HardyBoy

You think the MRI they did was the most definitive and final test before surgery (genuine question, I'm totally speculating here and looking to be taught)? Just the way I think of it is they would do a test with a low false negative rate, but high false positive and then refer to a specialist and the actual surgeon that would operate for the final really highly accurate (though expensive) test...guessing that would be a biopsy or something.

I don't see it like that. I am reading it like they did a preliminary scan saw something suspicious and told him to go get it checked out by his own doctor/specialist with a referral. As part of that they would have prepared him for it being anything from a benign cyst to untreatable cancer. It would be really weird if they used an MRI by an nfl medical team as the basis to cur someone open, especially their brain.

And that's where I think relegation and more so promotion would help. You're suddenly talking about small, but extremely dedicated fan bases entering the main league, and getting a huge influx of cash to bring in new players and upgrade facilities and all that. It would help with organic growth. The problem is the the premier league was built up organically, where the mls owners started the league and aren't about to watch the value of their franchise cut by some huge %. I live less than 10 minutes away from where the new Miami team was going to play in fort lauderdale while their real stadium is being built...such a bummer with covid (I mean it's not important ultimately, but still a bummer). Was gonna go to so many games, but now we're moving to Raleigh next month (getting the heck out of here with the mix of hurricanes, covid, two real young kids and a five hour drive off the peninsula when 6 million people aren't trying to evacuate)...looks like we are gonna get at least one more close call at best with Isaias before we go, and likely a few more the way this hurricane season has gone so far.

I went to a bunch of new england revolution games, they definitely have a great live fan base and they play out in Foxboro which is 40 min or whatever from Boston. Also, the lack of relegation I think hurts in the long run (though it's not possible for them to stay solvent as a league with relegation apparently). Imagine when Rochester won the gold cup that they got to get into the mls, and that would happen to a smaller team or two every season...you would super quickly see the enthusiasm in the league surge I think.

Nice, to each their own for sure. I do think you're likely in the minority watching lower quality football. Look at soccer...Americans eat up the english premier league, but the same level of interest isn't there with the mls...but as the quality of the mls has improved, so have the number of viewers. That said, the rochester rhinos crushed it back in the day, but I think Rochester is a sneaky underrated sports town (we had a pro nba team for crying out loud and an nba championship I believe). All that said, I might not be the best person to gauge sports interest these days...since I moved down to south florida, from boston (originally Rochester) I cut the cord and stopped watching pretty much all sports except the Bills and I will be die hard Sabres as soon as they get back to be decent (watched 20 games straight or so the last two seasons before the wheels fell off each time and it became depressing. I could tell you a lot of what was happening on each team in each of the main four sports before I moved down here. We're moving to Raleigh in a month or so, so maybe I'll get more into sports again, but now I have to little kids, so thinking prob not.

Why not just do a world cup like tournament? Even if they don't do the re-draw. Round robin against your division, top two teams go to elimination round. Have two games a night, like Sunday, Monday Thursday...then everyone gets abye week to start the knock out stages. Could be over and done with in a month or two and the tv revenue would be insane.

Squiggly playboy channel? Or super slow non broadband picture downloads on computers? I'm 36, I've basically straddled two worlds as a teenager (poor choice of words given the context), neither great...ask me anything

I mean bars are going to be closed, people aren't going to be able to watch out of local games. People are not going to have the money to spend on a luxury tv package either that locks them in to a higher second year cost either right now. Is the potential for either a la carte or fully free streams out of the question?

They are going to have to do something about Sunday Ticket though...

Haha, I'm pretty good at sarcasm and I can't tell if you're joking or serious, so well done, maybe? You're telling me you'd watch 4th pre-season games for an entire season for every team and game, you really would watch that? Hate to break this to you also, but the Bills never had the worst roster in the league, not really ever close except maybe the year before they drafted Mike Williams. They were consistently mediocre right around 7-9 every year, and were basically just missing a few pieces or better than replacement level depth at a few key positions because of cash to cap, and never got the lucky bounce to end up 9-7 and back into the playoffs because of the Pats. They could absolutely get the funding to start a league, think of that Shark Tank pitch. Granted the NBA would be the easiest to pull off.

