illinilaw08

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) Not really true. His teams won 2 bowl games in back to back years, which I don't think Illinois has ever done before. I think people need to be a little more realistic about Zook. He was far from good but he wasn't terrible, he did a lot of nice things, but ultimately his ceiling was too low for the Big Ten. He needed to be removed, earlier than he was, but he was better than a lot of other Illinois coaches, including Beckman. And why not Cubit? He did pretty good at Western Michigan and the offense turnaround was amazing last year. It's not as good this year, but he's got a lot of young transfer talent in key positions, on top of some injuries. He's not a home run hire, but people are dreaming if you think a great coach is coming to Illinois in down years (if ever). Zook didn't coach the bowl game against UCLA - he was fired after that team finished the season 0-6. They absolutely collapsed. Zook wasn't the answer. If the product from the first 4 games this year bleeds over to the last 8, Beckman isn't the answer either. Unless you are putting the blame for the offense's early struggles this year entirely on Beckman, I don't see how anything that Cubit has done thus far this year merits giving him HC consideration. EDIT: Best case scenario for a coaching search this offseason is that a qualified candidate looks at Lunt and sees an opportunity to step into a B1G job with a potential star QB for his first two years and sees a chance to, at the very least, score a lot of points right away.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 15, 2014 -> 04:43 PM) I understand the point...but you have to see the road you're going down when you make that decision, especially considering the background and education of many NFL players. Let's face it, many of these guys come from broken families, grew up poor, were around drugs/alcohol/all kinds of abuse. They have been under-educated in many cases, and now we're going to throw them millions of dollars! And they are 23. It just puts the league in a very difficult position of having to become experts at evaluating all these actions, and weighing them against the economics of the league, being fair to all the teams, etc. I don't see why it's a bad thing if the NFL comes down hard on violent, anti-social conduct. If the NFL comes down hard on Ray Rice for DV, and AP for child abuse, then that should make the rational NFL player think twice before beating his kid until they bleed with a switch, or tossing their girlfriend on a pile of guns or whatever. No matter the upbringing or education of these guys, if they understand certain behaviors have zero tolerance at the risk of losing checks and future employment, these incidents should go down. And if the player is talented enough and contrite (see, by all accounts, Brandon Marshall), they will get additional opportunities... and maybe shed some light on other issues (see, again, Brandon Marshall and mental health). The AP case is actually very analogous to Ray Rice. AP might not be convicted in Texas, but there is no dispute that he hit his kid with a switch until the 4 year old bled. The pictures look bad, it sounds bad, and if a videotape came out of the beating, it would look even worse. So this is a lot like Ray Rice. What the NFL should not, and cannot, do is be inconsistent. The NFL needs to come up with a policy to deal with cases like AP, Hardy, Rice, and McDonald in a consistent manner. Whatever that might look like.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 08:51 AM) The only problem with Goldens are they have been overbred, and that has caused a lot of problems with the gene pool, and caused a lot of great dogs to suffer. Almost every time a breed of dog captures the imagination and heart of the American public, the breed takes a step back because breeders go apes*** and start pumping litters out like it's a damn assembly line. It's happened with German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Pitbulls, Chihuahuas, Yorkshire Terriers, German Shorthair Pointers....you name it...especially if there is a movie or popular tv show featuring a famous dog... As a result, Golden Retrievers often suffer from hip dysplasia, heart problems, epilepsy, etc. You really have to do your homework and find a solid, responsible breeder when getting one of these breeds, because if not, you are really taking a chance. I've had a Vizsla named Finnegan for the past 2.5 years. He is, with all due respect to every dog that came before him, the best dog I have ever had. Sweet with friend's kids. Great with other dogs, and amazing as a hiking buddy out here in CO. They are an extremely energetic breed, so you need to have the time to wear them out, but just wonderful dogs. We're thinking about adding a second dog in a year or two and a Swiss Mountain Dog is at/near the top of the list, but after this dog, we'll probably always have a Vizsla in our lives.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 02:48 PM) Tate was really awful last year against decent competition. He has good court vision but he can't blow by guys so unless his shot has improved dramatically you are playing 4 on 5 whenever he is in the game. Tate had his moments in the pick and roll in his limited B1G minutes last year. Obviously he needs to shoot better than 4% from 3 (literal 3 percentage last year) and be a threat offensively, but hopefully he made a leap from Year 1 to Year 2. Beyond that Starks and Cosby should be able to give good minutes at the 1. Still should be a deep roster, Starks' minutes just go up. Cosby sees some spot minutes at the 1. Honestly, while the Tracy injury hurts, he was, in my opinion, the guy in the top 9 at Illinois this year that Groce could most afford to lose.