Balsy

If this is true, I will be a very happy person, and we should see a more productive offense.

I wasn't trying to judge the current Browns staff by the past Browns administrations. I'm pointing out one of the Problems with the Browns over the last near-two decades. Why shouldn't they take the change on players in the MAC where as the steelers are?

Pittsburgh is, which is good to see because it gives our players at least a chance. The Browns, unfortunately, have gone away from looking at ANY of the local schools for talent. The Clowns running that organization have forgotten that there are numerous D-I universities in their backyard that shouldn't be hard doing minor scouting at/following players. JB is the talent you should want to take a risk on, like the steelers have done so many times over the past couple of years.

Oh no...do NOT do the colored field.. Colored Fields are disgusting. If they are going to do it, at least make it a faded version so it doesn't pop out like that while you're trying to watch the game. Seriously, why to the players wear the colors of the school and then have the field also be the color of the field? seems very stupid. I personally like design 3 or 4, so long as it's a green field.

Akron's got several metro parks within a 5-10min drive of campus, depending upon where you're living in Akron. I personally recommend the Highland Square area, great for young professionals. My entire building is mostly law students, Graduate students, Nurse/Doctors and a few other professional career types.

That arguentment (from UA not from you) is garbage. There hasn't been a significant drop in the admissions of Kent, which has also made an effort to increase its standards of admittance, and I think it has had a slightly higher standard longer than Akron has and did not see the same dive in enrollment. This is objectively serious. It is absolutely a PR stunt for UA to make this argument. Also it's and outdated contention; UA began raising its standards years ago at this point. Continually using "the higher standards" excuse for lower admittance is refusing to acknowledge a real and very serious problem. Not to mention refusing to accept responsibility for some very, very, poor decisions.

I hope I can make it to the spring game. It'll be the first in 4 years I haven't made it if I can't. The prices look outstanding.

I like hearing that there was an extension, even if it hasn't been officially released yet. Bowden will end his D-I career at Akron.

I like that Pratt said "the athletic department has nothing to do with what happened. And he's absolutely right in that. Something still doesn't make sense to be in this story, but it's an irrelevant thing at this point because it doesn't appear that Boyett is on the the team anymore.

Did he just shoot? I mean...at the very least if you thought someone was trying to break into your apartment and you were armed with a gun (and there's a chance that it might be one of your friends who you apparently let in quite frequently) wouldn't you at the very least announce that you're armed and ask who it is? Something about this story doesn't make sense to me.

Pt 1./Pt 2: Note I never said lead in water (though violations of the Clean Water Act would fall under the direct jurisdiction of Congress and the EPA, and water flowing into larger bodies of water is inherently, both international and interstate commerce, and there is considerable SCOTUS cases backing this up): I specifically said lead in consumer products; of which Congress does have regulatory authority, by passing laws, under the Commerce Clause of the constitution. As for Gibbons vs. Ogden, Bailey vs. Drexel Furniture CO: yes, I'd even go further to add that there were several Acts of congress in attempts to ban child labor that were struck down as well. The Fair Labor Act did a lot on the federal level to limit child labor in large scale operations, and is constitutional because it only applies to those involved with interstate commerce. The article that originally was posted that started this particular discussion about Congressional regulatory authority, talks specifically about a non-profit organization; "Pop Warner Football" that is the country's largest youth football league. Since it operates across state borders, I disagree with you that Congress wouldn't have some level of regulatory oversight under the Interstate Commerce clause dealing with Interstate Youth Football leagues that operate in similar fashion. Pt. 3: I know you think because I'm a teacher that I somehow live within the bubble of academia, actually I don't. Now I'm willing to agree with you that there is a huge push back against the establishment, it's visible on both sides of the political divide with Trump and Sanders (who, despite being radically different on many issues, are the same on Washington being broken, Banks and lobbyists having too much power...etc). Though I disagree with you. Trump and Cruz are nationally a minority in their approach to how to fix that central problem, as is Sanders for that matter. The problem with the outraged majority is that it is segmented into two distinct groups: one that believes government is the problem, while the other believes that government can be part of the solution.

I don't know what's going on with the quoting thing, so the last post messed up. But here it goes. Pt 1: I am not convinced I'm right, you are. If you can make a valid case for why all regulation is bad and why lead should be free floating in our environment, I'm all ears for being convinced. Now, I agree with you that it'd be an uphill battle, but unlike you, I'm not a bigot. Pt 2: Well it's not so obvious, and you'd be surprised how few do hold your ideology as compared to those who don't hold that absolutest ideology of yours. Perhaps you should venture outside of your bubble more often. Pt 3: Of course not. A bigot is someone who is being a bigot. Believe it or not, I have several very close conservative friends and we have discussions all the time about issues like this, even though we don't agree (you know, like adults are supposed to do). We listen to each other, and we're calm with each other, and every once in awhile we realize that perhaps our view isn't necessarily the best one...and that perhaps the right course of action is somewhere else entirely than both of us had though of. Bigotry is defined as: "someone who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas, without just cause." You strongly and unfairly dislike the idea of regulation, without really making a just cause for your argument. That's the definition of bigotry. Now, you're entitled to the opinion that all regulation = bad, but the onus is on you to make that case. For instance: you need to explain why regulating lead (a dangerous nervous toxin that impedes the brain development of children, and can kill you if it's in high amounts in your bloodstream) is a bad thing. Good luck with that one.

