just feel obligated to post here because my avatar is manny and deshawn on selection sunday. was a really cool moment for a program which had been down for so long. and then beating clemson and giving blake griffin all he could handle in the round of 32 was pretty cool, too.
Everybody points at Stu & Zack as the program legends who brought us back - and that's fair they were the ones who were b1g champs. But Manny and Peedi staying committed with Beilein were a huge part of it also. The win at home over duke that year was such an awesome moment.
came to thread specifically for this. cornelius johnson has a crazy amount of straight drops. it's kind of unbelievable that someone could forget this (?)
Doesn't adding Stanford make sense from a Notre Dame standpoint, though? I haven't followed any of this that closely, but my understanding is that basically the only school that truly brings in an above-average amount of $$ is ND.
If that is true, seems to me the right strategy is to get very close to an agreement with Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington and then go to ND and say, "If you ever want to play USC, Stanford, Michigan, Michigan State or Purdue again, join the big."
Then, if (when, I mean how could they just lose almost all of your historic rivalries?) ND says yes, you kick out Cal and add ND, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington.
His wife, Rachael Townsend, was my high school gym teacher in Saline. She suddenly and tragically passed away as she was finishing the Chicago Marathon due to mitral valve prolapse when she was only 29. It really hit the community hard.
She was a very kind woman, coach, and teacher. Just wanted to drop a quick note of remembrance for anyone who knew her.
you are obviously correct here, once you have gotten the first down, 1 more yard does essentially nothing to add expected points.
But the two examples you give are pretty silly. Both the Corum and Edwards long runs could have netted much more than just an extra yard or two. Corum's, in particular, felt like he left a touchdown on the field.
Now, of course, this has been discussed at some length, that perhaps the coahes were happy to set points on fire in hopes of minimizing the probability of injuries. But we should still be clear: in these two cases, we were setting (expected) points (added) on fire, not just making a 46 yard run into a 45 yard run or whatever.
you are nuts. Mo Hurst was one of the best players I've ever seen play at Michigan. This is not a exaggeration. Mazi is nowhere near the player Mo Hurst was.
Yeah fair question. I think when he is half way down he is looking towards that RB. But you can also see here at the point of release his eyes are off to the right side of the play. If a no-look prayer that probably wouldn't have made it more than 5 feet from his hand before hitting the ground isn't grounding...
You can't see the ball, but this is just a few frames before he releases. There is no way he is looking at that receiver right now.
I don't know if there is a *rule* for this, but, I think there's a fair amount of precedent for just calling grounding when a qb is that close to the ground and the pass has *no* chance of being completed.
yeah I can't believe no one else has said this. It seems totally clear to me that Young has no intent to actually hit a receiver with that throw. It was 100% "well, I'm sacked anyway I may as well throw this forward and hope a ref thinks it's not grounding for some weird reason."
I honestly think if the ball had *not* hit the defendes helmet, it would have clearly been so far short of the RB that they would have easily flagged it for grounding.
If hitting a defender is the bar that needs to be cleared to avoid grounding, qbs could avoid a lot of sacks that way.
Congratulations on saying the correct and true thing which gives Serena her appropriate due instead of the false and stupid thing which actually diminishes her accomplishments (because it opens the door to "nuh uh she couldn't beat rafa" (which is true!)) that the op said.
I haven't delved into these debates on the board at all, so forgive me if this has been brought up.
There has been a lot of hand-wringing about "transformational, not transactional" and Michigan's unwillingness to explicitly pay-for-play.
To me, this does not seem like a problem for more than 1 year. If Michigan can pay in the top few percentile, don't we just tell recruits, e.g. "JJ McCarthy made more NIL than any other player in the country this year. Our o-line is the top compensated o-line. Our total NIL turned out to be #xx in the country. Our average compensation for 2nd string is $xxx." ?
This kind of thing seems totally in-line with Harbaugh's usual recruiting strategy "come here and compete, earned not given, etc..." Then we show 'those who stay' get $Texas and that $Texas (at Michigan) > $Texas (at Texas).
Now, if we don't pay players more than most schools, then obviously I am wrong. But I don't see why we shouldn't be very competitive because that approach is completely within the rules as they are written right now. I get that this year we don't have the shiny data to parade around and that we might be losing an edge on A&M or whoever is like "$xx to come here right now." But I see that as a one year problem, not a programmatic long-term problem.
The entire trading industry is essentially snake oil sales. On average, the wall street geniuses probably didn't fair better than the average investor. The efficient market hypothesis is either correct or mostly correct, and you do not have better than a coin flip's chance of outperforming the market on average.
So, a CA school has to offer xx% more than some other state with a smaller income tax to pay the player the same amount of money.
In what world is that not a disadvantage? The world where that is true is one where money has value to the recruit but no value to the school. That seems...not real.
Seth: First of all, I want to say you've done an awesome job UFRing this year. In some ways, I feel like you've improved on the foundation Brian laid down.
Second, I'd like to say that my "feelingsball" take is exactly yours. He definitely looks hugely improved.
But, I think it's worth mentioning that your charting does not show a clear/obvious improvement or inflection point.
Now, I do admit that I have not done any weighting for strength of opponent. So yes, it is probably true that 0.57 DSR vs. PSU >> 0.67 DSR vs. WMU. But, on the other hand, it is not obvious that 0.64 DSR vs. MSU > much anything at all, given MSU's pass D results on the year.
Anyway, just food for thought. Trying to use data instead of just yelling.
My memory from my wife's residency is that she would always come home and practically bull-rush through me to get the toilet "HI SORRY I HAVEN'T PEED IN 14 HOURS OUT OF THE WAY"
Is he the guy that worked on mgoblog for, like, a minute, maybe around the Rashan Gary saga? And then he basically weirded everyone out for some reason (I think maybe the way he handled communicating with recruits was a bit...off...or something?) and was essentially runoft this very blog?
Glad I asked! That's definitely interesting to hear. I am trying to think of other songs which have huge thematic shifts mid-song, and I can't think of any I really like both halves of...
Jupiter - I love the "I vow to thee my country" theme with the cellos (might be the single piece of music most likely to give me goosebumps), but the majority of the brass dominated parts of the song are kind of 'meh' to me.
The Flag by BNL - The first part whch describes the messed up/abusive relationship is totally sad and lovely, and then the "there goes a forest and there goes a bluebird" part of the song I don't get.
Miller's Angels by Counting Crows - Don't like the last half.
Flake by Jack Johnson - Don't like the second half.
etc etc
So maybe it's just me and I like songs to be monothematic or something.
I'm not really a Clapton fan and he doesn't come up much in conversation for me, but this seems as good a place as any to ask:
Doesn't the song 'Layla' contain one of the coolest guitar riffs ever written, but the last half of the song is total trash? Am I the only one who thinks this? Or do most people think this?
Thanks, that's good to hear. I didn't know that, but given how high temperatures have been running lately, I worried that these kind of community relationship things would be hurting.
This will probably get negged to hell, but I want to say it:
It struck me that he thanked the police men that played with him in particular. I wonder what can be done to reunite communities with their police, what do you think the odds are that this generation's Chris Webber would play ball with some cops, or that cops would take interest in a kid like that?
prediction: the drone lifts gracefully from the rover and turns its eyes skyward toward the sun. there is something like a dark cloud hovering in sky, then a blinding flash, then silence.
If they are going to change the rules anyway, why don't they just have a rematch between IU/OSU?
With a loss to State, Northwestern can never make the playoffs, but if IU has only one loss in two games against OSU they'd have probably #1 SOS in country and pretty strong resume.
I'm not sure what makes Netflix so horrible. The key problem with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., is the perverse incentive structure that is associated with the advertising revenue model.
Facebook profits by selling our attention to advertisers. To make the most efficient use of advertisers' money, Facebook's focus is essentially to best understand how to keep our eyes on the screen to give us a few more ads. Without knowing what the outcome would be, machine-learning was set loose on this problem, and it turns out the best way to keep our eyes on the screen is to outrage us with stories about how our outgroup is bad, etc. The net result here is an increase of polarization, distrust, conspiracy thinking, etc. As a concrete example, it is empirically true that fake news stories have higher velocity (sharing, etc.) than real ones. This is because it is easier to write an outrage-inducing headline that is fiction than a real one. Because these stories are more likely to keep our attention on-screen, the *platform* is more likely to amplify these messages as well.
On the other hand, the revenue model employed by Netflix, Wikipedia, etc., is one where they only profit by giving people a good product that they want. These companies survive by patronage, so they are incentivized to make people want to maintain their membership. Netflix does not care if we watch TV one, zero, or ten hours a day. They just want us to maintain our patronage. There is no advertiser to satisfy.
I'm late to this party, but you are 100% correct. My two brothers and I are the kids at 00:30 in the video just singing the fight song. We were in the 4th or 5th row right behind the opposite net. We definitely had no idea until later.
We got called by a lot of friends that night who told us we were on TV.
The problem here is institutions, generally. The incentive structure presented to individuals inside the institution is such that their top priority is to propagate the institutions goals and its existence, at essentially any cost. i.e. the institution itself is amoral and just wants to grow at all cost.
The Catholic Church is basically Penn State is basically Baylor is basically MSU is basically (probably also) Michigan.
Please someone talk me down from this hot take ledge, but it's basically how I feel lately. Also, I don't really know how it is possible to make the incentives presented by such institutions align with incentives that promote general welfare.
prediction: Z's (or X's) shooting is not sustainable.
His early free throw shooting numbers do not indicate he has improved much as a shooter: 8/14 = 57%
Now, of course, both his 3pt and FT numbers are on a vanishingly low sample size, so it's hard to predict at this point. X has been defying expectations from day 1, so hopefully he continues to do that. But I will be *shocked* if they moved the line back and he goes from 30% to 33+%.
Recent Comments
just feel obligated to post here because my avatar is manny and deshawn on selection sunday. was a really cool moment for a program which had been down for so long. and then beating clemson and giving blake griffin all he could handle in the round of 32 was pretty cool, too.
Everybody points at Stu & Zack as the program legends who brought us back - and that's fair they were the ones who were b1g champs. But Manny and Peedi staying committed with Beilein were a huge part of it also. The win at home over duke that year was such an awesome moment.
"Michigan has a new men's basketball head coach. Dusty May has been hired as the new sheriff in town..."
So who did they hire as the new coach?
I'll see myself out.
I'm not one to neg for opinions. But this is just a shockingly bad one. What are you even doing with microwave popcorn?
I always thought Seth's idea to do this sounded pretty cool.
But now that I see the matchups in writing...
came to thread specifically for this. cornelius johnson has a crazy amount of straight drops. it's kind of unbelievable that someone could forget this (?)
Not local and likely to literally never make it there, but just want to weigh in:
Boddingtons is an essential to any British isles establishment. Please never scrap Boddingtons on tap, and never give it an 'eh'.
Love that shit.
Doesn't adding Stanford make sense from a Notre Dame standpoint, though? I haven't followed any of this that closely, but my understanding is that basically the only school that truly brings in an above-average amount of $$ is ND.
If that is true, seems to me the right strategy is to get very close to an agreement with Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington and then go to ND and say, "If you ever want to play USC, Stanford, Michigan, Michigan State or Purdue again, join the big."
Then, if (when, I mean how could they just lose almost all of your historic rivalries?) ND says yes, you kick out Cal and add ND, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington.
On the other hand, to hell with Notre Dame.
His wife, Rachael Townsend, was my high school gym teacher in Saline. She suddenly and tragically passed away as she was finishing the Chicago Marathon due to mitral valve prolapse when she was only 29. It really hit the community hard.
She was a very kind woman, coach, and teacher. Just wanted to drop a quick note of remembrance for anyone who knew her.
https://mgoblue.com/news/2013/10/3/Wolverines_Honor_Townsend_with_Community_Involvement
you are obviously correct here, once you have gotten the first down, 1 more yard does essentially nothing to add expected points.
But the two examples you give are pretty silly. Both the Corum and Edwards long runs could have netted much more than just an extra yard or two. Corum's, in particular, felt like he left a touchdown on the field.
Now, of course, this has been discussed at some length, that perhaps the coahes were happy to set points on fire in hopes of minimizing the probability of injuries. But we should still be clear: in these two cases, we were setting (expected) points (added) on fire, not just making a 46 yard run into a 45 yard run or whatever.
I wrote (IMO) a better poem Christmas Eve 2014, when it appeared that the Harbaugh hire was imminent:
'Twas the night before HARBAUGH, when all through the HARBAUGH
Not a HARBAUGH was HARBAUGH, not even a HARBAUGH;
The HARBAUGHS were hung by the HARBAUGH with care,
In hopes that HARBAUGH soon would be HARBAUGH;
The HARBAUGHS were nestled all snug in their HARBAUGH;
While visions of HARBAUGH danced in their HARBAUGH;
And HARBAUGH in his HARBAUGH, and HARBAUGH in my HARBAUGH,
Had just settled our HARBAUGH for a long winter's HARBAUGH,
When out on the HARBAUGH there arose such a HARBAUGH,
HARBAUGH sprang from his HARBAUGH to see what was HARBAUGH.
Away to the HARBAUGH HARBAUGH flew like a HARBAUGH,
Tore open the HARBAUGH and threw up the HARBAUGH.
The HARBAUGH on the HARBAUGH of the new-fallen HARBAUGH,
Gave a HARBAUGH of HARBAUGH to HARBAUGH below,
When what to HARBAUGH HARBAUGH did appear,
But a HARBAUGH HARBAUGH and eight HARBAUGH HARBAUGH,
With a little old HARBAUGH so lively and quick,
HARBAUGH knew in a HARBAUGH he must be HARBAUGH.
More rapid than HARBAUGH his HARBAUGH they HARBAUGH,
And he HARBAUGHED, and HARBAUGHED, and HARBAUGHED them by HARBAUGH:
"Now, HARBAUGH! now, HARBAUGH! now HARBAUGH and HARBAUGH!
On, HARBAUGH! on, HARBAUGH! on, HARBAUGH and HARBAUGH!
To the HARBAUGH of the HARBAUGH! to the HARBAUGH of the HARBAUGH!
Now HARBAUGH HARBAUGH! HARBAUGH HARBAUGH! HARBAUGH HARBAUGH HARBAUGH!"
As HARBAUGH that HARBAUGH the HARBAUGH HARBAUGH HARBAUGH ,
When HARBAUGH HARBAUGH with a HARBAUGH, HARBAUGH to the HARBAUGH;
So up to the HARBAUGH the HARBAUGH they HARBAUGH
With the HARBAUGH HARBAUGH of HARBAUGH , and HARBAUGH too—
And then, in a HARBAUGH, HARBAUGH HARBAUGH on the HARBAUGH
The HARBAUGH and HARBAUGH of HARBAUGH little HARBAUGH.
As HARBAUGH HARBAUGH in HARBAUGH HARBAUGH, and was HARBAUGH around,
HARBAUGH the HARBAUGH HARBAUGH HARBAUGH with a HARBAUGH .
HARBAUGH was HARBAUGH all in HARBAUGH, from HARBAUGH head to HARBAUGH foot,
And his HARBAUGH were all HARBAUGH with HARBAUGH and HARBAUGH;
A HARBAUGH of HARBAUGH he had HARBAUGH on his HARBAUGH,
And he HARBAUGH like a HARBAUGH just HARBAUGH his HARBAUGH.
His HARBAUGH—how HARBAUGH twinkled! his HARBAUGH, how HARBAUGH!
His HARBAUGH were like HARBAUGH, his HARBAUGH like a HARBAUGH!
His HARBAUGH little HARBAUGH was HARBAUGH HARBAUGH like a HARBAUGH,
And the HARBAUGH on his HARBAUGH was as HARBAUGH as the HARBAUGH;
The HARBAUGH of a HARBAUGH he held HARBAUGH in his HARBAUGH,
And the HARBAUGH, it HARBAUGH his HARBAUGH like a HARBAUGH;
HARBAUGH had a HARBAUGH HARBAUGH and a little round HARBAUGH
That HARBAUGH when he HARBAUGH , like a HARBAUGH full of HARBAUGH.
HARBAUGH was HARBAUGH and HARBAUGH, a right jolly old HARBAUGH,
And HARBAUGH laughed when HARBAUGH saw HARBAUGH, in spite of HARBAUGH;
A HARBAUGH of his HARBAUGH and a HARBAUGH of his HARBAUGH
Soon gave HARBAUGH to HARBAUGH HARBAUGH had HARBAUGH to HARBAUGH ;
HARBAUGH spoke not a HARBAUGH, but went HARBAUGH to his HARBAUGH,
And HARBAUGH all the HARBAUGH; then HARBAUGH with a HARBAUGH,
And laying his HARBAUGH aside of his HARBAUGH,
And giving a HARBAUGH, up the HARBAUGH he HARBAUGH;
He HARBAUGH to his HARBAUGH, to his HARBAUGH gave a HARBAUGH,
And HARBAUGH they all HARBAUGH like the HARBAUGH of a HARBAUGH .
But HARBAUGH HARBAUGH HARBAUGH HARBAUGH , ere HARBAUGH HARBAUGH out of HARBAUGH —
“HARBAUGH HARBAUGH to HARBAUGH , and to HARBAUGH a HARBAUGH HARBAUGH !”
you are nuts. Mo Hurst was one of the best players I've ever seen play at Michigan. This is not a exaggeration. Mazi is nowhere near the player Mo Hurst was.
Yeah fair question. I think when he is half way down he is looking towards that RB. But you can also see here at the point of release his eyes are off to the right side of the play. If a no-look prayer that probably wouldn't have made it more than 5 feet from his hand before hitting the ground isn't grounding...
You can't see the ball, but this is just a few frames before he releases. There is no way he is looking at that receiver right now.
I don't know if there is a *rule* for this, but, I think there's a fair amount of precedent for just calling grounding when a qb is that close to the ground and the pass has *no* chance of being completed.
yeah I can't believe no one else has said this. It seems totally clear to me that Young has no intent to actually hit a receiver with that throw. It was 100% "well, I'm sacked anyway I may as well throw this forward and hope a ref thinks it's not grounding for some weird reason."
I honestly think if the ball had *not* hit the defendes helmet, it would have clearly been so far short of the RB that they would have easily flagged it for grounding.
If hitting a defender is the bar that needs to be cleared to avoid grounding, qbs could avoid a lot of sacks that way.
Congratulations on saying the correct and true thing which gives Serena her appropriate due instead of the false and stupid thing which actually diminishes her accomplishments (because it opens the door to "nuh uh she couldn't beat rafa" (which is true!)) that the op said.
I haven't delved into these debates on the board at all, so forgive me if this has been brought up.
There has been a lot of hand-wringing about "transformational, not transactional" and Michigan's unwillingness to explicitly pay-for-play.
