PublicUrinal’s profile

As a Gopher, I'm quite sad MSU didn't make it either. The UM-MSU series two weekends ago was some of the most fun hockey I had watched in ages. Both goalies simply played well out of their minds, and every shift was marked by intensity. A rematch in the NCAAs would have been phenomenal. Despite the Pairwise, I'd definitely argue MSU deserved the spot more than the Badgers -- and they probably would have had it if it wasn't for a guy named Alex Kangas.

posted at 09:24 AM on March 24

The media latches onto steroids scandals, cheating, etc., but outside of the hardcore fans, the vast majority of people are willing to overlook it and live life blissfully apathetic as they sip their beer and enjoy the game. Simply put, most people just want to be entertained, regardless of what happens in the backstage.

posted at 05:57 PM on December 28

It never ceases to amaze me how a coach can bolt a school with little to no repercussions, but when a school sacks a coach, they have to pay huge buyouts. To those saying Rodriguez is a bastard for leaving before a BCS game, I offer that he now has a duty to Michigan, and has to begin recruiting right away in order to live up to the expectations set for him. I'm just offering the other side of the coin, and not arguing his actions are correct. As for comparing tiers, I would use the metric of getting a top-rated player and, without consideration to coaching, situation, etc., asking him which school he would rather go to; my guess would be Michigan. I'm curious to see how Rodriguez ends up performing in Michigan. His style is incredibly different than what the Wolverines have had in place for as far back as I can remember. It wouldn't surprise me if next year is a bust for Michigan and Rodriguez catches a little heat, but they then go back to dominating the Big 10 soon after. A last quip: the Big 10 has had a huge talent drop-off. Yes, they keep making good bowl games, but more because of reputation and weak conference play than anything else. Perhaps they'll surprise me this bowl season, but I'm not expecting much more than a series of crushing defeats.

posted at 12:25 PM on December 28

"Fixing" a nation's education system is a far bigger endeavor (not merely infrastructural, but also in having different congressmen fight to bring as much "bacon" home as possible and quipping over ideological differences) than telling a sports league that already receives plenty of perks that they have to broadcast one game nationwide. Again, not arguing priorities are right here, nor that their actions are not self-serving, but simply that it is a much easier endeavor to accomplish in a short span of time that will please a fair number of constituents. As for public servants making six-figure salaries, there are actually plenty of them. But since you only require one example, the Supreme Court Chief Justice made roughly $208,000 in 2004. High-ranking military officers, district judges, and members of the President's cabinet are all among public servants making six figures.

posted at 03:39 PM on December 27

I would hope my congressmen would have more to worry about than what I am able to watch on TV. This I can agree with wholeheartedly. However, it is the Congressperson's job to listen to their constituents, and their action was within the scope of their duty -- and that is my point.

posted at 03:03 PM on December 27

Again, this is not an unfettered democracy. Congress has been pressuring both cable companies and the NFL to get an agreement done. The reason the NFL was given the exemption status is because Congress decided (right or wrong) that the NFL could operate more effectively without having Congress look over their shoulders. The arrangement has worked alright, but when constituents start to complain, then Congress needs to re-assess whether that exemption continues to serve its purpose. Beyond ideological discussions, I would instead argue that Congress has more leverage against the NFL than cable companies, given the present leanings of the FCC. In the present political climate, I would offer that constituents are generally easy to appease, and giving them this one game was probably deemed to be enough. Of course, there are plenty of other factors to consider (Comcast and Time Warner have been among the top-3 Broadcast Media contributors for the present and past two federal election cycles), so there are plenty of self-serving interests floating about, but I would characterize this as a motion to swiftly appease constituents above a self-serving move to punish the NFL (the fight between cable companies and the NFL Network continues; it is this one game that the NFL Network has been forced to sacrifice). Without getting overly political, how often have you really seen Congress bend big commerce of late -- really? Lastly, I maintain that linking to USA Today to help one digest complex legislation is hardly encroaching on poor resource management.

posted at 02:57 PM on December 27

I do believe that anti-trust provisions come foremost from the Sherman Act. If you need it to be tied to the Constitution, Congress' role is established to be that of legislation, and Section 8 of the Constitution allows them "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the powers enumerated in Section 8 (most relevant to this case, the power to regulate commerce). This means that items legislated do not need to be explicitly defined in the Constitution. Considering the fact that the Sherman Act has not been ruled unconstitutional by the Judiciary (see System of Checks and Balances), despite it pissing a lot of people off and having been enacted in 1890, it is fair to assume that anti-trust legislation is within the realm of Congress without having to break out law texts. Their threat to remove the NFL's exemption status is also within the scope of duty of congresspeople, as their constituents likely clamored and rose attention to the issue. I'm not going to perpetuate the notion that America is an unfettered democracy, but if you want your Congress representatives to be focusing on other issues, start calling them and getting people behind you. Regardless, Congress is well within their rights to meddle here. Hopefully that will settle the question of the constitutionality of Congress' action. And hellapuckboy, regarding the USA Today comment, there were three other sources that were linked to as well. And no, reporters don't know everything, but those in well-regarded publications tend to know a thing or two and aren't a poor source from which to begin research.