"Take me where the whispering breeze is, I wanna feel my feet leave the ground If I could I would, but I don't know how..." Highly recommend listening, I know it's phish and whatever preconceptions, but Alisson Kraus is on this song (they were able to snag her for it in the early/mid 90s before she totally blew up):

I think that might be the issue in the end...if this can't be done safely, then the answer might be not to do it at all. If the nfl isn't brining that as an option to the table, showing data on both the short term and long term costs of a cancelled season, that to me does not show they are taking this seriously.

You realize 32% of the country wasn't able to pay July rent/mortgages fully right? Might not be the best line of argument you're taking here. Anyway, this is entertainment in the end, and there is a reason the arena league doesn't draw the same fans as the nfl...you put the best players in the world in the arena league it will be the most popular sport on tv. This billion dollar league is absolutely a function of the players, don't for a second think differently. They could all go on strike tomorrow and start their own league the next day, cut out the owners and make absolute bank...like serious life changing money across all segments of the roster. You think every other person in this country is able to do the same thing? Come on now, some random dude pushing a piece of paper or an email from an inbox to an outbox or laying a foundation for a building are not irreplaceable...even the best is not someone who is at a level of .01% of the population or whatever and what makes them that valuable isn't untrainable (sorry, you can't teach 4.3)

I think ultimately it comes down to people being frustrated with cash to cap.

Nah, suburban moms are about to start talking about it when it gets picked up on the today show and the view.

Yeah, so this seems like it is already in exponetial growth, just in the early phases so far. This statement from the nfl is going to give it a ton of visibility to people outside the football world.

Yeah, so this is long and a bit meta...I feel the same way btw on it not really getting me worked up because it's just so far out there and has me concerned he is having mental issues. Here's the long part: I wonder how much of this also plays into him being a minority and really not having that much actual agency to cause impacts. It honestly might be proving we have systemic racism. I promise I'm not trying to bend over backwards to make this about him actually being the victim here, it's just that what he said is so universally agreed on as being ridiculous that people aren't going to start a fight with each other on it, and that is what I find super interesting. So think of any statement as a ball, and the nature of the words describe the size of that ball. Totally neutral words/statements are tiny, say golf ball size for this example, and really powerful words/statements are huge, say a big beach ball. How much impact that ball has when it hits something is not described by the size of the ball alone...just like a single person screaming vile words in a room alone has no impact, the size of an individuals reach matters a ton, and in my example is how hard/dense the ball is. It is the difference between being hit by a hard baseball and a soft baseball...same words, same size ball, but because one has few people that will not just be able to hear the words, but also take action on those words (and the key is those people's actions will have actual impact). Compare that to someone who says the same words, but the people listening actually have the agency to make things happen. For example, if I'm calling on people to protest with social disobedience by walking on a highway to disrupt traffic and I have a reach of 10,000 who are super commited, but they are all in their 90s and in wheelchairs, I have a lot of reach, but ultimately those people have little agency. On the other hand, if someone else only has 100 people who listen, but they are both willing and able to walk on a highway, well you can close a highway with that reach, even though it is much less substantial (so I guess size of the ball is a factor of how powerful the words are and reach multiplied by agency, which gives you density). What I'm trying to say, first the words Jackson is saying are so out there that the people he is reaching with those words are really small, and the agency of the people who he is able to reach is small (would have to think you are in pretty rough financial shape if that type of scapegoating connects with you enough to take action, and money is power in our society). Brees on the other hand, the people resonating with what he said actually have true power (and I'm not looking to judge what he said, I have a personal opinion, but I'm focusing on the conceptual basis of why we might not be seeing the same level of pushback). The President of the United States might retweet what Brees said for crying outloud (that softball of saying he might retweet Jackson's tweet as well is so tempting as a joke, but I'll just tease it, because genuinely not looking to make this specific post about the validity of what people are saying, just why there might be more pushback based on the agency of the people that are impacted by the words). There are a lot of very powerful, extremely rich people who agree with Brees, so his words while having less size (using what you think is Hitler is way way bigger than words about the flag...and not saying what Brees said is positive or negative...size is not a factor of positive or negative, because I think the size of the words are equal regardless of the perspective of if they are seen as positive or negative by different groups, and that could be super interesting to see if words have the same size for people looking at it from different perspectives...would think equal sized balls on both sides lol, of an argument would magnify the reach), have more impact...the ball Brees' words generate is smaller, but so much more dense...like getting hit by a basketball vs a lacrosse ball going at the same speed. Anyway, that's my theory of why what Jackson said isn't getting more traction. The people who are reached by the words and moved to take action do not have the agency to really make any change, so it is ignored. I would imagine the majority of people who would be in that group are of lower socio-economic status, and likely black (admittedly assuming here), and poor black people have some of the lowest amount of agency in the country I would expect, which is exactly the reason for the fight to end systemic racism, because this should be a huge deal, but in my mind it is the lack of power the people listening to that message have is not a threat to enough people...wild, isn't that kind of the thing the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were saying and the reason for open carrying as a means of peaceful, though adversarial, protest? So I actually came up with a lot of that theory solving stuff in Excel and seeing a common concept in how I was solving increasingly complex problems and using that concepts to solve problems I couldn't solve in the past. I'm starting to take a graph theory course online too, because while I stumbled on it on my own, I think there is basically a whole wing of math dedicated to it.

