Mediaboss Marketing

Jon Koncak wasnt a household name as a 7-foot center in the NBA. Prior to his professional career with the Atlanta Hawks, Koncak was a high school standout and a college star at SMU. He was also a teammate of Michael Jordan on the 1984 U.S. Olympic basketball squad. Although he never outplayed Jordan, he outearned him for a bit in the NBA, earning the nickname Jon Contract.

RELATED: NBA Bust Chris Washburn Fell so Far He Couldnt Even Start for His Prison Team

When Jon Koncak was in high school, he was a heavily-recruited 7-footer. In high school, he grew about three inches per year and hit the seven-foot mark by the time he graduated. Koncak was a talented basketball player recruited by big-time schools but wound up signing with Southern Methodist University.

At the time, SMU was in rebuilding mode under head coach Dave Bliss. Koncak, showing his sense of humor, explained to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 2019 why he chose SMU. Well, SMU coach Dave Bliss was the only one that could spell my name. All the other coaches spelled it John.

No, really, the Missouri coach called and just expected me to sign with them because I was from Kansas City. SMU, meanwhile, sent an assistant coach to, I think, every game my senior year. It was neat being part of a program that we brought into the forefront.

It was a tough go early at SMU as the Mustangs went 6-21 and 1-15 in conference play. Jon Koncak averaged 10 points per game as a freshman, but by the time he was a junior, Koncak and the Mustangs were rolling. As a junior, Koncak averaged 15.5 points and 11.5 rebounds per game. The Mustangs went 25-8.

I was recruited by 80 or 90 schools and I go to this place that had 4,000 kids and we won just six games my freshman year, Koncak told the AJC. We beat all the powerhouses and my junior year (1984), we were one point away from beating Georgetown and Patrick Ewing and they would go on to win the national championship.

In his senior year, SMU went 23-10 and Koncak put up 17.2 points and 10.7 rebounds per game. Koncak went on to become a first-round pick in the 1985 NBA draft. The Atlanta Hawks selected him with the fifth overall pick.

Jon Koncak spent 11 years in the NBA primarily as a backup center. In his rookie season, he averaged a career-best 8.6 points per game. He never averaged better than 5.7 points in any of the 10 other seasons. In 1989, however, Koncak signed an unheard-of six-year, $13 million contract for a backup center. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Koncak at one point was making more money than superstars Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson.

Koncak remembers why he got the big deal. During my fourth year, Kevin Willis had broken his foot and was out and (coach) Mike Fratello didnt want to play Moses (Malone) and I at the same time, he told the AJC. So he started Cliff Levingston. But one day, Cliff was late to practice and it ticked off Fratello. He came up to me and asked if I could play the No. 4 spot. I did and in the first game, I scored only eight points but had 20 rebounds. He kept me in the lineup and we went 13-3 and in a couple of those games, I scored 20 points. I finally felt things were going my way and the Pistons offered me the offer sheet and then came the huge offer from the Hawks. The first game the next season when I took my first shot in Atlanta, the fans booed. I had been a fan favorite before the contract. I became the scapegoat for what was happening to the Hawks.

Koncak knew it was a big contract, but he wasnt about to turn it down. Hey, I cant justify what they offered me, he told Sports Illustrated during his playing days. But what was I supposed to do? Say no? The league is changing. I think maybe this is just the start.

Read the original post:
Jon Koncak Once Made More Money Than Michael Jordan and Larry Bird, Earning the Nickname Jon Contract - Sportscasting

The Department of Justice recently unveiled an antitrust lawsuit against Google accusing the company of anticompetitive behavior in the search engine market. If successful, the lawsuit could fundamentally reshape the internetat the American consumer's expense.

The DOJ claims that Google retains 90 percent of general search inquiries in the United States and 95 percent of mobile device searches. It claims this dominance is possible because Google pays everyone from Apple to AT&T and Mozilla to ensure that it is the default search engine within their products.

Yet this is evidence of competition, not anticompetitive behavior. A true monopoly would not need to pay other companies to promote its services. And Google doesnt force companies to have their web browser as their default; its a win-win for all.

