- Member for
- 5 years 4 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 18 hours ago||Very much agree, Harris was||
Very much agree, Harris was more like a foot short rather than two yards
|1 day 19 hours ago||Um, actually, *adjusts glasses*||
"At the end of his presser, Harbaugh asked whether anyone had seen a replay of the late review—on which Harbaugh challenged the spot on a third-down run with two minutes left, up 41-8."
That was actually a Drake Harris catch, not a run.
|6 days 5 hours ago||It's amusing to look through||
It's amusing to look through this thread and see how many people didn't actually read/comprehend the OP
|4 weeks 4 days ago||If Denard and Jabrill are on||
If Denard and Jabrill are on the same team, I might have to become a Jaguars fan.
Please don't do this to me, universe.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||These statements ("Vegas is||
These statements ("Vegas is simply setting the line such that there is 50% of the money on either side of the equation" and "Fandom doesn't change the odds") are contradictory. If the books don't change the lines in response to fandom, they won't even out the money bet on each side. The fact that they do try to even out the money is why people think large fanbases can move lines.
Suppose it is known for a fact that the fair line on the game between Team A and Team B is Team A -7.5; which is to say, 50% of the time Team A will win by 8 or more, and 50% of the time the opposite will be true. So the book sets the line at Team A -7.5. In this situation, we expect sharp bettors not to bet (because there is no edge to be had in the line, so they are just losing money to the juice), and the general public to roughly even out on its own because there are no special reasons to bet either side.
Now add the supposition that Team A has a huge fanbase of homers who will bet on Team A regardless of what the line is, so a ton of money pours in on the Team A side. Unless the books move the line in response, they will wind up with a huge exposure to the 50% of the time Team A -7.5 hits, which means they lose money in the long run.
Accordingly, they **have** to move the line, in order to give sharps a reason to bet to even out the sides. If they leave it static, sharps still aren't betting anything because there's no expected profit; you have to move the line to give them expected profit in order to induce enough bets to counteract the homers' action. And because the books know that's how it will go, and because they don't want to middle themselves, they will try move lines against homer teams from the start.
(and because sharps know this, they may load up against homer teams regardless, which may pull the line back in the other direction because the books can anticipate *that* too, and this process can iterate to infinity, which is why blindly betting one way or another on homer teams based on trying to guess which level of meta-analysis books and sharps are operating on is probably not a profitable strategy)
|7 weeks 2 days ago||ITS THAT WHOOP WHOOP||
ITS THAT WHOOP WHOOP
|8 weeks 2 days ago||This is a very good call;||
This is a very good call; most people never think about Japanese whiskies so it's next to guaranteed to be a new thing...and its also really, really good
|8 weeks 2 days ago||"Not many really know what||
"Not many really know what goes on in coach Harbaugh's mind"
Early understatement of the year contender
|20 weeks 6 days ago||But the end of stoppage time||
But the end of stoppage time is the end of the game; you're not prejudicing anyone by cutting things off at that point, because the game is over. If you blow the whistle to go review an offside, however, you're invariably gonna hurt one of the teams: if the scoring opportunity ends because the attacking team loses possession, blowing the whistle kills the other team's chance chance for a counterattack; if the scoring opportunity ends because the attacking team slows down and tries to run offense, you're ruining their shot to do that before the defense can dig into position.
|20 weeks 6 days ago||I don't think just allowing||
I don't think just allowing offsides and then going back to review it later works, because too often there's not going to be an immediate deadball opportunity after the offsides to do the review, and the game will get too far ahead of the infraction.
Example: Player 1 of Team A plays a through-ball to Player 2, who may or may not have been offside. Ref makes the "offside advantage" signal. Player 2 receives the ball near the edge of the box and dribbles forward to get into shooting position, but his touches are sufficiently poor that a defender from Team B is able to get back to cut off his advance (and, unless Player 2 is Messi, this is going to be the outcome a high % of the time). Player 2 breaks off his run and passes it to either Player 3 at the top of the box or Player 4 on the wing, and Team A begins to run its normal last-third offense, which may or may not even result in a shot, let alone a goal.
At what point does the ref blow his whistle to go review the offside? If he blows as soon as the immediate goalscoring opportunity is blown/passed up, he's ruining Team A's opportunity to run offense in the final third before Team B's defense gets dug in. If he waits until Team A loses possession, he's ruining Team B's opportunity at a counterattack. If he waits until a traditional deadball event (the ball goes out of bounds or someone is fouled), as he would do to give someone a yellow card after playing advantage, play might continue for 5 or 10 minutes before he gets the chance, and all that play might have to be erased if it turns out Player 2 was offside. If it's just up to his discretion when to blow the whistle, the result will be arbitrary, invariably unfair to one side or another, and open more opporunities for corruption, which soccer has had a significant problem with.
