Soxbadger

And at that point you will see less people applying for college which will result in college tuition going down. What is funny is that if you ask college professors, etc they would ikely say that they are underpaid and underfunded.

So the new rumor floating around on a Wisconsin site is that 3 teams will join the Big 10: Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers

More people want to go to college. There are the same amount of good colleges. Therefore college tuition will continue to increase until there is a decrease in supply of college applicants or demand for higher education. If college isnt worth as much, why are more people applying to college and graduate schools each year? I know that I wouldnt have my job without my degrees, you cant have my job without it. I dont like how much college costs, but I understand its a competitive market.

So you think I should be able to rack up $250k + of educational costs and have everyone else pay for it because I should just get as much education as possible? There becomes a point where you need to decide the cost and benefit of additional education. Not to mention that you can take AP classes to offset a lot of the costs (I started as a second semester soph, could have started as a junior if I had taken French and received retro-credits), When you are on track for ivy league or elite education, you understand the costs. Some kids who were smart (meaning that they could have gone to ivy league, not that they were smart for forgoing ivy league) did not go to the top schools because they could not afford it, some chose to go there despite that risk. Why should the kid who passed up the chance now be stuck with the bill because they were responsible? I have spent over $200k on education, that was graduating with my first degree in 3.5 years, 2 degrees in 4 years and a law degree in 3 years. I am not even including the cost of apartments, food etc, that is just tuition. My numbers are not even that high compared to many people who made different choices about the schools they went to after High School. I just dont see why people should get a double benefit. First they get the more valuable education, second they dont have to pay for it? That makes no sense.

I have student loans (but I have much less in comparison to most in my profession) and I simply do not understand this statement. The Obama's chose to go to some of the most prestigious universities in the US. The key word there is "CHOSE", no one forces students to go to Harvard or Princeton where youll pay through the nose. The reason that you go there is because when you graduate you have a chance to be President, or any other job that you want. Would Obama trade a free University of Hawaii education for a Harvard one? Unlikely. So because he chose to go some where that is super expensive, I should now pay for him because I chose to go some where that I could afford? Not that the University of Wisconsin is cheap for out of state tuition, but its no where near what my sister paid for Washington University in Stl, or what I would have paid if I decided to go to private liberal arts school or ivy league. Will all of those ivy leaguers send me a part of their paychecks when they are making 3x more than me? I could understand forgiving the debts of students who went to in state schools, etc. But if you chose to go to ivy league or out of state, I dont think that the govt and taxpayers should be footing the bill.

Its a ladys car (my sister has one). But I also have a car that would be considered a girls car, and its from HS, so who am I to judge?

Thats the word on the Wisconsin scout site as well. Although its just talking about a thread started on a Pitt board. Supposedly it was by a first time poster, but then backed up by a 5 year poster. The story was that the scholarship players had been told and then some of them started posting on twitter and other social networks. All of those posts have been allegedly been removed. At this point Id say its nothing more than a rumor. Although Pitt has always been one of the top 5 most likely teams.

Federal laws will apply. Generally the Fed needs state police to help enforce the laws because the Federal govt just doesnt have enough agents to be tracking down nickel and dime bags. Thus if a state makes it legal, it would cost the Fed a ton of money to try and enforce the federal laws, therefore it likely would go unenforced.

Yeah it can, welcome to Soxtalk.

Sox Ace. We know what I say is fact. And the world would be a better place if you all just blindly agree.

Ill tell you this Steve. No team starting Jim Bob-Hicks will ever win a World Series. (hahahaa)

Steve, Dont you get it. There are about 3 people in this thread that understand more than everyone else. The rest of us should just take what they say as canon.

As I said before, its my opinion and I hold it in pretty high regard. I might be wrong, I might be right, but Ive earned the right to give an opinion and stand by it. That much I know.

So .334 v .367 id say is "slightly" better. I think Thome would probably put up better stats, I just understand the logic behind the decision made by the White Sox. I guess I just dont think its as big of a deal as some.

I cant seem to get woba for Kotsay only on the White Sox. Ill definitely concede that Thome would hit for more power, But the last 2 months Kotsay's obp was almost .400, compared to Thome's being below .300. I think that Thome fell off a production cliff, and I dont see him rebounding.

