Oh some posts in the nfl thread, I hadn’t heard any news from my beloved Vikings for a few weeks, let’s just go check out what is going on with the Packers or Seahawks or whoever..................oh goddamnit. Yes I remember that punt. Fuck off Vikings.
Which one? The Vikings punt from 2006 or the Vikings punt from 2008?
You have to be more specific when discussing the Brad Childress Vikings and worst punt decisions
The Raiders appear to be close to wrapping up a deal to keep the team playing at the Oakland Coliseum this year and possibly in 2020. An announcement is expected this week or early next week, according to sources close to the talks.
“It’s for one year for sure, with an option for the second year,” said one source who could not speak on the record because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations.
Under the proposed deal, the Raiders would pay $7.5 million this year with the rent rising to $10.5 million if the team stays on through 2020. The option for an extra year is insurance in case the team’s new $1.8 billion stadium in Las Vegas isn’t ready.
So... Even odds the stadium in Las Vegas won't be ready?
According to David Glenn of the Athletic (subscription required), the AAF needed a $250 million investment from Carolina Hurricanes majority owner Tom Dundon simply to make payroll after its first weekend of games Feb. 9-10. In return, Dundon will be introduced as the league’s new chairman Tuesday, Glenn reports.
[...]
On paper, the AAF shouldn’t have this problem: All of the teams are owned by the league itself and not individual owners. But if the AAF blew through its initial funding before the second weekend of its regular season, it could be a sign of future problems down the road.
[...]
“The hope and belief now is that years from now, [the AAF] can look back and consider these some scary growing pains, because this league clearly has a chance to become incredibly successful,” a source told Glenn. “The opening weekend provided a lot of excitement and hope, even beyond the TV numbers. Obviously, though, the original plan did not include a financial crisis in Week 2.”
You think?
Oh, and this, too.
Salaries would be kept low, at least compared with the NFL: Each AAF player signs a three-year, non-guaranteed contract worth $250,000.
The problem with the surrender index is mainly that it biases overtime when the end of the fourth quarter is just as dumb for precisely the same reasons.
If you had simply capped the overtime at a set value for any punt in overtime then the index would likely be fixed.
The problem with the surrender index is mainly that it biases overtime when the end of the fourth quarter is just as dumb for precisely the same reasons.
If you had simply capped the overtime at a set value for any punt in overtime then the index would likely be fixed.
Punting in the last minute of overtime is definitely sadder than punting in the first minute, so I think it makes sense to continue scaling it. I guess you can argue for the amount of scaling, but like Bois said his math is mostly arbitrary and based entirely on his disgust for punting in the face of a potential win.
The problem with the surrender index is mainly that it biases overtime when the end of the fourth quarter is just as dumb for precisely the same reasons.
If you had simply capped the overtime at a set value for any punt in overtime then the index would likely be fixed.
Punting in the last minute of overtime is definitely sadder than punting in the first minute, so I think it makes sense to continue scaling it. I guess you can argue for the amount of scaling, but like Bois said his math is mostly arbitrary and based entirely on his disgust for punting in the face of a potential win.
Well no. Because overtime is sudden death. Punting in the first minute of overtime is worse than punting in the last minute. If you punt in the last minute you're more likely to tie than if you punt in the first. So if you're not in field goal range you might consider that the probability of a tie is better than the probability of a loss.
Edit: Example
Lets say its 20 seconds left and you're 4th and 1 on your own 30. 50/50 shot of going for it gets the tie... but 50/50 shot gives the other guy a field goal for the win. Or you can put for 40 yards and put them at their 30 with 15 seconds ish left. Where they need another 40 yards and time for a field goal to win. Going for it has a 25% chance of losing and a 75% chance of nothing. Punting has a 75%+ chance of a tie.
Same punt but 20 seconds into overtime. Going for it makes a lot more sense. They have more time to set up a goo field goal to win, but you also give yourself the chance to win by getting the 1 yard.
The problem with the surrender index is mainly that it biases overtime when the end of the fourth quarter is just as dumb for precisely the same reasons.
If you had simply capped the overtime at a set value for any punt in overtime then the index would likely be fixed.
Punting in the last minute of overtime is definitely sadder than punting in the first minute, so I think it makes sense to continue scaling it. I guess you can argue for the amount of scaling, but like Bois said his math is mostly arbitrary and based entirely on his disgust for punting in the face of a potential win.