If Apple decides to use a different search engine, such as Bing or DuckDuckGo, theyre well within their rights to do so. However, since users largely prefer Google, Apple runs the risk of losing customers. The DOJ will have a tough time arguing this behavior is anticompetitive when its merely companies looking out for their bottom line.

Furthermore, the DOJ faces an uphill battle with the current standard that theyve used in antitrust cases since the 1970s: the consumer welfare standard. As I previously defined it:

This standard seeks to evaluate mergers and practices of businesses to determine if they harm the economic welfare of people. If they do, then regulators can step in to either prevent the merger or work out an agreement to remove the harm. Note that the standard does not punish a business simply for being big, only for harming peoples economic welfare. And firm size is not a legitimate indicator as to whether or not consumer welfare will be jeopardized.

With this standard, the courts shifted their focus to the consumer, the most crucial aspect when determining what constitutes anticompetitive behavior. How will the DOJ prove that consumers are worse off from having Googles services at their fingertips entirely for free?

Spoiler alert: Google isnt harming consumers.

Google allows consumers to surf the web, watch videos, create and manage calendars, conduct surveys, and create various types of documentsall for free. Proving consumer harm will likely be the largest hurdle the DOJ faces.

The DOJ clearly thinks that consumers are trapped into using Google or are incapable of figuring out how to switch their default choices. But the reality is that consumers are simply happy with the services it provides. (Hence why the app is one of the top applications in Apples store.)

Google shouldnt be punished for the monumental success it has had providing goods to Americans. If consumers are intent on changing their browser, they can look up how to change it. Google (or another web browser) will happily provide the results with a simple search query, and even show videos with simple explainers on how to do so.

But the reality is that there may not be room for many search engines or browsers in this market. Microsoft seems to understand this, as it recently announced it intends to cease supporting Internet Explorer, the once-dominant web browser that landed the company in the antitrust doghouse almost 20 years ago.

This example offers a stark reminder that market dominance is rarely permanent.Using the term monopoly against Google is turning a blind eye to the truth: Google is just the best at what it does.

If we want more competition, maybe its time for newer technologies to create something altogether different. In the meantime, Americans should be skeptical of a lawsuit weaponizing government power for political gain.

See the original post:
The Glaring Flaw Plaguing the Department of Justice's Lawsuit Against Google | James Czerniawski - Foundation for Economic Education

Things are looking pretty bleak across the Atlantic right nowand its not just the UKs famously gloomy weather.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a new four-week (or longer) national lockdown beginning Thursday in hopes of curbing the spread of COVID-19.

All non-essential shops, restaurants, pubs and leisure facilities [are set] to close for at least four weeks, the Guardian reports. People have been told to stay at home where possible, but will be allowed to leave their homes for education, medical appointments, to shop for essential goods, and to work if they cannot work from home.

Unlike the first national lockdown introduced in March, schools, colleges and universities will remain open, as will childcare and early years care, the British paper continues. Johnson also announced a ban on overnight stays and outbound international travel, unless the trips are for work, while places of worship will be open for private prayer but not for services.

Schools do not appear to facilitate the spread of COVID-19. So, its good to see that the UK will keep its schools open. But this return to lockdowns is nonetheless an alarming development.

First and foremost, its just not clear that more lockdowns will mitigate COVID-19 deaths. It may simply postpone them and delay the inevitable.

After all, Britain already locked downhence why this is the second lockdown. Yet when the UK opened up, the disease inevitably started spreading once again, in the same way COVID-19 has continued to plague other countries even after they went through extensive lockdowns.

Its just hard to show with data that lockdowns are actually effective.

Theres little correlation between the severity of a nations restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities, a Bloomberg News data columnist concluded. (Hardly a right-wing source.)

A study of 50 countries published in medical journal The Lancet found that while COVID-19 mortality was correlated with population age and obesity rates, it was not correlated with full lockdowns.

Of course, we should all hope that Britain fares well. But hope is not a strategy.

The fact remains that the coronavirus doesnt seem to care what policies you put in place. And the perils of the UKs return to lockdown go far beyond it simply not working. Sweeping lockdowns are rife with unintended consequences as lethal as any disease.Hope is not a strategyand the perils of the UKs return to lockdown go far beyond it simply not working.