Hyperbole wont get far with me. But Ill go ahead and say that today Curtis Enis is the better football player than Walter Payton. Granted Walter Payton is dead, but the point remains. Just because Thome in his prime was far better than Kotsay, does not prove that Thome this year is going to be anything more than slightly better than Kotsay. What exact statistic from last year makes you believe that Jim Thome is "significantly" better than Kotsay?

1. May not be a CF, but he can play the field. Thome could not play the field, so Kotsay still holds a distinct defensive advantage. Even .1 > 0 2. Thome may be slightly better offensively than Kotsay this year, its hard to tell given Thome's decline over the past few years. I think that when you account that Thome offers nothing outside of offense, there is a much greater risk with him as an asset compared to Kotsay. At least if Kotsay hits for nothing, he can do something productive. 3. Kotsay may not start, but Im pretty sure that he could find a place on the bench for the Twins. Which is the role he will have on the Sox, unless he plays like the end of last year, and then Im fine with him starting every day. 4. How can you say Kotsay's best years are behind him when we are talking about Thome who turns 40 by the end of the season? Kotsay just turned 34, which is younger than when the Sox acquired Thome. If anything Kotsay will regress but he has a lessor chance of falling of the deep end like Thome could.

HE WAS TRADED MIDSEASON TO BOSTON. (Last part was unnecessary) But come on, he played 90 games through August for the Braves. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/...b&year=2008 Here is the game log so you can see how he starts almost every day at CF.

No he was a full time starter in 2007 he was just injured and underwent surgery in ST. Mark Kotsay was acquired by the Braves to be the starting CF. He played 88 games and had 345 PA. That averages over 4 PA per game. That is the definition of a starter. So contrary to your "opinion" Kotsay has been a starter through 2008, until his trade to Boston to be a bench player. Steve, No I dont like lies. How can you say 88 games and 345 pa's is not a starter? Or that when Kotsay missed 2007 due to injury and then came back to start, he wasnt a starter? (56 games 226 Pa's, averaging over 4 per game) I hope that you were being sarcastic.

I disagree completely. I understand supply and demand, I also understand that the supply of players who can play DH is extremely larger than the supply of players who can play OF, 1b and DH. In 2008 Kotsay started for Atlanta, 88 games, 345 ab's. Besides for being injured in 2007, Kotsay started every season prior to 2008. So your saying because Kotsay didnt start for Boston, last year, he hasnt been a starter for "years"? Its unlikely Thome would have started for the Red Sox last year, and clearly the White Sox felt Kotsay was > than Thome. So outside of perhaps the Twins, where will Thome be starting? Do people even know who Mark Kotsay is? The guy started every year through 2008. How is that not holding a starting position in MLB?

I think the simpler answer is generally the better answer. No one is signing Thome because he doesnt have very much left in the tank and showed in LA that he cant be counted on as a bench player.

Kotsay may not be "that" good. But I believe that Thome may be "that" bad this year. He is getting older, his bat speed looked like slightly slower last year and I cant imagine it will be any better this year. If Thome is such a valuable player, why is no one else signing him for the bargain price? He just didnt look like he had much left in the tank.

Thunderbolt, Pray tell how the stats after July of last year showed that Thome was a better hitter than Kotsay? Thome August: .238 .298 .500 .798 Kotsay August: .333 .389 .467 .856 Kotsay September: .324 .385 .493 .878 Im not even including Thome's September because it was so horrific based on sporadic performance. But please given this set of data, give me an argument for how Thome was better?

Matt, As I said before. My own eyes told me that Kotsay was more dangerous than Thome. The stats then proved what my eyes saw. It may not turn out that way next year, but based on what I saw last year I just didnt think Thome had much left in the tank. Its my opinion, something I generally hold in high regard.

Your right, why would I ever think how they played last year was more important than how they played in their career? Given that gem, why dont the Sox sign Frank Thomas because his career statistically was better than both and his my favorite player so how could you go wrong there? I think there is a slight difference between you watching a couple of Yunkiesky Betancourt ab's and Ozzie watching Kotsay and Thome every at bat last season. Maybe Im wrong, but I wouldnt bet your reputation on it. Btw, the stats do bear mentioning: Kostay on the Sox: .292 .349 .434 .783 Thome on the Sox:249 .372 .493 .864 Thome August: 238 .298 .500 .798 Kotsay August: 333 .389 .467 .856 Kotsay September: .324 .385 .493 .878 Guess my eye saw something in the last 2 months. Thome had lost something and Kotsay clearly had picked it up. (The post went to early for some reason sorry)