Stewwie's comment history

Stewwie said...

I'm thinking 7,000 at the Mocs game on Sat. I have no idea how well the Mercer fans will travel for this game though. For Chattanoogans, this is an early start time, especially for young families. If you have other activities going on during the morning, this isn't the type of game you'd want to hurry and make.

I thought it was a given that "shadow classes" were going on at every big school. Not trying to justify it, but the report out of UNC doesn't seem like anything new. Players who aren't driven by academics are going to fail unless they get some assistance and/or are pushed to take easy classes to help keep grades up. If things were being done honorably/ethically at every school, there'd be a LOT more suspensions over bad grades than there are now...especially involving star players.

[The NFL in particular and football in general is going to have a very hard time convincing people that its serious about concussions when the players are not serious about concussions.]

The NFL can't force a player to get serious about concussions. Rules can be made (and they have), but if a player chooses to hide his symptoms (and it works), I don't see how that reflects badly on the NFL as an organization.

Weird Al Rushmore:

Amish Paradise, White and Nerdy, It's All About the Pentiums, Handy

October 23, 2014 at 11:15 a.m.
Stewwie said...

Lol MT.

Play a 7-game series now and call it a year? Don't mention it to LeBron or else he'll bring it up at the next CBA. Of course, he'd want to keep his $25 mil/yr. and endorsements while skipping straight to the championship round in November.

And what the crap is ESPN doing saying Kobe is only the 40th best player in the league?? I know he's coming off a bad injury, but a declining Kobe is still a top-20 player in the league. Borderline top 10. I guess ESPN is trolling the Mamba to get him fired up to bring out his best for the season. But knowing Kobe, he'd bring his A-game every night anyway.

October 22, 2014 at 3:08 p.m.
Stewwie said...

If the 3-conference-champs-must-be-in rule isn't already in place, it needs to be. My preference would be having 4 conference champs in the playoffs so that every regular season game and also the conference championship games have the same meaning as before. But I can understand requiring only 3. Leaving the 4-team field wide open makes things more difficult for the committee and diminishes the significance of winning your conference. And why are they releasing a poll this weekend? It might be best if they kept their leanings close to the vest until the end. Give the teams a chance to play out their schedule before indicating who you like.

[Side question: Is Wilson a top-10 NFL quarterback right now?]

He's on the fringe. In no order, let's go with a right-now list of Peyton, Rodgers, Luck, Brees, Brady, Rivers, Romo, Eli, Big Ben, and Flacco. Wilson and Kaep are next.

For the bag: The NBA starts Tuesday; what are your predictions for the season?

October 22, 2014 at 1:46 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Disagree that the system is broken. Changes were made in the late '90s to ensure that unproven, young bucks like KG couldn't land a monster deal without having played a minute on the floor. And key veterans like Pippen were low-balled most of their career. That was when the system was broken. Now the young guys have to gradually work their way up the max ladder.

So once a great player gets old and starts to decline, he and the team need to decide whether to take more money based on a good career, or less money to reflect the current state of decline. HOF guys who are heading downhill should know not to take more money at that point and instead use the rest to get more help to try to win more titles. Duncan has been willing to do that. Kobe obviously has not. Of course, there are reports that guys don't want to come play with him anyway, but that's a different discussion.

One other issue with the HOF exemption would be the growth of superteams. Not necssarily more superteams, just bigger/better superteams. Think of the Heat. D-Wade is arguably a top-5 SG of all time and is likely headed to the HOF. So should the Heat have been able to retain Wade at half-price (against the cap) so that Bron Bron and Bosh could sign? If so, that Big 3 would have been a Big 4 as they would have been able to sign another quality guy.

That said, I think superteams are good for the NBA, but only to a point. I don't think they ought to be easier to form than they are now. If guys want to team up, let them take pay cuts to do it. Don't make these things more attractive by making the money less of an issue. The superteams (as they are now) are not invincible (as we have seen recently). And that's part of what makes it compelling and fun.

October 21, 2014 at 4:43 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Would not be in favor of a HOF cap exemption for players. For players like Kobe, Duncan, etc. it's obvious. But then you'd have agents for fringe guys trying to argue for the same thing. It'd be way too subjective to be fairly applied.

I see your point, but I think the open market still ought to dictate how much players in the twilight of their careers get paid. Or teams can simply choose to overpay to take care of their own (like the Lakers did). Nowadays, it's hard to have much sympathy for future HOF players since they get tons of $$$ from the endorsements. So getting paid more from their team can't be about the money. If anything, it's about the respect. In regard to Duncan, he clearly isn't in it for the money.

[Gamblers love that fact. Fantasy football players embrace that knowledge. Heck, the drama and unpredictability from a TV standpoint make it the best reality TV going.]

