Quote from: Redtooth on December 18, 2007, 11:29:48 AM
I think it is safe to say that all involved---announcers, analysts, hosts---wanted to get the hell out of the Dome last night and say as little about the game as possible.......That game was dreadful to watch.

No doubt.  I don't expect Tirico or Kornheiser to say anything intelligent about the game, however, with SalPal, Steve Young and Emmmmmmittttttt Smith hanging around for like an hour afterward, one would think it would've come up.  The latter was too busy offering to offer Adrian Peterson advice on how to be the all-time leading rusher. Crap.

Fins, I totally agree.  They need more than one football guy in the booth.  Jawarski gives a lot of analysis (which I think is good, others may not), but Kornheiser and Tirico are not football guys, which makes for very poor quality announcing.

And I'm just as curious as to why NOBODY talked about it.  Not the announcers, not the ninetyfour analysts after the game, not the ESPN hosts, no one.

Not to completely change the subject....

But was anyone else curious as to why Lovie Smith did not take the Bears' final time-out last night?  Don't get me wrong - I'm a Vikings fan - but if I'm a Bears fan I'm calling for an explanation.  At least attempt to make the Vikings punt... who knows what happens; bad snap, blocked punt, Devin Hester taking one to the house, Punter shanking it do avoid Hester then short field for a Hail Mary... I almost think a coach should get fired for giving up like that.

Any thoughts?

What a joke of video!  Isn't it 2007? I thought we could get a little better quality than this.

Sorry, I'm crabby.

Can someone post the link to the video?  I cannot find it.

Quote from: OzJohnnie on December 07, 2007, 02:56:53 PM
My last post on this.  College prices are a function of the market, not government policy.  Prices rise to suit demand on a curve representing return (rising then diminishing).  If the government subsidizes tuition then they merely shift the curve to the right, not flatten it.  Prices will inevitably rise to the point of the curve representing peak return, and rise faster than CPI since they are artificially (due to government subsidies in the form of tuition assistance) far down the curve and more distant from the peak - just what we see year after year.  Incidentally, this leads to artificially high prices over time since the government is artificially inflating the market's tolerance for high prices.

I'm not making any argument about the validity or not of gov't tuition assistance, just merely pointing out that any policy like this that the government makes is necessarily temporary in benefit.  Market behavior is beyond the ability of any gov't to control, just ask the Soviets.  Best the gov't can hope for is short term benefit and hope no one notices the real reason for the long term extraordinary inflation of prices as a counter-balance to the short term return.

Spoken like a true Capitalist!  I'm with you 100% on this, and once the institutions begin to see lower attendance to the point where total revenue is decreasing, they'll lower (or increase slower) the tuition accordingly.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on December 07, 2007, 01:04:28 PM
+k for that one.  I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that suggestion.

In other news, we finally know what a Johnnie is:

Self-deprecation is so fun!!

What's with the Lion being the default mascot anyway?  I have no idea what a Gustie should look like, but a Royal should look something like this:

Quote from: cobbernation on December 07, 2007, 12:27:00 PM
...if you look at the mascot on his sweatshirt, the question is...What the hell is that?  It looks like the cross between an eagle/polar bear. 

It's a Lion facing to the viewer's right, with flowing mane to the left.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on December 07, 2007, 11:29:14 AM
I am not disagreeing with you on that-- actually, I think we are both saying the same thing.  What I am noting, however, is that, given the widespread use of this-- including at BU, SJU and UST, it appears to be more of a business necessity than a mere option and desire to be more secular. 

In other words, the problem isn't in the decision itself, because it was already made by the market in which you are operating.  The problem is in the market of operation-- in other words, society itself.

But that isn't what Kersten is saying-- she blames it on UST making those decisions-- instead of addressing the root problem.  That's what frustrates me-- make UST look bad for a decision that it couldn't help but make.

The Catholic church is one of the wealthiest entities in the history of mankind, and they are very unwavering in their values.  However, I see your point that the church's "services" different in nature from an educational institution, in that the church does not have the burden of creating people who are marketable in the workforce.

Johnnie_esq - it's clear you're much more educated on this topic than I, and probably everyone on this board for that matter (especially since there are virtually no Tommies - kind of like their attendance at FB games), and I'm certainly not trying to argue with you as to the direction of UST, but you've made my point (which is not contrary to yours) that, whether one likes it or not, chasing the Almighty Dollar is a higher priority to them than following the Almighty.

BTW, In my opinion, Bethel has made some decisions in that same vein.

Quote from: DustySJU on December 07, 2007, 10:38:49 AM
27;  I'm not the weenie, I actually attempted to secure a spot on a private jet to go watch the game. 

Take that.   

... but they wouldn't let weenies on the jet?  Just kidding - you set yourself up for that one. 

Quote from: DustySJU on December 07, 2007, 10:29:14 AM
BU;  It's called being a weenie.

A WEENIE calls people names in a chat room.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on December 07, 2007, 10:09:18 AM
I am not a big Kersten fan, and this article she illustrates why-- here she shows her true colors.  She often rails about the lack of morality in society and in politicians, and now UST isn't Catholic enough for her.

Oh that's why I like KK... a non_completely_leftist voice in an utterly leftist paper.