illinilaw08

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 04:24 PM) Well, I am sure I will get accused of harboring some horrible stereotypes with this anecdote too, but I was watching a show on Nat Geo about drug addicts in Las Vegas and they were showing the lives of some of these folks and the lengths they will go to score drugs. Many of them live in the sewers and in tunnels but spend $2500/mo on heroin. Many of them panhandle all day, and make $50-100 in 4-6 hours and then immediately go spend the money on crack. Many people in poverty are not necessarily there by chance, but they are there because they have some issue(s) which industrialized civilization is not particularly good at helping them overcome. Now in the past, these folks would probably have either not developed these issues (because they didn't have the luxury of developing them) or they died unnoticed. Now, because of social welfare, many of them can eek by for 30-60 years and they are noticed. But the point is, they find where to get drugs and they go to great lengths to get drugs because drugs are very important to them. However, quality nutrition, is not. I don't think much of this can be blamed on the food desert or the unavailability of quality food in general, but moreso on other deeper issues which poor nutrition is very symptomatic of. The issue with this post is the word "many." Sure there are people that are in poverty because of mental health, addiction, etc. But there are also people in poverty because they make $9 an hour working 30 hours a week (yearly 52 week income, approximately $14,000). There are people in poverty because they lost a job at age 50 and are considered too old and too expensive to find a new job in a down economy. There are people who, by virtue of lack of parental involvement, lack of opportunity, whatever, have dropped out of a failing high school by the time they are 16. Just like their parents and their parents before them. I would be willing to wager that most of the people in poverty are those people, not the people referenced above. The best point that has been made recently is that, for the people actually in poverty, eating healthy would, generally speaking, be so far down on the list of priorities that no effort is made to do so.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 04:10 PM) And just another point, I don't think America's obesity epidemic is just made up of those in poverty. Many affluent people make the same silly or irresponsible decisions as those in poverty. I think that decision is much more irresponsible when it is made by someone in relative affluence. If I make the decision to eat fast food, that's me being lazy. For someone who doesn't have a working stove or car (I can't imagine carrying groceries home on the bus), I think that decision to eat what is unhealthy and convenient is less silly and less irresponsible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) I agree 100% with this. Is there really anyone out there who doesn't understand that McDonalds isn't healthy? I don't think anyone is arguing that (though McDonalds does have some salads, grilled chicken sandwiches, etc that are actually pretty healthy options). McDonalds is, however, very cheap if you are ordering off the dollar menu. There aren't a lot of healthy options on the dollar menu though (apple slices maybe?).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) Someone who's happy eating the beef McDonald's cooks should not worry about only shopping for lean beef. BTW, you can cook off the fat of ground beef by straining and rinsing in hot water. If you have a very limited budget to stretch for food, you can feed a family of 4 for very cheap at McDonalds off the dollar menu. A salad at McDonalds, or a grilled chicken sandwich are much more expensive. You can get a large pizza for $10 from Papa Johns or Dominos (and they frequently have buy one get one deals). I'm not saying that you can't eat healthy for cheap, but it's much easier to eat unhealthy for cheap. As to my own situation, didn't know about cooking off the fat. Without being armed with that knowledge, if I want to eat leaner and healthier beef (something I strive to do - whether in tacos, chili, or burgers), I end up paying a premium to buy the leaner meat. Same thing goes for ground chicken or ground turkey. It is much more expensive to buy healthy protiens.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:32 PM) You mean my free time? Cooking is annoying. It means that I have to use my entire kitchen. It means that I have to clean dishes. I have to fight cats as they try and eat the food. Its really not enjoyable. When I decide to finish working for the day, I dont like to come home and work more. Its the same reason why people pay a house cleaner or any other service industry. Its called opportunity cost. This.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) Beef and cheese tacos aren't exactly healthy. 1 lb of chicken breast: $2 1 lb of potatoes: $1 1 head of cauliflower: $3 seasonings/other: $1 water: $squat Family of four fed a good, healthy meal for $7 plus maybe 40 minutes' effort. In ground beef especially, in my experience, the leaner you go, the more expensive you go. 85% lean is cheap, 92% is more, 96% is even more, and buffalo is like $7-8 a pound. At McDonalds, on the other hand, you can feed a family of 4 off the dollar menu for $8-$12. The biggest issue that I think people run into is that you get home after a long, tiring day of work and the last thing you want to do is cook. I routinely don't get home from work until 7 or later. After a 10 hour day, I can spend 30 minutes when I get home putting a meal together, or I can stop at Taco Bell on my way home. Personally, the wife and I combat that by trying to make 2-3 different meals on the weekend when we have time so that we are eating healthy leftovers all week, but it's much easier to not do that.