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) That's horrible! Do you understand the power absolute strangers would have over these guys then? They deserve due process just like anyone else. I don't like this at all. There has to be some level of evidence for the police to charge - eyewitnesses, evidence of injury, whatever. Complete strangers wouldn't just be able to say "Player X beat me up!" when they were just in a club at the same time this one time. In the Kaep example, he was never charged with a crime, so he never would have been suspended. I fail to see the harm to the player if (1) the team can't cut them while they are out (put them on some sort of special DL while pending); and (2) they are still receiving their paychecks. Take the McDonald example currently with the 49ers. If he gets charged with DV (and I'm not sure if this has happened yet or not), I would way rather the NFL suspend him with pay while things get sorted out than have the NFL sweep it under the rug. It's no different than what happens with police officers - suspended with pay while the investigation is ongoing. EDIT: Note that in my earlier post I said I wouldn't have a problem with the scenario outlined above. I also don't have a problem with the league waiting for (1) damning evidence (read the video in the Rice case - or even just the video of him dragging her out of the elevator, unconscious, by the hair); or (2) waiting out the legal process. But I will note that DV cases can be some of the most difficult to prove. Witnesses recant or don't show up - regardless of subpoena. Without that evidence, the police officer is entirely reliant on the victim's hearsay - inadmissible - and circumstantial evidence of injury to prove a case. So waiting out a conviction, in DV cases in particular, can lead to punishment at all, even when the act actually occurred.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:43 AM) And what if there is an acquittal? They've been paid for the missed time. Good name restored. And they can move on. There's no affirmative right to play in the NFL. And if the NFL is serious about making DV offenses punitive, then making them sit (with pay) while the charges are sorted out is the strongest stance the NFL can take.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 08:40 AM) There's another guy in the NFL Mike & Mike were talking about this morning who was found guilty of assault in a domestic abuse case, he's appealing it, but there was an adjudication of the charge. And he's still playing. Without better evidence (read a videotape), I don't have a problem with letting the appeal run its course re: Greg Hardy. BUT in light of pretty heinous allegations against him, I hope he gets treated similarly to Rice if the conviction is upheld. Ultimately, I think these guys deserve a certain level of due process. Rice's case is unique because the videotape is there for the whole world to see - there is no denying that Rice knocked his significant other out. Let McDonald and Hardy have their day (plural in Hardy's case) in court and then, with a conviction, bring down the hammer. Note that I would also be ok with the league suspending DV offenders with pay while the charges are pending and then dropping the hammer (suspension w/out pay) once (if) there's a conviction. That would truly send a message that the NFL wants to eradicate DV from the league.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 04:13 PM) What's the connection that Groce/Illinois has to Evans? No special connection as far as I know. Groce recognized the talent early and has been on him hard since the summer before Evans' Soph year if I'm remembering right. The ability to offer the keys to what should be a pretty talented roster to a kid as a freshman is a pretty strong selling point.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) Kruger and Self both got McD AA's in their third class. It's not over yet, but I guess it has been done before. But I do think the program was in worse shape when Groce took over than when Kruger took over. Holding the staff to arbitrary benchmarks because of previous coaches' successes is absurd. Every situation is different. Kruger succeeded largely because the talent in Central Illinois was fantastic when he took over. He won the McClain/Griffin recruitment vs. Bobby Knight, had Frank Williams in the next class, and Cook in the class after. Self was the most successful Illini recruiter since the Deon Thomas scandal, but he still backed into Deron and mis-evaluated Iguodala. Evans is a huge recruit for the Illini now, but even if he goes elsewhere, Groce has been a successful recruiter here. It's unfortunate that he keeps coming in second for point guards, but he's landed some unlikely recruits that the previous staff would have had no chance with (Black and Nunn). Ultimately, he needs to get that big fish, but it's nonsense to say, "well, didn't happen in three years, so it never will."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) Brad Johnson would be your golden boy. Rich Gannon maybe. But yeah, there aren't too many. Still, there are plenty of QB's who have won SB's being game managers and/or allowing the talent around them to do the work. Flacco, Eli, Dilfer, etc. The question is whether Cutler gives you THAT much more of an opportunity to win. I don't think so. Because he f***s up games as often as he wins them. edit: also, all of those issues have been rectified, and Cutler is still Cutler so... if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a f***ing duck. Flacco and Manning are exactly the hope with Cutler. Flacco had a perfect playoffs the year the Ravens won the SB. But Flacco hasn't done anything much of note before or since. In '06, sure, you could say a QB like Cutler might hurt your chances of winning some games because the defense was dominant. Now? With this roster? The Bears best chance at winning the SB is Cutler catching fire for 4 games in the playoffs like Flacco did in '13. Edit to address your edit: Cutler missed a bunch of games last year and we're one game into this season. Throwing out the game Jay got hurt last year and the game he came back (for rust purposes), it's a 10 game sample size with Trestman. If Cutler scuffles all year and the Bears are 7-9, then you have your answer. Draft a guy this year to groom to take over for Jay in two years...