For example, lockdowns are catastrophic for the economy.

The reason why is fairly intuitive. When you lock people in their homes except for some essential activities, many cant work, cant produce, and cant consume.

An economy naturally slows to a trickle as a result. Its no coincidence that the World Bank projects that the COVID-19 crisis and ensuing lockdowns could push up to 100 million people worldwide into extreme poverty.

On the domestic front, FEEs Jon Miltimore showed that red states have significantly lower unemployment rates than blue states. This, at least in part, stems from the fact that Republican-run states have broadly had fewer COVID-19 restrictions.

In sum, the facts clearly suggest that Britains return to lockdown will have drastic economic consequences. Its even possible that the second lockdown will be more damaging than before.

Many firms are in a much weaker position now than at the start of the pandemic, making it far more challenging to survive extended closures or demand restrictions, British Chambers of Commerce Director General Adam Marshall said.

But even beyond the economy, returning to lockdowns will have drastic unforeseen and unintended consequences for Britains people.

Locking people inside their homes fuels social isolation and despair.

This, tragically, will lead to more suicide and depression. We wont have complete figures on the full toll lockdowns have taken for years to come, yet we do already have compelling evidence that they are severely harming mental health.

Suicides are up nearly 100% among young people in Wisconsins second most-populous county, for example. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 1 in 4 young adults contemplated suicide during the summer amid the pandemic.

Other unintended consequences abound. For example, COVID-19 lockdowns have led to a rise in domestic violence as vulnerable people are trapped at home with abusive partners.

These are extreme examples, but sweeping top-down government restrictions are always and inevitably going to incur unintended consequences. Why? Because of what economic philosopher Friedrich Hayek called the knowledge problem. Even beyond the economy, returning to lockdowns will have drastic unforeseen and unintended consequences for Britains people.

The ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them, Hayek wrote.

The principle is simple and true. Only those closest to a situation, at a decentralized and individual level, have enough information and familiarity to effectively and efficiently solve complex problems.

In London or anywhere, top-down efforts to solve vast societal ills from the offices of detached government bureaucrats are destined to fail.

Read the original:
The Many Perils of the UK's Return to Lockdown - Foundation for Economic Education

It features one baldhead, two bears and 42 lads, and Eli Matthewson has a theory about it.

The bible is a big old book. Much like Game of Thrones, only the truly committed have made it all the way through. Also much like Game of Thrones, were still waiting for the hyped-up final part. Ill be honest: I havent read the whole thing. But I have read just enough to uncover the buzziest two verses youll find in there. Here is a small but memorable part of the story of the Prophet Elisha:

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!

When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

Obviously, credit where credit is due: huge diversity win for the bible here. Its a pretty men-obsessed book, but here we get two female characters, who have a major impact on the story! (Obviously it would be better if they werent bears, but still a win.) And yet, despite that, one cant help but ask what the heck is going on here?

I was raised in the church and it was a major part of my life growing up, and Im pretty sure this story never featured in any service I attended. That said, I wasnt the best listener, I was much more into the moshing-at-Parachute part of Christianity than the hour-long-sermons-with-no jokes part, so I may have missed it. Since leaving and becoming a member of the queer community (huge few weeks for us the rainbow parliament and Carole Baskin!) Ive always been struck by the way the few small verses about homosexuality have inspired hundreds and thousands of passionate sermons while others, like the one that suggests you should gather the whole town to throw stones at your daughter if she is not a virgin, dont get so much publicity.

In these two verses 42 children receive the pretty nasty punishment of mauling by bears for using the not particularly creative insult baldhead. These 42 kids are not mentioned before this moment or ever again, and, as bad is bullying is, I just dont think its bad enough that you should get immediately eaten. Given Gods reputation for answering prayers in his own, mysterious time this immediate action to support little baldhead makes it seem like he must have had a pretty good reason to punish these youths so quickly.