From what I read, there were issues with the sampling method of the study. I'll see if I can find the actual study and read the method myself and break it down a bit when I get a chance. There for sure could be that going on, but if there are legit issues with the sampling method of the study, you might only be able to say that 90% of the people sampled in the study felt that way, and not apply it to the general population. WaPo I don't think did the survey, some org published a survey with arguably questionable sampling methodology, and WaPo picked it up and ran with the headline...subsequent sampling hasn't been able to replicate that specific poll either from what I understand...to me it looks like someone had an agenda and wanted to get that narrative out and picked up, but reading the sampling method will help understand if it was that or not.

Well, there are wars for land all the time..the revolutionary war is a great example...I'm not sure exactly how saying genocide of children is wrong and we should acknowledge it happened as a nation and stop pretending it didn't by, you know, glofying a term used by the govt to perpetrate that genocide is suddenly this crazy social justice thing...seems pretty inline with what we supposedly stand for as a country when we say invaded Iraq. I'm not for imperialism, and for example, I think what England did in India is morally wrong. So if a soccer team in the English Premier League had a derogatory term for Indians and a logo of a stereotypical Indian person I would say it should be changed (who knows they might). That said, if that same situation included the genocide of millions and millions and millions of indians, including children like with the native Americans that would be a whole different matter (again maybe that happened there too, but I always understood it as more of an apartheid situation). I'm not sure where not glorifying a genocide suddenly became some crazy sjw stance...wild times

I don't know if the term is racist or not, amd I certainly don't think someone using the word as part of the team name is representative of their thoughts on native americans...that's not what this is about. It's profiting off a genocide of a civilization for profit, where we then culturally appropriated that civilization to wash over said genocide while forcibly preventing that civilization from practice their religion and customs, punishable by death...death that was described and literaly put on bounty posters by our government usinng that specific term. I'll potentially stand with you on the hill of people calling you a racist for using that term, especially if your continued use of that term is not at all reflective of your thoughts on native americans, because it became a larger social protest at what you deam as thought policing...similar to people kneeling for the national anthem no? I don't know that I would agree with you (seems silly to say things that knowingly offend others, and would want to genuinely listen to your perspective to understand, because there is a slippery slope argument to be made. That said, in the context of this specific team name conversation, I truly believe the slippery slope argument is a straw man argument, because it is distracting from the real issue I mentioned above. I don't think you're doing it on purpose to shift the argument, and I also believe that calling the term racist is a bit of a strawman, at least when used by itself. Genocide and cultural appropriation is the key, and when used as part of that perspectives, the fact that that specific term was literally on the bounty posters, sets it apart from other terms that have become part of the lexicon, because agree things could get a bit crazy fast. Personally, I think terms like Braves and Chiefs should go away, because we literally as a nation murdered braves and chiefs in a genocide and should be ashamed of that, not cheering our largely white teenagers with those names on their shirts playing games. I believe it to be in really poor taste and we can do better, but I potentially could be swayed on that. However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. Intent doesn't matter there...Snyder is making billions of dollars, they are getting tax breaks, they are fittingly the team associated with the nations capital.

