Jump to content

johndoe

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. After reading my original post admonishing Askren to choose his words more carefully, I should have taken my own advice. I was probably too over the top. "Ben is a very smart guy. He should’ve known not to make a massively loaded statement like that, no matter the era he was referencing. I get what he was saying. It was a good point, even if I don’t agree with it completely. But FFS, pick a better way to say it!" Wrestlingnerd says it better than me.
  2. "as far as Ben's 'plantation' comment - i took little offense to it. i knew what he meant. interesting choice of words, sure. but i'm not going to get sensitive about it. i don't think one person for even a second would think that either Ben or I were racist." I would agree that nobody thinks you or Ben are racist. It seemed completely out of left field when he said it. Ad hominem attacks are a classic logical fallacy in debate. If you don't think any apology is necessary, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I still think it was a terrible thing to say. I think it takes a great deal of willful ignorance to deny the racial overtones when you compare somebody to a plantation owner. Not long ago the owner of the Ravens was compared to a plantation owner for not signing Kaepernick. Since the debate was about paying football and basketball players, it doesn't seem like a stretch to think of recent news items like this: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baltimore-sports-blog/bs-sp-ravens-ray-lewis-colin-kaepernick-20170905-story.html
  3. One might be able to argue that you call liken someone to a plantation owner that supports slavery, but you're not saying he is racist, but I think it would be an uphill battle. I like Askren, I've listened to every one of his podcasts with Rowlands. I have his technique DVDs. I'd send my kids to his camps if they were interested. He likes being provocative. But I think he simply owes Willie an apology for saying something dumb.
  4. I think Askren owes Willie an apology. He called him plantation Willie a few times during the FRL podcast. He is accusing Willie of racism simply because Willie disagrees with him. I like Askren. I think he is entertaining. But that was a pretty embarrassing display on Askren's part. Casual accusations of racism are disgusting. Willie agreed that athletes should be able to go pro without going to college. If one can go pro instead of going to college, there is no basis for any athlete in the NCAA to get paid. If an athlete has better options than the NCAA, he can take them. If not, he plays for the NCAA. NCAA wrestlers that want to be paid are in fantasy land. With the cost of college these days, they will never make more than a college scholarship getting paid for camps or clinics. If they think they can, they can get paid, forgo the NCAA system, and join the senior freestyle circuit like Pico or Cejudo. In almost every case, the scholarships are much more valuable. If teaching camps was such a marketable skill, there wouldn't be so many broke wrestling coaches. The value of an athlete is in scoring points for a college team. The University brand is a major part of the value, not the individual wrestler. This is borne out every year when the All-Americans graduate. Wrestling as a skill becomes essentially worthless upon graduation. Askren keeps talking about the free market. The free market has been quite clear: wrestling is a low value skill. If it was high value, his attempts at a pro league wouldn't have crashed and burned every time.
  5. That's a good question. I think either would be acceptable. Chess is a good game, but I'm an average player on a good day. I respect a man that takes the time to climb the rankings in chess like your son has climbed the rankings in wrestling. I'm not an Iowa fan, but I wish your son the best this year and in the future. Cheers
  6. Actually it's neither "there" nor "their". It would be a "A dad that loves his son". Now there are some confused young people that like being called they instead of he or she, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not one of them. A world class chess player? I'm going to assume this is hyperbole. What's his chess rating? I don't see him listed in the top 100 players in the US and google turns up no chess tournament results.
  7. "Our 2016 Ranking of the Best National Research Universities are based exclusively on factors actual college freshmen said were most important to their college decision." So this list is based on what college freshman think is important? Why should anybody care about that? What does that have to do with "capital" other than some freshman hopes to get a good financial aid package? As was mentioned earlier, based on R&D dollars, Billyhoyle seems to have a pretty good argument. The previously posted list counted six different sources of funding (capital) including both federal spending and institutional money. http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/colleges-with-highest-research-and-development-expenditures/
  8. This is mostly right but more right for Cornell than Penn. Penn has never paid its coaches particularly well. Add in the explosion of housing prices and this drastically limits the coaching pool. Unless the prospective coach plans on having his family live in the urban hellhole that is Philadelphia, he is looking at a long commute to find decent housing and schools. Then there is Beat the Streets. Columbia and Penn grads that donate big to Beat the Streets are dumping money into something that provides zero return for their program. EIWA rivals Cornell and Lehigh don't seem to have this funding distraction or at least put their programs on solid funding ground before moving on to vanity projects. Before they hire the next coach, they should think about what they want their program to accomplish and how sustainable that is going to be as funds continue to get tighter across the board. Reina did some great things at Penn but my understanding is that he eventually had to hang it up to make some decent money.
  9. "5. I was wrong about Coleman Scott. I thought there was no way he would be able to pull off coaching while cutting so much and prepping for another Olympic run.But UNC is clearly better. Maybe it's just one tournament, but I have not seen them look this good in over a decade, maybe two. FOUR of their guys lost only once in this very tough tournament: Henderson 149 (2nd), Ramos 174 (2nd), Ward 141 (3rd), and Staudenmayer 165 (3rd). UNC was the biggest surprise as a team and whether Scott was responsible or not, he is now the head coach and must get the credit. Hat tip to him, and I take back what I said a few months ago about his inability to balance competition with coaching." I very much enjoyed your post overall. I have a minor quibble though. Does C. D. Mock deserve any credit? Did he recruit those guys? I'm not an UNC insider and maybe Scott does deserve it all or C. D. didn't do much recruiting. I suppose it's more a question than a quibble. I don't think you can really rate a coach until he has recruits of his own that produce. There is certainly something to be said for fine tuning talent that you inherit, so certainly he deserves some credit, but as you say it's early. In any event, it raises an interesting question in my mind. How long is fair to determine whether a coach can produce with a particular program? It seems to me with so many high achieving underclassmen these days, you should be able to get results more quickly if you have scholarships available. If you can recruit well, you should be putting out a high quality product within 3-5 years in a well funded program. With smaller programs that aren't funded as well or have high admission standards or both, it could take 5-10 years. What do you think?