Ive searched across the internet, and deeply confused my Facebook algorithm, to try and find a reasonable interpretation of this story. There isnt one. A lot of time is spent arguing that the word youths could mean men up to the age of 28, but I would argue that it sounds more like they are 12 and also even 28 year-olds probably dont deserve this. Over at Catholic.com they explain that these youths may have been running some type of illegal water cartel, and their insensitivity to male-pattern baldness was just what pushed it over the edge. They also add a theory that god thought Elisha overreacted and thats why he was ill later in his life (a brutal move by god considering it definitely seems like he gave the bears the go-ahead).

This Jordan Peterson loving Youtuber makes an obscure comparison to the Me Too movement and uses the term she bears a lot. Christian blog 1517 suggests context around the location this story takes place suggests these bullies were idol-worshippers, trying to cast Christs prophets out of their town, and thus this is punishment for their idolatry. Christian Index cites a pretty racist-sounding comparison of these youths to a serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. None of this is good enough to me. Two bears ate over 40 kids. What are we meant to learn?

Heres my take: I reckon this story could be a self-aware parable on the sensitivity of old, straight, white men. Perhaps instead of siding with baldhead, we are meant to observe how the ego of a powerful prophet can be so easily broken. Despite being able to perform miracles and having the all-powerful god on his side, it doesnt take much to upset this guy. And by extension, when this straight-white-man-in-power gets upset he enlists the help of his fellow straight-white-man-in-power, God, who cant resist pushing his emergency bear trigger right away. Maybe this is a story about how men are often actually too emotional to be given positions of power, but expect they will be able to handle it because they get too many examples of other men in power. Maybe its about the Todd Muller effect. Maybe?

Look, I dont know if my interpretation is correct. In fact, its almost definitely not. But I also cant see a reasonable explanation for this wild story. And so, to anyone of faith who has a legitimate defence of this buzzy part of the bible, can I say, with absolute sincerity: sound off in the comments, babes.

The Spinoff Daily gets you all the day's best reading in one handy package, fresh to your inbox Monday-Friday at 5pm.

More here:
I just found the buzziest bit in the Bible and Im reeling - The Spinoff

(ThereBryce Petrantonio (25) finds daylight for the Mountaineers, pursued by Gwinns Carl Peterson (3). Gabe Richtig, who rushed for 118 yards, gets a block from the Mountaineers Lucas Maxon (52). (Theresa Proudfit/Daily News photos) Iron Mountains Caleb Burklund (33) finds a gap after taking a handoff from quarterback Eli Lofholm (4) as Gwinns Levi Dupras (54) looks to defend in an MHSAA Division 8 playoff game Friday night at Mountaineer Stadium.

(Theresa Proudfit/Daily News photos) Iron Mountains Caleb Burklund (33) finds a gap after taking a handoff from quarterback Eli Lofholm (4) as Gwinns Levi Dupras (54) looks to defend in an MHSAA Division 8 playoff game Friday night at Mountaineer Stadium.

IRON MOUNTAIN In their first game in 42 days, Iron Mountain cruised past Gwinn, 56-8, in an MHSAA Division 8 football playoff matchup Friday night at Mountaineer Stadium.

In what was the Modeltowners first second-round playoff game in 21 years, the Mountaineers scored on the third play of their second possession. Senior Caleb Burklund powered for a 48-yard touchdown to put IM ahead 7-0.

After Gwinn turned the ball over on downs, Burklund found the end zone once again, this time from 13 yards out.

We played well tonight, in all areas. Were happy to get a home playoff win, said Mountaineers head coach Robin Marttila. We had several different playmakers make plays tonight.

He alluded to the fact that Friday nights contest was basically a Week 1 game all over again. Our offense got off to a bit of a slow start, but we shook it off and went from there, Marttila said.

Gabe Richtig, who rushed for 118 yards, gets a block from the Mountaineers Lucas Maxon (52).

Early in the second quarter, the Mountaineers extended their lead to 21-0 on a halfback option pass from Caleb Evosevich-Hynes to Bryce Pietrantonio for a 46-yard touchdown. Pietrantonio added a successful 2-point conversion run.

The Mountaineers next possession, after a Gwinn punt, saw Burklund race for 37 more yards, setting up an Eli Lofhom 21-yard touchdown pass to Joey Dumais to extend Iron Mountains lead to 28-0 at halftime.