posted at 02:14 PM on December 27

I'm pretty sure media inquiries into his firing kept him just as busy as game planning, and probably more annoyed. But again, given the money the man made (and could very well continue to make depending on the language of his contract), he's probably got enough wealth stashed to weather something like this. And even if he doesn't, there will be plenty of jobs awaiting him. Seems like a poor decision in the eyes of PR, but people will get over it pretty soon, especially if the new coach strings a couple of victories together.

posted at 09:39 AM on December 26

Eli will probably have given the Patriots a 14-0 lead before Brady even takes the field.

posted at 01:11 PM on December 24

I reiterate: the Vikings pass defense is nothing short of atrocious, even when healthy. They're opportunistic, there's no doubt about that, but their coverage skills aren't even marginal. I'm happy they made this a season, but I don't think they belong in the playoffs. At least they're on the way up thanks to shrewd drafting (5 of our draft picks this year, and 5 from last year, made substantial contributions to the team this season), but they still need another year or two to develop those players and draft a few new key pieces. Couple that with the fact the Vikes have locked up a lot of core talent for the next few years, and the Vikings are on their way to becoming a team that will be able to fight among the top of the league.

posted at 12:03 PM on December 24

The Vikings pass defense is absolutely atrocious. It really amazes me that more teams don't choose to simply just air it out against them. With the best Vikings CB out (Winfield), any team, including the Redskins, can have a field day through the air. Just look at the Packers-Vikings games this season and you will see how easily the Vikings defense can be picked apart. The incredible Minnesota run defense can also be gutted by simply running to the outside (especially once a passing game is established and the corners pull back). I'm a Vikings fan, but I'm also a realist -- this team makes the playoffs because of a soft schedule and luck, but there is no way they make it past the first round. Minnesota simply has too many flaws, and teams are learning how to contain Peterson (stack the box, don't overpursue, tackle low -- and since Peterson can't block yet, Minnesota plays him almost exclusively on rushing plays).

posted at 12:35 AM on December 23

I don't know if Minnesota is prepared to take over as Hockeytown USA, but even after losses, jerseys are still worn proudly and the fan fervor is fairly big (although with every other team performing terribly, it's easy to cheer for the only team that wins). The loss of the North Stars really left a dent (retro gear is still quite popular, too), and the fan base wants to make certain they won't lose their hockey team again. However, in terms of history, it's quite hard to go against Detroit.

posted at 11:23 PM on November 04

Another video of the encounter: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=7_aaYih92ss&NR=1

posted at 12:50 PM on September 13

Familyman: To clarify, I said "bigot-sounding remarks" because you appear to be a long-time member and I cannot recall you ever acting in a manner classifiable as a bigot, and will thus not assess you so. But a statement lumping an entire continent into a baseless argument generally fits the criteria. As such, I'm hoping your position can be substantiated and we can have a sound discussion, sans name calling.

posted at 02:25 PM on July 05

Familyman: First and foremost, there isn't an football league in any of the South American countries, as far as I'm aware -- nor is there an international tournament that can serve as a meter. In terms of the NBA, the best parallel would be the FIBA Americas Championship, played every two years. The last championship (2005) saw Brazil get the gold and Argentina the silver; Venezuela beat the USA team for the bronze. Thus all of the top honors were given South American countries. In baseball, the closest I could find was the World Baseball Classic, where there was only one South American invitee -- Venezuela. And it fell in the same stage as the United States. Before you make such bigot-sounding remarks, I would encourage you to check the facts. As for the argument that the U.S. wanted to try new talent, I can subscribe to that and understand. But as such, CONMEBOL should still feel disrespected that their tourney was selected for the experiment. And if I'm CONMEBOL, I consider inviting another country in the future to make the disappointment apparent. This isn't about the U.S. playing poorly -- it is about the U.S. truly fielding an inept team. On the comment of the Argentina game, Argentina played very uninspired footy. It had nothing to do with the United States' stifling defense or powerful attack. And their subsequent play has been marred by a lack of ability, period. While not having a lot of time to practice together certainly holds a large cloud over their heads, they have simply been unable to string anything better than three touch passes for a missed shot.

posted at 01:11 PM on July 05