This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

goldenhurricane2 said:

I’ll be there this evening. I’ll give some highlights after the game.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

What’s astounding is they have spent nearly $500 million to message against him and he is the most popular he has ever been according to nearly every poll.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

astonmartin708 said:

If the opponent actually continually commits more fouls, then I have no problem with it. You call the game as it actually conforms to the rules. If one team continually tries to cheat then they will continually be penalized.

Now I do appreciate increased skepticism, but what is really required is reviewing the actual activity of both teams. Was one actually crappier than the other for that long? Probably not, but it’s not impossible.

Click to expand...

Different opponents won’t commit 3x the number of fouls in every game year after year. Hell….in this example they aren’t calling any fouls on the home team. When the ref continues to “home town” these games he eventually gets replaced. Looks like we’re finally seeing evidence. After 50 years the bias if apparent.

Today's Updates:

PA - Harris +0.3% (19)
MI - Harris +2.0% (15)
WI - Trump +0.2% (10)
NV - Trump +0.6% (6)
GA - Trump +0.9% (16)
AZ - Trump +1.1% (11)
NC - Trump +1.3% (16)

Popular Vote - Harris +1.0%

EC - Trump 278-260

lawpoke87 said:

When you call 3x as many fouls on the visiting teams every year for the past 50 you might want to look at changing referees. No conference would allow that type of bias

Click to expand...

If the opponent actually continually commits more fouls, then I have no problem with it. You call the game as it actually conforms to the rules. If one team continually tries to cheat then they will continually be penalized.

Now I do appreciate increased skepticism, but what is really required is reviewing the actual activity of both teams. Was one actually crappier than the other for that long? Probably not, but it’s not impossible.

astonmartin708 said:

If I am a basketball referee should I endeavor to call the same number of fouls for both teams?

What if one team actually fouls more than the other and it helps them win the game?

Click to expand...

When you call 3x as many fouls on the visiting teams every year for the past 50 you might want to look at changing referees. No conference would allow that type of bias

lawpoke87 said:

You will still see editorials. Now the makeup of the editorial boards might change a little to achieve a more balanced approach. When you’ve endorsed the same party in every election for the past 50 years the idea of reasoned arguments as to the best candidate sort of goes out the door.

Click to expand...

If I am a basketball referee should I endeavor to call the same number of fouls for both teams?

What if one team actually fouls more than the other and it helps them win the game because I ignored many of their fouls and artificially penalized a team that didn’t foul much to bring the fouls into balance?

I think the only correct decision is to call the game to the letter of rulebook. If one team ends up feeling like they got cheated but it was only because they actually committed more fouls, so be it.

drboobay said:

But editorial pages are for opinions. Even is the paper itself doesn't officially endorse, I would hope that editorial writers could continue to make reasoned arguments about candidates.

Click to expand...

You will still see editorials. Now the makeup of the editorial boards might change a little to achieve a more balanced approach. When you’ve endorsed the same party in every election for the past 50 years the idea of reasoned arguments as to the best candidate sort of goes out the door.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

HuffyCane said:

All of this. He also said in the article they weren’t so much ending the policy of endorsing candidates as much as they were going back to the policy before World War II when they didn’t endorse candidates out of concerns of appearance of bias.

Click to expand...

But editorial pages are for opinions. Even is the paper itself doesn't officially endorse, I would hope that editorial writers could continue to make reasoned arguments about candidates.

Is Bryce still playing? I thought his senior year was last year?? Did he not turn pro?

Clong83a said:

Bezos wrote his own op-ed explaining the decision, and he (not inaccurately) pointed out that opinion pieces like presidential endorsements can call newpaper's credibility into question, and also have very little effect on the actual election. He's not wrong, and if his stance is "Hey, we're ending newspaper endorsements in general because they don't work and make us look biased", then I could get behind that. But if that's the case, it shouldn't be framed as some sort of historic rebuke of Harris. It has nothing to do with her if you take him at his word.

It's also worth pointing out that Trump met with Blue Origin execs on the day of the announcement of the non-endorsement, and he could have made a deal. The timing of a "principled" decision like that is also suspect. If they announced last year that they weren't going to do an endorsement for all the reasons he mentions, this would have been less of a big deal. To wait until the op-ed was ready to print and then swoop in and pull it raises a lot of questions about the true intent here.

But maybe he means what he says. Or maybe this is a savvy business move somehow for Blue Origin. Or maybe Huffy is right and there were some strong-willed editors that he pulled a power play on just to try and get rid of them and cut payroll. *shrug*

My only real point is that I don't think this move, whatever the motive, actually has much of anything to do with Harris.

Click to expand...

All of this. He also said in the article they weren’t so much ending the policy of endorsing candidates as much as they were going back to the policy before World War II when they didn’t endorse candidates out of concerns of appearance of bias.

I don’t think there will be radio

lawpoke87 said:

We left a coach like that. Two other starters quickly followed and left. The next season no less than seven starters on his new team asked for their release. The club was finally forced to fire him. Not because of anything he did in the clubs eyes but because of the lost revenue. Lots of kids don’t have good options at other clubs. With limited options many are forced to stay in a toxic environment.

Click to expand...

My daughter was an AR on a U11 girls game between NEOFC and BA Express on Sunday. She said the NEOFC coach was pretty loud and obnoxious and "rude" towards his players when they made mistake. Found out later it was Dave Bolding, former Jenks HS, Bixby HS, and I believe current Owasso HS coach. And that would track. Watching a Bixby HS game a few years ago, we sat with friends from Bixby right behind the Bixby bench and every mistake was met by a harsh tearing down statement from Bolding. Not a single bit of constructive coaching. And everyone could hear what he was saying. I am all for tough coaching, but there has to be some actual coaching there.

TulsaRulzOSUdrools said:

How does one "enforce" in-season recruiting?

Click to expand...

I don't have an answer other than coaches need to report it...but they don't because they know it will come back on them and their club eventually. And there's certainly a difference when it happens in May vs happening at showcases/tournaments in November/December. May is tryout season anyway and there's a reason why clubs want you to sign your commitment form during tryouts. All the clubs purposefully set their tryout dates for the same week or try to get in a week before. When my son considered leaving TSC the first time, he told the coach he was going to check out another club/team because he had friends on the team and knew they needed a GK and the team coach was the former Bahamian GK coach. It would have been a good fit except my son didn't have a good feeling about the team actually sticking together (4 players left, 1 for TSC, 1 was focusing on football, and 2 went to Blitz). The next year, my son contacted Eklund's team and told his coach at TSC about it and his reasoning was he didn't like the way TSC dismissed players during tryouts and didn't encourage open competition for spots on higher teams. He almost left but he was not quite ready for that change. He did leave the following year for Blitz. He knew players on the team and the coach spent a good amount of time with him during the tryouts trying to gauge his feelings and what he was looking for. And in TSC fashion (this was sort of the same tryout thing every year where they pre-separated all the teams and sent them to different fields and the upper coaches never saw any of the other players in the pool, sort of the way Lawpoke describes) and my son was done with it knowing he was better than the next GK up (from players who played on that team but also knew my son and his game). And yes, every club suffers the same political BS. I think there was only one time a coach approached my son and all he said was, if you're looking for a different club and experience, let me know. Again, that was April after a tournament.

It's sort of like the NCAA and the tampering. All the schools do it and no one wants to report it because it will come back on them.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.