Soxbadger

G&T, That is why we have lawyers who specialize in ethics, so that they can tell me what I can or cant do. I just didnt want there to be any questions and potentially have some ardc complaint over trying to be helpful. lostfan, If youre dealing with Chicago, you may need to go through the alderman. I definitely suggest getting alderman approval before you do it. The last thing you want is to go through the whole process and have the alderman reject it for some ridiculous reason. Generally if you work with alderman etc, beforehand it makes the process a lot smoother. So judging by your statements do you have a location in mind? Or just a general area? You also may need to check on the zoning to see if a liquor license can be issued there. Generally speaking its easier to get a liquor license on a property that already has one or had one.

Well there are all these crazy rules about contacting potential clients and people, and Im not 100% sure what the rules are with regard to posting on a message board. I have no problem giving opinions that have a disclaimer, but I just wasnt sure where it was going so I wanted make sure that I didnt some how get myself into trouble. Anyways, as for opening a sports bar, that shouldnt be to difficult. The biggest obstacles will be obtaining the appropriate liquor licenses. Ive done this for a liquor store in Chicago, its just annoyingly time consuming.

Im not sure how ethical it is for me to answer that question. I see that you are from Maryland, so are you looking for Maryland advice or Illinois advice? I know there are a few Illinois attorneys, but im not sure there are any Maryland ones here.

The only reason id be surprised about a Harbaugh hire is that he went to Michigan and would have a good chance to coach there in the future.

Rock, What if Texas refuses to play TCU, or OSU wont play Cincy? How is that remedied? Basketball is easier because there are 30 games and about 13 are OOC. In football you have 12 games, 4 OOC and if you lose 1 you may have just ruined your chance at a NC title game. There is no incentive for OSU to play Cincy. If OSU goes undefeated, they likely are in the NC game, all playing Cinci does is add risk.

Then youll get arguments such as: No one would play TCU, etc. A lot of the problem is that the schedule is made years in advance that some times what looked like a good game turns out to be bad one.

It depends on what the goal of the system is. If the goal is to determine an absolute champion, then its beyond flawed, its completely unusable. If the goal is to make money for schools, the NCAA and give students the most post season opportunities, then this is probably the best system. The problem is that you will never get the NCAA or schools to agree to a 64 team playoff (which is 5 extra games), unless you completely change the entire season. You would probably have to cut the regular season to 9 games and then have the playoffs. That would mean a bad team may only play 9 games. You would have crazy scheduling issues because no one would want to play tough teams. Youd have all the power teams have schedules like TCU, Boise, because there is no reason to play USC v OSU, if that 1 game may keep you from the playoffs. There is just no perfect system, I wish there was.

Ace, Havent you seen the David Chappelle documentary about the black blind KKK member?

I guess I just think that no matter how much its expanded people are going to have the same complaints. When the NCAA tourney comes you hear of expanding the field to 128. If you went to 16, there is another line where people complain about. There are numerous teams with 3 losses and a Central Michigan team with 2 losses. Not all of them would make the top "16". There is always going to be a team that is left out, I think bowl games are a fun tradition and it gives more college players the chance to have a college defining moment. I believe there are currently 33 bowls. That gives 66 teams a change to play in the postseason and give their fans something to cheer about. Maybe it doesnt select the best champion, but it gives more people a chance to experience something.

I doubt there has been a year where there have been 8 unbeaten teams. (I think this year with 5 unbeaten is the most). There probably has been a year where there have been 8 unbeaten and 1 loss teams or just 8 1 loss teams. But not all wins and losses are equal. If Florida played Cinci's schedule, how many losses do you think they would have? If they didnt have to play the SEC championship, there were 6 undefeated and 6 with 2 losses. How do you pick 8 from that? And if you only pick 4, 1 of the unbeaten's doesnt get a chance.

Thats not 100% true. There are scenarios where 8 or more teams could go undefeated. Its highly unlikely, but the possibility exists. Thats why I really just dont care about a playoff system. It may be more enjoyable, it may be less enjoyable, but it will in no way end the argument over who is the best team. If anything it potentially could create more arguments. IE Florida makes the playoff after losing to Alabama. Alabama loses in the first round to opponent X, Florida goes on to win the the playoffs but never faces Alabama or opponent X. Its just for fun.

I dont know. I just know that the we hear about the 65th team every year and that there are fans of teams who constantly believe that they deserved a similar chance. I personally think 64 is a large enough field, but I also would be pretty upset if my team went 20-11 and some how didnt make the tournament while another team that was 19-12 did. But this is just this year. Next year there could be 10 teams with 1 loss and 10 teams with 2 losses, and maybe one of those 2 loss teams beat a 1 loss team. There is just no way to really create a fair system. Its fun to watch, but its just entertainment.

Not every team. There is always an arbitrary line drawn where one team does not get a chance. In the basketball tournament that line is 64, if you are the 65th team you dont get a chance. In football if there was a playoff it would be the 9th team, or the 17th team, or whatever the case may be. "Deserve" is arbitrary. We each define it our own way.

