illinilaw08

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 03:22 PM) Well I've pointed out the main reasons - private lenders versus the government, and re-payment options. The government also can't selectively choose who it loans money to. The only requirement, that i'm aware of, is whether the person is going to school. A person could be dirt poor with no prospect of paying it back and the government is still giving them money. Private lenders can appreciate that risk and build it into the loan and/or their business. Same with credit card companies. The government can't. Ok - that's our disconnect. Private student loans are afforded the same priority as government student loans under the Bankruptcy Code. I can see the argument that debt to the government should be treated differently than private debt. I don't necessarily buy that argument, but I see where it comes from. I also see the argument that private debt for education needs to be more difficult to get rid of in bankruptcy because the alternative is to push lending costs much higher (greater risk of default). But that's why getting private banks out of lending for education (the government increases the amount of direct loans you can take and reduces the interest rate on that debt) would be sustainable policy. Right now, the cost of education - when that cost doesn't yield the promised benefits - is basically impossible to get rid of - and that's a huge problem. EDIT: The question regarding the means of the person applying for the loan are, I don't think, particularly relevant to whether educational loans are a good investment or not. Particularly since there is no expectation that the federal loans are repaid immediately. The money is loaned out on the expectation that a college degree is a solid investment...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 11:16 AM) I think it's 75k single, 155k married before it phases out. That's upper class definitions, not middle class. I mean this is gong to have to happen as tuition continues to go up and up at the crazy pace it's going. It's going to cost my son $250k/year to go to school in 2031. I'm fine making it dischargeable, but it will have to be clearly defined what hardship means. Student loans are a different animal because there's nothing to repossess in a loss, like your home or other property. It's held by the government, not a private entity. And the government works with you to pay it off unlike most private lenders with use of deferments, different payment plans, etc. I think it's a different animal. Maybe the private student loans should be dischargeable, but not the government ones. Should be annually since it's based on your reported income. This is, to me, an important point. My understanding is that most of the terrible student loan stories involve private debt rather than direct loans. To your other point, student loans are the exact same as any unsecured debt - credit cards, medical bills, etc. - you get a judgment and then try to collect. I'm not sure why that makes them a different animal.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 09:51 AM) It's not like there aren't other benefits provided by the government to students: pretty favorable lending, tax deductions of interest on the loans, continuing education credits, etc. You income out of the tax deduction on student loan interest pretty quickly. I haven't been able to take it in years - and I definitely consider myself squarely within the middle class. If I were changing student loan policy, I'd do the following: 1) Increase the amount of direct loans you can take in a school year. When I was in law school, the combination of subsidized and unsubsidized direct loans I could take in a given year barely covered tuition plus rent for the year - and I had a scholarship. The goal should be to continue to provide low-interest loans to students - in my experience, the private loans have higher lending costs (taking away one of the above referenced incentives from Jenks); 2) Make it easier to discharge student loans in bankruptcy after a time. Something like no discharge unless (1) you've been out of school for greater than some number of years (so students can't graduate and immediately head into bk); (2) you've made consistent payments over those years (with exceptions for hardship cases); (3) your current income falls below a certain threshold; and (4) you have made reasonable efforts during those years to find a job in your field. Almost any other debt you can make go away when circumstances change and you can't afford it anymore. Lost your job? Surrender your house in foreclosure, get rid of the giant deficiency in bankruptcy. Credit card interest killing you? Get rid of it in bankruptcy. Business gone belly up, get rid of those personal guarantees in bankruptcy. The fact that student loan debt - which is basically a necessity - is given such preferential treatment - is mind boggling. As a result, I'd be strongly in favor of a system that provided an out from under student loan debt for people who were struggling under it. Further, I don't think there would be significant abuse of the system. For me, I'd love to get rid of my student loan debt. But I wouldn't intentionally tank my career to get rid of it. To Reddy, on the income based repayment, how frequently do you have to update your income information with the feds?