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) 1) atrocious o-line there 2) little to no weapons 3) lovie smith Also, while he looked terrible for 3 quarters, he looked much better in the 4th. Did you just describe Cutler's first 4 years in Chicago? Jay is an objectively better QB than McCown. In the history of the NFL, has there ever been a great "system" QB? A guy that flopped everywhere else who became great simply because the coach was a QB whisperer? The simple fact is that, flaws and all (and those have been discussed ad nauseum), Jay Cutler provides the Bears with the best opportunity to win now.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 09:27 AM) That's fair enough...and all I am asking is for you to admit that is the reasoning for your taking a stance on the issue, instead of thumbing your nose at everyone else as if you were the one sending the letters to the Washington Post in 1971. Bringing up 1971 is only important in the context of people saying "this only became an issue in the last year!" Clearly, certain segments of the Native American population have been offended by the word for, at a minimum, 40+ years. That's not me thumbing my nose at someone, that's relating historical facts surrounding the argument... I'm arguing as to why the name should change. If Native American groups decided, "you know what, not offended any more" then I would probably change my stance... but that hasn't happened.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 09:07 AM) The problem is they can't. Because like everyone else who doesn't think it has to be changed, they too were "ok" with it and didn't think twice about it until they needed some cause to latch onto. "Yeah, yeah! That name SHOULD be changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a racist asshole! I'm clearly not an asshole so...yeah!" If you think it should be changed, I can respect that position. But don't act all high and mighty about it like you're a better person for thinking that way. What if they were ok with it because they weren't aware of the historical context of the word? Now that they know that, this hypothetical person isn't allowed to push for change? And to Shack, we're all just using this forum to kill time while at work. It doesn't make the debate unimportant, but it's not like I could have been using this time to head to hearings in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss ways to make meaningful change on the reservation. If we had a thread discussing that, I would gladly participate (because, like most people commenting on internet message boards, the one semester of Native American history - 1865-present - that I took in undergrad a decade ago definitely makes me an expert on the subject)...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:50 AM) Let me ask you this...when have you ever heard so many white academics taking up a cause that was important to American Indians? That's why this is frustrating to me, anyways. It's hypocrisy. Where were all these white people when American Indians were fighting for more tangible or substantive rights/improved treatment? You don't hear s*** from white people then. But all the sudden when it's time to debate something which requires no effort other than opening up your big mouth or typing away on the internet, the white people all run to the side of the American Indian! "We are brothers in a united cause!" So I don't think people are turning a blind eye to what the American Indians are saying....they are turning a blind eye to what white academic guy on the internet is saying. Because it's f***ing hollow. This many white academics were certainly up in arms about the Chief. My .02 - more people latch on to causes like this because (1) awareness of the issue; and (2) how easily the issue can be resolved. Poverty in the Native American community is systemic. As a result, alcoholism is a major problem on the reservations. The Native Americans were largely eradicated, pushed to some of the least habitable ground in this country, and, consequently, have some of the worst numbers in America - employment, education, substance abuse. While those issues need attention, they are issues that can't be solved in the snap of one's fingers. So they are more difficult issues to get people to rally behind (and, sidenote, there are plenty of "white academics" pushing those issues as well). The name clearly offends certain Native Americans. Hence, the Washington Post receiving letters complaining about the name as early as 1971. Hence, Native Americans publicly requesting the team name to change as recently as 1988. You want hollow? It's hollow to say that "because no one in my circle of friends has ever heard the term used in a derogatory manner, the word has been co-opted and it's not a slur anymore!" It's hollow to say that people can't speak out about something they perceive as an injustice because they aren't talking about larger issues. The only way to get Daniel Snyder to change his position on the team name is to put public pressure on him. The only way to do that is to have "white academic guy" open his mouth.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:09 AM) Nope, not anymore it doesn't. It refers to the team nickname. No one uses the word redskins to refer to american indians anymore. No one. It's so antiquated it's laughable as a slur. I asked my wife last night what redskins means. Her football exposure is about 25% of the Superbowl each year. Even she said, you mean the football team? You're basically telling me that slurs can never in the future change meanings and become something different. I think that's bulls***. "Queer" used to be a terrible word for members of the LGBT community. Now it's a term that you're SUPPOSED to use. That happened in about 20 years. What your wife thinks the term redskin means is, with all due respect, irrelevant to this argument. What do the people who are offended by the term - you know Native Americans - think about this? Clearly enough of them are offended that a movement to change the team name has been in place since 1971, informally, and 1988 formally. I don't understand why you are turning a blind eye to that fact...