I don't know what's going on with the quoting thing...but I'm going to go with this. Pt 1: Go look in the mirror. You're telling me that your not convinced your right? I'm not convinced I'm right, I'm only pointing out that you're not fully correct. You know, that's the point of the peer review process...to check each other, and to call each other out when we're off our rocker. Pt 2: That isn't obvious at all, couldn't be further from the truth, and I'd suggest you get out of your bubble once in awhile. Pt 3: Are all conservatives bigots? Of course not. Unlike you, I don't live by an absolute ideology. Some of my close friends are varying degrees of conservative, and we always have well-informed discussions on topics such as this and offer our opinions to each other. I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes we convince each other that perhaps the way we saw it, wasn't necessarily the best way. A person is a bigot, when they are being a bigot. Bigotry is defined as: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas without just or logical cause". I've demonstrated to you that All regulation does not = bad; yet you still hold unfairly to the absolutest mentality, without making a case for it. That is, by definition, bigotry. I mean if it's your opinion that regulation = bad, that's fine...it's then on you to make a case for why seat belts, speed limits, banned lead in consumer products...(the list goes on)... is a bad thing.

This came across my facebook feed today, thought I'd share. Brave New Films trailer for a film about the College Debt Crisis. Guess which universities are a big focus of it!? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guHL1pNtVS8

TW13 is now TW4, and TC11 is now TC5.

Nice, constructive response. Nothing I've said is left-wing nut jobish stuff. Is there such thing as too much regulation? Of course there is. Is there such thing as too little regulation? Absolutely. Unfortunately it usually takes something devastating...you know like a ship sinking in the atlantic killing 1500 people because it hit an iceberg and wasn't required to carry enough lifeboats for every person on board (you know...that pesky regulation thing), to get a positive outcome for people. I for one am personally grateful that the vast majority of people do not hold your misguided ideology; and that there have been, and always will be, people willing to fight ignorance and bigotry in order to protect people and do what's right.

You're the one who made it political by saying "If the government gets involved (and it has ZERO business doing)". That IS a political statement, not a statement of objective fact. Because the objective fact is that the government does have that authority and has already used it (and it isn't a bad thing): seat belts, speed laws, drinking and driving, banning lead additives to gasoline...(the list goes on...and on...and on). Lead was banned in all products because it's a nervous toxin, that is especially damaging to the brain development of children. It wasn't consumers that got this done, it was an act of congress; after several years of testimony by scientists. Why shouldn't congress conduct an investigation at the very least? What does the NFL, or sports fans have to fear? Was banning lead in consumer products a political thing? I guess you could say that...but it was the right thing to do for the American people. To protect us, our health, and the health of our children. This doesn't need to be political, you just have to put away the misguided ideology that ALL regulation = bad, and no regulation = good; and make judgements on what the objective facts derived through the scientific process are.

Well said g-mann17. As for the second part: Yeah, after the NFL spent decades trying to deny/bury the medical research through advertising, lobbying and cherry-picked, paid, cherry-picking "experts"...very similar to how the tobacco industry denied/buried the medical research connecting smoking with lounge cancer. Investing in technology doesn't necessarily make it better; and really the NFL dumping significant money into research is more for publicity. Because if they weren't, it look bad. But that DOES NOT mean that the Government shouldn't regulate something that is potentially harmful to people. ESPECIALLY potentially life-long threatening to the "general welfare" (as the constitution says) of people. And I'm not even going to bring up the socio-economic issues...

I don't agree at all, and this is a philosophy derived from a political ideology. It's almost entirely the purpose of government to protect citizens from threats they may not know are there. That's done through regulation. Did the government do a bad thing by regulating the addition Lead to gasoline? Please: The government SHOULD consider regulation after doing a through investigation. The NFL sure as hell isn't going to do it. They have a direct vested interest in NOT investigating or regulating it.

Oh that makes much more sense. Sorry Zach for the misunderstanding.

This really, really, really sucks.

ESPN has been talking very nicely about Akron, especially about Isaiah Johnson. Gosh this is a low scoring game though...

Handed out washable Zips tattoos to my students so far today. About 35 kids are walking around with the Zips "Z" on them because they thought it was "sleek" and "cool".

A student made this for me today. Feel free to use

Reggie and Jake are going to walk into Columbus and shoot the lights out. I hope anyways...This is their last post-season for the Zips, so there's extra motivation especially when playing the State Ohio University team.