Leaderboard

No it wasn't.

Until such time as the whole Mr. Football “thing” really gives serious and legitimate consideration to lineman it’s, as often as not, a glorified skilled position player popularity contest. Personally, I think Bell is probably a better talent BUT Notre Dame didn’t....they chose Kiser. My guess is that they know a helluva better than I do. Until Purdue (whom I love) is spoken in the same breath as Notre Dame (whom I.....well....don’t love....I was going to make some snide comment about loving them like I love venereal disease but I won’t do that) then I think Notre Dame’s opinion trumps mine. That said, I’ve just never cared one way or the other about Mr. Football. Amazes me all the heartburn it causes folks.

Trump could end all of this speculation by releasing his x-rays.

FTA: I will be contacting my elected federal representative and senators, urging them to support Mr. Rubio in this endeavor.

Slave owner, who kept slaves courtesy of government power.

I'm just a guy with no real inside knowledge, but I would be very surprised if the SIAC did anything that pertained to only one sport. The main reason is there is just no need. The conference is very stable across schools and sports. I would be shocked if the SIAC ever expanded beyond 8 teams bc with 8 schools, the SIAC vote will always be controlled by the 5 EVSC public schools, and the ADs of those 5 schools all report to 1 head AD at the main HQ. So, in essence, the vote is controlled by 1 person. Add 2 more schools and the balance of power could be disrupted.

reason.com must not have any blogs about it.

She told you what's up.......

Memory bank call up: Tim Wilson - King of England

So starvation and poverty are now used interchangeably?

Be a “homer” as long as you can - you still have kids on the field. I’m envious.

Genital grabbing didn't hurt our current Prez

Partial schedules exist because their opponents have submitted their schedule. If Carmel provides their schedule every opponent will have the Carmel game show up on their schedule because the opponent is tied in the database. I wonder how often teams submit conflicts and discover their opponent doesn't have the same game on their schedule.

No Al Bundy, huh? Well, I guess EVERY bracket ever created will lead to a discussion of who was left out 😄

A lot if you consider the graduation year.

Honestly, I think "all" the gyms' seating capacities are inflated nowadays. People's backsides are getting much, much wider. A gym whose capacity was listed at 4,000 40 years ago probably only seats around 3,000 now...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/theres-a-partisan-fiction-at-the-heart-of-the-case-against-the-electoral-college/ If anyone thinks the American republic would remain stable if political power is consolidated in coastal urban enclaves, then they lack understanding of American history, American culture, and human nature. The founders struck a balance between state and federal power for good reasons — reasons that remain valid today. But can we get real for a moment? While there are some constitutional scholars who carry on this debate based on high-minded concerns about the nature of American democracy, the real energy behind the Democratic anger at the Electoral College (and behind the Republican defense of it, for that matter) is purely partisan. They look at the national popular vote since 1992 and see exactly one Republican win but three Republican presidencies. Since George H. W. Bush’s rout of Michael Dukakis, only his son has managed a popular-vote victory. So, if we abolish the Electoral College, the Democrats win, right? Not so fast. The Democrats are basing their optimism in part on “success” in a political race that no one is actually running. There is not a single sensible political strategist who has ever plotted out a presidential race for the purpose of winning the popular vote. That’s like game-planning to run the most total yards or to shoot the most free throws. The bottom line is that no one can state with confidence who would have won the 2016 race if the national popular vote determined the outcome. The strategy would be completely different. Candidates would message differently, campaign in different states, and engage in radically different ad buys. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would have won. Perhaps not. We simply don’t know. In fact, outside of the true blowout elections, we don’t really know who would have won any of the close national contests since 1992. And let’s not pretend that a national popular vote elevates every citizen’s vote in a way that the Electoral College does not. Your vote counts in each state, and the fact that your state is overwhelmingly red or blue is no more or less demoralizing than the popular-vote idea that your single vote is thrown into a pool of 130 million others. Besides, if we want to talk about antidemocratic institutions — and the vastly disproportionate impact of a few, small states on national elections — the real culprit isn’t the Electoral College. It’s a primary system that places extraordinary emphasis on the power of winning the first three primaries. We live in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina’s America, and that’s far more troubling than perpetuating an electoral system that our founders wisely determined was helpful for maintaining national unity. Agreed. If we get rid of the Electoral College we might as well drop the "United States" from the name United States of America.

You're tossing up a straw man and then pulling out your mobile goal posts when someone decides not to engage in the high school debate tactics?

Yes, I was.

What Is The Purpose Of The Electoral College?: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44922/knowles-what-purpose-electoral-college-michael-j-knowles

You can't seem to answer my question as stated, foxbat. Yet more of your:

Nice self portrait, Gonzo. Didn't know you were an NHL fan. Go Red Wings.

Sure you would have. Nice try: