Weston won the debate? Clint, you're kidding, right? Chuck did a great job defending his record and gave great answers to the questions asked of him. Weston looked like a nervous high school freshman (and sounded like one too) and seemed to go in circles in a lot of his responses.
Weston is trying to win this election by trolling the Fleischmann camp and making outlandish statements. He continues to ridiculously associate Chuck's presence in Washington with the dysfunction that exists there. Even after hearing the facts from Chuck about how he's been part of the solution, not the problem, Weston still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge them.
The only reason that Weston has any chance at all in this race is because of what his last name is. But the kid still has some growing up to do. Maybe when Fleischmann retires from Congress, Weston should try again. Hopefully by then, he'll be mature enough to be able to do the job well. Until then, it's clear that Fleischmann is the right man for this job and he deserves re-election.
Who the heck does Jason Kidd think he is by demanding a role above the GM to oversee basketball operations? And this is after an underwhelming rookie season with an A-list roster. It's one thing to be driven; it's another thing to unrealistically and arrogantly expect more than you're worth. The Nets looked dumb by signing Kidd as their coach; now the Bucks look even dumber for giving up 2 draft picks to obtain Kidd. Next move for the Nets is to get a real coach (Lionel Hollins is rumored to be the frontrunner).
Best Athlete--Rafa Nadal--got his 9th French title and would have won the Aussie too if not for an injury that flared up in time for the final.
Best moment--Kevin Durant's MVP speech.
Worst moment--All of Super Bowl 48.
Best game--Florida St. vs. Auburn (sorry Jay).
What's the rest of the sentences in the last two items of "This and That?"
I think Miami is the favorite for LBJ to play at next year and beyond. But that will likely mean D-Wade and Bosh will have to give up some money to make it happen. Could their friendships turn sour over a dispute in contracts which will lead to LeBron heading elsewhere? I could see that.
If he leaves Miami, I think Chicago is his next best place to play. But Rose's vulnerability may make it less appealing. Another option is the Clippers so that he could play with his buddy Chris Paul. But I think he'd be better off staying in the East if he can. And if he cares anything about winning, he'll avoid any situation that pairs him with Melo.
[San Antonio is the outlier and it's because of draft luck when they landed Duncan — not unlike Indy getting Peyton and then Luck — and finding a Hall of Fame coach.]
I disagree about SA. Yes, it was ping pong luck that they got #1 to draft Duncan, but in 2014, he is only a shadow of what he used to be. They won this year because of all the other roster decisions that they have made over the years and none have involved top draft picks or big name free agent signings. Having Pop as coach helps a ton too, but finding the right coach is the same problem every league has and is not exclusive to the NBA's model.
[If Durant opts out, OKC will be the new Cleveland.]
I doubt Durant will go elsewhere. His team has been good to him and has set them up to contend. And Durant seems like a loyal guy. And my understanding is that the NBA no longer allows for the sign and trade that LeBron did with Cleveland so that he could pick up the extra year with his current team and then go play for another team.
[The Hawks talked openly about how finishing seventh or eighth and making the playoffs was a bad thing for them. Making the playoffs is now a bad thing — think about that.]
I must have missed those statements. If they think that making the playoffs this year was a bad thing, then I'm not sure what they were hoping for. And making the playoffs is never a bad thing. I guess losing a few more games to get a 1% chance in the draft lottery would have been better? Come on, Hawks.
[And that cycle of doom is never ending. You're right that football teams can bag midway through, but the nature of the NFL is the next year, almost everyone has a chance the following year.]
Not necessarily, but the NFL does have more parity. But is that necessarily a better thing? I don't see a problem with dynasties, especially when a champion team builds itself from the ground up. The NBA's "Bird Rights" rule helps a team try to stay together if they so choose.
[Maybe it seems worse than it is, but it seems like a system that promotes alliances rather than improvement.]
Alliances are possible, but I don't think they're promoted. And what has happened thus far hasn't ruined the game, but I would argue that it has made things more interesting.
If you're at the top of your game, doesn't it make sense to opt out each time you get the chance (even if you plan to re-sign with the same team)? That way, you take advantage of the chance to sign for more years at the big salary.
I agree with Sir Chuck and MJ that it seems strange that LeBron and others would rather form superteams than try to beat each other. That said, though, I think the superteam formations are great for the NBA. Miami may be a perennial favorite with their Big 3, but they are hardly a lock to win it all as we have clearly seen. Plus, a lot of people feel strongly one way or the other on them so it makes for more compelling TV to see if they can succeed or not.