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 04:44 PM) Students don't have any collateral, so it makes sense that it would be difficult to discharge. The problem is going forward the amount of debt is going to keep rising and more and more people are going to take the "well i'll just pay whatever I can for 25 years and then it'll be gone" option, leaving the rest of the country with the increasing bills. Students can discharge literally any other debt that they get when they don't have collateral. Credit card debts for one. Medical debts for another. Personal loans to friends. The deficiency on a car loan (after the collateral is sold for pennies on the dollar). Literally almost no other private debt gets that favorable treatment (domestic support obligations - but that's about it). In fact, it's actually easier to discharge tax debt than student loan debt. The question, to me, is how is a consumer's money put to the best use. College is almost a pre-requisite to finding a good job. The costs associated with that degree are growing at an unsustainable rate. I don't see why putting together programs that assist with repaying that burden - again a burden that's a pre-requisite to almost any decent job - is so very problematic. Now, in the case of the income based repayment plan or whatever (a program I admit to not being particularly familiar with), it shouldn't be a windfall - so if someone's income goes up in that 25 years or whatever, their payments should increase accordingly. Ideally, a program like that assists people when their means are most likely to be at their lowest - immediately when they graduate - and should be caught up when income rises within that 25 year period or whatever.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 04:02 PM) So here's what you could do. Or maybe what I'd do. Student loan payments are regulated. They are all subject to a once-a-year payment amount adjustment. The adjustment is made on the amount of net income from your annual tax filing, and a percentage cap is set so people aren't overwhelmed. No forgiveness - ever. If it take you 50 years to repay it but at only $50 a month, so be it. Payments always go interest amount first, then principal. If your payment is less than the interest amount, you make no ground on the principal, but won't see your balance go up either. Rates are set at loan generation as with any fixed-rate loan, but with a cap of a certain percentage to prevent people getting stiffed. Finally, in order to make sure there is enough loan money available, the government can set up their own competitor, where the rate is set at a profitable amount above inflation (current and projections), such that they can not only cover losses and program costs but bank a little money to go to some sort of college grant program. This means they will be on par with what a bank might do, and keep the banks from running rates TOO high because they'd get yanked down by their competitor. Protections for the loaning institutions and the loan recipients in there. No cost to taxpayers either. Doesn't need to be overly complicated, IMO. Student loans get protections that basically no other private debt get under any relevant law - they basically cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy filing.* As a result, people who are struggling with student loan debt can't get out from under it - as opposed to someone who has a business go belly up. If the tradeoff to that is that there are programs like the income repayment plan or the "work for the government for 10 years and have your loans forgiven," I fail to see the concern. Those debts are already given absurdly preferred status under the law. * I say basically because the Bankruptcy Code has provisions that allow student loans to be discharged with a requisite show of "hardship," but the cases that allow for hardship discharges involve the saddest .0000001% of people struggling with student loan debt.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) I do think it's one of the worst jobs available. I'd rate it Broncos 49ers Falcons Buffalo Bears Jets Raiders If Manning doesn't come back, the Broncos job isn't as appealing as some of the others (in my opinion). Brock Osweiler doesn't scream immediate contender and the defense is full of high priced veterans. If Manning comes back, they are contenders again next year. If he doesn't, their offense regresses by a lot. But that's one of the compelling arguments for Kubiak out there. If they think CJ Anderson is a top flight back, Kubiak's schemes could let the Broncos transition seamlessly into a running team if they get competent QB play from somewhere. Like Fox for the Bears. He's a flawed coach, but he has a strong track record on the defensive side of the ball. Barnwell had a good column on Fox yesterday that touches on a lot of his strengths and weaknesses as a coach. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/john-fox-denver-broncos/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 13, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) Tate. Tate isn't a threat offensively, although he's shown that he's capable of driving and getting some FT's or hitting a jumpshot every now and again. What he does do is run the offense better. He's a better passer. He understands how to dribble into the lane and pass to an open shooter. I get that the roster isn't 100% and isn't what Groce was planning, but it's called adjustments. That's what good coaches do. I haven't seen it yet from this guy. Also totally disagree on the run and gun comments. That's how you attack good defenses with terrible offenses. I'm not saying you run down the court and jack up a three (they do that anyway!) i'm saying you quickly get into your set to maximize the number of possessions you have when you know the other team on their offensive possession is going to take the entire shot clock and won't be very efficient scoring the ball. I saw (and continue to see) way too much Weber bulls*** offense where everyone is at the three point line, passing for 30 seconds before jacking up a contested three. It's garbage offense and hasn't, and doesn't, work unless everyone is on fire (the Maryland game). I mean, someone explain to me why they weren't doing some ISO post plays for Hill? Why is it that after 4 years Egwu hasn't learned to look for a cutter during his post "moves" (I think i've seen him pass one time out of the post in about 50 attempts this season). Why aren't they running designed plays to get Egwu an open 15 footer on the baseline which he's deadly at? Why is it either terrible post move or 3 pt shot from him? Snider is absolutely the biggest issue here. He changes the trajectory of this entire program if he honors that verbal. As it is, this program is stuck out of the big dance unless Murray reclassifies or JCL becomes the best freshman in the conference next year. I don't see this team being any better next year with the additions of Abrams, Paul and JCL and the losses of Rice and Egwu. Jesus, we have to rely on Maverick Morgan and Darius Paul for an entire season. That's scary. There were a handful of occasions in the second half where Illinois ran ISO for Hill who attempted to post up smaller defenders. Hill ended up getting moved out of the post each time and catching the ball 17 feet from the basket, not being able to back the defender down, and forcing a tough, contested shot. Right now, Hill post up isn't a great option. Nebraska was running two or three defenders at Egwu every time he caught the ball in the post (4 or 5 times by my recollection). They also weren't guarding Tate at all beyond 15 feet, really restricting the ability to find space for Egwu to get 15 footers. The problem for Illinois is that, if teams don't guard Tate past 15 feet, you are playing 4 on 5 every time down. If Starks is taking horrible, ill advised shots, you are playing 4 on 5 each time down. It's really difficult to run a competent offense with point guards who provide that little value offensively. My evaluation of Groce through this point in his Illinois career? He's an above average defensive coach who is very good at keeping his teams positive through adversity. Clearly, as an offensive coach, he needs a point guard who can score and pass off the bounce - Brandon Paul is the closest thing he's had to that at Illinois, so his offenses have struggled. If Groce continues to be unable to close on point guards (no PG in the '16 class is unacceptable - at least Tracy can handle the position next year), or if JCL hasn't shown the ability to run the point, and the offense still doesn't look fluid, then Groce's seat gets warm. EDIT: Tate is 2-31 from 3 in his college career. Tate shooting more from the outside is definitely not the answer.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 03:12 PM) For the same reason that you don't see teams running and gunning against Wisconsin. If you aren't turning a team over, they use a lot of clock on offense and they aren't crashing the offensive glass it is hard to play at a fast tempo at the college level without taking bad shots. Pushing the ball against a defense that is set when you don't have guys who are great at creating their own shots generally isn't that effective. It's also hard to run and gun when you only really go 6 deep. This team is going to win games against relatively equal or better competition if someone gets hot and they play great defense. The defense was there last night, but unlike against Maryland, no one was on fire and, instead, everyone was awful. Nebraska flat out didn't guard Tate during certain possessions and Starks took several horrible shots. Yesterday, on offense, the Illini were playing 4 on 5 no matter who was playing PG. Not many coaches can coach around that. Cosby's regression from his time at Seton Hall (and offseason reports from Champaign that said he was the second best player on the roster) is positively Adam Dunn in Year 1 for the Sox-like. No one could have foreseen how bad Cosby has been this year. Ultimately, however, it's unfortunate that this roster is without two of the five projected starters (and objectively it's best player this year). And its unfortunate that Snider backed out of his commitment on signing day. And, yes, it's unfortunate that Groce misevaluated Ulis (worst miss by an Illini coach since Self misevaluated Iguodala or Webber misevaluated Hummel).