  10. I partially agree with jstock. I do find Terry very likable overall. In the few short conversations I've had with him, he's great. I can't stand the constant working of the officials though. That will go on as long as it's tolerated by the refs. Apparently, the refs tolerate it. I suppose every sport has coaches like that though. You get away with whatever you can and use the tools at your disposal.
  11. Has anyone considered the possibility that the whole cattle prod thing is either made up or wildly exaggerated? For one I find the claim of some kid doing 10,000-12,000 real push ups in an evening highly dubious. Wrestlers have been known to enjoy cultivating an image of being crazy in their training methods and not letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Assuming the cattle prod thing actually happened, how do we know that it wasn't one of the incidents where his dad apologized and told Cary that he went too far? It would be a bit frightening to consider there is something else that happened that's more worthy of an apology. Clearly Cary has affection for his Dad; the talk of locking his father in jail seems pretty ridiculous to me. Do people make bad mistakes? Sure. There are other ways of dealing with those mistakes besides prison. The bigger issue it seems to me is coming to terms with when a wrestler's intensity, pride, and perfectionism outlives its usefulness. At what point is it a good idea to reevaluate your outlook on the goals you set as an eight year old to determine whether your career or accomplishments are meaningful or satisfactory? Does coming up with a different outlook as an adult make you weak or a grown up? It's a shame Dave Schultz isn't still around. Perhaps he could have helped Cary gain some perspective like he did after his NCAA finals loss....
  12. "My point is just that there are likely more factors going on here as to why he is actually dropping out. Haven't you seen this before from other people? I have.. Very serious underlying issues leading to dropout, while putting on a facade of ambition. I just think the wrestling community shouldn't take such a judgmental tone with this kid...There's no reason to tear him down on an anonymous message board, and it's best just to wish him the best in his journey to maturity. Even if he does not make the "Forbes 50" list, he may very well end up in a happier/better place than the situation he was in at Cornell." First of all, I don't think there is anything wrong with being judgmental. I think fear of being judgmental is a modern day excuse for not forming an intelligent opinion based on available evidence. I don't know all of the facts of his situation, but I still think the interview was terrible no matter what the situation. I know plenty of people that dropped out of college. It worked out for some. I don't have any problem with someone dropping out. If he had some family situation, say so. If he just hated college, fine. No big deal. He doesn't owe anyone all the details. He could simply say that family matters make continuing college impossible at this time and he is pursuing other options. I just don't think that he should be encouraged for outrageous statements about his future plans. Sure he's young and can recover, but when he says dumb things he should be called out so he can adjust. I don't wish the kid any ill will. I hope he does well. But I don't think anyone is well served by encouraging half baked plans that amount to nothing. I had a coach that used to say that sometimes it's cruel to be kind. I think there is wisdom there. Encouraging a guy with a terrible plan because you don't want to hurt his feelings isn't kind. It's cruel. I don't know much about the kid. Most kids that win a couple of state titles have experienced some adversity along the way. For all we know, he doesn't care about what some anonymous internet message board says about him. If he does, maybe he got some good feedback. If he doesn't care, then why worry about his delicate ego?
  13. "I don't like the tone/attitude a lot of people are taking against this (21/22?) kid" Do you expect the business world to be kind to an entrepreneur? If the kid is for real, he can handle it. If he's not, he should find that out as quickly as possible so he can form a better plan. Can dropping out of college be the right choice sometimes? Of course. I think the "nay sayers" find his complete lack of humility, realistic goal setting, or clear plan to be the biggest problems for this kid. For a guy running an advertising agency, he didn't do a very good job of getting his message across. He didn't mention any product he hopes to sell or even what company he runs/works for. I'm not a marketing expert, but people should probably know what you're selling if you're selling something. If he said that college isn't for him but he has a plan to sell x and hopes to lead a happy, successful, and productive life, I'm sure most people would wish him the best. When he says he has plans to be on the Forbes 50 someday and make seven figures within 5 years doing nothing in particular before rattling off half a dozen possibilities, he sounds like a dummy.
  14. "That seems like a good use of time. Then maybe tomorrow we can figure out how many pounds "thick" is." I don't know what vast is, but you can't define it. So in other words you have no idea what you're talking about. Okay.
  15. I didn't miss the link. Are you arguing that 75% of a population is not a vast majority? If so, fine. State what a vast majority is then. You posted that link in reply to someone that claimed that the vast majority of college graduates earn more than high school grads. If 75% of a population is vast majority, then you are wrong. If you want to argue that it takes 95% of a population to constitute a vast majority, then fine. Otherwise the link you posted states that the college wage premium is at an all-time high. Perhaps you think college has always been a scam. From the link: "So while a college degree appears to be a good investment on average, it may not pay off for everyone." Nobody argued that college pays off for everyone. The post you responded to the said a vast majority. So please state your definition of that term. It might be different from mine. That's fine. Be specific. It makes debating much easier.
×
×
  • Create New...