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 11:50 AM) Oh yeah in his own right he's not good. But he's the best option at the four right now. His defense down low for this team is huge, and paired with Egwu you have a competent front line. He's also a better rebounder than our other options, even if poor in his own right. Offensively, whatever. Griffey is giving you nothing anyways. Henry is the best threat there but he isn't a four at all. Really just out of position. I've been calling for more minutes for Langford, but other than that, I want to see more of the Egwu/McLaurin combo if it means less of Griffey and Henry down low. I sound like a broken record, but Griffey really does make everyone he plays with a lot worse than they actually are. I thought Henry actually played pretty well last night. He didn't provide much on the offensive end, but he rebounded pretty well. I'm hoping that he spends this coming offseason working on his ball handling and can become a more multi dimensional threat on the offensive end. I like McClaurin. I appreciate the skill set he brings, but he's a liability on the offensive end. He sets some solid screens and grabs the occasional rebound, but MN didn't bother to even guard him at times. Griffey and Henry are good enough shooters that they can't be left alone which frees up space for Tracy and Paul to get to the rim. I agree that I would like to see Langford get more minutes. He certainly has energy, the length to be a really good defender, and can rebound, but I have yet to see anything from him that makes me think he helps on the offensive end at all. I look forward to the day when Illinois can score from all 5 positions offensively. I think Illinois fans in general are too harsh on Egwu. We all knew coming in that there was going to be a learning curve. But he's a hard working with a solid B1G frame and decent touch on his jumper. I think that both me and Tracy are going to be stars when they are seniors.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) Seriously Purdue sucks. If Illinois is decent at all, that was an upset win. Yeah, Illinois played about as badly as they have played all year and still were right there at the end. McClaurin boxes out Byrd with 21 seconds left and it's Illinois ball, down 2. Point is, no matter what the line said, this Illinois team is much better than Purdue (not saying this is anything better than a mediocre Illinois team, but this is a very down year for Purdue). With that being said, when the Illini play poorly it's because they don't stop dribble penetration. Purdue (and also Missouri) got so many easy looks because nobody on Illinois stops the ball. Then Egwu needs to rotate over and try to block the shot (he had 5 yesterday). The Illini are slow to rotate down, or the guy rotating down is too small/tenative to contest the weak side rebound and you give up an easy basket. This has been a problem for Illinois since Chester Frazier graduated. Stop the dribble penetration against Ohio State, especially with respect to Craft, and the Illini match up fairly well (note that Deshaun Thomas is going to get his 25+). Seems like if you turn Craft into a jump shooter, Ohio State is beatable. My biggest concern with the Illini is that they have a tough three game stretch coming up. Ohio State and MN at home, Wisconsin on the road. You go 0-3 over that stretch and will the team be mentally tough enough to right the ship? On the other hand, you win 2 of those games, and the Purdue game is largely forgotten.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) Too late. I didn't grow up around guns either, I lived in Cook County until I was 18 (and now I'm back... seriously, what the f***?). But I'm glad the gun grabbers all rejoiced at your post even if it was just meaningless platitudes. What do you want to do about it then? How are you going to rectify your first point with your second? The solution for a long, long time has been, more or less, that if you want a gun go get one and if you dont want to be armed you dont have to. How are you going to expand on that? Be careful, your gun grabbing friends who worship at the altar of the federal government are relying on you to come up with something here. Wouldn't want to let them down. 1) How did I in anyway advocate "gun grabbing?" I made a pretty simple point that when someone gets pissed off and sees red, if they have a gun, the damage is way worse than if they throw a punch. Do you believe that you should be able to carry in a bar? At the zoo? In a courthouse? At work? At the Cell? Do you believe there should be any restrictions to when and where people should be allowed to carry firearms? 