Who won the weekend? Why Kevin Durant did, of course. Anytime you can surpass MJ in anything (well, except for gambling losses), you've done something really great. I watched game numbers 40 and 41 of his streak this weekend. He looked exhausted by the end of game 40, but got to the magic number of 25 in the final minute. Last night, he netted 38 in a close loss to the up-and-coming Suns.
A 7 vs. an 8 for the national championship? The selection committee must have goofed badly on the seedings and/or the format is simply allowing way too many at-large teams into the field. In the big conferences, the regular season is nothing more than a glorified preseason at this point.
I remember the segment with Huesman that you're talking about. He took forever to give his answers. Best Win? "Uh, uh..." Worst Loss? "Whew, wow, you guys are tough. Uh, uh..." Best Movie? "It was a Western." Tombstone? "No, not Tombstone. But it was one of those ones that was so good..." So good he forgot the name of it? So much for a rapid-fire segment.
Andrew Luck got all the hype a QB could get, but he's one of the few that actually deserved all of it. And Jake Locker is definitely not better than Luck is.
Everytime I go to the lake, I'm resigned to the fact that I could be swimming in a lot people's No. 1. But now I'll have to be on the lookout for any deuces floating around too.
I'm thinking that the guy who made the Sandusky/Grantham comment is also the same guy who called in on another day and ripped Johnny Football and other mobile QBs trying to make it in the NFL. While I agreed with his overall premise, dude got real defensive about it. Almost sounded like he was ready to come to blows over it.
Jay, I love the radio show when I'm able to get off of work in time to catch at least a couple of the segments. Can you give us a list or Rushmore of the craziest things that you've heard so far on the show? Anything from idiotic comments from callers, to bad predictions, to wild/funny stories.
The one that takes the cake though is what I heard one caller say a couple of weeks ago:
"I'd let Jerry Sandusky watch my kids before I let Todd Grantham coach my football team."
What is the world coming to? Incredible.
[We'll say this: It's hard to remember]
Jay, what was the rest of your sentence/paragraph?
The Pacers are limping to the finish. They beat the Heat last week, but they've still lost 10 of 16. And now Hibbert is saying that "there are some selfish dudes in here". If they don't get their act together soon, they could potentially get knocked out in the 2nd round by the Bulls if that's how the matchups fall.
The Spurs are on a hot streak. Right now, it appears that it will be them against the Heat in a Finals rematch from last year. Looking forward to an exciting playoffs (looking mostly at the Western Conference of course).
When the Mocs' season started, it was clear to me that Gee had trouble finding his way in this offense. Wade seemed to be more in his face than the others in the huddle too. But as the season went on, Gee kept his head up and did all he could. He's an aggressive/attacking player which would seem to make him a good fit for what Wade wanted. However, Gee's game is probably better suited for a much less structured offense than what Wade runs.
Gee underwhelmed this year, but I think it had less to do with him than with the system. But I'm not blaming Wade or the system either. Sometimes parting ways is best for both parties involved. Wade will replace Gee in the lineup with a better fit. Gee will move on to another team and thrive. That said, he will be missed as a Moc.
I skipped all games this weekend, but I did catch the highlight of the controversial call against Stokes. At live speed, it initially appeared that the ref made the right call since it appeared that Stokes simply plowed into the defender. But watching it on slo-mo (which the ref doesn't have the luxury of doing), it was clear that the Michigan player flopped. So I would say the ref made the best call that he could have, but the Michigan player deserves an Oscar for selling it well. Looks like the NCAA needs to work on an anti-flopping policy like NBA has done. Maybe threaten to take away illegal booster money from players if they flop. Lol.
Jay, agreed 100% with your column Saturday.
I picked a bad game to watch Doug McBuckets for the first (and last) time. Creighton acted like they'd never seen a zone before. I skipped the second half to finish my taxes. Fun fun.
I think Mr. Cuban makes a great point. While there is a place for continuing to innovate and being willing to change, making too many changes can also be bad. Plus, I'm not sure that Mr. Goodell is the right man for that job. I almost think that Cuban's comments were nothing more than a subtle jab at Goodell.
That said, it might be a stretch to say that the NFL will "implode" within 10 years. However, once legends like Peyton and Brady leave (probably at the same time), the league will instantly become a bit less interesting. Mobile QBs aren't going to take the league to newer heights simply because they won't be able to last very long themselves. It will be interesting to see how the next few years turn out. And whether Goodell makes it for another 10 years at the helm.
What? No old-school 80s rap CD in the rotation?
I feel your pain, Bobby. The college game needs lots of improvement, but it won't be an easy fix. I was a general fan of the college game until a few years ago. Each year since, I have watched less and less and haven't really missed it. I don't think I watched any non-Mocs games this season. I keep meaning to catch a Creighton game before Doug M. heads off to the NBA though. If they win today, I'll try to watch their Sunday game. Maybe.
Jay, I would love to see a column on your suggested improvements for the college game. Other than possible legal ramifications, I don't see why the age minimum isn't being bumped up now. It would clearly be beneficial for both the college game and the NBA if kids stayed longer in school. And, oh yeah, by staying in school, they are able to keep working toward their education, which is ultimately (supposedly) why they are there in the first place.
[Have you ever flipped burgers or worked as a cashier or mopped floors or bussed tables?]
I have not held any of those particular jobs, but I have had other low-paying jobs before. But I also knew that I didn't want to make a career out of those jobs, so I put myself through school and worked my butt off to get to where I am today. I knew that making excuses wasn't going to get me where I wanted to go. It was up to me to make something of myself.
[But even if Obama came up with what he thought was a truly bipartisan jobs program tomorrow, so what? No matter what he says or does, the GOP is only going to vote in lockstep against him.]
Obama and the Dems shoot down what the Repubs offer too. The bipartisan effort needs to be led from our leader in the White House. He'll claim to want a bipartisan deal, but his actions indicate otherwise. The Divider in Chief would rather play the blame game than actually work to achieve solutions.
[No offense but I'm not sure I have a lot of faith in your managerial methodology.]
Are you saying it's not possible for workers to find ways to be more productive/efficient than they already are? Adjustments can be made to help with that. And of course you can't be in two places at once...that's why you adjust your schedule to be able to complete two different jobs in a given night.
In truth, I do believe that at least one of their workers would see at least a slight increase in hours due to the additional job, but I don't believe that all of my former employee's hours would be replaced. Hence, a net job loss due to the minimum wage increase.
Regardless, I think it's clear that a minimum wage increase (especially one this big) would have a negative effect on the economy. Check this out:
Rick (part 2),
If Wal-Mart would benefit more economically by increasing workers' pay, don't you think they would have already done it?
Nobody is owed anything in this life. If you are of sound mind and body, you need to work for the life that you want. Sometimes that means going to college and landing a nice 9-5 job. Sometimes that means having to work multiple part-time jobs and clock in 80 hours a week. Yes, having more jobs here would give more opportunity to more people, but it would only help if/when people have a sense of personal responsibility, not a sense of entitlement.
Obama once said that nobody who works 40 hours a week should have to live in poverty. Why not? If the value of the work someone is doing isn't much, why should they be paid like it is? Again, it is up to each person to make the life they want for themselves. If working 40 hours keeps you in poverty, then work 60 or 80. And get ahead and work your way up the ladder.
I wasn't blaming Obama for anything in my post. The Great Recession and subsequent high unemployment weren't his fault. But we both agree that the solution is getting jobs back here. Do you think Obama is serious about this issue and doing everything he can to help in this cause? I don't. So I think it's fair to be critical of him when he at least could be championing these solutions.
Sure our nation isn't a bona fide business. But it's not sustainable to continually spend more than you take in (personal, business, or nation). Obama either doesn't understand this or he doesn't care. Seems like forever ago when he said he'd cut the deficit in half. Obviously, he can't do that himself (unless his stroke of the pen is that strong), but he has not made any attempt to encourage Congress to support a plan toward achieving that.
In your janitor example, it sounds like the the janitorial company would simply have to do more work without adding any more people. If so, then yes, there is a job lost since the former employee of my business wouldn't be replaced by anyone else in the workforce.
In your second example, the restaurant would have 2 options. Replace one waiter and make the other 4 work harder to fill the void. Or raise prices on menu items. It may or may not be a big deal to patrons. And all other restaurants would have to make similar choices as the minimum wage increase would affect them too. But if most or all choose the option to raise prices, consumers won't just settle on eating at the cheapest restaurant. Rather, their eating habits might change (i.e. eat at home more than before). And with fewer patrons coming to eat at the restaurant, it might then be justifiable to cut one of the waiters due to lack of work. So under either of the restaurant's options, the minimum wage increase would likely cause job loss.