[The league is staring at a very real caste system in which there are a small circle of haves — teams with championship-level talent who have assembled themselves to be among the elite — and a large pool of driftwood where teams have to lose and hope the lottery is kind.]
Whose fault is that? When small-market teams like OKC and San Antonio can be perennial contenders, I think there's enough proof that you don't need to be in a big market signing big-name free agents in order to compete in the NBA. Anyone who says otherwise is just making excuses. You don't need the NFL model to be a good league. The NBA model is just fine. There are pros and cons for each.
[So there will be eight-to-10 teams trying to get to the No. 1 spot and 20-to-22 teams trying to get the No. 1 pick.].
Not true. There are never 20-22 teams trying to get the No. 1 pick. There are 20-22 teams who are trying to at least make the playoffs. Of that group, there are anywhere from 5-8 who have a shot at going all the way. The remaining teams in the league (8-10) are in an obvious rebuild mode and/or are without their top player(s) due to injury. Of that group, maybe 3 or 4 call it a season before the All-Star break. But in the NFL, there are also 3-4 teams who do the same exact thing before the midway point of the season each year.
In case you never noticed, I am a UTC fan and also an alumnus. I am not a Vols fan at all, but I'm also not a hater. Same for the rest of the SEC...I'm not partial to any team but also don't dislike any team either. Just a general fan overall outside the Southern Conference. My point earlier is that both the Vols and Mocs have somewhat confusing nicknames/mascots. Just making a fair observation.
Good point about the train references fading away. A name change back to UC would be approved while also staying in the UT-system? Then I'm shocked it hasn't already happened. Agreed with you that there'd be plenty of interest...especially from those still around who attended there while it was still UC.
MT, the Mocs' name made sense until 1997. It was clearly short for Moccasins. Now the mascot is a mockingbird, but you never hear the teams called that. It's just "Mocs". Throw in the train references and there's even more confusion. SMH. UTC could do better. Or is it Chattanooga? There's an orange "UT" on school letterhead, but the team uniforms only say "Chattanooga". SMH again.
Great point, MT. Maybe all professional sports teams should simply start over and pick new mascots to be absolutely sure that they offend no people whatsoever. Turn it into a draft. We'll even let Obama officiate it...it's not like he has 17 trillion other things to worry about anyway.
[And let's face, we're white males, our opinion about what is and is not offensive does not matter.]
Interestingly, it appears that a higher percentage of non-Indians are offended by the Redskins name than the actual Indians. So if the white man's opinion didn't matter, wouldn't this issue just go away? But leave it to guys like Harry Reid to try to make a mountain out of a molehill. Check out this article:
I would not address an American Indian with, "What's up, Redskin?" for the same reason that I would not say "What's up, Whiteskin?" or "What's up, Blackskin?" to a white and black person respectively. It would have less to do with potential offensiveness and more to do with the fact that it would simply be awkward addressing someone by their skin color, especially if you don't know them that well.
That said, the Redskins name should be a non-issue. And to be fair, I would have zero problem with the Lookouts renaming their team the Whiteskins if that's what management wanted. Yes, it would get shot down because of how silly it sounds, but not because it would be offensive. Or how about Crackers? Rednecks? As a white man, I would honestly say that I would not be offended by either of those names as someone's mascot either.
Jomo, when you find out what a Vol is, let me know what a Moc is.
At least LeBron never quit during the five-game sweep. He did his part, but he rarely showed the needed grit to inspire his teammates to also do their parts. This is what separates him from Kobe and MJ. And it's why he is now 2-3 in Finals.
I think LeBron would be foolish to leave Miami. Not because of a Decision 2.0 backlash, but because Miami gives him a great chance to still compete for titles. Wade is showing his age a little bit, but he's not done yet. If they beef up their bench a bit, they'll be fine (though Bosh will continue to be overpaid). If Bron goes anywhere, it ought to be Chicago.
Gregg Popovich has done an outstanding job as head coach of the Spurs. Winning 5 championships is no small achievement. That said, he is not better than Phil Jackson. Yes, you need talent to win, but it's not so simple as just having "MJ and Scottie" or "Shaq and Kobe" on the team. In fact, it's ironic that when the Lakers put their best team (on paper) together in 2003-2004, that team failed to win it all.
Jackson had his famous twosomes leading the way. But Coach Pop has never lacked for talent on his teams either and his threesome of Duncan/Parker/Ginobili is one of the best of all time. And considering that Pop has always had such an unselfish group of leaders and role players, I would even argue that Dr. Phil had a tougher job winning titles with his drama-laden groups than Pop did with his. And let's also remember that Phil went 4-1 in series against Pop. The one time he lost was when he missed at least a game due to a heart blockage that required time in the hospital.