2) Here's what I would do (note that there is no way the political will exists in this country to get any of this enacted). I would limit magazine size. I would make harsher punishments for unlawful possession. I would take a lot of the federal money that goes to the DEA and put it toward a war on illegal possession of firearms (targeting high crime areas like those referenced by Alpha earlier in the thread). I would restrict when and where people can carry. Driving to the firing range? Lock your gun in the trunk on the way there. Going to the grocery store? Leave it at home (locked preferably, but that's not a Pandora's Box I'm willing to open). I like the idea of a national registry like we have with cars. It would probably make it easier to legally shift title to guns (someone passes away who owned a number of guns, keep people off Craigslist to make the transaction to sell those). Would make it easier to report and track a stolen weapon. Nationalize licensing of guns. Make the test to pass a full day written and practical. Make people re-take every three years. I would have the feds institute a large scale by back program annually. You are done with your gun, don't want it anymore, get it off the street and let the feds melt it down. None of the suggestions above infringe upon your ability to enjoy your gun. You get to take it to the range. You get to protect your crops and your livestock. You get the feeling of security that comes with having a gun in your nightstand. You don't, however, get to put my life at risk if I say the wrong thing at the barbershop or in line at the grocery store. Do the things I listed above eliminate gun violence? No. But they are a step to making things safer, balancing the rights of gun owners with the needs of the rest of us.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) These are reasonable restrictions. No one needs a magazine of more than say 5 shots for semi-auto weapons. I'm not sure how you can keep guns out of people's hands and please most people. Most violent gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons so it may not do too much. However, I'm all for things like this that could reduce the opportunity for mass killings. I didn't grow up around guns. I have family and friends that did. There is certainly a time and a place for guns. ptatc's use is one that I think gets generally overlooked (farmer/rancher protecting their livelihood). I get the appeal of target shooting. I get the sense of security a gun provides in the home (probably a similarly flawed sense of security to my alarm system - input after a burglary this year - but I understand that). When I get uncomfortable about guns generally are the examples cited above at the barbershop and at the Little Ceasers. People get mad. They see red and don't think. I would rather that, in that situation, the Law Abiding Citizen get mad enough to punch me rather than have access to a gun to shoot me. The things that frequently get ignored in this debate are: 1) There are plenty of practical, reasonable uses for guns in a society (ban all guns!); and 2) Just because you are comfortable around guns doesn't mean everyone is comfortable around them (arm the teachers!). We will never legislate away gun violence entirely. The goal should be to lessen the likelihood of another Sandy Hook. But it should also be to lessen the likelihood of the barbershop and Little Ceaser's shootings. Why that guy needed to be carrying while he waited in line for his pizza is something I just don't understand.

Championship Week. I am loaded at RB, but can only start two of Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles and Doug Martin (no flex). All three have fairly good matchups, and I'm facing AP on the other side. Leaning toward Martin and Charles as a result. Rice is probably a safer choice but Charles and Martin are more likely to have a huge week. Not PPR, 5 point bonus for 100 yards. Also a bonus for long TDs. Thoughts?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) The intended purpose of a gun doesn't change the fact that I can put about any object in this sentence and it would still be true. A car is an inherently dangerous object. A knife is an inherently dangerous object. Alcohol is an inherently dangerous object. All must be used with caution, by the right people, or people can die. We have no way of knowing if the person using said object will be responsible or not (and in two of those situations we know that MORE people die than at the hands of guns annually). So what's the answer then? You agree that guns are dangerous tools, I assume. Is the answer better education? There's a test to ensure competence as to use of a car and you have to show proof of a driver's license to test drive one at a dealership. Would you be oppossed to a testing requirement? I know most states have that for conceal and carry. I don't know what kind of hoops you have to jump through to buy a gun in the first place (and obviously those vary from state to state). I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, and I apologize if I'm coming off that way. I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about gun ownership, but I don't think that conversation starts either with (1) no restrictions or (2) absolute restrictions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) Indirectly you justify this asshole's actions by blaming the weapon used, not the person using it. Like it's societies fault for allowing people to have weapons. THAT's what caused this problem, not the crazy psycho that pulled the trigger. That's a f***ed up view of crime. For a second, let's try to take all emotion out of this, not discuss the 2nd Amendment, and reach a couple points that I think everyone can agree on: 1) A gun is a tool. 2) A gun is a particuarly dangerous tool. If I mishandle a hammer, maybe I smash my fingers, maybe I accidentally hit someone behind me in the head. If I mishandle a gun and it accidentally discharges, I can kill someone. 3) There is no other tool readily available on the open market that, if used for its intended purpose, is used to kill or injure. 