Well no. Because overtime is sudden death. Punting in the first minute of overtime is worse than punting in the last minute. If you punt in the last minute you're more likely to tie than if you punt in the first. So if you're not in field goal range you might consider that the probability of a tie is better than the probability of a loss.
I always liked the idea that if you're going to have overtime*, then the game can't end in a tie.
Several ways this can eventuate, and I don't mind any, as long as it's consistent. When overtime runs out, and the score is still tied...
- Home team wins in the case of a tie (home field advantage)
- Away team wins in the case of a tie (cause home field is advantage enough)
- My personal choice, whoever got the ball first, loses. If you're not going to give the other team the opportunity to tie the game if the first team scores the TD, or get to burn 8+ minutes off the clock before kicking a FG, then there should be a consequence if your confidence in scoring fails to pay off.
* I don't like overtime, because I hate teams playing for it. I'd rather that a tied game is a tied game (and as such, be more common, or force teams be more aggressive if they don't want the tie), than overtime. But if you're going to have overtime, then IMO it needs to decide the game. And extra overtime isn't going to fix that.
In the NHL, they decided in their grand, Bettmanesque wisdom, that ties were no longer going to be allowed. So one of the first changes they made was to make OT become 4-on-4 hockey. Sports turds fell all over themselves about how awesome OT would be with three forwards and one defenseman on the ice. The reality was far less acceptable since teams were terrified of giving up the losing goal it basically just became what happens when both teams go a man down due to penalties: two forwards and two defensemen. Opening the ice up by eliminating a player didn't really affect things all that much. I think, statistically, more games did end with a winning goal than a tie, but it wasn't to any significant degree.
I bring that up to set the stage for commenting on this:
Several ways this can eventuate, and I don't mind any, as long as it's consistent. When overtime runs out, and the score is still tied...
- Home team wins in the case of a tie (home field advantage)
- Away team wins in the case of a tie (cause home field is advantage enough)
- My personal choice, whoever got the ball first, loses. If you're not going to give the other team the opportunity to tie the game if the first team scores the TD, or get to burn 8+ minutes off the clock before kicking a FG, then there should be a consequence if your confidence in scoring fails to pay off.
All this really does is change the gameplan to whomever benefits playing not to lose. To hold on defensively for ten (or whatever) minutes and then be given the victory because they are in the position because of either the schedule (that they had no real hand in setting) or a coinflip and then giving the ball to the other team.
Ties in the NFL are virtually a non-factor. The only reason they're happening more often was the change to allowing the other team a chance if the team that got the ball didn't score a touchdown. And shortening the extra time by five minutes.
The only real solution to preventing ties in footbaw is to keep playing until one team wins by scoring more points than the other. Even if multiple OTs are required. Everything else is meaningless. And since all we are left with is everything else, then I don't care if a game ends in a tie.
Lions released Glover Quinn. He always seemed like a great guy and everyone respected him. I know he was thinking about retirement, I wouldn't mind if the Lions gave him a shot as an assistant coach or something.
I mean, it is kind of amusingly stupid. Because people worth 6.6 billion dollars should be hiring like 5k/night escorts like Spitzer did instead of going to be easily bustable day spas/prostitution rings.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I mean, it is kind of amusingly stupid. Because people worth 6.6 billion dollars should be hiring like 5k/night escorts like Spitzer did instead of going to be easily bustable day spas/prostitution rings.
As seen elsewhere:
It’s fucking hilarious to me that Bob Kraft is going to a $200 rub and tug in fucking florida
like, cmon man, you’re rich as hell. I expect a better class of sex crime from you.
I mean, it is kind of amusingly stupid. Because people worth 6.6 billion dollars should be hiring like 5k/night escorts like Spitzer did instead of going to be easily bustable day spas/prostitution rings.
As seen elsewhere:
It’s fucking hilarious to me that Bob Kraft is going to a $200 rub and tug in fucking florida
like, cmon man, you’re rich as hell. I expect a better class of sex crime from you.
I mean, it is kind of amusingly stupid. Because people worth 6.6 billion dollars should be hiring like 5k/night escorts like Spitzer did instead of going to be easily bustable day spas/prostitution rings.