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 09:47 AM) Maryland is only - 2 against Illinois tonight. I know it's hard to win on the road in the B1G, but that seems crazy. Particularly with Rice out. One of Cosby or Nunn absolutely must get going or else that's going to be a blowout.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 4, 2015 -> 11:27 AM) With the way Illinois has looked this year I'd be shocked if it is Illinois. Why come play for a struggling team that looks poorly coached when you have Kentucky and Kansas as options? Glad he's deciding early, whichever way it comes down. If it's not Illinois, the staff can devote all their resources to Lovett/Murray.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) I didn't say that. And i'm not saying fire Groce right now. But if it's another sub .500 season and a missed tourney bid? Yeah, you better start looking for potential replacements even if he gets another year to work it out. Are you not concerned about the annual trend of his teams losing games against high major programs? Games in which they have a lead in the 2nd half and choke it away? It's happens WAY too much. Sure I'm concerned. But Groce's teams have closed out seasons well (including last year when they are a missed Tracy floater against Michigan from maybe making the tournament). I thought Groce exceeded expectations in Year 1 and was at expectations in Year 2. But this is a long term rebuild to where Illinois was when Self left. No one was beating the door down to come to Illinois when Weber left. And there's a ton of uncertainty with changing coaches - particularly if players don't stay. There's a lot of young talent on this roster and there's a lot of young talent in the pipeline. There's plenty of reason to like the direction this program is trending and the way Groce is building the program. He gets at least four years before his seat can even start to get warm...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 04:57 PM) I don't think the program was THAT bad. It wasn't a good program. It wasn't really trending upwards. But it wasn't at the bottom either. The team tanked, they knew Weber was gone, so it was a lost season. You still had 5-6 starters that Groce used heavily/uses heavily in Paul, Richardson, Griffey, Egwu and Abrams. That team managed a 7 seed a tournament win. But after the four Seniors (Paul, Richardson, McClaurin, and Griffey) graduated, and the four guys transferred (Shaw, Henry, Ibby and Langford), what were you expecting last year? Further, Groce's first team had 7-8 decent basketball players and went through a horrible slump until the win against Indiana because Tyler Griffey couldn't hit water falling out of a boat at the start of B1G play. In year 2, you had 5 freshman (none of whom were instant impact kids) and 2 transfers sitting out. Rice, Bertrand, Abrams, Egwu and Ekey was your starting 5. And even when Hill and Nunn were ready to go, it was a very, very thin roster in terms of B1G talent. Again, no NBA talent. No top of the B1G talent. This year's roster is better. For whatever reason, however, Cosby has been terrible. The Abrams injury has hurt more than we expected. And neither of Morbert has made the expected strides. It's a better team, but with Finke redshirting and Abrams hurt, this roster still only has 10 scholarship players. Next year, the talent continues to get better. Still no point guard, but the overall talent gets better and Groce's initial class gets older. We're all frustrated with the loss today, but to say that Groce's first two teams were extremely talented is very revisionist history. Also, let's not give up on this season and fire Groce after the first B1G game...

QUOTE (scs787 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) And yet they'll have the 10th most cap space next year and can get out of Jays contract for just a 3 mill cap hit the following year. Four of those guys are in rookie deals, so it's not really an apt comparison either. Barnwell had a good column yesterday that included a bunch of Cutler trade scenarios... http://grantland.com/the-triangle/chicago-...tler-scapegoat/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 09:56 AM) I did not say that they were a cure-all. I cited specific research on a case in California where the addition of force-wide body cameras led to a 60% reduction in police use of force and an 88% reduction in complaints against police. So while some of your anecdotes may be correct, if these results are scaleable nationwide then that is an enormous signal of less police-on-others violence associated with those cameras, and that's what I was pointing to. I agree with you - body cameras will be a significant aid in police/public interactions. And my post, while it quoted yours, wasn't meant to debate the veracity of the study, nor the ultimate result - body cameras protect both police officers and the public. The ACLU had an interesting report from last year discussing some of the policies/procedures that will need to be discussed in order to make body camera implementation more successful. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty...s-place-win-all I think this is a pretty interesting topic - just trying to add to the discussion.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 05:06 PM) From the places where data is available, when body cameras are added the amount of violent encounters between police and citizens declines so dramatically that it would be the dominant effect if these major departments follow through on purchasing them. Something like >50% decrease on both sides when people knew the police were wearing body cameras. Body cameras aren't a cure-all. There are 4th Amendment issues that will need to be resolved. There will be police reports where the camera either wasn't turned on or malfunctioned (both could come from benign or malicious intent). Body cameras will help - both officers and the public should want them and advocate for them. But there are going to be plenty of speed bumps regarding their implementation nation-wide.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) It's only two years guaranteed, that's not major. The problem is, why would a win now team like Buffalo or Arizona want a QB that turns the ball over so much? They don't need a gunslinger, they just need someone who can make the occasional deep throw and won't lose games. Yeah, the guaranteed $$ for Cutler isn't honestly that bad. Buffalo would be an ideal fit for Cutler. That defense is incredible and I could easily see the Bills or the Texans talking themselves into Cutler being worth the risk. The upside, Cutler thrives, making enough plays to let the team make the playoffs. The downside? He's terrible and your teams are basically what they are at the moment anyway. The problem with the Bears moving on from Cutler, in my mind, is does anyone have confidence that this front office brings the right rookie QB in? A bad QB draft pick sets the rebuild back years...

