CaribbeanGreen

That explains your Richard Bridges beer stein.

I'm going to chime in right off the top with my open hope as to what this thread could turn in to.

Easy. I mean, beating freaking Alabama really turned things around for ULM... really put 'em on the map, raised their profile, and got Weatherbie moving in the right direc........ ummm...

With this unit, "improved" is a far cry from "pretty solid" ..... it''s entirely possible to believe the former without the latter.

I wear stuff a lot, and almost never get any negative feedback. The coolest thing is when I'm wearing it when i go to visit family in Florida or somewhere else not local and another alum sees me and comes over. That's always cool. Likewise, I've actually started conversations with people wearing gear from other SBC schools when I've been traveling. Here? Never really anything negative... the occasional "you guys need a new coach" or some other shot at football, but it's never been malicious, just generic fan talk. I will say that I HAVE gotten (on more than one occasion) the "you guys were really good for a while there. what happened??"... when that happens, I give them a knowing nod, adjust the playsheet in my pants, and hand them a diet coke.

Guess what I have in my underwear.

New iPhone interface is a massive improvement - thanks so much, Harry!

Aren't we overthinking this? Isn't the entire Bass-90 argument based on a differing definition of the word "Superstar"??? 90 thinks it's earned over time and related to play and track record, Bass thinks it's based on public interest, magnitude, aura, etc... I agree with Bass (ex: LeBron was a superstar in his first NBA game. Strasburg leads sportscenter when he coughs, sells jerseys faster than they can print them, and has had the best 3-start debut ever = superstar), but that doesn't mean 90 is remotely wrong. It's semantics. That's like saying who is a bigger superstar, Roy Oswalt or Strasburg? One has had the wonderful career, great record, solid guy, postseason appearances, etc.... the other dominates in butts-in-seats, public interest, posters in kids' rooms, media coverage, etc.... you could say either and be right - it just depends on what "superstar" means to you. To me, it's a term rooted in celebrity. To others, it's rooted in performance.... six on one hand, half a dozen on the other. We're having fun here, no? Let's all hug!

1. No 2. Yes

F it. I'm gonna go puke into a fan.

Gagree. I also think QB will overperform and special teams are waaaaay too high (unfortunately). I also have to assume coaching is where it is based on a healthy respect for the Canales Effect. One thing I do agree with is the RB ranking... and all the more reason I'll be fighting off aneurysms again every time Dunbar gets less than 25 carries.

Yes, it's just one start. In the grand scheme of things, it's not worth a lot. That said, only one other pitcher has K'd 14 Pirates in a game in the last 1,000 games (Lincecum). Likewise, NO PITCHER WHO HAS EVER LIVED has 14 K's and 0 BB's in their debut. NO ONE. In fact, since 1900, only a staggering FIVE pitchers have ever garnered such a line in any game: Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Javy Vazquez, Mike Mussina, and Brad Penny. Now, add a 21 year old kid in his MLB debut to that list. Absolutely unimaginable. DC is on the map. They're selling out. They're a road draw. They're selling jerseys faster than they can make them. This is the rare huge budget sports signing that has MORE than financially paid off for the club in question - and it's a 21 year old who has played one game. His arm may fall off tomorrow, but he's a superstar today. Unreal, and I'm not challenging it.

Troy's numbers make me giggle every time.

If form holds, it's CWS and BAL after CLE, soooooo.....

... and when he was born, he wasn't brown. He was black.

I have ZERO problem with the HOF being loaded up with players from those championship teams. None. In the frame of our football history, that group is beyond worthy....a reasonable case could be made for every player mentioned in this thread. Not saying they should all go in, but to "cap" the number of players from one era doesn't make sense to me.

Sam was dominant. Randy could throw a mean ball, but had eyebrow issues. Bill's bald head was distracting, but I liked how he could throw the ball out of the screen and have it just land on some guy.

Kind of an amazing story.... fun times in the comments section. http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/05/smus_paying_would-be_employers.php

Give me Wash as the head. We need the speed and energy he occasionally has. Carlisle in the middle to befit his up and down track record, and Crawford at the end, since that's all he deserves. Wade plays the trucker (too much girth).

Clearly, you've never looked for love in post-apocalyptic Detroit.

Watching Mike Jarvis coach FAU is like watching the words "mailing it in" come magically to life.