Its for entertainment. There is no perfect system. Even in basketball the tournament doesnt mean that the best team wins, it just is fun to watch. The system now, is a lot better than it was where you may not have even seen Alabama/Texas, and instead saw Alabama play a random team, Texas play a random team and the other unbeaten teams not play either. The old system would have had potentially 3-4 ties of undefeated teams. Bowl games are good for some reasons, bad for others, but they give us entertainment and that is the goal.

Even though Wisconsin is going to the less "prestigious" bowl, the Miami -Wisconsin match up should be a fun game to watch.

You have a very strange interpretation of the facts: Notice the time line: A) Adidas makes a statement. B ) UCF and Jordan rely on that statement to their detriment. C) Adidas changes their position after the others have relied on that statement. Lets go to a legal source for some guidance here: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/detrimental-reliance/ As for negligence, you have misinterpreted how I was using the word. The negligence is on the person who works for Adidas who told UCF it was okay, without following the proper procedure. IE They had a duty to follow procedure, through negligence they failed to follow procedure, as a result they caused damage to UCF/Jordan. Back it up with a source? The newspaper is not a lawyer, so far there has not been 1 article cited that has quoted a lawyer on this. Why do I care what "Iliana Limón" has to say on this subject? Is she licensed to practice law? Unlikely Has she passed the bar in any state? Unlikely Has she even taken L1 level law classes? Unlikely In fact the whole article is poorly written and makes no sense with the headline. "Headline states: Might End in Court", but the only information about a court is: "A potential court date looms for UCF and adidas.", notice how neither party suggests that there is a potential lawsuit being filed. You dont have a "court date" before a complaint is filed. From Adidas side, while its true that UCF may have breached the contract, that does not mean Adidas has a cause of action against UCF. One of the elements for Breach of Contract is "damages". Unless there is a liquidated damages clause in the contract, its unlikely that Adidas has suffered any "real" damages (monetary) and therefore its not worth the time to sue UCF. The only way that Adidas would sue UCF is if there was a restrictive covenant in the contract that prevents UCF from getting another sponsor within X period of time. If Adidas breached that clause, then its likely Adidas would sue for an injunction preventing Adidas from using the other sponsor. UCF on the other hand seems to be taking the approach of trying to work things out without litigation. This suggests that there is some sort of restrictive covenant and that UCF is trying to negotiate with Adidas to remove the covenant in exchange for UCF not suing them. Obviously Ive never read the contracts myself, and there is really no need for me to find another source, unless that source is as an actually attorney who has read the contract and could give me specific information on the clauses in question, and/or if I could read the deposition transcript of the Adidas representative. Outside of that its merely someone's opinion based on a set of circumstances.

There is no breach of contract, which is why Adidas wont be suing. If anything there is a good argument that Adidas broke their deal with UCF. In the law if some one has "apparent authority" and you rely on that authority, it can be binding against the principal. In this situation, the Adidas representative held himself out as having the authority to make this decision. If he did not have that authority it was up to the Adidas employee to tell UCF: "I do not have the authority to make this decision, I will speak with the higher ups and make sure what I am saying is right" Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Adidas to make it clear who does or does not have authority. If Adidas fails to make it clear, its Adidas who is responsible (in the laws eyes) not UCF. (Unless it specifically states in the contract that XYY must approve all changes.) Adidas did not do this. UCF legitimately relied on the statements made by Adidas, Adidas changed their mind after the fact. There are a few different causes of action against Adidas that I can think of right now, detrimental reliance, fraud, etc. If you as a business its your responsibility to make sure that other people know who has what authority. If you fail to do this, its your problem not the other persons. There was no duty for UCF to check further (unless by contract), it is entirely Adidas' responsibility (at least according to US law.) 1. As stated above, false. If you and I have a contract and it says "You wont refer to me as Badger on the boards and if you do, you owe me $100" and you come to me and I say "Hey Supersteve go ahead and call me Badger, Im fine with it", you would not have a case for breach of contract. Or, potentially I could win on breach, but you would win on either fraud or detrimental reliance. 2. If an Adidas rep lied to the school and Jordan, it should be up to Adidas to find a solution, not UCF. We do not let liars benefit in the law, its called fraud. 3. How are those reasonable to Jordan? He was lied to and so he is punished? That does not seem very fair to me. Why should he sit out because Adidas lied? Shouldn't the party who is most at fault (Adidas) suffer the consequences of their action. 4. Jordan agreed to wear white Nikes that had no visible logo with an Adidas ankle wrap above the shoe. Jordan was wearing the Adidas logo. The problem with that statement is as ive explained, the Adidas employee appeared to have the authority to make the statements that he did. You are acting like they went to Footlocker and asked if they could do it. This rep is probably the regional head of Adidas and probably promised UCF over and over again that it was fine. A school doesnt just do something like this unless they are given an explicit okay. Why should UCF and Jordan be punished for a business using fraud and deceptive practices? There is a legitimate argument that could be made that Adidas purposefully lied to Jordan so that he would go to UCF, and then once they were there they would try and strong arm him into wearing Adidas. From the facts, that is the most likely scenario in my mind. Its either that, or complete negligence by the Adidas representative in not clearing it through the proper channels. But if that was the case, you would have heard that the Adidas representative was fired for over stepping his authority. Clearly there has been no indication that Adidas is upset with their own person, so to me that indicates that Adidas was fine with the situation at one point, but later changed its mind. While it may have been smarter for UCF to ask for the contract to be amended, it some times is just not practical. We dont know how big the contract is or how the clauses are written. This may have been as simple as an amendment or rider to the contract, it may have been as difficult as rewriting the entire contract which may have called for an extension or the contracted being renegotiated. Whatever the case, it was up to Adidas to make sure what they said to UCF was correct. The proof of this is that Adidas only canceled the contract and didnt sue UCF. If Adidas was in the right, I guarantee that there is a clause in there that has liquidated damages and that Adidas would be suing UCF for money. The problem is that Adidas has unclean hands so they could never recover. The clause for canceling the contract is probably pretty specific and they used something in that to break the contract. The facts really show that there is just no way that UCF feels Jordan did anything wrong. They could have told him if he didnt agree theyd take his scholarship, or that they wouldnt play him etc. UCF has stood behind Jordan that suggests that they believe Jordan is in the right. My guess is that there is some restrictive covenant that states UCF cant have a different sponsor for x amount of time so the school is waiting on that. I also expect that either Nike or MJ himself will find a way to give UCF the money that they lost on the contract. At the end of the day, either the school, adidas or both mislead Jordan. He shouldnt suffer, of all the parties he is the most innocent. He told them what it would take for him to commit and they said that it was fine. And Jordan never breached any contract, he doesnt have privity of contract with Adidas. Only UCF can break the contract and they could have refused to let Jordan play.

