CosmicBills

Show us the numbers you've crunched to arrive at this hypothesis, please.

Really? Did you just try to redefine (or dismiss) the definition of average? "In fact the 'average career' is weighed down by th e (sic) huge number of guys who pass through the league for a season or two" ... uh, that's why it's called an average. In case you wondered, the definition of average is: "an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean". You can't just dismiss the numbers you don't like (or the ones that refute your entire point) when compiling an average. "Very few players, relative to the total, end their careers by injury" This is something you just made up.

Not yet (that I know of). After the incident not only did the giant pick up the medical bills (it didn't even happen in their park!) but they also put up 50k into the reward pool. The city of LA put in 50k as well. A private business matched that. The dodgers? 25k ... McCourt came out today and had a press conference but whatever. Too little too late for me. He was in hiding because he didn't want to answer questions about the divorce. Good grief.

Not sure if the incident at Dodger stadium made national news or not, but the Giants are also paying for the entirety of the medical bills for their fan who was nearly beaten to death by two thugs outside of Dodger stadium last weekend. Meanwhile, Frank McCourt does nothing.

Dynamite drop in, Marty!

That's pretty awesome. I kept going back and forth as to whether that was real or cgi.

Exactly. It'd have to be something they'd talk about and not something they do too early. The idea being, "hey, let's send you just to make sure that Mike (or whoever) doesn't come back into the game." It'd be a HUGE risk for whoever goes, but for Rob it'd be win-win as it would take Grant out of individual immunity for a bit.

Interesting speculation This is good news if it's true. Force the owners to back down a bit, get the players back to the table and end this.

Also, there's no a pretty big strategic possibility, more than during the team portion, of sending someone to redemption just to eliminate a strong competitor who's already on it. For example, if Mike goes and starts dominating on Redemption (I don't think Matt can go on another run like that), then maybe it's in Rob's best interest to (knowingly) send Grant just to beat Mike and make sure he doesn't come back into the game. That's a huge risk obviously, and I'm not sure people will be savvy enough to make it in the first season with RI, but who knows. It could also be stupid (on my part).

Of course they do, which is why the owners should have never let it get this far ... but then again, the owners have a strong case that the decertification isn't legit. Still, hopefully it'll scare both sides back to the table.

Possibly. But it shows why he may feel that Fitz is a solid starter but not the answer since accuracy is his biggest downfall. I still don't think they go QB at 3 or 34 though.

So I play in a midlife crisis basketball league with some folks from work. Mind you, we're pretty horrific. Besides myself, I think we only have one other player who actually played organized hoops on ANY level. We've only had two games so far, and it seems like most of the teams we're facing are on the same level or below. Does anyone know of a simple offensive set (or a play or two) that's easy to teach and effective against a man defense? Mind you, some of our players don't have the basic vocabulary let alone basketball instincts. I need something really remedial but effective. Thanks!

You have a point, of course. There are plenty of people who dislike Tebow for that reason alone. Plenty. But there are also plenty of people who just think the guy isn't ever going to be a top tier NFL QB. He's a gifted athlete, there's no question about that. He's also a passionate guy about his faith and that will always draw the ire of a section of the population. But it's not ALL about that.

Let me get this straight. So if you live in SoCal (which Elway only did for two of his first 18 years) you are automatically a liberal? Doesn't that mean you yourself are a liberal elitist since you lived in Denver? Are you some sort of self loathing lib?

Um ... Ok. You do realize Stanford is in northern California and that Elway was born and raised in Washington (minus two years in Northridge when his dad took that job). And that despite "not liking Tebow the man" his jersey sales are near the top of the league. You can't walk down a street in Denver without seeing his face or jersey ...

Makes you wonder who is really calling the shots on draft day. (this is not an endorsement of Modrak)

Sadly, I'm one of those. I only missed 3 and that was one For some reason I said 8.

... why? Because he agrees with the position you took before he filed his report? I'm just saying, to throw out such a definitive statement as "I will never believe" sure makes it sound like you're more interested in pushing your own agenda than actually learning about the kid. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I mean -- come on. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Thanks! It's a compelling read. But without researching the precedents cited or the Sherman Act itself, it's (obviously) very one sided. I'm curious as to the response by the NFL attorneys.