Oh, he acknowledges plenty of issues along the way as well, make no mistake about it. But it's a very well done book with legitimate academic surveys, studies, and research from multiple sources. There would have had to be a SERIOUS effort to commit massive academic fraud by a number of people to invalidate the whole point of the book, in which the primary variable is customer satisfaction in service provision. And I'm not particularly comfortable with the argument that a PA or Poly Sci (Goodsell is both) professor can not be critical of PA.... some of the most direct and pointed criticisms of PA in general have come from PA professors... in fact, I'd venture to say few in the field speak glowingly about it (not so much as Goodsell to be sure). That's a massive question of the credibility of an academic professional to assume such... and that goes for professors in any field, not just PA. I'd venture to say most experts or academics feel as though their field could undergo countless changes (and you can find contrarian academic journal articles to almost any idea) - in fact, they're just the profession that often engineers such change.

My tribute to sports talk is already going better than I'd hoped.... your posting resolution, though, is struggling. Let's get back on track with my proposal to replace Crawford.. I really have two choices: or, if Modano sticks around...

We're one of the few markets fortunate enough to have all four major sports. All of our teams have won divisions, and three have reached impressive, consistent levels of success. That said, it is ASTOUNDING where we currently fall as far as quality of head coaches in an in-game environment. Who do you trust not to get outcoached? Who do you feel will most likely not make a ridiculous decision that costs the team the game? After giving it some thought, I had to settle on a rather surprising default... As much as it pains me, I couldn't go anywhere else. I'm not talking about attitude, chemistry, player development, or anything else peripheral.... just as far as in game X's and O's coaching, Wade wins by an easy default. Rich Carlisle would have been an easy choice for me before the playoffs, but watching the Mavs get SOUNDLY outcoached by the quality coach of a team that turned out to be (yes, Mark Cuban) a plain ol' 7 seed and the whole Roddy B disaster, I have to drop him. That's like Wade discovering that say, Dez Bryant gets in a game and makes 10 catches with 3 TDs - does it twice- yet he continues to play Patrick Crayton and Sam Hurd ahead of him, even in the playoffs. Inexcusable, and it wouldn't happen. Carlisle has been a good coach for a while, but is capable of the nuclear brain fart. and superstubborn panic that absolutely destroys anyone except Belichick. Wash? You have to be f'n kidding me. That team is so far ahead of its manager it's depressing. The Rangers may as well all play with monkeys w/ Wash faces on their backs (but that would be incredibly racist). Marc Crawford may have the best argument, but he's saddled with a lot of old and/or questionable talent (plus Tom Hicks). Still, his non-crazy talented Avs coaching resume is dismal - he's never been to the playoffs in non-nordiqualanche seasons, and no one has ever accused him of outcoaching anyone. So the bulletproof blueberry has to be my choice. Wade's defense has been strong, the team has won, and the losses were generally attributed to reasons outside on-field decisions (off field stuff is where you can probably gig Wade) This isn't a ringing endorsement of Wade being Lombardi or anything, more of a diatribe on this dismal state of affairs in metroplex sports. Good gravy. Has it ever been this bad? Thoughts?

Not taking either side here, but a quick word about the bashing of all things "government run"..... statistically speaking, government agencies perform at incredibly high levels and have customer satisfaction indices as high or higher than many private sector counterparts. The work that agencies like the USPS do on the scale they do it on is astounding. Their performance rates are generally very high. This is not to say that the public sector > the private sector - governments use more contracting out/privatization now than ever before, and it's been an often successful hybrid. The line between completely public and private is blurrier now than ever, and in most cases the public sector is better for it. Both sides are necessary, and can utilize the other to maximize performance and best serve the public good. That said, the myth that the government can't effectively run anything isn't borne out by statistics. Are there problems? Absolutely yes... but given the scope of the operation, cost-per-customer breakdown, and overall satisfaction and performance metrics, most American government agencies that directly serve citizens are very effective and arguably among the best in the world. A good read on the subject can be found here: http://www.cqpress.c...t/Case-for.html ... Goodsell is a interesting dude, and the book is jammed full of surveys, statistics, and other empirical data collected by a number of respected individuals and institutions. It never advocates for any sort of expansion of the public sector or even any sort of superiority of the private sector - it's essentially apolitical, so don't worry. It's simply an analysis of the important work that the bureaucracy does and a more accurate representation of government performance, removed from personal bias and familiar jokes and insults. But I agree w/ LongJim for the most part... we're burying the lead here. TAINT! TAINT! TAINT HAPPENS HERE!