Yes, you are expressing righteous indignation...you told me to go watch something else if I didn't like it. So let me get this straight I say...using team names that were culturally appropriated from the native Americans a civilization that our country conducted a genocide on (this isn't up for debate, that happened), especially one specific team name that was literally used to describe the government sanctioned bounties placed on native people is wrong, is somehow controversial? Can you please help me understand where that is controversial? Are you proud that we commited that genocide? Are you denying it happened? I'm not saying you are a bad person for not thinking it's offensive even, I don't know that using that term makes someone racist or not, that's genuinely not what this is about. It is about cultural appropriation following a genocide. Seriously though, only if you're mature enough to have a genuine conversation about this. If you're just going to use non sequiturs and ad hominems and think you're being an intellectual ninja or whatever, or if you're trolling, I'm good on that. I got two young kids that deserve my time that I'm willing to spend on this conversation if it is going to be genuine otherwise I'm good on that. Also, my high school name got changed from the Chiefs to the Patriots in 2001. Aside from a terrible choice of what we changed it too , the world didn't end. I am very proud we made the tough choice early and didn't wait (even though we kind of definitely waited).

Wait, are you native American? And my opinion doesn't mean jack? It's like if there was a soccer team in Germany called the Berlin Bankers...you don't think non-jewish German people could feel embarrassed by that name and want it changed?

I personally have a problem with the use of that team name. It represents a time of genocide and imperialism that our nation perpetrated on a entire race of people who had claim on the land. It's no different really than what the Nazi's did, and in in some ways it was way worse...imagine if the Nazis won the war and could expand across the entire USA unchecked. Then, when the actual hot war with the native Americans ended, we shifted to rounding up an entire civilization into reservations that were basically concentration camps with a palatable name. Then we abducted their children and sent them to boarding schools to become "civilized" against their wishes. We outlawed their customs, their traditions, we spat on them in the street, we raped their women so they would have white babies, and we made their children ashamed of their history. And then, when all that was said and done, we appropriated their culture. We turned them into cartoons. We raised our children believing we loved the native Americans the entire time, and that Custer was a hero, and it was our manifest destiny to murder, rape, pillage and destroy a civilization. The only book that that manifest destiny came from by the way was the checkbook. The use of the culturally appropriated names and customs THAT WE BANNED Native Americans from practicing, were a calculated propaganda movement by the wealthy elites to change the narrative and make people think anyone saying we destroyed a civilazation is just a nut job, because we know the intent isn't to shame them, because our puppet masters tell us we did it out of love, because there is no intent of hate in our use of culturally appropriated images and tropes. The right emotion here isn't indifference or talking about your intent. The right emotion is shame and embarrassment that our country perpetrated a civilazation sized genocide and is trying to hide it in plain sight through turning this into a cartoon. In Germany they say never forget...we we've clearly forgotten. This is the rinse and repeat of white European (and unfortunately American) imperialism that has been going on for centuries, and no I'm not ok with that. All the names need to change, becsuae the only slippery slope there is is keeping any of those names, because it allows us to pretend we are not guilty as a nation of genocide and have not come anywhere close to making amends for that.

Do you understand what a representative sample is and how it is necessary for a poll of like 500 people to be representative of a larger population? She had an issue with the sampling method because it did not generate a representative sample, so pretending that data speaks to anyone but the specific group polled is spreading an agenda (gaslighting at its finest right there) and you say she has an agenda...no dude, there is long standing proven math that shows how to pick representative samples. Your opinion means jack when it comes to picking a representative sample. You can have a sample of 100,000 people and it might not be a representative sample...the size of a sample has nothing to do with how representative it is...a bit counterintuitive, but very much true. If you are trying to take a small number of people in a poll and apply their answers to build a model that predicts how the total group will respond, you need that model to be representative of the overall population. If you have a sample of 100 people and only 5% are women, but the overall population has 60% women in it (hypothetical example, not sure what the breakout in that poll was), someone saying that is a faulty non-representative sample doesn't have an agenda that's mathematical/statistical facts...the people misusing science have the agenda, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker...as George Carlin would say "they got ya by the balls"

I haven't read the article yet, but I do think we are undervaluing the impact the wind had on JAs stats last year, especially the deep ball. The second half of the season had almost every game impacted by significant wind.