I don't think officials are getting offsides calls wrong often enough to justify this kind of disruption.
I could be on board with a rule that offside is reviewable if the player receives the ball in shooting position and immediately scores a goal, because then the offsides error is directly to blame for a goal that shouldn't have been scored, and that's a big deal. I could also be on board with an immediate review when offside is called, with the attacking team getting a free kick at the spot if the call is overturned (although that gets tricky for offsides called in the box). But I can't see playing "advantage" on potential offsides calls and then going back to see what should have happened after the action is over. That way lies madness.
|24 weeks 2 days ago||What a bizarre take. We're||
What a bizarre take. We're talking about a technology that could make massive progress in preventing 30,000 deaths a year that disproportionately affect younger people, hundreds of thousands of injuries, and God only knows how many billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic damage...and your response is to bemoan the lack of risk in life? Do you also get upset about the polio vaccine? LIFE WAS SO MUCH MORE EXCITING WHEN YOU NEVER KNEW IF YOU MIGHT GET CRIPPLED AND DIE AT ANY MOMENT. WHEN DID WE GET SO SOFT?
I promise you, if you're still looking for ways to risk your life unnecessarily once autonomous cars take over, you'll not be wanting for options.
|24 weeks 2 days ago||I welcome any and all||
I welcome any and all developments in autonomous cars. Some day in the future, there will not be even a single human piloting a car on public roads; I fully intend to throw a massive party on that day.
FTR, road traffic accidents are the #1 cause of death for Americans age 15-24, #3 among ages 25-34, #4 among ages 35-44, and #10 among ages 45-54. If autonomous cars can take the kind of chunk out of these numbers that the early returns suggest, we can make huge gains in cutting down early deaths.
|24 weeks 2 days ago||Or, better, why pay $1.50 an||
Or, better, why pay $1.50 an hour in a garage when your car can just go turn on Uber and earn money for you being a taxi while you're at work?
|24 weeks 2 days ago||Why on earth would you assume||
Why on earth would you assume that there won't be communication/protocols between cars?
Google's cars made it through 1.3 million miles of driving before they caused an accident; a quick search says that the average person drives 13,476 miles per year, so that's roughly equivalent to an average person going 96 years of driving without causing an accident. So, Google bested your mark by 400%.
For reference, human drivers average an accident every 165,000 miles. And that accident Google caused? A fender-bender where a bus hit the car at 15 mph; hardly the stuff of nightmares.
|38 weeks 2 days ago||I'll be there, love it when||
I'll be there, love it when Michigan comes to NYC
|38 weeks 3 days ago||One of the perversities in||
One of the perversities in the system is that colleges bear none of the risk of their students defaulting on their loans; they get paid up front and get to keep the tuition you paid no matter what happens later. If you changed the system so that universities themselves became liable when their students defaulted on loans, schools would find ways to control their costs right quick.
As is, there are many "schools" that exist for absolutely no reason other than to suck up student loan dollars, and they contribute hugely to the crisis. This is especially bad in my industry (law), where an absolute ton of law schools have popped up over the last decade, admitting tens of thousands of people who have no business whatsoever going to law school and enticing them to go by pushing misleading or outright fraudulent "statistics" about their graduates' career prospects. As a result, there are legions of people who took on 6-figure debt loads thinking they could pay it off with solid $80-$90k jobs and found themselves unable to get any work at all -- legal employers looked at their degrees and said "that's a shitty school, we don't hire attorneys from there"; and non-legal employers looked at their degrees and said "this person has a JD, they'll probably bail on me as soon as they can find a job as a lawyer." But the schools rake in millions regardless because the loan checks cash no matter what and there's always a new group of suckers to prey on.
|38 weeks 3 days ago||Also (though I don't have||
Also (though I don't have direct evidence of this in front of me) I have to imagine that even for people who can afford their loan payments, carrying a debt that will take 10-20 years to pay off makes it more difficult to get financing for things like mortgages or small business loans.
|48 weeks 2 days ago||Definitely shady and relevant||
Definitely shady and relevant to whether FD was engaged in fraudulent behavior.
Doesn't seem especially relevant to whether DFS games are a prohibited form of gambling though.