QUOTE (Boogua @ Dec 14, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) In the last 5 games Cosby is 5/39 from the field. He is 4/24 from 3 and 1/15 from 2. He's shooting 29% from the field for the year. Him and Starks have been awful. It doesn't make much sense. If they don't start shooting near their career averages it will be a long season. This is exactly right. If Cosby isn't a reliable option offensively, this team is going to look a lot like last year's, but probably worse defensively because of Starks for Tracy. Against Nova, Hill was on fire and Rice struggled. Against Oregon, it was vice versa. Both losses. All my optimism this season was premised on Cosby being that third option. Obviously, he's not there at the moment. The other bright spot for Illinois is that Black has looked promising - when he can stay on the floor. Hopefully he follows the Hill/Nunn development curve from last year and is ready to give good minutes by late January. Black for 20 minutes a night gives Groce a lot more lineup flexibility than he has at the moment...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) It's just not clicking for him, my one big worry is that his shot is that awful flat type, did he just get lucky for a year at Seton Hall or was that true talent to score? I'm not that worried about the Illini, I figured we'd lose both of these games, it's just disappointing that we aren't shooting as well as we should be and that's really holding us back. But Hill and Rice are going to keep us in a lot of games, hopefully Nunn plays more and gets into a good groove as well. Cosby needs something to get himself going. When he hit the 3 to tie the game at 50, I thought maybe he was going to get hot in the second half. Nunn has been efficient scoring, but he's had his bad moments as well. He's still way, way too left hand dominant. My one critique of Groce in both the Miami and Nova games is with the Morgan/Colbert rotation. With as much running around as Egwu does on both ends of the floor, he can't play 34-35 minutes a night. Groce needs to be able to trust Colbert/Morgan to give him 5 minutes a half. Otherwise, I agree - not that worried about the Illini. They are a fringe top-25 team now and, if Cosby gets going, the ceiling goes up some.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 11:23 AM) Yeah you're way higher on them than I am. I thought they were a bubble team before the season began and I haven't seen anything to change my mind. They were lucky to win the Baylor game (and I don't think Baylor is very good), and they should have been blown out last night (I don't think Miami is all the great either). They're a team that will look good if they hit threes, but will be pretty average if they don't. That actually is one of my main complaints of Groce. Every single team so far has been so reliant on the three ball. I guess that's just college basketball these days, but it was driving me nuts that he couldn't or wouldn't call a set play to the post when the threes weren't going. I'm not saying get the ball to Egwu and let him post up (because he tried and it didn't work), but why not set up Hill with a set play to get a 12-14 foot jump shot that he's good at? Why not do the same for Black who appears to be able to hit those shots too? Or even Egwu. I'd take an Egwu mid range shot over a post move. And I know there are different schools of thought, but I also feel like Groce is too hands off. He lets guys play and shoot their way out of slumps, but on some nights you gotta take control and basically force a specific guy to shoot from a set play. Don't leave it up to the players to chuck threes as a heat check. In the 2nd half with like 8 or 9 minutes to go Nunn scores 8 or 9 straight, Rice makes a big 3 point play and they're within 2. Rice immediately comes down the floor and chucks a 3 from 5 feet behind the line, 2 seconds into the shot clock. That was a momentum killing shot. And those shots seem to happen way too often with Groce's teams. In my opinion, this team is the most talented of Groce's 3 teams (a seven seed and a team that was a missed floater away from being an interesting decision for the selection committee). Thus, based on the results the last two years, I think they should make the tournament comfortably. This year's team is, I think, necessarily going to be dependent on making open jumpers (like most teams in college basketball). When they are making shots, the driving lanes for Rice and Hill are going to open up. Unfortunately, the Abrams injury took away another guy who could take advantage of those driving lanes (maybe Nunn and Cosby can do it in limited spots, but Miami seemed all too aware of how left hand dependent Nunn is at the moment). This team has a definite ceiling. They lack a big guy who can get baskets when you need one late. They lack a point guard who can create off the bounce for teammates. But those are problems that plague a lot of teams in CBB. If this team defends like Groce's teams have the last two years, they are going to be fine - because this team has way more guys who can score than any Groce team has (and frankly probably has more guys who can score since the '06 team?). I like Groce's hands off approach. But I'm sure Rice heard about that terrible shot after the Nunn run. Pulling guys immediately after a bad shot was something we criticized Webber for to no end. Bottom line - anytime you are a team that is heavily dependent on jumpers (as this team is), you are going to have some great wins where everything clicks, and you are going to have some losses like last night. Assuming Cosby and Starks come back to their career averages, and Rice/Hill/Nunn continue to score, this team should have fewer nights like last night and win a good number of games.