4) Putting the three above assumptions together shows that guns are way more likely to be used in a case like this than any other tool. They don't require close proximity to victims. In situations like the tragedy today, they don't even require accuracy to cause chaos and untold tragedy. 5) There's no way we are getting rid of guns altogether from this society any time soon. The government doesn't have the resources or the willpower to restrict gun ownership entirely. I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership. I don't have a problem with people that own guns to hunt, shoot at the range, or protect themselves. I do have a problem with people ignoring the fact that guns are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands and that, when purchased, we have no way of knowing if the person buying is going to be responsible or not.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:57 AM) I guess the question becomes, what defines a collapse? I see only 6 guaranteed wins on the Big Ten slate for UI. Of course, they aren't going to lose every other game. But with 6 teams ranked in the top 17 in the country a team could be pretty damned good and finish 9-9 or 10-8. It helps that they get IU and MSU only once each but only once against Penn St costs a win. Not sure what to think about Iowa. I would be very surprised if Illinois finished better than 11-7, but I also wouldn't consider that a collapse. Nor would I 10-8 or 9-9. Unless of course, someone tells the team they aren't supposed to be this good and they start to believe it and go backwards. So far, they've decided not to listen to anyone and have been very impressive. Last year was a collapse. At this point, I would consider 9-9 or better in the B1G is a success for Illinois this year. My biggest concern for Illinois right now is that the B1G schedule is pretty tough at the start (@Purdue, home Ohio State and Minn, @Wisconsin). This group of Seniors has never handled adversity particularly well...

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) Again, it's more about the concept than the specific numbers, but maybe it's graduated. Sales tax on cars is 3% at 20K, 6% at 50K, and 10% at 100K, or something like that. You can buy a new Camry/Fusion for around 22K, so in a sense it is somewhat of a luxury to be able to afford anything substantially more than that. The numbers are way low (have you looked at the cost of a minivan or real estate?), but the concept is interesting. If you have the disposable income to afford a private plane or a yacht, a luxury tax probably isn't preventing you from purchasing that status symbol. As you reach into areas where the middle class spends (cars, real estate and jewelry), the federal "luxury" tax might have an impact on overall consumption (I'll try to squeeze another couple years out of my minivan; I'll wait a couple years to try to upgrade my home, etc). Remember that consumption and spending is a good thing.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 30, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) That she had documented emotional/mental problems is a fact, not a character attack, and it was determined to be a factor in why she killed herself. Not saying that waiting a week to investigate was the right thing to do or the proper procedure, but there seems to be no perspective on the magnitude of this compared to everything else that goes on, such as Penn State. If you have to nitpick like this to find fault with ND's athletics program, then that's a pretty good sign. First of all, when phrased in a way to try to make ND's failure to investigate seem ok, yes, it is a character attack. It was phrased in a way to try to put blame on the victim. Hey guys, she was asking for it because she was dancing with him! And she had emotional problems! In fact, it's not a huge leap to say that if a sexual assault did in fact take place, that type of trauma could have been enough to drive a person with emotional problems to commit suicide. Especially when it appears that no investigation is taking place. Second, as to the bolded. It is not in any way shape or form nitpicking to say that, when a sexual assault is reported and it takes the police more than a week to even interview the dude accused of doing that, it's a huge problem. When you combine that with the text about not messing with ND football, you have an issue. When Jamar Smith almost killed Brian Carlwell at Illinois in a drunk driving accident, there were a lot of Illinois fans on this board and others asking "who knew what when." Sexual assault is sexual assault. It's a huge, huge deal. To try to say anything otherwise, or to try to defend the failure to investigate for a week (though I thought the timeline was longer than that) is a huge, huge deal. It's not nitpicking to say that. This has absolutely nothing to do with liking or not liking ND.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 30, 2012 -> 02:19 PM) Oh yeah, slow to investigate one incident by a week = slow to investigate a dozen incidents by several years. Again, you have to exaggerate a ton just to make a point. Oh, and who attacked the victim's character? Other than the player's defense attorney, and that's what defense attornies do. "Secondly, there are no witnesses to the crime itself, but there are witnesses who saw her acting very "friendly" with him and heard her invite him into her room. That isn't to say a crime wasn't committed, but under those circumstances there is no chance she gets convicted even if she isn't dead. Thirdly, she had documented emotional/mental problems. It's not anybody else's fault that she chose to kill herself as a reaction to this situation, and once she did that, what small chance there was that any action would be taken against the player was gone." Pretty sure that's attacking her character. And yeah, if a sexual assault is alleged to occur, I sincerely hope you understand why waiting a week to investigate is an extremely big deal.