player like LeBron or Durant switches from one team to another, it impacts not just those teams but the competitive landscape of the entire league. But just because the impact of those guys moving teams gets so much attention doesn't mean it happens more often. NFL players switch teams all the time. Its just that most of them are position players and since the impact of any one guy in such a large team game is smaller, it doesn't get near the media attention of a big star like LeBron or Durant or even Jimmy Butler changing teams. If the Browns get a new offensive guard or the Colts change linebackers it just doesn't resonate the same way. The only NFL players that could have that kind of impact are the elite QBs, and its true those guys very rarely change teams. Because NFL teams are built around Quarterbacks, they always lock up the elite guys with big contracts as soon as they can for as long as they can. Teams extend the top QBs long before their contracts expire so they almost never hit free agency. The same thing also happens with a few other elite guy like some of the best pass rushers and wide receivers. NFL players lack the same leverage that NBA stars have to opt out of their contracts or force trades, and since their contracts aren't guaranteed while injuries are players are likely to take the long contracts with the big signing bonus as soon as they can. Aside from the few elite guys, NFL players change teams frequently. As they say, NFL stands for Not For Long. Almost everyone is expendable, even the most productive guys. As soon as your production drops, your asking price is too high, you get hurt, or they sign someone younger, the team has no problem kicking even the most loyal players out the door. DeMarco Murray lead the league in rushing a couple years ago and the Cowboys promptly showed him the door. LaGarrett Blount rushed 18 Touchdowns for the Patriots last year, and now he's on the Eagles. Last year Terelle Pryor has the best season a Browns WR has had in a long time and now he's in Washington - and those are just few of oh so many examples. Players who stay with one team their whole career are fairly rare.
Comment 22 Jun 2017
Lots of great looking shots in that trailer. Looks like were in store for some huge battles and lots of dragons. They may have shorten the season but they certainly didn't skip on the production values.
Comment 21 Jun 2017

The only reason the Cavaliers are relevant is because they have LeBron James.  Without him they become just another small market team that nobody cares about.  The value of the entire franchise would drop significantly if they traded him away.  

Unless LeBron tells the management that he's leaving Cleveland for sure, then they need to do absolutely everything they can to keep him for as long as possible.  

Comment 20 Jun 2017
What future? The Cavs don't have any future assets to trade. They can't trade a first round pick until 2021 and they don't really have any high potential young guys that other teams would want to trade for. Cleveland is in Win Now mode, which is exactly what they should be doing. LeBron will be 33 next year and is in the last year of his contract - one way or another they don't have a lot of time left with the best player in the world. The Cavs need to do everything they can to win it all right now, and then figure out the future later.
Comment 13 Jun 2017
LeBron doesn't sit out games "all season long". He sat out a few games - it just so happened that those games were on national TV so it got blown out of proportion. LeBron leads the league in minutes by a lot. Nobody on earth has played more basketball than LeBron over the last 7 years. But even he can't play 48 minutes of a playoff game.
Comment 12 Jun 2017
I love how when other fan bases try to rip on Meyer its always about stuff from Florida - that's because they don't have any ammo against him for anything at Ohio State. He's been here 5 years now and there's been nothing but success without a whiff of scandal. His teams here have all won consistently and done it the right way. The program produces NFL draft picks faster than anyone and they prepare guys well for life after football too. The academic progress rate is high, and the team is full of high character guys. Off the field problems are rare and when they do happen they are dealt with in the correct manner. And to top it all off he's going into everyone else's territory and stealing their recruits! Essentially Meyer has done everything right at Ohio State!
Comment 16 May 2017
As someone who streams every game online I don't like it - ESPNs streaming service is much better than Fox's. Hopefully with Fox investing so much in sports content, they'll also invest in better streaming. Also say what you want about ESPN buy the produce games better than anybody else in the business.
Comment 12 May 2017
Those new corners from the 2017 had better be ready to play right away. With Lattimore and Conley leaving early, Norwood and Burns transferring, and Davis moving to safety there are only 2 CBs on the eitre team who are back from last years roster (Ward and Arnette).
Comment 10 May 2017

The problem doesn't exist now specifically BECAUSE the government oversight has always been in place.  

The idea that the free market will work it out and consumers can just decide what ISPs they want to purchase from is not true in the case of broadband internet.  This is because in most market there is very little competition and options for broadband providers.  A few companies own almost all internet access and they have go out of their way through mergers and lobbying to ensure that they get as little competition as possible (buying up smaller firms, suing local goverments to stop them from setting up their own internet service, etc).

Depending where you live there may be only one broadband provider to chose from and in most case no more than a few.  Considering that internet access is necessary for most people in 2017 they're stuck paying for the service provider thats in their area whether they like it or not.  Your choices are pay the big company in your area or have no internet access.  There is no fair competition in many markets.  

Comment 09 May 2017
No. They were always subjected to this regulations. The only reason things changed in 2015 is that Verizon won a lawsuit that threatened the FCC's ability to enforce those regulations. This forced the FCC to reclassify broadband providers to keep the same rules in place. The reason people are writing now is that the new FCC chair (who of course used to work for Verizon) is trying to undo that change so that the government can no longer enforce the regulations that have ALWAYS been in place.
Comment 09 May 2017
Agreed 100%. This is only a political issue with the kind of people who will reject something they don't even understand just because Obama supported it. This is a consumer issue. Anyone who uses the internet for any reason should care about keeping it free and open.
Comment 09 May 2017
Internet Service Providers have ALWAYS been subjugated to the Communications Act of 1934. They were just reclassified under Title II of that act rather than Title I as they had been before.
Comment 09 May 2017
As I explained above, that isn't true. There has always been a neutral internet. What happened in 2014/2015 if that Verizon and other providers tried to stop Net Neutrality with a lawsuit and the FCC was forced to reclassify them under existing law to keep enforcing the regulations we have always had.
Comment 09 May 2017
None of that is true. Net Neutrality does NOT "bring government regulation to an area that was previously not under the government's thumb". The government has regulated the telecommunications for generations, before the internet even existed. Their authority to do so is based on the Communications Act of 1934. There has Always been government regulation of internet service providers - this is not a new thing. Also Net Neutrality was not implemented in 2015. There have always been net neutrality rules and they are a key part of what has allowed the internet to thrive. What happened in 2015 was not new regulations - it was a reclassification of internet providers under that same 1934 act in order to keep enforcing the rules we already had. This was because Verizon sued the FCC and the judge ruled that the government couldn't enforce the regulations that had long been in place for broadband providers. This forced the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers (just like phone providers) under Title II of the Communications Act. They didn't create Net Neutrality rules in 2015 - they just made the rules we have always had more enforceable.