I live in New England too, but have never heard anyone mention this. It's fucking three weeks and the game against the Steelers easily could have gone the other way.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:Apparently, PK is a big Gary Tanguay fan:
Here's Gary being a moron, per usual.
And, yeah, as someone living in New England, I can say with some certainly that people are already talking "undefeated." Like, a lot of them.
Generally, the talk radio CW is that they'll lose in Denver. But, otherwise, they're going 16-0.
pappymojo said:I live in New England too, but have never heard anyone mention this. It's fucking three weeks and the game against the Steelers easily could have gone the other way.
Are talk radio callers people?pappymojo said:And, no, the media are not people.
I remember Super Bowl 42 like I remember Star Wars eps I-III, Rocky V, and Matrix reloaded and revolutions.SidelineCameras said:The media. Not people. I think most fans a) realize that it's September and b) still remember Superbowl 42.
And Guregian and CHB have their revenge tour crap. They are people in NE.ifmanis5 said:ESPN, both Reiss and Sando, have 2007 undefeated feel columns up now. It's something the lazy media will talk about but not actual people, especially since it's only 3-0. It's like talking about a no hitter after only 2 innings or so, pretty pointless. But that's the current sports media landscape for you. Either that Pats are cheating villains or the greatest team ever assembled. Nothing reasonable in between gets clicks.
I remember it like "Requiem for a Dream".GeorgeCostanza said:I remember Super Bowl 42 like I remember Star Wars eps I-III, Rocky V, and Matrix reloaded and revolutions.
Not worked up about it at all, just pointing out the obvious. There are no two and a half star reviews of the Pats. It's either zero or five and both will get you clicks.dcmissle said:You may not like PK and that is fine. But this is a dumbass issue to get worked up about.
Marciano490 said:How is 3-0 flawless looking? That makes no damn sense.
There is no Rev said:https://twitter.com/SI_PeterKing/status/650057182289993733?lang=en
King is getting killed for this by fans of teams across the spectrum. It's beautiful.
joe dokes said:
McCann is no longer interested in substance. He's fallen in love with the notoriety.
joe dokes said:
McCann is no longer interested in substance. He's fallen in love with the notoriety.
Why do you say that? There have been many teachable moments to come out of this cluster so far, so why not build a course around it?This of course assumes that the class will focus on such aspects, so I could be off.E5 Yaz said:That happened the moment he decided to offer a college course on Deflategate.
Why do you reach this conclusion based on his invite to PK? The whole Deflategate affair was a media-driven "scandal." Why wouldn't you want one of the (for better or worse) most important members of the NFL media to speak to your class? That seems like substance to me. I'm assuming Mort would have turned down the invite, so PK's the next best thing.joe dokes said:
McCann is no longer interested in substance. He's fallen in love with the notoriety.
drleather2001 said:It's not a college course. It's a law school course, which makes the entire endeavor suspect because it doesn't relates to the study of law at all.
That Peter King is being invited only solidifies that point, because he clearly has nothing to offer in regards to the legal considerations of the subject. I'm sure the law school is thrilled, because of all the tweets and attention UNH Law is getting over this, but ultimately McCann isn't doing his students any favors by having them learn about how "sports media" covered a quasi scandal where the only legal issues involved were pretty straightforward labor law stuff.
If a Kentucky law school offered a course on why Kim Davis is so polarizing, it would be about the same thing. It's pandering to the student body (which is overwhelmingly from Patriots-fan territory), and not much else.
Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:Why do you reach this conclusion based on his invite to PK? The whole Deflategate affair was a media-driven "scandal." Why wouldn't you want one of the (for better or worse) most important members of the NFL media to speak to your class? That seems like substance to me. I'm assuming Mort would have turned down the invite, so PK's the next best thing.
drleather2001 said:Well, shit.
“You see the title, ‘Deflategate,’ and you say, ‘How is that useful?’ I’d argue this class is more useful than most of their classes,” said McCann, director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at UNH and a legal analyst and writer for Sports Illustrated.
“Learning what labor law is, learning what antitrust law is, learning intellectual property laws is very useful. For a course title that doesn’t sound like it would be practical, I think the substance of the class is very practical.”
Papelbon's Poutine said:
It's funny because he actually will be covering the legal aspects as well. Certainly not to the level that a law school class would, of course, but it's not totally centered on the circus.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/18/class-on-law-and-deflategate-gets-students-pumped-up/
There is no Rev said:
Just educating people on the idea that employers can't do whatever they want is sufficient for me to think this is a valid subject matter for a course.
I think a lot of people learned more about law and related social issues from this issue in the football forum this off-season than a lot of people get from many a 3 credit undergraduate course out there.
The education is that employers can't do whatever they want -- if the employees have a union. That was my "teachable moment" from Deflategate. Without the union, the NFL could have suspended Brady for life and there's not much anyone could do about it.There is no Rev said:
Just educating people on the idea that employers can't do whatever they want is sufficient for me to think this is a valid subject matter for a course.
I think a lot of people learned more about law and related social issues from this issue in the football forum this off-season than a lot of people get from many a 3 credit undergraduate course out there.
Take a little initiative and dig a bit deeper, because you don't need a union to have rights as a worker. The laws may not be as iron clad, but many, many employers exploit their employees beyond what is allowed. As much of life and education, an important question to ask, when you learn anything, is "does this somehow apply to me and, if so, how? If not directly, is there something similar that does?"Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:The education is that employers can't do whatever they want -- if the employees have a union. That was my "teachable moment" from Deflategate. Without the union, the NFL could have suspended Brady for life and there's not much anyone could do about it.
Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:The education is that employers can't do whatever they want -- if the employees have a union. That was my "teachable moment" from Deflategate. Without the union, the NFL could have suspended Brady for life and there's not much anyone could do about it.
Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:The education is that employers can't do whatever they want -- if the employees have a union. That was my "teachable moment" from Deflategate. Without the union, the NFL could have suspended Brady for life and there's not much anyone could do about it.
PBDWake said:
I mean, maybe? But then again, wasn't the NFL's entire case, and much of the legal world's entire point, that the union bargained away Brady's rights? Which would imply that Brady had them, and the union took them away. I'm not saying that unions are the best, or the worst, but that seems like boiling a complex issue down to 5% of reality and making it the whole point.
drleather2001 said:I just don't buy the "league has investigated thoroughly" line.
In criminal matters, active criminal investigative data held by law enforcement is typically off-limits to everyone not doing the investigation. So what is the NFL basing their "thorough investigation" on?
This constant peacock-ing by the league designed to give the appearance that they are somehow their own fiefdom, independent from the laws and rules of America at large, is so tiresome. Just cut the fucking crap. Want players and personnel to stop acting like they are above the law? Start at the top.
That's not always been my experience. I've conducted employee investigations that overlapped with a ongoing criminal matter, and got all sorts of goodies from the prosecutor's office. In other cases, not so much.drleather2001 said:I just don't buy the "league has investigated thoroughly" line.
In criminal matters, active criminal investigative data held by law enforcement is typically off-limits to everyone not doing the investigation. So what is the NFL basing their "thorough investigation" on?
This constant peacock-ing by the league designed to give the appearance that they are somehow their own fiefdom, independent from the laws and rules of America at large, is so tiresome. Just cut the fucking crap. Want players and personnel to stop acting like they are above the law? Start at the top.
It is always a sad thing to see a legitimately good man—and few among NFL coaches are better men than Philbin—