Mavric

As someone who's reffed a fair share of football and basketball games, it always amuses me to hear people complain about the officiating. Both in games I've worked and games I'm watching, it's funny to listen to fans (even fans cheering for the same team I am) yell at the top of their lungs when it's obvious they have no idea what they're talking about. I've even had coaches argue with me about plays that are explained very precisely in the rule book. Really makes me wonder how many coaches have even opened one up.

Does that mean that officials always get every call right? Of course not. But they get a lot more right than 99% of people give them credit for.

He wont see the field for 2 1/2 years the way our staff plays Wr's LMAO. I hope he gets a chance..

iknowright?

 

Signed,

Kenny Bell

Quincy Enunwa

Jamal Turner

Don't let the facts get in the way of a bad argument.

Maybe slightly off topic but I'll post it here anyway. Interesting article about the Big XII considering expanding to 12 teams. Pretty enlightening reasoning:

Big 12 favors 4-team playoff

Several football coaches, including Kansas State's Bill Snyder, have hinted that they would like to see two more teams added and the return of a conference title game.

 

Pollard said that may not necessarily be in the league's best interest.

 

While a title game potentially means more revenue, it also means a team headed for a proposed four-team playoff could lose its spot if it lost to an opponent with a middling record.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like I've heard that argument somewhere before....

This might be the most lopsided pair of conference finals in history.

 

This isn't really lopsided. Game 1 came down to the wire. The Spurs are just playing extremely well tonight. These are by far the two best teams in WC.

Of course, if SA doesn't turn it over 14 times in the first half and give up 9 points of garbage 3's the score could have been a little larger.

 

But I don't play like that. Game 1 is how I figured all the games(I did say it would go 6) would play out

Game 1 didn't exactly come down to the wire. SA was up by 9 with 20 seconds left before OKC finally threw in a couple shots (as was mentioned). I think Steve Kerr (I believe it was him) was right when he said SA finally figured out how to beat OKC in the 4th quarter of Game 1 and he sure seemed right looking at Game 2.

I'm glad OKC is competitive but I'm not sure they can win a game. Maybe being at home will help. But it's very possible that both series will be sweeps based on what we've seen so far - and I'll be shocked if the Celtics aren't swept - which doesn't happen very often, if ever.

This might be the most lopsided pair of conference finals in history.

I'm not sure how Boris Diaw worked his magic but whatever he did was a heck of a move. Somehow got the Bobcats (7 wins for the season) to get rid of him and ends up playing some good minutes with the Spurs. Talking about moving up in the world.

You can't even get some to accept a free government ID card.

Free? How do you arrive at that?

 

Bigger government and bigger spending is OK if you agree with the cause. Everything is relative I suppose.

Yeah, but if they're already taking thousands in government handouts, what's another $20?

Great comment from Jeff Van Gundy last night after Garnett's technical for tapping the ball away after a Celtics made shot. I don't have it exactly but it was something like Van Gundy saying that really shouldn't be a technical foul to which one of the other commentators replied 'that's how the rules say to call it' or something to that effect. Van Gundy replied "Traveling and palming are rules, too."

Classic.

Boston is lucky they had a good 2nd quarter. 11, 15 & 18 points in the other three quarters. That pace would barely break 60. Not going to take long for this one.

They're all redshirt sophomores now. Cooper and Guy are definitely in the mix. With as many injuries as we've had on the DLine, hopefully the others got some good reps in spring ball.

Heat have too much firepower (and youth). LeBron will make it very tough for Pierce and if you can shut off Pierce, all the Celtics have left is KG shooting 16 foot jump shots.

I believe sometime in June is the story.

I think the EPMP was just a make up for this:

Game 7 predictions guys

 

Boston by 8

Hey lets move the tournament to one of the cities farthest away from where most Big Ten fans live, that's sure to increase attendance.

Not like it could really go down very far.

Looks like there were probably about 50 "fans" there to watch one of the crazier bottom-of-the-ninths I've ever seen. Two errors, five infielders and a starting pitcher making a diving grab in left field to send it to the 10th.

Not trying to pick on ARod but he was probably our worst OL last year (of those that played a lot), didn't play the last 4-5 games, moved positions and probably won't start at OT. Apparently Phil needs to do a little more research.

Awesome pic. Thanks and be safe.

What is it? I'm going with Tombstone. SO MANY great lines from this movie. Every line is a classic, and you know the movie I'm quoting in an instant.

 

 

 

- I'm your huckleberry.

 

- You're a daisy if you do!

 

- Why Kate, you're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.

 

- It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

- Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave.

 

- You gonna do somethin'? Or are you just gonna stand there and bleed?

 

- Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.

 

- Why Johnny Tyler! You madcap! Where you goin' with that shotgun?

 

- Yeah, well I hope you die.

 

 

You think there's a more quotable movie than this? Which is it?

Not sure it gets my vote but you've got a good point. If you put up Val Kilmer as Doc I'd probably vote for him as most quotable character - if memory serves all but two of those are from him - and you didn't even get to my personal favorite "I've got two guns - one for each of you."

I'll have to do some more thinking on this one. Great topic.

People use the rape example a lot in defending abortion - incest, too. I would love to know the percentages of abortions that are performed because the woman is a rape/incest victim, and the percentage that are performed for the sake of convenience.

 

I'm guessing the latter would be well over 75% of the instances, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if rape/incest doesn't account for less than 5% of performed abortions.

Couldn't agree more. I also think this is one major problem with the "discussion" - rape and incest are brought up at a far higher frequency than they actually occur.

The day the Lakers are eliminated is always a good day in my book.

Apparently Kerr is transferring to USC (sorry if this is already posted somewhere else - I couldn't find it).

May also be moving to FB.

Kerr to USC

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

 

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

Actually I think he's spot on. No 1 and 2 has a small argument almost every year. So who does everyone think was 3,4,5 and 6 last season?

Some years more than others but I think there are very few years when #2 is clear-cut.

2011 - Alabama obviously wasn't a bad choice but there was definitely an argument about whether they should have been selected over OK St. or Stanford, all with the same records and Alabama not being a conference champion and having already lost to LSU.

2010 - Again, not a lot of argument that undefeated TCU should have been included but they did win the Rose Bowl over an automatic qualifying conference champion. Great counter-point to Mike Terico (and others) who claim that college football doesn't need a playoff because the regular season is a playoff. If it already is a playoff, how can you go undefeated and not even get a chance to play for the title?

2009 - This time there were FIVE undefeated teams. Again, Cincinnati, Boise and TCU didn't really have a shot but that is crazy.

2008 - The greatest argument about the regular season NOT being a playoff. Undefeated Utah (who pummeled Alabama in the Sugar Bowl) left out in favor of one-loss Florida and Oklahoma, who themselves were picked over one-loss Penn St., USC, and Texas.

2007 - One-loss Ohio St. and two-loss LSU picked over one-loss Kansas (Orange Bowl champion) and two-loss Virginia Tech, West Virginia (pounded OU in Fiesta), Oklahoma, USC (pounded Illinois in Rose) and Georgia. Hawai'i was undefeated.

2006 - Undefeated Ohio St. was an easy pick but one-loss Florida was chosen over undefeated Boise (beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl), and one-loss Michigan and Louisville.

2005 - Only two undefeateds - Texas and USC - at least one was easy. Although everyone had handed the title and "greatest team ever" to USC before the game. Oops.

2004 - Three undefeateds - USC, Auburn, and OU. Back when the SEC didn't have an automatic entry into the title game.

2003 - Oklahoma lost the Big XII title game but still got in. That didn't cause any controversy.

2002 - Two undefeateds. That's twice in the last 10 years it's be easy.

2001 - Well, let's just say there was controversy.

How many more do you want?

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

 

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

Interesting graph. I do think she was pretty off in her last paragraph, however:

 

It’s also worth noting that federal spending has, over the past 50 years, grown at a pretty similar rate to the rest of the economy. In 1962, the federal government spent $707 billion, accounting for 18 percent of GDP. By 2011, federal spending had inched up to account for 24 percent of the economy or, in dollar figures, $3.1 trillion.

 

 

 

She says that going from 18% to 24% is "inching up". That is growing 33% faster than the economy which hardly qualifies as "inching up."

6 percentage points over 50 years? How would you describe it?

You're falling into the same trap she is. You look at the difference between 18 and 24 and it doesn't look like very much. But it as given as a percentage of GDP so, if the economy and spending are growing at the same rate, that percentage would never change. But instead, spending is growing 33% faster than the economy.

A quick google search came up with the US GDP for 2010 at $14.5T. 6% of that is $870B. If you go back to your favorite graph about what caused the deficit, you could say that 67% of the deficit was caused by spending increasing faster than the economy.

Would you like to get 33% more of a salary increase than your co-workers?