The spa was also involved in human trafficking and sex slavery, which says a lot about Kraft, none of it good.
I mean, it is kind of amusingly stupid. Because people worth 6.6 billion dollars should be hiring like 5k/night escorts like Spitzer did instead of going to be easily bustable day spas/prostitution rings.
NFL fans may be surprised that a guy worth as much sad Kraft would be caught at a fifty dollar rub n’ tug.
The spa was also involved in human trafficking and sex slavery, which says a lot about Kraft, none of it good.
I doubt he owned it / was aware of that / paused even a second to think if they were or not.
That being said, it's a massage parlor, not an independent operator, so the odds say....
But someone like him wouldn't even pause to consider that possibility.
These joints usually pop up in high numbers and are typically run by organized crime, everything they said about women being lured there and intimidated into working there/not speaking out are true.
But to your average patron they're usually just women who speak a little English and do what they came there for. They're not going to be visibly malnourished, beaten or chained to massage tables.
They're victims essentially being hidden in plain sight.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If convicted (he'll plead out, but whatever) he faces 200 hours of community service, mandatory course on sex trafficking, mandatory STD test, and 10k of civil fines. Judge could also impose 1 year in jail and/or probation and a $1000 criminal fine. But that would never happen.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If convicted (he'll plead out, but whatever) he faces 200 hours of community service, mandatory course on sex trafficking, mandatory STD test, and 10k of civil fines. Judge could also impose 1 year in jail and/or probation and a $1000 criminal fine. But that would never happen.
Please note that I absolutely am not calling for Goodell to do anything at all to punish Kraft for his involvement in this. Properly speaking, this is none of the league office’s business at this point, or possibly ever, just like any number of off-field player incidents also have been none of Goodell’s business. I am just saying that whatever he does, you can be sure it will be stupid, and bad, and will make things worse, and many people will have good reason to call him a fucking idiot for it. This is gonna rule.
In the broader investigation, police allege that some of the women were forced to become sex workers after obtaining work permits after emigrating from China.
So, again, like illegal immigration, human trafficking is a projection, in that it's not the border that's an issue, it's the ports of entry. Color me surprised.
But as long as neither participant knelt for the national anthem, I'm sure the President doesn't feel there's anything wrong with this.
In the NHL, they decided in their grand, Bettmanesque wisdom, that ties were no longer going to be allowed. So one of the first changes they made was to make OT become 4-on-4 hockey. Sports turds fell all over themselves about how awesome OT would be with three forwards and one defenseman on the ice. The reality was far less acceptable since teams were terrified of giving up the losing goal it basically just became what happens when both teams go a man down due to penalties: two forwards and two defensemen. Opening the ice up by eliminating a player didn't really affect things all that much. I think, statistically, more games did end with a winning goal than a tie, but it wasn't to any significant degree.
I bring that up to set the stage for commenting on this:
Several ways this can eventuate, and I don't mind any, as long as it's consistent. When overtime runs out, and the score is still tied...
- Home team wins in the case of a tie (home field advantage)
- Away team wins in the case of a tie (cause home field is advantage enough)
- My personal choice, whoever got the ball first, loses. If you're not going to give the other team the opportunity to tie the game if the first team scores the TD, or get to burn 8+ minutes off the clock before kicking a FG, then there should be a consequence if your confidence in scoring fails to pay off.
All this really does is change the gameplan to whomever benefits playing not to lose. To hold on defensively for ten (or whatever) minutes and then be given the victory because they are in the position because of either the schedule (that they had no real hand in setting) or a coinflip and then giving the ball to the other team.
Ties in the NFL are virtually a non-factor. The only reason they're happening more often was the change to allowing the other team a chance if the team that got the ball didn't score a touchdown. And shortening the extra time by five minutes.
The only real solution to preventing ties in footbaw is to keep playing until one team wins by scoring more points than the other. Even if multiple OTs are required. Everything else is meaningless. And since all we are left with is everything else, then I don't care if a game ends in a tie.
I think ties are probably fine in normal games. Even with the changes they still pretty uncommon and tired players are players more likely to get hurt. The longer you drag it out the worse it is. Still I think one change is each team gets one full possession in OT regardless regardless if a TD is scored on opening drive. Both offenses and defenses should get their hands on the ball at least once. This may cause a few more ties but it makes OT less luck of the draw.
