forevereagle

But wouldn't it be a 1-1 soccer game? There was 1 score by one team and one score by the other. By my math, that is 1-1. There are just multiple ways to score in football that have different values.

I don't think so. As I have understood this talk, it would only disallow a TD if the taunting occured during the play, i.e. high stepping into the end zone or running backwards into the end zone. Any celebration after the TD would be a dead ball foul.

All I am saying is that when trying to increase attendance for a brand that hasn't been clearly established and does not have a lot of loyalty, we should not be doing things that make some people not want to come. And clearly, comparing us to the Cowboys, the most valuable sprts franchise in the US, is an easy, one-to-one comparison. We just don't have the established name to do some of the things that are being proposed. We don't have the atmosphere to keep people in the stands if they don't like certain aspects of attending a game. It's not like someone can go to the water-cooler on Monday and say "Did you see that UNT game on TV? Great game, huh? Well, I was there. The place was electric. A real championship atmosphere." Instead, with some of the proposals that have been reccomended and being realistic, it might sound like this: "Did you hear about the UNT game? No? You didn't miss much. I was at the game. The team looked lousy and I was so annoyed by all the drunks screaming obcenities, that I just left early. I am probably not going to another game."

Whoever has the most money will get to decide.

I was thinking on a broader scale. And I am sure that there are men around that wouldn't enjoy it.

I have an idea for a promotion. Let's try not to eliminate parts of our potential audience. By allowing alcohol, you would make games less family friendly, and people would no longer want to bring children. Thus, attendance goes down. By having scantily clad women pranciing all over the stadium, you make it uncomfortable for women. They no longer want to attend games. Thus, attendance goes down. As a side affect, some of these women who no longer want to attend also do not want their husbands attending when they are not there. Thus, attendance goes down. Just because something would make the game more fun for you does not mean that it will lead to a realized increase in attendance.

Soccer has no hockey in it. If there is any pushing and shoving, someone will quickly take a dive and that will be where it ends. Soccer=Oscars.

Wait, soccer is a sport? And we have a team? And what is this World Cup you speak of?

Not exactly. They're more like a towel...

The sirens are not for tornados, they are to alert you to any immediate danger. Chances are, they were not alerting you of a tornado, just a thunderstorm.

Anyone else wonder why we don't have more female contributors on this board?

Actually, I believe that this is an NCAA rule.

It also led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And?

That was a little joke... And, I would like to offer a counter point to the "Lower Taxes will Solve All Problems" argument. Lowering taxes is a great way to grow the economy at some points. When consumer confidence is high, lowering taxes causes a direct increase in consumer spending. When consumer confidence is low, people tend to hoard. Also, when people are worried about possibly losing their job, they tend to hoard. And, on top of that, when confidence in banks is low, people tend to hoard their money in cash, instead of in banks. Right now, I would say that consumer confidence is at a very low point. People are not spending money. Letting people keep a little more of it to keep in their mattress will not lead to increased consumer spending. During the Great Depression, do you not think that cutting taxes was tried? Do you know what was working before WWII? Public works through government spending. For all of you citing economic policy, there are 2 ways to easily increase the size of an economy. Cutting taxes is not one of them. Increasing the money supply and government spending. We should not be toying with the money supply, since the dollar is already losing value. So, government spending would be the better alternative here. Using micro economics does not apply here. We have a multi-trillion dollar economy, and that is not small scale. Micro economics is typically reserved for a specific product or competitive situation, not for an etire economy.

Dead people don't spend money.

I can actually see both sides on this. Having questions or concerns does not mean that you wouldn't support the guy if he were the QB when the season starts. That said, there does seem to be a lot of bashing on a kid who has not taken a snap at QB. Not everyone is bashing the kid, but not everyone is giving him a fair chance either.

I used to think that you guys lived in your own little world, now I know.

I didn't say anything about government. I said that if no one was pursuing profit, not mentioning government as pursing profit. Besides, I partially disagree with that sentiment. Individuals in government are pursuing profit. That is what leads to a lot of waste. Individual profit over the greater need of all. Decisions to drive sustained profit just result in different bad decisions. Collusion and bait and switch are good examples of this. They are still alive today, and they are great at driving sustained profitibility. Just ask Target, Macy's, etc. about how long they were able to sustain profit by colluding. Trying to make a lot of money in a short amount of time is the premise of American business. Sure, everyone is looking for sustainibility, but no one is above a quick buck. Companies milk opportunity for short term gain all the time. Fads come and go, but the people looking to profit from them are always around. A lack of ethics is what has created this problem, not the pursuit of profit. The money being the root of all evil was a little joke. Obviously smart-assery and sarcasm do not translate well to the written word.

This is different, there were no pictures of the presidents.

Isn't that just splitting hairs? If no one was pursuing profit, there would never be bad decisions in the pursuit of profit. So, in closing, money is the root of all evil.

Is Terry Glenn really high profile? Really?

And what happened to a lot of that class, Vizza included? I would normally agree with you, but looking at recent history, it makes sense to not try and force something. I am not saying that Dodge's first class was bad, but we have lost a lot of that class.

Because of Terry Glenn?

Please also note that Glenn was a Patriot and Packer. Why is it that we don't hear as much about former or Redskins getting into trouble in Dallas? Also, most is not the word I would use. Some is far more appropriate. Most would lead one to believe that it is more than half.