On Iron Mountains first play from scrimmage in the second half, junior running back Gabe Richtig exploded down the home sideline for 59-yard touchdown. That TD put the contest into a running clock mode.

Gabe Richtig ran the ball well tonight, Marttila said. Richtig, who rushed for 118 yards to lead the Mountaineers, added a second touchdown run less than four minuets later, this time from 38 yards out.

Kudos to our defensive secondary, they played a great game, especially considering how much Gwinn passed the ball tonight. We didnt give away any big plays, Marttila said. Our offensive and defensive lines did a great job tonight as well.

(ThereBryce Petrantonio (25) finds daylight for the Mountaineers, pursued by Gwinns Carl Peterson (3).

Pietrantonio picked off a Mastin Love pass late in the third quarter and returned it 68 yards for a touchdown.

Burklund, who rushed for 111 yards, added an extra element to the Mountaineers already explosive offense by gaining yardage running between the tackles.

We knew Gwinn was going to take away the edge tonight, keeping Evo (Evosevich-Hynes) in check. Caleb Burklund, when he gets a full head of steam, good luck tackling him, Marttila said.

Gwinn, who kept playing hard throughout the game, notched a late touchdown on a Carl Peterson 39-yard run. The Modeltowners defeated East Jordan last Friday night the teams first playoff win since defeating Whittemore-Prescott in a Division 6 regional final in 1999.

We came out in a spread offense to try to throw something at them, that they have never seen from us before, in hopes to catch them off guard, said first-year Gwinn head coach Ben Olsen. We knew how good they could be, and hoped to stay with them. But they ran up and down the field on us tonight.

Olsen noted that the 200-plus combined yards from Burklund and Richtig were frustrating, because his teams game plan was to take away Evosevich-Hynes.

They have so many playmakers, take one away, and another one steps up, he said.

The Modeltowners finished 4-4. Olsen, an Iron Mountain native, took the helm after the unexpected death of former head coach Dion Brown in late January.

Our seniors, who well miss tremendously, pushed our younger guys, and showed them what they needed to do to become good football players, Olsen said. Hopefully with our success this year, having won a playoff game, we keep things in our program moving forward.

Iron Mountain, who improves to 7-1 on the season, will host the winner of todays Bark River-Harris at West Iron game, with the date and time to be determined.

The Broncos and Wykons kick off at 1 p.m. at Nelson Field in Stambaugh.

Gwinn 0 0 0 8 8

Iron Mountain 13 15 21 7 56

1st Quarter

IM- Caleb Burklund 48 yard run (Caleb Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 6:57, 7-0

IM- Burklund 13 yard run, (Kick failed) 2:17, 13-0

2nd Quarter

IM- Bryce Pietrantonio 46 yard reception from Evosevich-Hynes (Pietrantonio run) 11:17, 21-0

IM- Joey Dumais 21 yard reception from Eli Lofholm (Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 5:17, 28-0

3rd Quarter

IM- Gabe Richtig 59 yard run (Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 11:43, 35-0

IM- Richtig 38 yard run (Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 7:54, 42-0

IM- Pietrantonio 68 yard interception return (Brandon Farragh kick) 2:57, 49-0

4th Quarter

IM-Luke Wolfe 5 yard run (Farragh kick) 9:20, 56-0

G- Carl Peterson 39 yard run (Reid Hill Run) 6:17, 56-8

Iron Mountain stats

Total Yards- 353

Rushing: 26-286

Gabe Richtig, 4-118, 2 TD

Caleb Burklund, 7-111, 2 TD

Passing: 2-7, 67 yards

Defensive

Evosevich-Hynes- 6 tackles

Jon Carrion- 8 total tackles, 2 assists

Dumais- 5 total tackles, 1 sack

Pietrantonio- 4 total tackles, 1 INT

Brendan LaPoint- 5 tackles

Burklund- 2 sacks

Lucas Maxon-4 total tackles, 1 sack

Gwinn stats

Total yards- 176

Passing-102

Rushing: 24-74

7 total first downs

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:
No signs of rust for Mountaineers | News, Sports, Jobs - The Daily news - Iron Mountain Daily News