July 01, 2015, 04:05:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Congrats, Juan and Derrick!
   Home   Search Login Register   *

Recent Posts
[Today at 03:54:01 PM]

[Today at 03:51:14 PM]

[Today at 03:49:20 PM]

[Today at 03:47:55 PM]

[Today at 03:46:02 PM]

[Today at 03:32:53 PM]

[Today at 03:21:16 PM]
Please Register - It's FREE!
The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: Today at 02:52:18 PM 
Started by muwarrior69 - Last post by Pakuni
Unless they have defined metrics of "testosterone suppression treatment" it will get messy when someone tries to game the system.

Uhhh ... no. Until shown otherwise, I'll stand by my belief that people who identify as male aren't going to start undergoing hormone suppression therapy for the sole purpose that it might land a one-year athletic scholarship.

As for your Wall Street case .... interesting, if that's your thing, but wholly irrelevant to this discussion and your initial claims.

 on: Today at 02:51:20 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by CTWarrior
This whole things makes no sense for either side.

Why would Calipari leave a job like Kentucky where's he got it made and practically guaranteed to be a top team every year?

More importantly, what evidence does any NBA team have that the guy can actually coach at a high level?  All he has shown is that he can win in college when he has overwhelmingly superior talent, an advantage he will never have in the NBA.

 on: Today at 02:49:30 PM 
Started by Benny B - Last post by RushmoreAcademy
Maybe one of the more internet lists I've seen in the past 4 or 5 hours.

 on: Today at 02:48:58 PM 
Started by Chili - Last post by Grayson Allen
Who ever said they aren't able to match us?  They easily could.

My argument is that they don't have to and they achieve the same (or higher) level of success than we do.

Therefore, its false to look at the budget and conclude they don't care about basketball.

Except that upkeep isn't a basketball expense. It's a facilities expense.  Just like MU has to pay upkeep on the Al which isn't a basketball expense.

I imagine you'd reject the argument that since UW spends more on upkeep for the Kohl center than MU spends on upkeep for the AL, it should be evidence that they care more about their facilities than MU.  

The fact remains, rent is a $0 item for them.  MU still has to pay rent for a venue for its basketball team.  

UW has averaged nearly sellout since they opened the Kohl center. They didn't luck into one good year of attendance because they were performing well.  And in our best years, we never averaged a sellout.

No, because your argument ignores reality.

If Buzz Williams threatens to leave if he doesn't get a huge raise, and Bo Ryan is happy and doesn't ask for a huge raise, Williams gets a huge raise and Ryan doesn't.

Someone else mentioned Izzo and why Ryan doesn't make the same. Well, Izzo's name is floated every time the Pistons hire a head coach. When has Bo Ryan EVER indicated he might leave Wisconsin?

Not said was that the pie at MU is a lot smaller than the pie at UW.

Nothing you have said supports the notion that UW doesn't support basketball at the same level MU supports basketball.

The budgetary differences are due to structural items, not evidence that MU cares more.

since you seem to think compensation is only based on retention, UW has been WAY overpaying, and should have reduced Bo's contract annually, as there was zero chance he'd leave to take over at another program.

Another MSU example: D'Antonio was given a $2m raise and there is zero chance he'd leave. He is in the twilght of his career but kicking ass, and was rewarded appropriately.

Compensation is also about signaling commitment to new coaches. If you coach at X University, your success will be rewarded with $$$. MU has objectively done that at a higher clip than UW.

This is why BA habitually seeks hires from within the UW. His reputation works against him in attracting elite level coaches. Even if UW were to pay the same, there is no way in hell a Harbaugh, Saban or Meyer works for that guy. Even Gary Anderson couldn't take it.

BA is a drag on the attractiveness of the UW job to new candidates. Remember how our last AD and president weren't exactly attractive to Buzz staying? We needed a new President to be in place before Wojo accepted. It's important to not be working for a dick who doesn't give you autonomy and resources.

 on: Today at 02:44:54 PM 
Started by GoldenWarrior11 - Last post by RushmoreAcademy
Fantastic news!

 on: Today at 02:43:52 PM 
Started by muwarrior69 - Last post by Heisenberg
Google too hard?

• A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or
Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete
on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.
• Any transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender transition may participate in sex-separated sports activities in accordance with his or her assigned birth gender.
• A trans male (FTM) student-athlete who is not taking testosterone related
to gender transition may participate on a men’s or women’s team.
• A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.


In other words, the doomsday scenario you describe cannot happen under NCAA rules.

So the NCAA has defined gender female purely on the basis of taking "testosterone suppression treatment."  Do they give benchmarks?