Once again you manage to top yourself. I admit, I dig it. It's hilarious to watch you argue blindly without really bothering to understand or pay attention to what's being said. In fact over the past few days you've not only argued against yourself, you've changed stances mid sentence because you refuse to actually take a moment and consider that not everyone is trying argue or one up you. Some are in fact trying to express views and opinions which in no way impact your stance. It's impossible to actually have a conversation with you since you can't (or refuse) to engage that two cylinder brain that rest atop your noggin, so I beg you to actually read the following before reacting. And by read it, I don't mean read only the words you understand. I know that's tough because most people who finished the third grade tend to use words that you clearly don't understand. I mean consider what's being written before responding. Formulate your points. Take time to type them out. Read them before hitting "add reply". You'll do yourself a favor. Let's start here: I understand that. But it's clear you don't. It's a great attention grabber. Let's be clear, this statement does nothing but repeat exactly what I said in my post -- yet you found a way to argue with it while supporting it. That's a mean feat of logic. You're SO close to having a valid point here, but then you ruin it with the button. But herein lies a difference of opinion: you believe the reports that say the owners actually were conceding points to the players. That sure sounds nice -- but again, I tend to believe the federal mediator who said at no time were either side ever really close to a deal. If the owners' deal was as good as you seem to believe it was, the federal mediator -- who by definition is a neutral party -- would have lobbied for the players to remain at the table. Had the players decertified anyway -- he would have thrown them under the bus. He didn't. Why? Let's stop here. Show me where in my post I ever uttered the words "the owners knew their best play was not to negotiate". Go ahead. Look for it. ... Find it? It's okay, sound out the big words. ... Oh, hi! You're back. Didn't find it, did you? Of course not, because I never said it. What I did say was it was in the owners' best interest to drag out the negotiations for as long as possible before truly negotiating. Key word: "truly". You like to put random words in quotes, how 'bout instead you discover what an adverb is. Can you define it without going to Google? I bet ya' can't. In fact, I don't even need to bet since it's clear you don't know. Which brings us to the second half of that sentence: Hmm. Once again you've flipped sides and are in fact restating exactly what I said in previous posts. Either you're looking to argue just to argue, or your cognitive abilities are on par with a blender. I'm guessing the later, but I digress. I'll spell it out for you. The owners want the best deal possible -- a point you agreed to yourself. The best way to ensure (crap, that's a big word ... let me try this) ... The best way to get the best deal is to reach a deal when the opposition is at their weakest. In this case, the players will be at their weakest when they begin to feel the effects of not receiving their paychecks. That does not begin to happen until actual games are missed. The NFL season does not start until September. Look at your calendar. Since you clearly are incapable of putting two and two together, allow me. That's five months away. So, why did the owners agree to extensions? Can you fill in the blanks? Nope. Can't. I can already see the steam coming out of your ears and hear the Apple II that powers your brain overloading. They agreed to extensions because they want to drag this process out as long as possible. This question shows why you probably spend most of your income buying things off of QVC or buying Extenze. Not everything people say in public is actually true. People mislead. People employ spin control. People don't act like robots and march in a straight line towards their goals. In this case, negotiating -- by both sides -- was nothing more than PR. Both sides want to look good to the fans. They want to look like they're the ones carrying the torch so to speak. And since the owners realized that the players weren't simply going to roll over and take whatever was offered to them, negotiating makes it looked like they tried. But there's a difference between actually trying and going through the motions. If the owners or players had truly wanted to negotiate then they would have reached a deal. This goes back to an earlier stance you took where you assume that the players just have to accept whatever is offered. You obviously are not a risk taker. The players had ammunition to fire and they unloaded. Will it work? That's now up to the courts to decide. But they chose to fight for what they feel is right. Just as the owners are fighting for what they feel is right. Making a deal out of fear is silly. In fact it's stupid. And just because you chose to live your life that way and make your decisions in that manner, doesn't mean everyone does. Absolutely. There would have been a season played in 2011. I just want football. Now, don't respond to this tonight. For once actually take a breath and relax. Let it soak in. Consider what's been said. Maybe you'll prove you're not the macaroon you seem to be.

Isn't it logical to assume then that the owner's best chance to win big is to drag this out as long as possible and wait until players are missing game checks before truly negotiating? Do you really think the Owners expected the players to just roll over and take it? Of course not. They expected a fight and prepared for one. As they should have. Ditto with the players. The Owners negotiated in as much good faith as the players did -- which is none at all. Both sides knew there was slim to no chance of a deal being made in the winter or spring unless it favors the players because until they start missing game checks, the owners have no leverage. The federal mediator said as much when he declared that after weeks of negotiating both sides weren't close enough to even consider another extension! Despite what either side says about the "offers" being made, no one -- on either side -- was offering fair deals because it makes zero sense to do so. The Players, as you said, knew their best shot was to get to court early. The Owners knew their best shot was to wear the players down. It goes both ways, KD. I'm not saying it doesn't. But the reality of the situation is the Owners, not the players, started this because the players would still be playing ball under the old CBA terms if they could. That's not making things up or even bending the truth. That's just how it happened. No one, at least no one with any sense, is calling the players victims. I certainly am not and I've been as vocal an opponent to the owners as a message board dude can be. The victims here are the fans.

Negotiating to what end? What's their goal in this process?

That's true ... but you're leaving off the key point. The owners want the BEST DEAL THEY CAN GET. The best way to get that is to wear down the opposition until they have no choice but to accept. And the best way to accomplish that? Not play a single down in 2011 until the missed game checks start piling up and forces the players to a resolution. There's no way the owners were going to get the deal they want with three weeks of negotiations in FEBRUARY. Or March. Or April. Or May. Or June. Or July. Or August. They knew that going in. So did the players. But come September, October or November ... then it's a different story. A deal made before the season starts will favor the players. That's not what the owners want. At all. It's not rocket surgery, dude. But I forget, logic isn't your strong suit. Neither side planned on striking a deal in February.

I want those 9 minutes of my life back ...