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 30, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) Yes, you're using a case where the University didn't discipline a football player who may or may not have committed a crime to suggest that means Notre Dame somehow isn't the institution they claim to be. You've deliberately lied about the seriousness of the alleged crime in order to make your case. That's textbook obsession. The timeline of events as I understand them: 1) Victim alleges sexual assualt (no, not a rape, but yes, a sexual assault, and yes, still a very, very serious accusation) took place at the hands of an ND football player and reports this. 2) Friend of player texts alleged victim and says (paraphrasing here) you don't want to mess with an ND football player. 3) ND does nothing. 4) Alleged victim takes her own life. 5) Days later (almost two weeks after the report), ND finally gets around to interviewing the player. It's not a case of whether or not ND punished the player. And it's not a case of whether the act itself actually took place (though real classy attacking the victim's character). It's a case of why did they wait so long to even INVESTIGATE. It is also fair to link this to Penn State. Penn State didn't get in trouble because Sandusky committed horrible acts. They got in trouble because they failed to properly investigate the horrible acts and, by their failure to act, allowed further horrible acts to occur. No, this doesn't rise to the same level as Penn State, but in light of Penn State, ND fans should be taking this pretty damn seriously.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Nov 28, 2012 -> 07:56 PM) In regards to a, yes. Or at least he will be able to. He won the 3pt shooting contest this year at Hoosier Hysteria (yes, Hulls participated) and reportedly has a nice soft touch, at least from 15' consitently. Part of why we don't see it now is IU's focus is so much on taking the ball to the hole to try and draw fouls on scoring plays, that he's not initially looking for a jump shot. The few times he took one last night, it seemed like he realized it was open and took it, after he was intitially looking to drive or pass. In regards to b, that remains to be seen. How many 7'ers can though? (I don't watch the NBA) He is about as complete a big man as I have seen lately, but he is far from a banger inside. He'll mix it up and get some rebounds, but he's still growing and getting stronger. Yeah, with the weak draft class this year, I think those questions are irrelevant. You know that Zeller has at least one elite NBA skill - his motor combined with his speed will make him, at the very least, a good NBA player for a number of years. When you look at a top 3 pick (where he certainly falls as of today), if I'm Washington or Charlotte, I want to see how I can feature Zeller offensively. Can he be a pick and pop, pick and roll big? Is he strong enough to finish consistently at the rim? Does he have the ball handling skills to make himself a nightmare off the dribble? I guess my point was that, in a weird way, the vast array of options IU has offensively means that Zeller doesn't get the 20+ shots a night that would enable him to put up Michael Beasley or Blake Griffin type numbers and showcase his full offensive skillset to NBA GMs. There's certainly a difference between featuring that in workouts against a chair and doing it consistently for 30+ games. Couple thoughts from last night's Illinois game: 1) Tracy needs to work on what he does when he penetrates deep. Seems that he gets tunnel vision, gets caught in the air, and commits turnovers that way. Certainly fixable. 2) Would be nice if the lightbulb went on for Egwu on the offensive end. He's a hard worker with a steep learning curve since he picked up basketball late. He seems to have a soft touch around the rim, and maybe that projects to a breakout junior year. 3) Bertrand, DJ and Tyler Griffey look so much more confident shooting the ball this year. Bertrand especially. Luther Head is the last Illini I can think of that made such an improvement. Their jumpers even look a little alike. 4) Very excited for the true road game at Gonzaga a week from Saturday. A win there and I might start believing this is a 4 or 5 seed instead of a bubble team.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Nov 28, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) Three... Are you forgetting Elston or discounting the minutes for Jurkin? I don't think either will regularly log more than 5-10 minutes. I really think it will be February before we see them hitting on all cylinders, barring any further injuries. It will take time for the three big guys to meld into the lineup. The word that describes IU to me is unselfish. As good as they look, the Big Ten is loaded and it should be a crazy and fun conference season. I'm not sure how good MSU and OSU will be, but I'm pretty sure they can be as good as anyone. And Michigan has looked fantastic. I'd like to forget about Illinois, but while they are 7-0, I can't do it. I don't think they belong with those top 4 teams, but they've been a helluva lot better than I thought they would be. Two things: 1) I am not buying this Illinois team yet at all. Last year's team was 10-0 before collapsing down the stretch. This is a team this is going to live and die with the three and doesn't really have an impressive win yet. Bertrand and Paul are the only two guys I expect will be able to create their own offense in the B1G and they will no post offense (part because Egwu isn't there yet and part because the guards are awful at feeding the post). They will win some games they shouldn't and lose some games they shouldn't. I like Groce, I like what I see so far, but I still fully expect this to be a bubble team come March. 