so much for that
- Member for
- 4 years 18 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|3 weeks 6 days ago||The Tudors||
If you haven't see the Tudors, you should - she plays a big part and bares quite a bit of skin (if that gives it any bonus points).
|4 weeks 5 days ago||And?||
They go to MSU - they'd still be playing even if it meant Izzo had to get a job as their probation officer.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Done...||
He wasn't a freshman last year - he got redshirted. So, yeah, unless he totally flips this year he'll go pro.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||DP10||
Dr Pepper 10 + Bacardi Gold. Go Blue!
|13 weeks 5 days ago||About McQuery...||
He did the exact same thing as Joe Pa - passed it on to his superiors but for whatever reason people give him a pass. I have no idea how that is even possible. HE SAW IT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF HIS OWN TWO EYES!!! He broke the law by witnessing it and not going to the police. People say "oh well Joe should have stayed with it" and that is 100% true but how the hell is McQuery getting a pass on this? He did as little as possible, actually broke state law by not reporting it directly to the police and Joe Pa is supposed to be the worst guy right behind Sandusky? Give me a break.
That doesn't exaunerate Joe Pa by any stretch but McQuery has been and always will be #1 in the "should be punished" category once you're talking about non-Sandusky people but people talk about him like he was some little kid who told his parents about something. He's an adult, a well paid adult who works for the State of Pennsylvania - his actions (and in-actions) speak to his ineptitude and he should have been the very first person fired when this hit since Sandusky was already gone.
If you want to give him the "oh he was under Joe Pa's shadow" argument I'd say that's a load of BS - I'd say that each and everyone of us has been under someone at our job. That doesn't give you free reign to be witness to crimes and say nothing just because your mentor doesn't. He's an adult and should be treated (and tried) as such.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Serious question||
Why is it "wear red for women" when it's about heart disease? Maybe I'm just a little sour about how women's causes always seem to trump men's causes (breast vs prostate for example) but don't many more men die from heart disease than women each year? Why can't it just be about the disease and not have to make it about the gender? I've had 2 family members die from heart related illness and another that's had two strokes, all are men. This is an extremely important issue and something that needs more awareness so I guess I'm just confused why it's not "wear read for heart disease" vs "wear red for women."
Is there a "wear red for men" heart disease awareness day? If so I recind the previous paragraph but I don't think there is which really makes me wonder why our country is so apt to wear a certain color to support awareness/research of female oriented campaign vs a male one.
|17 weeks 1 day ago||The thing I like best||
Is that when he does it he doesn't act like a fool... I know it's all "get off my lawn" but I love the way he reacts after a top 10 level dunk vs the way, say, Webber would. I think it really shows a lot of class.
|17 weeks 5 days ago||Meh...||
Before I saw LSU Freek's I thought cuppy cup's was a 7/10 or so. Wasn't funny or anything but fairly well done. Then I saw LSU Freek's and cuppy cup's now looks like total amateur work.
I was laughing so hard at LSU Freek's I was almost crying - priceless.
|21 weeks 5 days ago||Physics||
How is it not science? Just off the top of my head some of their episodes talk about the impact of a golf club on a golf ball and it's corresponding velocities and impact pressure, the force of a punter's foot on a football when he punts it, the force felt by a person who is being tackled at peak speed by a defender. All of those things are simple F=MA and free body diagrams so while certainly not ionic bonds or magnetic flux I'd say it still dwells firmly in the land of science and definitely practical application of Physics.
|22 weeks 1 day ago||I do||
And it annoys me just the same. The only plays where any kind of self promoting celebration is warranted (IMO) are:
2) INT/fumble (although fumble should be a team celebration not the groin thrust look at me celebration)
3) 3rd down stop when not in FG range or getting a FG does them no good
4) 4th down stop
I suppose I'll grant feats of amazing athletic ability that result in a first down but I cringe every time I see a player acting like a complete fool after catching a routine pass that gets a first down or when a player acts like a complete fool on anything other than 3rd/4th down. How many times have we seen teams convert on 3 & 20+? Yeah, that great amazing play you had on 1st and 2nd down don't mean sh!t if they still get the first down.
|22 weeks 3 days ago||Ya know||
Jalen said something somewhat similar to that about Grant Hill on the 30 for 30 episode about the Fab Five. Yeah, it wasn't as callous or ridiculous as this but it did create quiet an uproar. Also, in all seriousness, why do people do this? I know a bunch of hispanic people down here that don't know spanish and when a hispanic person who does speak spanish finds out they say they are a disgrace to the race - wtf is wrong with people???
|22 weeks 4 days ago||Duh...||
Helping to get idiots high paying jobs at ESP... Oh, nevermind.
|22 weeks 4 days ago||That's legit though...||
... from a scientific perspective. I mean, RGIII is pretty fast - are his filled with dilithium as well or something slightly less dilithium-y than Denards. Inquiring minds want to know!
|22 weeks 4 days ago||Actually||
It probably was... If he was anything other than the same race as the guy he was questioning he'd be fired by now...
|22 weeks 4 days ago||Yep||
We lock a thread mourning the loss of 26 peple and 18 grade school kids as being political but one about a black guy getting suspended for questioning the "blackness" of another black guy is still here. Thread lock in 3...2...
|23 weeks 1 day ago||I still don't buy it||
I've watched it over and over again and I still don't see it. He turned his head around to see where the guy was. As a shorter guy I can understand why you need to hang on the rim a bit because when us < 6' guys dunk it (at least in my experience) I'm extremely likely to fall flat on my ass (on a breakaway) unless I hang on the rim to steady myself. But, since it didn't end up changing the outcome of the game I guess it doesn't bother me that much but this is nothing like a 6'6" guy dunking it and doing a chin up - us shorter guys need to rim to make sure we don't land flat on our asses.
|25 weeks 20 hours ago||Come on now...||
We all know it's "intensive purposes"...
|25 weeks 6 days ago||Bummed||
The record belonged to a guy from my home town from back in the day when there was no 3-point line.
|26 weeks 1 day ago||Still bummed||
Denard didn't try taking the option to the house - I think he may have been able to out-run that guy but I understand his thought process after the fact: "This guy is going to try to rip the ball out of my left hand and I can't switch it to the right. I also can't stiff arm him because, obviously. So, yeah, I guess I'll just shut it down and go out of bounds"
|26 weeks 1 day ago||True, however...||
... we weren't the ones that went totally stupid and went to 14 teams. 14 teams serves no purpose whatsoever. At least if you go to 16 then you can just pretend like you're two different conferences who meet at the end of the year. At 14 you get massive unbalanced scheduling and don't get the minor incentive of really belonging to something (i.e. The B1G or whatever division you're in).
I wouldn't be surprised to see something stupid like what they did in the SEC - despite the fact that both schools are on 1 side of the conference foot print they would put them in different divisions and guarantee a cross over game for them.
|26 weeks 1 day ago||Guh...||
Good Lord this is yet something else we can blame on the SEC - if they hadn't been stupid and expanded to 14 maybe Delaney and Co. wouldn't have come up with the brilliantly idiotic idea of adding 2 sh!tty schools just so we can have 14.
It's the same point as was made before - yes they do "add" the NY and DC markets but there's one big problem with that... NO ONE CARES ABOUT RUTGERS OR MARYLAND FOOTBALL! Guh
I'll go prepare for this to be made official, I actually thought the addition of Nebraska was good - they really do fit our history and our demographic but those eastern schools - yeah, it's just not the same over there...
|27 weeks 4 days ago||No...||
There's an entire league of racist universities but since they aren't all white it's ok. And no, I'm not kidding...
|29 weeks 4 days ago||Come on now!||
Take it easy with the V-22 stuff,it's still the only aircraft that can do what it does and we're buying more of them because the Marines like them that much.
|29 weeks 6 days ago||36-25 Michigan||
226 yards rushing
|31 weeks 4 days ago||Calling BS...||
That whole idea that taking a blood test actually does more harm than good is nothing but a falsehood perpetuated by the people who don't want to pay for it. The same group of people that said you shouldn't bother with mamograms until you're in your 40's. The convenient truth they ignore when they say it causes more harm than good is that the guys who do get tested and they catch the cancer early enough live many more years but all they focus on are the few problems that can arise from having surgery. My dad is still alive today because of that blood test so maybe I'm partial but this whole idea that testing for cancer causes more harm than good screams of a pathetic attempt by insurance companies (the gov't included) in trying to save a buck. What's next? Yearly phsyicals cause more harm than good because you may find out something it wrong that otherwise you wouldn't have known? What about cholesterol screenings? The new federal health care plan will only pay for them once every 5 years whereas before most people have them covered once a year - tell me that isn't just some BS about trying to save a buck at the expense of the health of Americans...
|34 weeks 4 days ago||Right||
I'm just wondering what, on the snap, the guy covering the covered guy covers the guy who's ineligible. Yeah, you can't just leave him completely open because of the alignment issues but on snap if he's on the line and ineligible there are only 3 possible scenarios - screen pass to guy to his outside, run, illegal man downfield.
That has to be a decided advantage to the defense right? Knowing that it can't be a downfield pass (assuming the guy doesn't just stay out there and hover that is, but, yeah).
It just seems like something we could take advantage of since we've got, no homerism here, one of the smartest/knowledgable DCs in the country.
|34 weeks 5 days ago||But is there any point||
In covering the covered WR? Yeah, you may not want them to run straight into the backfield but what's the point in having the guy that far away from the action? At least send them down the line. I know it may be tough to diagnose but the added advantage is you're playing 11 on 10 and that's gotta be a huge advantage when you get an automatic free rusher/contain man. Why aren't the coaches on the sidelines yelling in to them on it? From the plays I've seen with covered WR the teams aren't hiding it and just changing it at the last second they are throwing the guys out there many seconds (10+ before the hike) and I'd think that would be long enough to let the guy covering him there's no point in covering him.
Do the coaches just cover him because of the potential bust if/when the official completely blows the call and doesn't throw a flag?
|34 weeks 5 days ago||Covered WRs||
Just a general question here but when you have a wide-out covered what is the point in having a man on him as he runs downfield? Shouldn't you just have a guy line up on him and then just run straight to the backfield? The guy can't catch a ball so what's the risk in leaving him out there?
I may be forgetting my rules but he can't catch a screen either right? It would have to be a backward pass (I think...).
I was watching a Texas game with my wife a couple weekends ago vs Wyoming and they did the same covered WR thing quite a few times and every single time it was a run and the DB covering the covered WR was being blocked by the guy that's not even an eligible receiver - I've got to be missing something right?
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Not good||
Well when I thought Fitz might play I was leaning 21-17 UM but now I've pretty much resigned myself to something ugly like 31-17 'Bama (or worse).
I'm Sad Panda :(
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Maybe just me but...||
I think it would have been worse to bring him and make him watch live what he could have been a part of if you're really trying to drive home the impact of what a bad decision can do.
When guys on our HS football got in trouble (grades, whatever) they always went but weren't allowed to play and it drove them crazy to have to stand there watching the game knowing they could make an impact but couldn't because they, for example, didn't study for that chemistry exam...
Although, at the same time, if he went then I'm sure the media would focus on him everytime something bad happened in the running game and maybe public humiliation isn't the best thing...
Good decision or not this really hurts my enthusiasm for tomorrow :-/