Adam Schefter saying 25 names, including Kraft, released, but 175 more names are coming. Unknown yet who, but he also claimed Kraft is not the most famous.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Adam Schefter saying 25 names, including Kraft, released, but 175 more names are coming. Unknown yet who, but he also claimed Kraft is not the most famous.
League spokesman assures you billionare team owner not only horrible person. Thanks adam earn that paycheck.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In the NHL, they decided in their grand, Bettmanesque wisdom, that ties were no longer going to be allowed. So one of the first changes they made was to make OT become 4-on-4 hockey. Sports turds fell all over themselves about how awesome OT would be with three forwards and one defenseman on the ice. The reality was far less acceptable since teams were terrified of giving up the losing goal it basically just became what happens when both teams go a man down due to penalties: two forwards and two defensemen. Opening the ice up by eliminating a player didn't really affect things all that much. I think, statistically, more games did end with a winning goal than a tie, but it wasn't to any significant degree.
I bring that up to set the stage for commenting on this:
Several ways this can eventuate, and I don't mind any, as long as it's consistent. When overtime runs out, and the score is still tied...
- Home team wins in the case of a tie (home field advantage)
- Away team wins in the case of a tie (cause home field is advantage enough)
- My personal choice, whoever got the ball first, loses. If you're not going to give the other team the opportunity to tie the game if the first team scores the TD, or get to burn 8+ minutes off the clock before kicking a FG, then there should be a consequence if your confidence in scoring fails to pay off.
All this really does is change the gameplan to whomever benefits playing not to lose. To hold on defensively for ten (or whatever) minutes and then be given the victory because they are in the position because of either the schedule (that they had no real hand in setting) or a coinflip and then giving the ball to the other team.
Ties in the NFL are virtually a non-factor. The only reason they're happening more often was the change to allowing the other team a chance if the team that got the ball didn't score a touchdown. And shortening the extra time by five minutes.
The only real solution to preventing ties in footbaw is to keep playing until one team wins by scoring more points than the other. Even if multiple OTs are required. Everything else is meaningless. And since all we are left with is everything else, then I don't care if a game ends in a tie.
I think ties are probably fine in normal games. Even with the changes they still pretty uncommon and tired players are players more likely to get hurt. The longer you drag it out the worse it is. Still I think one change is each team gets one full possession in OT regardless regardless if a TD is scored on opening drive. Both offenses and defenses should get their hands on the ball at least once. This may cause a few more ties but it makes OT less luck of the draw.
I can live with that as a compromise since I don't really believe they should play full quarters indefinitely until a victor is determined. What I really don't care for is the position that ties are so abhorrent that steps must be taken to resolve an issue that was once rare and is now only more common due to half-assed solutions we didn't really need in the first place.
They might as well resolve ties by instigating a game of HORSE or PIG by having kickers pick spots to make attempts from.
Posts
All of them, Katie!
So... Even odds the stadium in Las Vegas won't be ready?
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
You think?
Oh, and this, too.
Damn, it feels good to be a gangster.
Ed: linking on mobile is hard ... see if this works:
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/40821679/#Comment_40821679
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Oh. I missed that post.
If you had simply capped the overtime at a set value for any punt in overtime then the index would likely be fixed.
Punting in the last minute of overtime is definitely sadder than punting in the first minute, so I think it makes sense to continue scaling it. I guess you can argue for the amount of scaling, but like Bois said his math is mostly arbitrary and based entirely on his disgust for punting in the face of a potential win.
Garrett still has a job.
Well no. Because overtime is sudden death. Punting in the first minute of overtime is worse than punting in the last minute. If you punt in the last minute you're more likely to tie than if you punt in the first. So if you're not in field goal range you might consider that the probability of a tie is better than the probability of a loss.
Edit: Example
Lets say its 20 seconds left and you're 4th and 1 on your own 30. 50/50 shot of going for it gets the tie... but 50/50 shot gives the other guy a field goal for the win. Or you can put for 40 yards and put them at their 30 with 15 seconds ish left. Where they need another 40 yards and time for a field goal to win. Going for it has a 25% chance of losing and a 75% chance of nothing. Punting has a 75%+ chance of a tie.
Same punt but 20 seconds into overtime. Going for it makes a lot more sense. They have more time to set up a goo field goal to win, but you also give yourself the chance to win by getting the 1 yard.
