crownbreaker
Crownbreaker
crownbreaker

The Big 12 teams split the first and second tier revenues evenly (that’s things like conference TV deals, merchandising, bowl revenue). The sticking point with the Pac 12 was the third tier stuff, which is basically the University specific revenue. The Pac 12 takes a more collaborative approach to third tier revenue,

This is sort of a cop out excuse. The NCAA basically said in 2013 that they would waive the 12 team requirement, and Bowlsby wanted to pursue it, but the member institutions decided not to after at the spring meetings and it got dropped.

Tips for happy vault dwelling, based on my obsessive playing for the past 48 hours or so (I’m at a stable 82 population with 92 percent happiness - no deaths yet - and I gave them 20 bucks and bought 30 lunch boxes):

You win the internet so far this morning. Well played.

Hmmmm...let me put it this way. If you ranked Gawker’s advocacy for particular “causes” numerically and by priority, religious liberty would probably be somewhere near the bottom. It “wins” in this case, because “defending corporate America” is probably dead last on that list, or close to to it. However, try bringing

*shakes head* I give up. You win.

It’s not disingenuous. I mean - it’s not - I’m a lawyer (and I’m certainly not defending AF here) but I specialize in Labor/Employment law. All that happened here is the Supreme Court ruled that the 10th applied the wrong legal standard (or, more precisely, interpreted the legal standard incorrectly). It doesn’t flow

OK. And I’m just playing devil’s advocate but let’s take your baby-killin’ example, flip it 180 degrees, and apply this case to it! A woman wearing a cross applies for a job at Gawker media. The powers that be make the assumption that she’s pro-life and decide not hire her because it’s inconsistent with their values

*shrug* I’d have to dig into the briefs to really figure out how good their chances are. Hard to know. You may be right. But the original question was whether they were “spinning” anything. They’re not. The media is couching this decision as some sort of condemnation of AF. It’s not. Although that may well be coming.

Freedom of speech/First Amendment claims are actually where he aligns with the “liberal wing” the most. I haven’t looked recently but as of a few years ago, he was the Justice MOST likely to champion a First Amendment claim after David Souter, since he’s been on the bench. The one that sticks out off the top of my

I AM sorta puzzled that Gawker/Jez decided to carry this particular torch, however. I mean, let’s not mince words - this is a SERIOUS victory for religious freedom in the workplace which isn’t something that normally gets championed here (there’s a reason that Scalia wrote the opinion - it’s one of his big

Attorney here. This gets a little technical so bear with me. The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Ms. Elauf in the federal district court for Oklahoma. Both sides filed for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a legal way of “cutting to the chase” when the parties agree on the facts and all that’s at issue is how the law

Attorney here. Most of the politicization of Supreme Court issues focuses on politically charged topics (for obvious reasons - it’s what gets eyeballs on the product). But that’s really a small part of their docket. You’d be surprised how often there are different alignments with the justices on various issues - they

These whiners need to knock this shit off. They’re screwing up my dream of a Shaft remake with Vin Diesel.

As an FYI, I live in Orlando and Valencia is a community college. I’m not trying to shit on that or anything, but the article and some of the comments seem to imply that people are thinking this was going in med school, which is a different creature. These people were in classes to become med techs - not OB/GYN’s -

Including you, apparently. None of his constitutional rights are implicated here - it’s a civil action, not state action against him. He’s not exercising any rights (aside from the right to sue).

This. It’s not like Affleck actually owned slaves or was condoning slavery (as far as I know). You can’t change or choose your family. Oddly, it makes him look bad because he was trying to hide it - not because of what he was trying to hide.

I, too, was in a fraternity in the deep south in the 1990's and SAE had the worst reputation of the 30+ fraternities on campus at the time. They were, in fact, on total probation the first two years I was in undergrad and were forbidden from campus activities or even living in their house due to hazing/drugs. I didn't

God, this. My wife and I have 4 kids aged between 4 and 11. This morning was a nightmare straight out of Walking Dead. None of them like getting up for school anyway - we were about ready to start whacking them with kitchen implements to get them moving. They'd wander aimlessly for five minutes and then just collapse

This is a shame, but it's also just kind of the world we now live in. According to U.S. News/World Report their tuition/fees in 2014/2015 were $34,935. They've got an endowment of 94 million. That's an expensive place to go to college, with a severely limited resource base. Compare that to the other state colleges