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) The problem is everyone else on the floor stands around and watches him and it becomes a 1 on 4/5 game. And while Rice is very good, he makes some stupid decisions. Tate at least gets the offense going, even if he's not a major threat. Groce has to tell him to take 2-3 shots a game or they're going to be screwed. My thoughts from last night: 1) Cosby the shooter still hasn't shown up. I mean he clearly takes shots, too many, but he's not making any. If he doesn't this is not a tourney team. 2) Egwu still fouls too much. And most of them are dumb fouls. I knew that would be a problem. 3) Lack of frontcourt depth (also predicted) is clearly the biggest issue this team will have. Colbert is not big enough. Morgan is terrible on defense. They basically have to rely on Egwu and that's it. Thanks Darius Paul for being a moron. 4) Hill and Nunn are too passive. They're too good to be no-shows for 10-15 minute stretches. 5) Starks is the opposite. As noted on Twitter, he's a rec league player, not a major D1 player. I get that he's not a true PG so he's sort of learning on the job, but his shot selection is so awful. Respectfully, I think some of this is too negative of an assessment. 1) We have a large enough sample size to know that Cosby is a good shooter at the major college level. He's in a slump to start the season, but he should get, and make, plenty of shots this year. Didn't have too much of a problem with his shot selection - yeah, there were some bad shots (Starks was the main culprit, but Cosby, Rice and Egwu had some head scratchers as well), but the Illini got a lot of good looks, in rhythm, that they just didn't make. 2) Egwu didn't commit that many fouls last year. He was in foul trouble last night, but it didn't seem to impact his aggression on either end. The bigger issue, to me, with Egwu is that he is always moving on both ends of the floor (setting screens, blitzing ball screens, etc.), so he can't be effective for 35 minutes a night. He was clearly gassed at the end and lost a couple rebounds late as a result. 3) Can't afford ineffective, foul plagued, games from Black. Colbert has looked better thus far this year, so hopefully he can provide solid minutes as the season progresses. But I agree that Illinois needs something, anything, out of Morgbert or they will have too many nights like last night. 4) Thought Hill was very aggressive. He left some points on the court (namely missed free throws), but he attacked the basket pretty consistently. Agreed on Nunn. Hopefully we're just seeing a symptom of his missed offseason. But for that one spurt in the second half, Nunn was largely non-existent. 5) Agreed on Starks being a problem. He's the offensive version of Chester Frazier - namely a guy who would be great as a change of pace, off the bench kind of guy. But his shot selection definitely does need to get better. Ultimately, I didn't see anything last night that changed my overall assessment of the team. It was a road loss against a good team where, despite an absolutely horrible shooting first half, the Illini were within a possession a couple times in the second half. There are obvious flaws here that limit the ceiling, but this feels like Groce's best team yet and I still think it's a comfortable tournament team this year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:52 PM) I'm not saying we should ignore it. What i'm saying is the emphasis and importance placed on it is equally troubling to me, and I don't really think they're equal in the eyes of the law. Verbal speech is different from internet speech and the Court should say so, even if ultimately it's still left up to a "reasonable person" standard. I think Rock is hitting the nail on the head here. When kids are in middle school/high school, their worlds are really, really small. And the smallest things can lead to being ostracized. I can see speech on social media having an even worse impact than regular speech because it just hangs out there, never going away. Telling your kid to ignore it doesn't make the stuff disappear. And telling your kid to get off social media probably has a significant impact on their social life (and, consequently, their world). The problem with kids at that age is that, by and large, they aren't going to be rational or reasonable.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) Oh I totally disagree. They're still not "good," but they were in more games this year and actually won a few of them. It's not like they really lucked into their wins either. They played "well" in all of them. I also liked that they played their best football at the end of the year. Beckman also deserves credit for handling the Lunt situation. Sticking with O'Toole wasn't the popular choice, even with Lunt struggling. Disagree on the improvement. Last year, the Illini blew out Cincinnati and Miami (OH) and were competitive at Soldier Field vs. Washington. This year, they trailed in the 4th quarter against Youngstown State, Texas State and Western Kentucky. In conference, last year they beat Purdue, lost in OT @ Penn State and lost competitive games @ Indiana and home against Northwestern. This year, they won close games against Penn State, Northwestern, and Minnesota, but were really only competitive in the loss to Purdue (a game they should easily have won). The differences between this year and last? They looked terrible in the non-conference, and turned some of the close games in conference into wins. I'm not sure where I stand on Beckman at Illinois, but it's definitely worth noting that this team was a lot closer to 0-12 than to winning 8 games this year...