I always liked the idea that if you're going to have overtime*, then the game can't end in a tie.
Several ways this can eventuate, and I don't mind any, as long as it's consistent. When overtime runs out, and the score is still tied...
- Home team wins in the case of a tie (home field advantage)
- Away team wins in the case of a tie (cause home field is advantage enough)
- My personal choice, whoever got the ball first, loses. If you're not going to give the other team the opportunity to tie the game if the first team scores the TD, or get to burn 8+ minutes off the clock before kicking a FG, then there should be a consequence if your confidence in scoring fails to pay off.
* I don't like overtime, because I hate teams playing for it. I'd rather that a tied game is a tied game (and as such, be more common, or force teams be more aggressive if they don't want the tie), than overtime. But if you're going to have overtime, then IMO it needs to decide the game. And extra overtime isn't going to fix that.
I bring that up to set the stage for commenting on this:
All this really does is change the gameplan to whomever benefits playing not to lose. To hold on defensively for ten (or whatever) minutes and then be given the victory because they are in the position because of either the schedule (that they had no real hand in setting) or a coinflip and then giving the ball to the other team.
Ties in the NFL are virtually a non-factor. The only reason they're happening more often was the change to allowing the other team a chance if the team that got the ball didn't score a touchdown. And shortening the extra time by five minutes.
The only real solution to preventing ties in footbaw is to keep playing until one team wins by scoring more points than the other. Even if multiple OTs are required. Everything else is meaningless. And since all we are left with is everything else, then I don't care if a game ends in a tie.
Oh, well, I was thinking more "amusingly stupid", but, OK.
As seen elsewhere:
Apparently not even that much! 59 for a half hour or 79 for a full hour.
Two, apparently there is video of Kraft getting Little Bob tugged. Which is disquieting on a number of levels.
The reporter fished for coaches and owners as well, they just started at pro athletes and worked upward and outwards.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The spa was also involved in human trafficking and sex slavery, which says a lot about Kraft, none of it good.
That being said, it's a massage parlor, not an independent operator, so the odds say....
But someone like him wouldn't even pause to consider that possibility.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
NFL fans may be surprised that a guy worth as much sad Kraft would be caught at a fifty dollar rub n’ tug.
MLS fans, however...
These joints usually pop up in high numbers and are typically run by organized crime, everything they said about women being lured there and intimidated into working there/not speaking out are true.
But to your average patron they're usually just women who speak a little English and do what they came there for. They're not going to be visibly malnourished, beaten or chained to massage tables.
They're victims essentially being hidden in plain sight.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If convicted (he'll plead out, but whatever) he faces 200 hours of community service, mandatory course on sex trafficking, mandatory STD test, and 10k of civil fines. Judge could also impose 1 year in jail and/or probation and a $1000 criminal fine. But that would never happen.
That seems....quite low for the crime.
e: Oh wait, misunderstood. Nevermind.
Jill Martin is a sports editor for CNN.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
So, again, like illegal immigration, human trafficking is a projection, in that it's not the border that's an issue, it's the ports of entry. Color me surprised.
But as long as neither participant knelt for the national anthem, I'm sure the President doesn't feel there's anything wrong with this.
I think ties are probably fine in normal games. Even with the changes they still pretty uncommon and tired players are players more likely to get hurt. The longer you drag it out the worse it is. Still I think one change is each team gets one full possession in OT regardless regardless if a TD is scored on opening drive. Both offenses and defenses should get their hands on the ball at least once. This may cause a few more ties but it makes OT less luck of the draw.
Alternatively
Adam Schefter saying 25 names, including Kraft, released, but 175 more names are coming. Unknown yet who, but he also claimed Kraft is not the most famous.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
League spokesman assures you billionare team owner not only horrible person. Thanks adam earn that paycheck.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I can live with that as a compromise since I don't really believe they should play full quarters indefinitely until a victor is determined. What I really don't care for is the position that ties are so abhorrent that steps must be taken to resolve an issue that was once rare and is now only more common due to half-assed solutions we didn't really need in the first place.
They might as well resolve ties by instigating a game of HORSE or PIG by having kickers pick spots to make attempts from.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
He's suggesting that Schefter is attempting to cover for a League owner by dumping more names onto the pile. How true that is remains to be seen.