QUOTE (TRU @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) A lot of words are insults, and people still use them. And I am not even talking about saying "Some redskin cut me off in the parking lot today" just typing that out sounds ridiculous as to why someone would use that as an insult or racist saying. That being said, for a football team that's been around since 1932 I find it a little "eye roll" if you will that its just NOW that people want to wage some big fight against it. From Wikipedia... the controversy dates back to at least 1971. "Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, the local Washington, DC newspapers have published news items on the controversy many times since at least 1971, all in response to Native American individuals or organizations asking for the name to be changed.[48] National protests began in 1988, after the team's Super Bowl XXII victory. Numerous Native Americans wrote letters to Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke encouraging him to change the name. Others boycotted Redskins products and protested. Many of these events were led by Suzan Shown Harjo of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Cooke responded in an interview, stating, "There's not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world that the Redskins will adopt a new nickname." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Re...ame_controversy

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:19 PM) Yeah, I think it muddles it for sure. I think there's that issue of "inviting" or creating the serious threat that requires deadly force. That's the argument Brown's attorney would make anyway. To me, I dunno that I buy that, especially if there were shots fired and Brown turned around, waited and then ran after the cop. If there was some pause in between, Brown still has time to choose whether to attack and surrender. But it shouldn't excuse the officer's first shots either. I'm not saying that the scenario I have laid out happened, but just because Brown wasn't shot while fleeing doesn't mean he wasn't shot AT while fleeing which increases his culpability significantly.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:10 PM) Yes, but I think we also know the "kill shot" could not have occurred from a backwards angle. He had to have been facing forward. The narrative doesn't really change because if anything that gives Brown an excuse for turning around. It still doesn't excuse the shooting if Brown is just standing there with his hands up. And it doesn't negate Wilson's justifiable use of force IF Brown was running at him. I guess it could open an argument that he "invited" Brown to attack him, in his own self defense, but that seems like a weak argument. Shots fired on a fleeing suspect with no imminent threat of danger to the officer seems pretty bad to me. It changes the narrative from "shots fired because he was charging at the officer" to "shots fired at an unarmed, fleeing suspect." The forensics to date are not inconsistent with either story...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) But that's still not getting us anywhere. We still need to find out if Brown was running back towards Wilson. But it should get us somewhere. IF Wilson shoots at Brown while Brown is retreating, would you agree that Wilson would not have been in immediate danger of serious bodily harm (or whatever the standard for use of deadly force is) when he fired those shots? You said, "But we know he wasn't 'fleeing' when he was shot," but if he was fleeing when he was shot AT that certainly changes the narrative quite a bit... EDIT: First line.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) But we know he wasn't "fleeing" when he was shot, at least based on internet-opinionreview of the forensics. He's at least facing the cop. And again, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe a 28 year old cop who appears to have been good at his job was a cold-blooded murderer willing to shoot and kill a person from 35 feet away. A person who was allegedly giving himself up. None of that makes any sense given Brown's earlier actions. And while you don't get a free pass to kill someone in that situation, i'm also not very sympathetic to the "victim." When you attack someone with a gun, one common sense outcome is that you'll be killed in defense. He might very well have been fleeing when he was shot AT. It's relevant if the first shot that was fired is while he's fleeing, but he isn't hit until he has turned around...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 01:57 PM) I don't disagree, but when you use an event to propel a national conversation on a long-term problem (or perceived problem), it would be helpful to have a legitimate event to stand on. As always, the media - and by that i'm mostly referring to talking heads, but journalists looking to make news are just as guilty of this - WANTS that to be the story because it'll drive ratings. Tragedy AND controversy? Sign us up! This same crap happened with Trayvon Martin and the Duke Lacrosse scandal. The initial reaction is propelled due to speculation and incomplete information. Also, it's been over a week and people are still protesting. Why? For what? Because a dead guy is on the street after being killed by a cop? Or because the police overstepped and came out meeting the protests a little too hard? It's mostly still #1. It might still be a legitimate act to move on. And regardless of the facts surrounding Brown (and nothing that has come out is dispositive on either side yet - both sides are happily cherry picking experts and facts at this point), two points stand out to me. 1) The heavy handed police response; 2) The early acts to demonize Brown. Here's a picture of him flashing what might be a gang sign! Hey, he was in a robbery early (even though the robbery wasn't directly linked to the shooting)! Regardless of whether the shooting ultimately was justified or not, those two points are worthy of protest (peaceful protest - I think some people have been too quick to lump protestors and looters in the same breath). And the media was largely responsible for reporting the early stuff on #1. The pictures of police in full camo with guns drawn on a kid with arms in the air carrying a backpack. The early direct coverage of the protests. There's a difference between the news (cameras on the ground reporting what happened on night __ of protesting) and editorializing - largely the purview of talking heads.