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) If you get pulled over and your credentials get run and they come up suspended, a warrant, or not valid for any reason it gets dealt with the same way no matter what color you are. Its not like they said, well Jimmy we see a warrant for your arrest and you have a suspended license but I see you went to Sandburg, live in Orland, and are white so have a nice day and don't do it again. The same with insurance. You need valid insurance to drive a car. If you don't have a valid license, have a warrant or no insurance then don't drive a car. That's not a poverty violation. Driving is a privilege not a right. The same with expired plates and registration. From a policy standpoint, as a society, we are really dependent on cars to get around. I've lived in Chicago, and I have lived in some cities with terrible public transportation, and in those cities having a car is, literally, a necessity if you want to work. I represented a guy in a bankruptcy who worked at the McDonald's by his apartment. The apartment was one of the few he could afford. He didn't have a car. The apartment wasn't on, or near, a bus line. And McDonald's was the only business close enough for him to walk to. The point here is that minor traffic offenses, while inconvenient for everyone, have a much greater impact on the working poor - especially in cities where there aren't reasonable alternative transportation options...

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 11:04 AM) That is a fact that can't be explained away regardless of what else you believe. Brown knows that he has a gun pointed at him. He chooses to move directly towards the officer with the gun. There is no outcome that can be reasonably expected other than he's going to be shot. The officer has 100% right to defend himself, and once Brown starts coming directly at him it becomes self-defense. There are dozens of cases all over the country where officers had far less clear cases of self-defense than this one, but people can't let this one go. People had their minds made up and are too prideful and stubborn to admit they were wrong. All it takes is one influential leader to come out and say, "You know what, I looked at the evidence, and I now believe that the officer was justified in self-defense, so we need to let this case pass but continue to focus on the larger issue of reducing the number of times we end up in this situation." It could do wonders for the nation. I don't think you can make it as black and white as that. Walking toward an officer is different than sprinting toward an officer. Having your hands up walking slowly toward the officer might not necessitate an immediate lethal response. The circumstances leading up to the confrontation matter as well - as do exigent circumstances like noise. I don't envy police officers for having to make snap decisions in the heat of the moment. And, again, I'm not opining on the Wilson case here. I'm merely saying that if a police office has a gun pointed at you, there are definite instances where moving toward the officer should not result in an immediate lethal response.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/n...-jury-fairness/ That link is a good one - largely because it speaks to how ridiculous the GJ process is usually. Again, however, but for the fact that (1) Wilson was a police officer; and/or (2) the national attention on the case, Wilson would have been indicted like a ham sandwich. It speaks to a problem with the system, and the disparate treatment that Wilson received under the circumstances (in my opinion) rather than to the evenhandedness of the prosecutor. Going off on a tangent here, but, in my opinion, the criminal justice system needs to be more transparent not less - particularly when you are dealing with someone's freedom. The system shouldn't be about convictions, it should be about getting the right result. Maybe that's what happened here (again, not intending to opine on the issue of whether Wilson is guilty or not), but it isn't what happens in the vast majority of cases.