Regarding the doomsday scenario.  Look what this guy had to do to keep his job.  People will go a long way to get in to a selective university and get it paid for.  If that means saying "I identify as female" and taking estogen supplements to "prove it" they will.

Unless they have defined metrics of "testosterone suppression treatment" it will get messy when someone tries to game the system.

Details Emerge in SAC Capital Sex Harassment Case
By Charles Gasparino
Wednesday, 10 Oct 2007 | 2:45 PM ET

Sexual harassment cases are nothing new on Wall Street, but CNBC has uncovered new details of one of the most salacious cases to hit a big trading house in a long time.

The case involves a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a Andrew Z. Tong, a former junior trader at SAC Capital, the powerful Greenwich, Conn., hedge fund, against one of SAC’s top producers, a trader named Ping Jiang.

A New York State judge has sealed the case and sent the lawsuit into arbitration, where both sides would battle it out in private. He even cancelled oral arguments that were scheduled for Thursday following an appeal by Tong’s lawyers, who want the case to remain in state court.

The judge said he sealed the details of Tong’s allegations contained in the lawsuit because it is not in the public interest to disclose the salacious nature of the complaints. CNBC has learned the suit includes the following allegations made by Tong against Jiang:

* After being hired at SAC, Tong alleges that Jiang came to him and told him he had a trading method in which his traders must not be too aggressive; that traders must be more effeminate and to do so, he directed Tong to begin taking female hormones.

* Tong says he then took the female hormones that he bought on the black market.

* Tong then alleges he suffered emotional and physical distress. The hormones, he says, caused him to begin wearing women's clothes. He also could not perform sexually with his wife, who wanted to have a baby.

* Tong says the sexual harassment included sexual relations between the two men.

Tong's attorney had no comment.

SAC Capital and Jiang vehemently denying the charges, saying in a statement that: “SAC conducted a thorough investigation and found these scurrilous accusations to be false. We will vigorously defend ourselves and are confident that these claims will be swiftly rejected in arbitration.”

Tong was terminated by SAC Capital in April 2006 after working there less than a year. SAC, according to people close to the firm, say he was fired for cause. Tong, according to others, claim he was forced out of the firm.

 on: Today at 02:39:06 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by MUMonster03
Why would Cal jump to the NBA?  He's got a gig now where there's no salary cap for his players...

Because some team is going to eventually come along and offer him a sum of money that is too much to refuse along with other incentives/positions within the organization. Plus I'm sure that his first venture into the NBA not being a success burns at him and he would love to prove his critics wrong.

 on: Today at 02:36:57 PM 
Started by Chili - Last post by Grayson Allen
The problem is that you continue to equate how much you spend with how much you care.

Except good budget management says you spend what you have to in order to achieve the desired goal.

I just gave you three examples where UW didn't have to spend as much as Marquette because of structural differences in the programs.  It has nothing to do with a lower prioritization of basketball.

So let me ask you this: When this year's numbers come out, we'll likely see a drop in MU basketball spending on account of Wojo not getting the same money Buzz got in his last season (and not having to pay Chew-like money to assistants). Are you prepared to lead the argument that the new spending levels mean MU suddenly started caring less about basketball?  That's been your argument so far--money=prioritization.

the argument is most attractive job. If you're a coach, resources matter. MU is consistently in the top 5-10 in terms of BBall investment. It means they are willing to spend when required. This means no ticky tack arguments with your AD about getting your assistants the university-paid leases they were promised, etc. it doesn't on its own make MU a better job than any place else, but it is an advantage vs Bucky.

 on: Today at 02:36:23 PM 
Started by GoldenWarrior11 - Last post by MUMonster03
Jimmy definitely deserves it but it seems like some teams are throwing around a lot of money this year. I wonder if they are willing to take the luxury tax hit for one year since they will probably be under the cap with it going up next year. 

 on: Today at 02:34:58 PM 
Started by Heisenberg - Last post by Heisenberg
Should we go through all the companies over time that had insane market valuations and ended up with nothing?  The future is wonderful, but many don't make it.  I say this as a Netflix shareholder.

I happen to know Netflix has negotiated the rights to linear live streams because a few birdies in the industry drank a bit too much.   Wink  It will be interesting to see if they take advantage of that because they have been absolutely adamant about no advertising ever.  There model will be changing significantly if they do.

Lots of them, but when that company is part of the S&P 500, and Netflix has been since 2010, use that as a metric that it is "established" and it is going to change its industry. 

It has moved from being a high-flying promise to an established technology that is changing its industry.

You have two options, change for the new way of doing things or go out of business.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.065 seconds with 22 queries.