That's No Moon

Nope. I know you're joking, but still nope. Don't bring that sort of energy into this world. If you say her name 3 times she is assigned to ruin another sporting event.

Lots of pickaxes.

Damien Covington was on his way to being great before he destroyed his knee in practice. Then a couple years later he got shot to death by people robbing a party he was at.

It is skee ball. I was having some fun suggesting that it's Ski-ball in Cheektowaga.

That's what it called in Cheektowaga

I sort of assumed he was riffing on Willis McGahee's super hot take from years ago.

They had their upper deck tarped up for a decade and had every seat in the lower deck between the 20s listed as club seats so they didn't count for blackouts in order to keep them on TV in Jacksonville. If the Bills had been like that during the drought you don't think there would have been a much stronger push to have them move?

And a Happy Canada Day to you, Sir.

First, that's not the same argument. If it were I would argue that restricting advertising has nothing to do with directly restricting access. Second, we don't catch kids with cigarettes anymore. We catch them with vapes of all varieties. Those aren't advertised either and their direct access is controlled yet kids still have it and know how to get it. My point with all of this is you aren't going to stop people from getting access to this with this basic of a regulation. Kids already know how to evade tons of stuff online and there is probably already a host of sites giving you instructions on how to evade this law. At the end of the day it lands on the doorstep of the parents. When I have a parent scream and curse in my face for taking away their kids school issued laptop because we caught them disabling our security using a very specific EIGHT step process they'd found in the internet it doesn't give me tons of faith in this sort of law actually working the way it was intended. Meanwhile nobody wants to do squat about kids making their OWN material and air dropping it out in a school bus. God forbid we take their phones.

Yup. And that "protects the children" in what way? The word protect implies taking action that will prevent harm. What Virginia has done is punishment. Punishment and protection are not the same thing. I'm not pushing back that they shouldn't be doing that. Of course they shouldn't. I'm pushing back that what Virginia has done will have any impact at all. Also, I'm against any time the government feels like it needs to step in and parent people. Do kids under 12 have to have phones? Do kids have to have unmonitored computer time? No in both cases but people can't be bothered to parent properly so it's now the government's job to do it for them. Which they do poorly as in this case.

Kids already know what a VPN is and how to use it. They've spent the last 3 years learning how to get around school-based security and web monitoring. A 6 year old in VA shot his teacher during class. Direct me to the Legislature's effort to fix that. Protect the children though. 🙄

What exactly do you expect them to say? "Nope, we bollocksed this right up. It's a complete clown show and we have no idea how it's going to work out. Stay tuned."?

"Two seconds ain't gonna do anything". Yeah let's make thrashy fish noises with your hands covered with fish stink. Good plan. The shark was already there nimrod. He saw and or smelled your boat and knew what you were doing and was waiting for you to bring a fish to him. You imitated a fish. Well done. Your buddy knew better.

Depends on what the consequences they will permit and how far they will back the teachers. We used to be able to confiscate phones in my school, then kids who had preexisting cracked screens started blaming teachers for breaking the phones and demanding the school replace it. All of a sudden we weren't allowed to take phones anymore. FTR I'm in favor of a 100 percent ban. So much of the bullying and nastiness takes place with the phones not to mention all sorts of other stuff you wouldn't even believe if I told you. Zero benefit to having them. Or you'd be making a lot more trips to the bathroom for "research".

I'm not that read into the exact contract language for that aspect, but I'd guess there is some sort of moral turpitude clause written in to give the company an out. Don't think of them as athletes tied to specific teams, think of them as celebrity endorsers of your product or business. That's the way the relationships work. if you are paying a celebrity to endorse your product and they mess up lots of companies will terminate agreements. It doesn't necessarily mean they get refunds for money already spent though.

I don't think trading Diggs is a good idea but playing devil's advocate. You run the ball more and throw to your TEs and backs a lot more.

Let's not romanticize it. People slow down to look at car crashes hoping to see something grotesque. This isn't that different.

Yes, because the agreement is with the player and the paying organization, not the University. They aren't involved at all in the transaction so where the player plays isn't relevant unless the paying business writes it into the contract. NILs also are not permanent. They are time limited. At least in the ones I know about. Business A gets X from athlete in return for Y dollars. Stetson Bennett for example had his NIL agreements written so they expired on December 31st. His representatives then reached back out to see if you wanted to extend your agreement through the playoffs for a pre-determined dollar amount. Take it away from the Bennett example for a second and assume it's a different player who wasn't finishing their career. The NIL you had would expire on some date. If the athlete transferred you likely be offered the chance to extend your agreement with the athlete at his new school. Depending on your business you may or may not do that because if you are a more locally focused entity to the previous school then it wouldn't make sense. If you were more national and it increased the player's profile you might want to, though in that case it would be more expensive in all likelihood.

Why shouldn't kids be able to decide where they want to play and go to school? Teams can drop their scholarships whenever they want to. Schools can fire coaches that recruited and built relationships with the players whenever they want to. Why shouldn't a kid who has a n opportunity to play at a better program or get more playing time at a different program be able to take it? Why are NILs an issue? Stetson Bennett was a millionaire before he left Georgia. He's not likely going to have a substantial career in the NFL. Why should the University be the only ones to profit from his efforts because I assure you, they do. There are also TONS of athletes in all sorts of sports with low key NILs that help them tremendously. Also, let's not pretend that these sorts of payments weren't already happening. It's not a new issue. Now there's an above board, legitimate business, way to get it done rather than envelopes of cash and mysterious cars.

Wait until people realize that the dad was heavily involved with SETI. The conspiracy almost writes itself.

I think any player up to and including Josh Allen is open to being traded "under the right circumstances" those circumstances may be exceedingly unlikely, but they do exist. If someone walks in the door and blows Beane away with an offer for Diggs he'd be right to take it. That's not going to happen so this is all summer BS. I do chuck this at Ken Dorsey's doorstep though. Man management is part of the gig, not just calling plays and making the gameplan. Under Daboll we didn't hear so much as a peep from Diggs. One year under Dorsey and he's stomping out of locker rooms and missing stuff. The WR coach left after this year in a lateral move. That's odd. Was Chad Hall unhappy with Dorsey also and took a way out when it was offered? Maybe. Maybe not. What I know is the WR room is unnecessarily smoky at the moment so if there's fire it better get dealt with.

Space. Definitely space. Way more time, money, and professional expertise has been spent doing that. We are way better at it as a species. Plus, I think the payoff is better with what you get to see and experience.

Explorers are doing something of merit. These people were tourists hoping to catch a glimpse of a mass graveyard. If they were using the craft for scientific discovery that's one thing and to die in that way is valorous. To die and kill other people while charging $250,000 a ticket isn't "exploration" Also, Dear Terry, No submersibles or rocket ships. Thanks. -Us

Him, and Vontaze Burfict

What was it based on before if not speed? It certainly wasn't size.