Leaderboard

In my opinion, the number of in-state PWO's you have in your program signifies the health of the program. If Purdue/IU has just a couple, it means that they have been losing so badly the last few years that high school kids - even though they were raised Purdue/IU fans - will go elsewhere and play versus walk-on for their favorite college. If the program is poor, its not worth the sacrifice of your body and your grades to play as a walk-on, and most would rather just enjoy being a student at that same university. If the program is strong, and has been winning, kids will take the PWO, and that will increase the health of the program in 3 distinct ways. (1) In-state PWO's bring the knowledge of the history, traditions, rivalries, and pride for a university that you don't have when a kid from Florida steps on campus at Purdue/IU. (2) In-state PWO's help the out-of-state kids transition into the new environment including the climate, community, and whereabouts. They can bring a home away from home feel that is needed. (3) In-state PWO's put butts in the seats and get people to follow the team... plain and simple. It's easier for an in-state PWO's friends and extended family to get to a game at Purdue or IU than it is for a player's from Florida. I have 2 good examples of this... the Iowa Linebacker room during springball of 2018. They had 19 LB's on the roster... 6 of which were scholarship. The health of Iowa's program is strong with consistent winning seasons, and thus 13 in-state PWO LB's were giving it their all in attempts of making the team and earning a spot. It only takes 1 to earn specials team playing time and more will get in line in the future for their chance at success. The other example is Wisconsin OL during springball 2018. They had enough in-state POW's to line up 4 deep OT to OT. And they were all BIG. Health of the program very good. And yes, many of those PWO's could have played at another smaller in-state college. So the fact Purdue and IU are getting really good in-state high school football players to accept PWO's is a very good sign for those B1G programs, and you will several of those kids contribute in some manner if they stick it out for several years. Michigan has a sign in their locker room that reads "Those who stay will be Champions", and its not about the fact that they have never played in the B1G Championship game. I think the same can be said for in-state PWO's for Purdue and IU now given those teams have moved up from the bottom of the B1G and are playing competitive football weekly now.

Similar sentiment may well apply with the President, his taxes, business dealings, and history with women.

For very personal, selfish reasons, as an official I prefer the games to start at 7p. After we decompress after a game, eat, and shower and drive home 1-2 hours it's often after midnight. I then have to be up by 6 or 7a to drive 2-3 hours the next morning to work a college game. If you push that back 30 or 60 minutes it's even later that I get home. Again, very personal and selfish and only affects about 20 officials so not a reason to not do it. It would just suck for me.

Gabe Eurit of Lewis Cass will be attending IU as a PWO in the fall.

No, the kicker has to kick the ball beyond the 20 yard line. If it does not make it there or the ball is kicked out of bounds the ball is placed at the 45. I believe the onside kick has been replaced with the 4th and 15 on your own 30 yard line.

I disagree, however only time will tell. Allen never said anything about tackling dummies. He is trying to build a program which has never experienced a five year period of sustained success. He is taking a grassroots approach and, even as a black and gold bleeding Purdue fan, I appreciate his efforts. FCS, DII, NAIA, and DIII football in Indiana are fine and will remain so! But I guess we will find out.

MP is on the record as wanting to rid us of the Electoral College, in light of the fact that he's losing the popular vote in Iowa, but winning the delegate count, if he is a man of conviction, shouldn't he put his money where his mouth is and give the delegates to Bernie?

Isn't white a fashion faux pas after Labor Day until Easter?

Instead of Removing Trump From Power, Remove Power From the Presidency: https://reason.com/2020/02/08/instead-of-removing-trump-from-power-remove-power-from-the-presidency/#comments Agreed. Mr. Welch is spot-on. The power of the Oval Office needs to be drastically reduced, along with the overall power and scope of the federal government.

