MT, true, but the federal and state dollar contributions have nothing to do with the amount of Saban's salary. If he were paid the same as the professors, the same federal and state dollars would be flowing in (rightly or wrongly) to keep the lights on. To me, it'd be a bigger deal if the coach got top dollar and his school's athletics program was running in the red and taxpayer money had to be spent to bail them out year after year. But Alabama is well into the black; not that that couldn't change, but maybe by retaining Saban, it lessens the chance that the powerhouse will crumble anytime soon.
[Monson said that he took into account Brady’s relatively ineffective receiving corps and offensive line in his analysis, but said his decline was inevitable regardless of the players he was surrounded by. “I think the receivers definitely doesn’t help,” Monson said. “When you have a receiving corps that’s depleted, you’re obviously going to struggle more. But I think the point I was trying to make was that Brady’s decline has been in action for a while now and all the receivers did was make it look worse than it would’ve done already.]
I happen to agree. He may indeed be a top-5 QB of all time, but that doesn't have to mean that he's a top-5 QB in the league right now. I would easily take both Mannings, Rodgers, Brees, Luck, Humpty, and Wilson ahead of him right now.
And this is a great move by PFF no matter if they are right or wrong about this. I had never heard of them before today and their exposure from this is invaluable.
I also disagree with Horace Grant on Miami's chances against the Bulls. It would have been a good matchup. I was equally as surprised to hear Georgia's b-ball coach say last year that the Heat would have no chance against the '80s Lakers.
Saban's salary seems too high at first, but if the market dictates it, then he's worth it. I have no problem with him making that kind of money to coach football so long as public taxpayer money is not involved directly or indirectly. And Alabama's athletics are well into the black so it's hard to say that it's a bad move for the school.
[This is about concussions and the first judge found that the NFL did try to conceal the long-term information about concussions, why else would they look to be settling for 3/4 of a billion (a number the court said was not high enough).]
Great point. But I wonder that even if the NFL had not withheld any of that info, would the players have acted any differently? Would they be any less inclined to "be tough" and get back on the field to chase their dreams? Suffering the effects of past play, of course they'll tell a judge today that they would have acted differently. But for the most part, I don't think so. Hence the need for the NFL to implement a concussion policy to ensure that the guys playing today make better health-conscious decisions (and lessen the chance that they'll sue the league later in life).
[...but for an industry that is making money faster than it can count it, we see giving back to former players not as an obligation as much as it's good business.]
I do agree with that statement. But you said earlier that the NFL owed a huge debt to its former players (which implies an obligation to pony up to those guys). That I do not agree with.
I had never heard of Lindy's or Athlon either until a couple of years ago. I was at the grocery store with Mrs. Stewwie and while she was going up and down every aisle shopping, I decided to peruse the magazine rack. This was when the college football preview issues were out and I went through every one on the rack. Lindy's and Athlon were in there with some others.
The NBA canceled today's owners' meeting after Shelly Sterling agreed to a sale price with Steve Ballmer. ("What ya'll wanna do, you wanna be a Ballmer, shot caller, brawler...") Sorry, I couldn't resist. Lol.
Agreed that there is a lot riding on this Finals. It'd be nice to see Duncan win another one. No surprise to me that so many across the country are cheering for the Spurs in this one. But it might have less to do with liking the Spurs than cheering against LeBron. And if LeBron loses this Finals and leaves to go elsewhere again, he might not have any fans left in the NBA after that. Well, other than his mom and the other 4 Horsemen. And Worldwide Wes.
I disagree that the NFL owes former players anything other than what is specified in the labor agreements. A lot of these lawsuits are frivolous. What were teams supposed to do when a guy got banged up? Make him not play and take away his chance to perform and earn his money? Maybe they should have benched or cut an injured guy in order to protect themselves from a future lawsuit caused from playing through injuries? Not buying it at all. If the players want to include more benefits for retired players in the next labor deal, so be it. But the NFL should feel no obligation to throw money at former players simply because it's become a very popular game.
Lol on that first paragraph in your answer to my question.
Agreed on your answers, though I think Paul George will also become a hall of famer. It's still way early of course, but I think he'll end up having a great career.
On No. 3, LeBron stuck his arm out and George sold the call with his fall. I'm not sure why LeBron stuck his arm out at all when his subsequent move was taking the ball behind his back to sidestep George anyway. Seeing it live, this seemed like a fair foul call. But if LeBron had kept his arm to himself, there should have been no call on this play regardless of whether or not George still fell.
On No. 5, LeBron and Stephenson were indeed both grabbing each other at first, but then it appeared that Bron took down Stephenson (regardless of whether or not it was intentional). That said, I was honestly surprised they made a foul call because there's always a scramble like that for a loose ball. But it's hard to say it was a bad call when Bron did cause Stephenson to hit the floor and lose a chance to get to the ball.
Fair point that LeBron gets less respect than MJ did. But then again, the NBA tried to start making a better effort of eliminating superstar calls a few years back. So when LeBron has nights where he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt (like last night), it's hard to complain. But to be fair, in either Game 2 or 3 (can't remember which), I thought LeBron did get away with 2 or 3 calls that could have easily gone against him. So it goes.
LeBron's 2nd foul when Hill was driving to the basket was a bad call. I saw no problem with the other 4 fouls called on him though. The bottom line is that he simply played a bad game. And his foul trouble kept him out of the action for a while. All that said, the Heat had a chance at the end when Bosh had a good look at a game-winning 3. It rimmed out, and now we're on to Game 6.
Stephenson is a bit of an odd character. But him blowing in LeBron's ear was hilarious. Anything to try to get an edge apparently.
As to your point yesterday about American tennis...well, we're usually not that great on clay anyway. But the Williams sisters leaving this early is a surprise, but then again, they are in their 30s now so they've got to slow down at some point. On the men's side, we're guaranteed to have 3 Americans in the 3rd round, Isner (our current best), Donald Young (a D-Wade lookalike), and either Jack Sock or Steve Johnson (2 lesser-known names who are playing each other in the 2nd round today). It's sad to say, but I'd be happy if we could just get a guy into the 2nd week at the French.
Jay, which comment is crazier: Mark Jackson saying Dwayne Wade is the 3rd best shooting guard of all time or Van Gundy saying Bosh is a future hall of famer? Who is on your Rushmore of all-time shooting guards? Who are the future hall-of-famers on these 4 remaining teams in the playoffs?
Great point, MT. And yes, despite Jay-Z not being an owner anymore, the NBA could take steps to ban him and his music if they really wanted to. But of course they won't and we all know why.
Again, why no outrage from the media or from the NBA for Larry Johnson's twitter comments to start an all-black league? (These comments were actually referenced in the Sterling doc to the NBA to show that the league normally turns a blind eye or lightly punishes offensive comments. Well...unless the offender's name is Donald Sterling.)
Or how about Sir Chuck asserting that "we are a black league" after the Sterling saga began? How offensive and non-inclusive of a statement toward the other 25% of players in the league! But of course, the NBA will take no action on those comments.
[In team sports within the locker room it is gambling as much as anything, and Pete Rose paid the ultimate price for that. Among ownership — within the confines of business relationships with fans and players — racism is close to the pinnacle. Ask Marge Schott.]
Not sure I see a need for a difference in standards. If racism is wrong, why should there be two separate rules for players and owners? If LeBron were caught on tape saying he didn't want his wife bringing white people to games with her, what would happen? I guarantee that he would NOT be banned for life from the NBA. A reasonable fine and suspension maybe.
So why should Sterling be treated any differently? It'd be one thing if he held a press conference and said that he would only sign white players, white coaches, white admin folks, etc. and then went out and did it. That would certainly be grounds for termination of ownership because he willfully would be violating the law and also intentionally damaging the brand of the NBA with his racist views.
But it's hard to accuse Sterling of putting his racist views into practice when the majority of his team (and also the head coach) are black. And he never intended to make his racist views public. Magic, LeBron, and the media have all scared Silver into bringing down the hammer for private, non-criminal thoughts that were unfairly (and most likely illegally) made public. As Cuban said, this is certainly a slippery slope.
Coach Pop tried to let his hustlin' backups make a big comeback last night and it actually almost worked. As a result, the Thunder felt compelled to leave their starters in through most of the 4th quarter to try to put the game away. I know the Thunder stars are young, but the extra minutes played (compared to the Spurs' starters) just might catch up with them in Game 5.
Yes, Joey Crawford once tossed Duncan for laughing. And Crawford was punished for it. But truth be told, Crawford is a pretty good ref and has not had any crazy incidents like that since.
I agree with Sterling's response to the NBA in regard to his punishment. You'd think that with a maximum fine and a lifetime ban, he'd committed the worst infraction in NBA history! But it's not even close. And this has been handled very poorly by Adam Silver. If he'd only given Sterling an indefinite suspension at the time in order to better assess the situation and deal with it after the playoffs, Sterling would not be in the news right now. But instead, they have an owners' meeting 2 days before the Finals start. And there's a buzz about selling the team (which probably means they're simply trying to get an idea of FMV before the owners force a sale, which could drop the price a bit). And even then, we know Sterling's fight will only just begin at that point. Way to overshadow the games with this crap, Adam Silver.