Some mocks already have Benn going 16 or so, so there is a very good chance that he gets picked in the first round.

If my argument was that RPI is a good way of valuing a team, then yes, you would be correct. But since I dont believe that Duke was the best team last year (RPI 1) nor was Pitt the number 2 team (RPI 2), I dont really put much stock in RPI. RPI is a fun number for people to argue about, but its not a very good number. Pomeroy is much better, http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2009 62 Illinois St. MVC 76 Creighton MVC 81 Northern Iowa MVC 29 Wisconsin 50 Michigan 51 Minnesota RPI is inherently flawed in that all that matters is you play good teams, who then win against good teams. So when Northern Iowa lost to Marquette by 30 versus Wisconsin losing by 3, its counted the exact same way, and both teams get the same credit for Marquette beating other teams. RPI is outdated and not very useful. But I understand that RPI is the losing schools best friend, and why many schools hang their hats on RPI as a way of justifying that they were "good" even when the facts suggest otherwise. (Edit) By the way Wisconsin is 6 in rpi right now, and 29 in Pomeroy. So its not like Im just using Pomeroy to make my point, Pomeroy is consistently better.

Not a bad draw for US. Hopefully they perform well though.

Uh no. Lets put this in perspective using Wisconsin as an example. Wisconsin finished 6th last year in the Big 10, meaning that all 3 MVC teams would have to have been better than Wisconsin. Wisconsin was 20-11, losing only 3 OOC games. Wisconsin's OOC losses were UConn (ranked #2), Marquette and Texas (ranked #8). Why do you believe that Creighton or UNI would have finished higher than Wisconsin? In comparison, Creighton lost to Arkansas-Little Rock and Nebraska OOC. Northern Iowa lost to Illinois Chicago, lost to Marquette by 30 (Wisconsin lost by 3), lost to Iowa by 19, lost to Wyoming and lost to Iowa State. So no, I dont believe there is any rationale argument that either of those teams could have finished higher than Wisconsin. Last year Wisconsin had: RPI Rank: 45 SOS Rank: 16 UNI: RPI Rank: 59 SOS Rank: 84 Creighton: RPI Rank: 40 SOS Rank: 111 Notice the difference in SOS. Wisconsin was 16 and had similar records to 84 and 111. Sorry to bring facts to this argument, but its getting ridiculous. .

haha yah I thought it was a joke when I saw the link on a Wisconsin board, but when I saw the video it was just to funny.

Unless youre Rich Rodriquez. Then you leave your team right before its biggest bowl game in history so that you can get Pryor.

Anyone who was interested in Royce White, here is a video of his first action this season. http://wcco.com/video/[email protected] Youll notice he holds his block well against the Security Guard who is attempting to apprehend him for theft.

I didnt really think Wiscosnin would win, they played well for most of the game and were able to hang on. Hopefully they can have a pretty good year.