Socialism Always Fails: https://mises.org/wire/socialism-always-fails However, as I pointed out three years ago, the collapse of the USSR and the eastern European socialist states did not “convert” Heilbroner to becoming an advocate for capitalism, nor did China’s transformation from Mao’s giant commune to a quasi-capitalist economy (and subsequent economic growth) change his mind. Indeed, socialists seem almost impervious to factual arguments, and despite a gaggle of “what would a socialist economy look like” articles in publications such as Jacobin, socialists have never refuted the Austrian arguments. For that matter, socialists really cannot appeal to economics at all despite their claim that their goal is to provide a better economic society for those ubiquitous workers. Jacobin declares: (Note that the Jacobins are famous for unleashing the infamous Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, in which thousands of so-called enemies of the state were murdered. That American socialists today willingly associate themselves with genocide speaks volumes of what these people will do if they ever gain real power here.) In other words, the implementation of a socialist order is not so much dependent upon a plausible model of a socialist economy, but rather is an exercise that depends upon convincing people that somewhere over the rainbow we can make the whole thing work, despite the failures of the past. And that is where the recent articles in The Nation and the Daily Mail reveal much about the socialist mentality. In The Nation, Ross Barkan argues that the barriers to implementing a socialist system are political, not economic. Indeed, in “Why American Socialism Failed” he writes that there was just too much political resistance to reorganizing the United States into something like what at that time was being done in the Soviet Union. (It should be noted that he seems to view the Russian Revolution with much sympathy—and fails to note that perhaps Americans at that time were not interested in implementing a regime that would mirror the atrocities being committed by the Red Army and the new Soviet government.) Instead of following the old political strategy of having people run as members of a socialist party, Barkan says that the better plan is for socialists simply to take over the modern Democratic Party by electing socialists from the presidency on down. He writes: In other words, the entire question of socialism is political; socialists can speak about their utopian visions, be elected on those platforms, but really don’t have to explain how they actually will make a socialist economy perform in a way that will even begin to match the output of a private enterprise–based economy. Yet, when confronted with the reality of the actual performance of a socialist economy, all the writer can do is to appeal to the election of socialists, which should not be surprising, since the end of socialism is political power and nothing else. The death of a Canadian teenager of leukemia while waiting for the government’s permission to have a bone marrow transplant speaks volumes both of the performance of socialist systems and the way that people under socialism submit to the system. Laura Hillier, 18, of Ontario died before she could receive a transplant, which is not particularly unusual in the Canadian system, as “standing in line” for care is the typical experience, even when a life is at stake. From the Daily Mail: Although Hillier’s obituary “slammed” the wait times in Canada, nonetheless, nothing will be done because Canada’s “single payer” system is both politically sacrosanct and a socialist politician’s dream. It is sacrosanct because it provides the “free healthcare” that socialists promise and a politician’s dream because it provides unending opportunities for “reform.” In reality, the economic calculation problem is front and center, making it impossible to “fix” the Canadian single-payer system, something no Canadian politician will admit. One doubts that Hillier would have died in the same way in the United States. For all of the criticism American medical care receives from the left (and the current system hardly fits the claim by socialists that it is “free market”), one can be reasonably assured that a young woman here would not die because of a lack of hospital beds. In Canada, however, such deaths are a matter of course, and for all of the “this shouldn’t happen” statements from both politicians and victims’ families, it will continue to happen. (Canada, perhaps not surprisingly, has relatively poor cancer survival rates.) Under socialism, one stands in line and does not challenge the system, since the system is based not upon the successful delivery of services, but rather on the prospect of such services being made available “to the people” for no fee, the product of a “compassionate” socialist state. Note that at no point in his article does Barkan write of any way that socialism would improve the lives of Americans. Socialism is not about providing needed services to those who cannot receive them otherwise, nor is it about raising the living standards of the poor, despite socialist claims to the contrary. Socialists do not create goods and services; they commandeer them for political purposes, and such things are useful only as a means of putting and keeping socialist politicians in power. No politician in Canada will be voted out of office for the premature death of Laura Hillier, nor will any hospital administrators be sacked. Had medical officials given in to sentiment and bumped Hillier up the transplant list, someone else would have died for lack of space. The enemy here is scarcity, and under socialism, scarcity is multiplied. Canadians have come to accept this situation, all the while convincing themselves that theirs not only is a morally-superior system to anything that exists in their neighbor to the south, but also enables them to receive medical services that they believe would be denied them if their government were not paying. They have become like the cave dwellers in Plato’s allegory, believing that the medical shadows they see on the wall represent the best care possible. Socialists might well take over the Democratic Party; indeed, American voters are capable of putting someone like Bernie Sanders in the White House. They well could make the electoral gains that the writers at The Nation have coveted for decades. What they cannot do, however, is tell the truth about socialism. Another article in Jacobin, written by Sam Gindin, demonstrates this last point: Gindin then goes on to “refute” Hayek’s “knowledge problem” critique of socialism (while ignoring the Austrian “economic calculation” issue). The rest of the piece essentially can be shortened into this one sentence: forget the past failures of socialism; this time we will make it work. We have been hearing this kind of thing for more than a century. Socialists tell us that if the rest of us will give them total power over our lives, this time they will provide prosperity, and unlike previous socialist regimes, they won’t strip us of our liberties. We should have as much confidence in their words as the loved ones of Laura Hillier had in the empty promises of Canadian medical officials. Spot on analysis by Mr. Anderson. And I personally I will take a system based on the successful delivery of goods/services (Capitalism) rather a system based on making those goods/services available "to the people" for "free" (socialism). The latter is doomed to failure, as history has repeatedly proved.