This issue is very annoying because it's hard for many people to disaggregate those two things.
|49 weeks 1 day ago||Don't discount the chance of||
Don't discount the chance of the Big 12 cannibslizing itself. Oklahoma State is the only unbeaten left in that conference, and by my estimation they are the third best of the bunch. They could easily fall to one or both of Baylor and Oklahoma. I think Baylor was eliminated tonight even if they do come back to win the conference...no one will believe they could hang with Alabama or Clemson after falling to Oklahoma at home. And Oklahoma, although they looked really good tonight, are on dicey ground...that loss to Texas was **bad** and is only getting worse.
In an ideal world, you could see something like:
Oklahoma > OSU
I can imagine the Big 12 getting left out in that scenario; could give us another way in if ND tops Stanford
|49 weeks 6 days ago||But what's a goon to a||
But what's a goon to a goblin?
|49 weeks 6 days ago||And a sequel in stageplay||
And a sequel in stageplay form.
Also, the idea that people should be "over" something three (actually 4 if we're talking the movies, 8 if we're talking books) years after it "ends" seems pretty ridiculous. The last Lord of the Rings book was 60 years ago, people are still plenty into that, and were before the movies came out too. We're talking about one of the most popular stories of all time, and one that the ascendant generation quite literally grew up alongside. No idea why it would be expected to go away.
|50 weeks 14 min ago||Prefer Peppers at Beater tbh||
Prefer Peppers at Beater tbh
|50 weeks 21 hours ago||Yeah, kinda strange that we||
Yeah, kinda strange that we didn't see Higdon at all, maybe they're keeping him out until they finish exterminating the gremlins that make him randomly trip and fall before he can get to the hole.
Isaac is obviously getting disciplined for something, and as you pointed out it doesn't take too many guesses to figure why Green isn't getting more run. Best guess is that Houma came in above Higdon and Taylor-Douglas as a reward for doing good things in practice.
|50 weeks 2 days ago||To say beginning any sentence||
To say beginning any sentence addressed at my girlfriend with an all caps WOMAN would "go over like a lead balloon" would be to overstate how well my girlfriend would respond to that by like 5 orders of magnitude. Fairly surprised Sam Webb is still alive.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||"10 guys, 11 guys hustling||
"10 guys, 11 guys hustling and 10 of them blocking, blocking for Jehu and he got- he is the fastest player on the team. I know Jabrill said one of the fastest but he is the fastest, and he showed it today."
This made me laugh. Love Peppers not giving an inch on these things, love Harbaugh laying down the law on who the fastest guy really is, which you know Peppers will take as a challenge.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Agree, Baylor is the worst||
Agree, Baylor is the worst matchup for us. Really good passing spread would ask tough questions of our secondary, their QB is mobile enough to put pressure on our DL to keep contain, and Shock Linwood is no joke at RB, very tough to deal with him in any kind of open space, of which Baylor creates a lot. I think we could contain Baylor because this defense is filthy, but in the context of recent history "containing" Baylor means giving up 30 points. I don't have much confidence that our offense could keep up with them...unlike TCU, Baylor plays some D.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||I definitely thought he||
I definitely thought he looked better today. Made some really nice cuts that we're often seeing M backs whiff on this year, looked to have good burst through the LOS, churned out some extra yards after contact.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Not so sure about that; there||
Not so sure about that; there are a ton of huge games that day. In addition to MSU-Michigan, there's also Alabama-Texas A&M, Florida-LSU, and Notre Dame-USC. If Florida can put a convincing win on Mizzou this week and break into the top 10 (they're currently 11th), I think Gameday is going to their game, which is already slated as a prime time game on ESPN.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Obviously that's correct, but||
Obviously that's correct, but no one is talking about "taking away the connection fans and alums have with a particular school and tradition." If the players are students at the University of Michigan, wearing the maize and blue, wearing the winged helmet, and playing in Michigan Stadium for the University of Michigan football team, who would possibly feel that their connection as alums and fans would be destroyed simply because the players were also able to sell the rights to their likeness to EA, or get a check from the university for their 50+ hours a week of highly valuable labor?
|1 year 3 weeks ago||God, what a frustrating||
God, what a frustrating ruling. The idea that amateurism is a legitimate procompetitive purpose because it increases consumer demand is insanity. Is there anyone in the world that stopped watching the Olympics after they dropped their amateurism requirements? Is there anyone who watches Deveon Smith magically teleport through a pile or Amara Darboh make an incredible one-handed grab and thinks, "Thank God those guys aren't being paid to do these things, or else I wouldn't enjoy watching them"?