Recent Comments

we might not be so bad off if a network is never created, then. 45mm a year wouldn't hurt...and I think there is a certain amount of risk involved with starting a network. As has been mentioned several times over, if it's not done right it could flop badly.

Everything I've read and seen from actual sports writers, as opposed to the twitter people who throws every theory onto the internet wall, has stated that if an ACC sports network channel is not created within a certain time frame, ESPN must pay the ACC $45 million per year until said network is created.

No issues streaming. 1080p, 30fps. The worst part is that my twitter feed/text messages are ~30 seconds behind the stream - but that would be an issue regardless of internet speed.

However, may place has been wired for Google Fiber, although the service is not available yet. Looking forward to that.

Watchers on the Wall (via Reddit) has uncovered the text of the letter.

Yes, when the SEC was looking at expansion, VT and NCSt were both candidates. I believe that this was to expand their geographic footprint, which, if I recall correctly, was geared towards subscriber fees in major metro areas through cable, a model that is now being questioned as to its long-term viability. I agree with you that if superconferences come to fruition, the SEC is going to be one of the survivors, along with the Big Ten (the other most powerful conference) and PAC (geographically, they're protected from much of the poaching that could be done). The only question is - who is it gonna be? Big12 or ACC?

I do think it will be exceedingly difficult to separate OK and OKSt, and I think VT is better in the ACC, but the SEC may want to double down in Texas, hence my suggestion about TCU (aka not Baylor, not TT, and Texas I don't think would share all of their revenue), as well as expand their footprint into NC. I think they'll eventually sacrifice Missouri to the Big Ten, which is honestly where I think they should be anyway.

In response to HightyTighty above (with apologies to everyone else not interested and hoping for recruiting news.)

I get that you are passionate about this, but, to put it kindly, you need more knowledge on this subject.

First off, morality is a study of philosophy. Therefore it cannot, as I said, be absolutely one thing or another.

but you don't need to take my word for it, here is something that hopefully can help explain morality, moral philosophy and descriptive versus normative morality. First off note where this article is found: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
this also may be helpful:
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html
as well as any number of thousands of articles on morality as a field of philosophical study.

Regarding your question on labor: Again, you are incorrect. Morals do not define your labor or that your labor is worth anything at all. You personally may regard that you are morally entitled to compensation for your labor but laws define and rule if you are in fact entitled to compensation and how much is fair. To prove the point. You are assuming labor has value: " but it cannot change that my labor belongs to me, and if you want it, you must compensate me."

But does your labor require compensation in true socialist or communist society? In these societies no one compensates you for your labor. Your labor is made for the greater good and you share in its resources collectively. That is defined by laws. Not morals. Again, YOU personally may believe what you believe but that is only you, not everyone. To presume your morality supersedes everyone else's is the fundamentally immoral. How about an example in today's society? an unpaid internship. Your absolutism as you stated is that I must be compensated. But the internship is unpaid. So is it immoral to offer unpaid internships? No, it is not.

You bring up slavery. You say it is morally wrong. I personally do not disagree. But you cannot say universally that this has always been a moral standard, because it factually has not. Again you are presuming what you perceive and believe to be moral standards are universal to everyone, everywhere for all time. But the defeat of this thinking is to put one person for every previous century and ask them the same moral question. Your theory is that the moral standard will be universal, but plainly it will not be. Going back to slavery, many of those people from past centuries will believe it the moral right for one person to own another. You cannot convince them it is wrong simply because society today believes it so, because society in their day believed it to be something else. You mean to say you are right simply because you say so?

You use an overly hyperbolic example of Nazis but are fundamentally wrong in your understanding of moral relativism. It does not excuse the actions of anyone, especially the Nazis. It simply asks why that was the norm at that time and how those norms formed differing and specific moral values. So your house of cards example to say moral relativism somehow justifies Nazis is plainly ludicrous. Factually, the issue of Nazi Germany has been studied in moral philosophy over and over again and is not justified, rather classified as a moral disagreement.

Finally, and an important note about moral absolutism and moral universalism. The reason I asked, and the reason you cannot answer who sets these moral values is that there are no set moral values. If you, right now, believe that everything you hold to be moral is the same universally and absolutely for everyone else then you are kidding yourself with delusions of grandeur. Your morals plainly are not mine, and there is no universal or absolute power setting what is moral for us both to follow. It is that simple to defeat either of these theories, and all of your claims.

Real world example. Gay marriage. Is it moral or not? (rhetorical) there is a moral disagreement about this, not a absolute or universal truth. It is not rigid as you proclaim. It is in fact set by meta-ethical decisions on societal norms.

and so... about that video... highly ironic

I could see those three being very difficult to take off the floor. JRob still made some forced decisions last year, but if he minimizes those and shoots all year like he did late in the year, it will be tough to not have him out there.

I'm not quite as sure on Outlaw, there may be a bit of a mythbuilding going on with him. But he's a shooter, if he defends, he could cut into Bibbs minutes heavily.

And I'm renowned for my admiration of Hill. He started 30 games as a freshman, he'll start more than that this year. I could see him taking the step that Blossomgame took last year and push for All-ACC.

It would be nice to get that kind of speed on the field for the hokies for sure. The 247 crystal ball is 2/2 saying he is Ark bound.... hope they are wrong..... again

Find your image online. Make sure you copy the URL address of just the image itself (you can right click on the image and select "copy image address". Then, go to the comment box you type in to post a comment. Above the box are 9 little icons. Click the first to post an image (it looks like mountains and a sun). Paste the URL address of your image in the box that says "URL". Click insert. And with that...

Why is this 'off-topic'?

They are just practicing for Bristol.

Awesome list. Concerning #13, I definitely agree. Being an adult has a lot more worries. Although, to a certain extent, being done with classes, assignments, exams etc., getting your first big boy/girl job, and having some money is fun too. I would say if you are going to do grad school, jump right into it after undergrad and don't take time off. Once you start a full time career making your own money, it's hard to want to go back to taking classes and doing the academia thing (trying to balance that right now).

13. JUMP HIGH DURING ENTER SANDMAN CAUSE THOSE 4 YEARS FLY. Remember, you can sit when you graduate can finally afford west stands seats

FTFY