I'd say parity is a push with gamblers. They'd still blow their money either way. As a fantasy football player, I HATE the parity. I wish the teams were more consistent so I would know who to start and who to sit each week. From a TV standpoint, only the underdog fans benefit from parity knowing that they have somewhat of a shot in every game. But a league full of mediocre teams isn't that much fun. I watch much less NFL now than I did 5 or 10 years ago. Not very many compelling matchups anymore.

Luthers:

Martin Luther, Luther Massengil, Luther Vandross (good call, OG), and MLK Jr.

October 21, 2014 at 11:09 a.m.
Stewwie said...

JMC,

Agreed on Luther. Dude was aces. Chattanooga lost a great one this morning. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

Looking at how the SoCon has shaked out so far, it's possible that the Mocs haven't played anyone in the top 4 yet. After this weekend, there are no gimmes.

GSU still has a football team? (Just kiddin', Spy.)

October 20, 2014 at 11:57 a.m.
Stewwie said...

No question that Peyton is the greatest ever. He continues to add to his legacy. Jay, what will it take for you to feel comfortable saying Peyton is the greatest? Another ring? 2 more rings? The ring count in a sport like football is an overblown stat. Anyone who ranks one player over another based on rings is disrespecting the position.

No question Kareem is the greatest center of all time. Period. Wilt is a close second. Russell is a not-as-close third. MJ is the greatest ever overall.

I don't get the feeling that Winston is anywhere near the top of being hated. I would say there was more hate toward Cam during his investigation (if you want to call it that). Any Duke b-ball star that's ever played for Coach K has taken it way worse than either of those guys will ever know. And those guys weren't even in trouble...their "offense" was simply wearing the Duke uniform.

October 20, 2014 at 10:49 a.m.
Stewwie said...

If not for the Ray Rice saga, the media would still be all over this issue (you included). But somehow (thank goodness), most of the talk started centering around the actual games once the season started. But I think we can both agree that this issue is far from being settled and dropped.

I thought you'd enjoy the debate. It's part of the fun of the 5-at-10. So thanks for the platform. And the back and forth.

October 14, 2014 at 5:27 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[The big one that Snyder had issue was a column — an opinion piece mind you — that made fun of him and Lil' Lord Flutterbug got his panties in a bunch.]

Columns are primarily opinion-based, but they also contain facts. And Snyder took issue with some "facts" that he said were incorrect. Best case scenario would be the writer apologizing for any errors and either the writer or Snyder simply setting the record straight. We are in agreement that a lawsuit was not necessary in this case. But freedom of the press shouldn't mean freedom from journalistic standards for a reputable news source.

[I'm certainly not offended by it...]

Then why are you joining the push for a name change? (As opposed to an indifferent approach?)

[...and it's not my spot — or yours — to decide what offends people, but there certainly seems to be ample evidence of Native Americans being offended.]

The Redskins' name would not be an issue AT ALL if not for the liberal white guys in the media (and Harry Reid) making a big deal about it. 90% of native Americans support use of the Redskins name.

[And just because the media reports on something you don't like does not make it some sort of conspiracy or agenda, but feel free to cloak yourself in that approach.]

I have no problem with reporting. But after reporting that most native Americans and also most Americans overall think the Redskins' name is fine and the team shouldn't change their name, why is this still an issue? This would simply go away if the media quit talking about it. It becomes less about reporting and more about pushing an agenda. Period.

[As for Silver, well, dude likely over stepped, but he acted swiftly and decisively and stuck to his guns when he needed to make a statement in a monster issue for his league.]

Yes, Silver was decisive. But he went decisively too far. If LeBron hadn't said, "There's no place for Sterling in our league," Silver would not have banned him for life. No way Stern would have banned Sterling for life.

[While we don't agree that he should have forced him to sell for that one offense...]

Good to see because you previously agreed with the decision. And Silver made clear the banishment was only for that one offense.

October 14, 2014 at 4:21 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Jay,

Snyder was more upset at (what he said were) factual misstatements in an article than the actual criticism. Still, those could have been better addressed than with a lawsuit (which was later dropped).

Regarding the team name, more white people are "offended" by the Redskins' name than the actual Native Americans are. Leave it to the liberal media to talk about a problem that isn't really there. The push to change the Redskins' name is nothing more than an attempt to make America more p.c. If this were the NBA, I'm sure your buddy Adam Silver would have banned Snyder for life by now due to his unwillingness to cave to the p.c. police. You can't tell me that would be a good thing.

Other than maybe Jerry Jones, what "buffoon owners have bumbled their way to titles?" Some guys know what they're doing; most however are best when they don't micro-manage the guys they have in place to help the team succeed. In the Redskins' case, Dan Snyder hurts more than he helps, and it is absolutely a reap-what-you-sow result.

October 14, 2014 at 3:07 p.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.