2) I raise this observation from an NBA standpoint as to Zeller, not to be critical, but because I think it's an interesting discussion point. If I were an NBA GM, my concerns with Zeller would be (a) can he consistently knock down an 18 footer, and (b) can he beat bigger defenders off the dribble. I don't think he can showcase those skills this year because IU is extremely balanced offensively. With the weak draft class this year, it's irrelevant. Zeller will be a top 3 pick. But if IU had fewer options offensively, Zeller would get 20 shots a night and be able to show just how good he really is offensively.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 14, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) US draws 2-2 in Russia Only saw highlights but that's still a good result. Largely experimental roster on the road against a tough, in-form Russian side. Bradley's goal was fantastic. He and Howard are simply phenomenal. From accounts, Diskerud, Gatt, Agudelo and Boyd (and Jozy) all played well. Good to hear about our young players. Promising. Still need help along the back, especially in the center. Really hoping we see John Anthony Brooks called in at some point next year whether it's the January camp, Gold Cup later on in the Hex etc... Best thing that happened when Bob Bradley was let go is that the stupid "Michael Bradley only plays 'cause his Dad is the coach!" argument has finally died. Didn't get to watch the match today, but a 2-2 result in Russia is encouraging. Looking forward to the Hex.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) I figured that would be the quick defensive mechanism, regardless of its validity. The only way I have a problem with it is if Crean actively lies to the kids and says "Oh no don't worry, Austin Etherington and Remy Abell are going to transfer after this year, it's all good" or some other such garbage*, and it turns out it's not true and the kid relied on that in committing. Other than that, no, I can't really imagine the scenario. *And Crean could be doing this already for all I know; I obviously hope not, but hard to know for sure. I've had extensive conversations about this with my IU friends and co-workers. Here's my biggest issue with ANY program oversigning. It assumes a certain amount of attrition from the classes above. Yeah, we're oversigned, but Remy Abell is going to get pushed out. Crean definitely didn't tell Remy Abell that he would be at risk of being pushed out if he liked kids in the classes below him (note, this would apply to Mike Shaw at Illinois as well). There's always a certain amount of attrition, transfers, etc. It just doesn't feel right to me when coaches push players out to free up other scholarships. I don't have a problem with how IU took care of its scholarship issue this year. I think IU did right by Matt Roth (he got two degrees). Assuming the Zellers were ready to pay Cody Zeller's way this year, the Ron Patterson issue doesn't smell as bad.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Oct 26, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) Sounds like Troy Williams to IU by this weekend. BeeJay Anya to follow next week. How do they have scholarships to bring in Williams and Anya? They are currently one over, assuming everyone committed signs (though Zeller goes pro, that takes care of that issue). Creek probably doesn't come back for his final year of eligibility. But they are still oversigned by one with Williams and Anya. I work with a lot of IU fans (sigh) and there is some concern amongst them that Crean is going to be running off Indiana kids to bring in talented kids from out of state and that might lead to a backlash against IU from the coaches in state. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Triton in Indy has a peanut butter brown on tap right now. Spectacular. Also of note, for those in Indy, SunKing has the best deal ever on Fridays (not new news, but passing it along for those that might not know)... $5 growler re-fills on Wee Mac, Osiris and the cream ale. The craft beer scene in Indy has become quite good over the past 5 years.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) From what I can gather from Google/Wikipedia, FieldTurf is allowed for FIFA matches if it is given approved status by FIFA, and I believe Seattle's stadium does have that approval. However, I think it's the choice of the USMNT to not play their qualifiers there. A good chunk of players don't play in the MLS, so they wouldn't be used to the pitch either, and it wouldn't really be an advantage. I don't think the FieldTurf is very popular with players. I was under the impression that the travel consideration of going to the Pacific Northwest made it somewhat impractical to hold qualifiers there as they happen during the European season. Since a lot of the USMNT plays in Europe, it's a much shorter trip to go to Columbus, KC or somewhere on the east coast than to make the trip to Seattle/Portland (which would both be awesome places for qualifiers). Echoing the sentiment earlier, please no qualifiers in football stadiums. Small stadiums, ensure you have a good partisan crowd in the Hex.