To me, this does not seem like a problem for more than 1 year. If Michigan can pay in the top few percentile, don't we just tell recruits, e.g. "JJ McCarthy made more NIL than any other player in the country this year. Our o-line is the top compensated o-line. Our total NIL turned out to be #xx in the country. Our average compensation for 2nd string is $xxx." ?
This kind of thing seems totally in-line with Harbaugh's usual recruiting strategy "come here and compete, earned not given, etc..." Then we show 'those who stay' get $Texas and that $Texas (at Michigan) > $Texas (at Texas).
Now, if we don't pay players more than most schools, then obviously I am wrong. But I don't see why we shouldn't be very competitive because that approach is completely within the rules as they are written right now. I get that this year we don't have the shiny data to parade around and that we might be losing an edge on A&M or whoever is like "$xx to come here right now." But I see that as a one year problem, not a programmatic long-term problem.
The entire trading…
HOT TAKE:
The entire trading industry is essentially snake oil sales. On average, the wall street geniuses probably didn't fair better than the average investor. The efficient market hypothesis is either correct or mostly correct, and you do not have better than a coin flip's chance of outperforming the market on average.
So, a CA school has to offer xx% more than some other state with a smaller income tax to pay the player the same amount of money.
In what world is that not a disadvantage? The world where that is true is one where money has value to the recruit but no value to the school. That seems...not real.
Just had to stop here and tell everyone that this is the correct opinion. Jenny Lewis' lyrics are always amazing, such a good writer.
If you want to have your cake and eat it to
And if you want everyone to watch you while you eat it
Go ahead, go ahead...
Seth: First of all, I want to say you've done an awesome job UFRing this year. In some ways, I feel like you've improved on the foundation Brian laid down.
Second, I'd like to say that my "feelingsball" take is exactly yours. He definitely looks hugely improved.
But, I think it's worth mentioning that your charting does not show a clear/obvious improvement or inflection point.
Now, I do admit that I have not done any weighting for strength of opponent. So yes, it is probably true that 0.57 DSR vs. PSU >> 0.67 DSR vs. WMU. But, on the other hand, it is not obvious that 0.64 DSR vs. MSU > much anything at all, given MSU's pass D results on the year.
Anyway, just food for thought. Trying to use data instead of just yelling.
Winning that game got their coach $Texas. Of *course* they prepared that way.
My memory from my wife's residency is that she would always come home and practically bull-rush through me to get the toilet "HI SORRY I HAVEN'T PEED IN 14 HOURS OUT OF THE WAY"
damn you! haha nicely done sir.
umm...khakis?
oh man. you are totally right. was that the death of the WLA?
…
Logged in just to ask this:
Is he the guy that worked on mgoblog for, like, a minute, maybe around the Rashan Gary saga? And then he basically weirded everyone out for some reason (I think maybe the way he handled communicating with recruits was a bit...off...or something?) and was essentially runoft this very blog?
this seems like a pretty original take. care to explain how?
Glad I asked! That's definitely interesting to hear. I am trying to think of other songs which have huge thematic shifts mid-song, and I can't think of any I really like both halves of...
Jupiter - I love the "I vow to thee my country" theme with the cellos (might be the single piece of music most likely to give me goosebumps), but the majority of the brass dominated parts of the song are kind of 'meh' to me.
The Flag by BNL - The first part whch describes the messed up/abusive relationship is totally sad and lovely, and then the "there goes a forest and there goes a bluebird" part of the song I don't get.
Miller's Angels by Counting Crows - Don't like the last half.
Flake by Jack Johnson - Don't like the second half.
etc etc
So maybe it's just me and I like songs to be monothematic or something.
yes, but Furry Happy Monsters by REM & The Muppets is a classic.
I'm not really a Clapton fan and he doesn't come up much in conversation for me, but this seems as good a place as any to ask:
Doesn't the song 'Layla' contain one of the coolest guitar riffs ever written, but the last half of the song is total trash? Am I the only one who thinks this? Or do most people think this?
Does he, though? He took a job with the Cavs and lasted about a month, so I'd say the evidence is mixed.
Thanks, that's good to hear. I didn't know that, but given how high temperatures have been running lately, I worried that these kind of community relationship things would be hurting.
This will probably get negged to hell, but I want to say it:
It struck me that he thanked the police men that played with him in particular. I wonder what can be done to reunite communities with their police, what do you think the odds are that this generation's Chris Webber would play ball with some cops, or that cops would take interest in a kid like that?
You…
but probably Bo is too?
You're not wrong. Just reminding how yucky literally everything is.
prediction: the drone lifts gracefully from the rover and turns its eyes skyward toward the sun. there is something like a dark cloud hovering in sky, then a blinding flash, then silence.
the attack has begun.
oh, it's totally unfair to northwestern. but they lost to a horrible state team, so i've disqualified them from my imaginary big championship game.
I didn't realize IU was probably being shut down for the year, so there's that, too.
If they are going to change the rules anyway, why don't they just have a rematch between IU/OSU?
With a loss to State, Northwestern can never make the playoffs, but if IU has only one loss in two games against OSU they'd have probably #1 SOS in country and pretty strong resume.
I'm not sure what makes Netflix so horrible. The key problem with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., is the perverse incentive structure that is associated with the advertising revenue model.
Facebook profits by selling our attention to advertisers. To make the most efficient use of advertisers' money, Facebook's focus is essentially to best understand how to keep our eyes on the screen to give us a few more ads. Without knowing what the outcome would be, machine-learning was set loose on this problem, and it turns out the best way to keep our eyes on the screen is to outrage us with stories about how our outgroup is bad, etc. The net result here is an increase of polarization, distrust, conspiracy thinking, etc. As a concrete example, it is empirically true that fake news stories have higher velocity (sharing, etc.) than real ones. This is because it is easier to write an outrage-inducing headline that is fiction than a real one. Because these stories are more likely to keep our attention on-screen, the *platform* is more likely to amplify these messages as well.
On the other hand, the revenue model employed by Netflix, Wikipedia, etc., is one where they only profit by giving people a good product that they want. These companies survive by patronage, so they are incentivized to make people want to maintain their membership. Netflix does not care if we watch TV one, zero, or ten hours a day. They just want us to maintain our patronage. There is no advertiser to satisfy.
I mean, sure. But if we're playing that game, give me Hurst.
signed in to upvote this.
So, they shined sunlight *into* the body?
I'm late to this party, but you are 100% correct. My two brothers and I are the kids at 00:30 in the video just singing the fight song. We were in the 4th or 5th row right behind the opposite net. We definitely had no idea until later.
We got called by a lot of friends that night who told us we were on TV.
p.s. sweet jackets
Warden Norton from Shawshank
By my third watch, I was like "huh. this movie is kind of sappy."
But the first two times I could not hold it together.
And to the comment above: yes, a million times, yes. Parenthood has definitely turned me into an emotional basketcase.
In soviet Russia, whore mouth shuts you.
Do you think that most people don't know that?
Honest question. I had assumed most do. It's still cleaner.
The…
Super hot take alert:
Please someone talk me down from this hot take ledge, but it's basically how I feel lately. Also, I don't really know how it is possible to make the incentives presented by such institutions align with incentives that promote general welfare.
I have, fwiw.
prediction: Z's (or X's) shooting is not sustainable.
His early free throw shooting numbers do not indicate he has improved much as a shooter: 8/14 = 57%
Now, of course, both his 3pt and FT numbers are on a vanishingly low sample size, so it's hard to predict at this point. X has been defying expectations from day 1, so hopefully he continues to do that. But I will be *shocked* if they moved the line back and he goes from 30% to 33+%.
fantastic, fantastic movie. is it free anywhere?
logged in to say I get the reference. Beauty, eh?