Lorewarn

I would not categorize that anywhere close to the same type of thing as what Decoy73 is proposing as a hypothetical.

Manufacturing a felony charge and then getting a guilty plea out of it is a very, very, very difficult thing to do.

I wonder where the 2006 core would rank in terms of solidity. Purify, Nunn, Hardy, Swift, Petersen, with Lucky out of the backfield and like eight million dependable TEs.

I have nothing to base this on other than my own head but I'd guess that the B1G prefers landing at 20 over 24. 20 allows you to go back to divisions of 10 teams each, and either keep the 3 OOC/9 conference game model only within your division to go back to the old school days of Big Ten conference play, or ditch OOC games altogether and have 9 division and 3 cross division games yearly, then the winners play for the conference championship. Anyways probably not right just a hunch in my head and I think the ideal additions to the conference are USC, UCLA, Notre Dame, GA Tech, and either Oregon/Washington, Cal/Stanford, or UNC/UVA

Not sure, but it's an interesting question. I have no problems with any solutions here - maybe only banned from running for federal office, or banned from the presidency, or maybe it's a time windowed thing where you need to be X amount of years removed.

idk, voting is a constitutional right - holding political office isn't

A president can only pardon federal crimes right?

Your arguments trying to backtrack your hot take are all over the place. Iowa has chosen as a program that they like where they are -- so has Oklahoma State Wis is absolutely an outlier as a program....before Barry that program was terrible -- all the same for Kansas State The mindset of down teams in the B1G is “Celebrate 7 wins, bowl eligibility, and act as if it means you’ve arrived as a program.” -- Yeah because Indiana, Rutgers, and Northwestern are sooooo different than Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas Tech in terms of the amount of grit and gumption and tenacity they have to not be satisfied as mid-level programs. And since you brought up number of winning seasons as part of your argument, are you saying that Nebraska is one of the "just accept what you are" mindset teams?

I doubt the B1G is going to take any of them right now. The conference is sitting in an ivory tower made of money, and not interested in throwing out liferafts. There may be a future time when UO/UW/Stanford/Cal get invites, but I think the B1G is currently sitting comfortable and confident and waiting for the ACC to fall apart, leaving Notre Dame in a vulnerable spot as well as getting a southern footprint.

90%??? The conference currently has 14 members, 3 of which are blue bloods and one is right on the threshold (3 out of 14 is 20%, 4 out of 14 is 28%). Wisconsin is very obviously trying to beat the big dogs, getting one of the best splash coaching hires of the offseason, routinely scheduling marquee OOC matchups, and being a few bad breaks away from a few more championships and playoff berths. Michigan State has won the conference, made the playoffs, and played spoiler to the big dogs a good handful of times over the last 12 years. So, respectfully, how do you get 90% when you've got three blue blood, one new blood, and at least two other programs floating around the championship level bubble since we've been in the league?

Regardless of what the BoR's internal motivations were, which we don't know, while Paterno wasn't criminally liable and hit a legal threshold of accountability, he absolutely and completely failed in his moral obligations as the leader of PSU football. He knew that what he reported to his superior never made it to the police, and chose to do nothing. Not only that, but in the aftermath the former FBI director's investigation found that Paterno (along with others) had knowledge of Sandusky's evil and concealed it to protect the football program. The school also honored all of the terms of his surprise early retirement negotiations that he started in secret before the scandal broke but after he was informed of the police investigation.

CU made the best decision with the info they had back then, and now as well.

Yes. There's almost absolutely nothing of substance here - just a 'journalist' sourcing from social media recommendations trying to make a splash in the wake of the Northwestern scandal.

His puppeteer underneath the podium had to hit the pause button to readjust himself.

Actual outsiders or people inside who for whatever reason can't fit in, will always see any community system that is tight knit around a specific shared goal and belief as being 'cultish'. Sports locker rooms are absolutely up there with the best of them in terms of groupthink, because you fail without buy-in. That's why the leaders try to eliminate outside distractions and have clear messaging, values, expectations, etc. Same is true of churches, the military, bands on tour, etc.

I'm a fan of no stripes but if you're gonna do em that's about the best possible look. The stripes through the 00's-10's were way too big and added too much noise to an otherwise very minimal uniform.

I would disagree with the assertion that we're less than thrilled with the Iowa matchup at the end of the year. First of all, we haven't played Oklahoma regularly since 1995, so at this point we've got nearly 30 years of reps with a "lesser" program as our black friday game. Second, due to us sucking, Iowa raising their floor a decent amount, and enough time, the amount of people who would say it isn't a rivalry is much less than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. That being said, we would have no problem with PSU as a protected rivalry - I think by and large our fanbase really loves playing them and the matchups are pretty much always really solid. Unfortunately Iowa makes too much sense at this point, but once we go division-less who knows?

Absolutely brilliant relational chess playing by Rhule

I don't know, I'm not a climate scientist, and your reductionistic takes seem to scream from the rooftops that you aren't either.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'the straw that broke the camel's back'?

Go look at a Tommie Frazier highlight reel - same idea.

These all fit nicely with the aforementioned step 3.

Your last sentence is the bingo. This is, like pretty much all of these things are, a make believe controversy that's ultimately just good marketing. Nobody is upset about this song (when I mean nobody I obviously don't include the existence of some infintesimal online minority who will be upset about anything). Nobody even knew about it until his label and team had a brilliant marketing idea. It's an easy formula. Put something out there that is pandering and antagonistic, roll out the memes, get some opinion articles calling it controversial (all you need for proof is like 5 tweets from the most random corners of the internet), then congratulations you've created a controversy that is now feeding itself with reactions, reactions to the reactions, ad infinitum. It's the same with the sex trafficking movie and it's the same with pretty much any other allegedly controversial thing people on social media are talking about. The depressing part is that everyone across the entire spectrum falls for it every single time.

Who's mad?

It doesn't even matter if humans are a main factor to climate change or not. What matters is that it's happening, and we better be a main factor in slowing and stopping it if we're gonna continue to live some semblance of the lives we've come to enjoy and expect.