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) They are also reporting that the police are using unjust force when the media wont listen to them for their own safety. When the police ask you 25 times to move back or to go to another location because there is violence, you refusing and then inhaling tear gas is your own fault. When the narrative changes so much in a few days, you know this is the typical "first person to report a story" nature of today instead of actually waiting for the facts. Is it also the media's fault when police disassemble cameras, make arrests when members of the media are eating at McDonalds, or when tear gas canisters are fired directly at a news van (see the Al-Jazeera incident). I'm not saying there aren't instances like what you describe. Your posts, however, have seemed to ignore the obviously heavy handed early police response - a response that helped fuel the protests for days... As to the bolded, reports seem to be that the police response has been better in the last couple days. No one has backed off on the stance that the initial reaction by the Ferguson Police was extremely over the top and unnecessary.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) And the anger and frustration was based on unknown information. The people in the neighborhood saw "black kid shot dead by cop" and immediately concluded it was unjustified murder. The news media grabbed ahold of that narrative and ran with it. Never once have I read or heard anyone from the media say "that's just what one witness says, we don't actually know the full story yet." My two cents... There's a distinction between "media" - talking heads, whatever CNN was doing in the wake of the Boston bombings and the Malaysian flight disappearance... and journalists. Journalists captured the initial, extraordinarily heavy handed response to protestors in Ferguson. The picture that SS likes to post is powerful evidence of that. The early response that involved disassembling cameras, shooting tear gas at the Al-Jazeera truck, or being very quick to arrest. To me, there are two bad acts that have been proven without a doubt. First, the early police response was terribly heavy handed and exacerbated the future protests. The second point is that opportunists (whatever you want to call them) took advantage of the unrest to harm the community (looting, etc.). Both are important points; both should be focused on and condemned. On the bold, however, the anger and frustration probably had more to do with the historical treatment of poor, black communities. The early information allowed that frustration to boil over... which is quite understandable...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Yet they whine for more police present to stop the crime. Funny how that works. I'm not sure what the bolded is in reference to... More police isn't bad. More police pulling over every driver going 33 in a 30 after midnight to try to make possession arrests is bad policy (especially since possession is, relatively, a victimless crime). More police isn't bad. More police targeting racial minorities is bad policy (and fundamentally bad - see stop and frisk). More police isn't bad. Better interaction between police and the community is even better.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) There are multiple reasons for this though. 1) affluent areas just don't have the same number of cops patrolling and pulling people over for insignificant traffic violations, 2) although drugs are a problem in affluent areas, generally the people are about 1000 times smarter about it (i.e., don't do it in public places, don't drive with it, don't deal it, etc.) and 3), my CPD buddy who works in a gang unit will tell you in his experience pulling someone over in the real s***ty neighborhoods will uncover some felony level drug/drug amount or a gun like 75% or more of the time, versus 25% or less in affluent or even moderate neighborhoods. I mean it's like college towns. They pull people over between 12-3am on bulls*** pretenses to find drunk drivers. I got pulled over once for having a graduation tassel "obstructing" my view. It's just guilt by association. Instead of college, it's poor, crime-ridden areas known for drugs. But that's the point right? Even if your numbers are right and the police find drugs or a weapon on a routine traffic stop 75% of the time, they are still alienating the 25% that they stop who aren't doing anything. Strictly enforcing traffic laws to try and uncover illegal behavior alienates the police from the community. I mean, I see your analogy to college campuses, but that behavior makes people resentful of the police. And in communities with higher crime rates, making the divide between the police and the community wider only exacerbates the problem - especially when color of skin helps influence who is pulled over. So in the light most favorable to the officers, it's still terrible policy.