Monkeypox

UTSA is scheduling appropriately for their program. Smart, even. They've got home games this year vs. McNeese, A&M-Commerce, and Texas State. That will help keep their attendance up by 1) Giving them a winnable slate and 2) giving them regional opponents with nearby alumni. Add to the fact that they are the only game in town, and there's no reason not to expect some measure of success in short order for the program.

Austin? Austin, Massachusetts?

Police - Ask. Tell. Make. Woman was stupid. Once you've ID'd to prove you're not a wanted mass murderer with 25 outstanding warrants for chopping up babies, then you can explain your situation.

While you have to treat every threat as credible, I'm sure the authorities were well aware this isn't Al-Qaeda's M.O. They're not exactly a "call ahead" type. More of a "bomb a place and call you about it later" type.

35-13 KSU

At least now we know why it took him this long to get the transfer settled. A lot of work getting those fists registered as deadly weapons.

Yeah, the guy was pretty highly touted only a year ago, and it's not uncommon for guys to redshirt a year and/or miss a year to injury and still be effective. It's a good get for the program regardless. I'm just tapping the brakes a little bit. It's possible that Berglund just didn't get to CC in time to really MAKE that push to be the starter, and once that became apparent, then there isn't really a value of being at the CC. The only value it had was allowing him to play right away. So I'm not trying to crap on this signing. It's good. I'm just trying to be realistic.

Playing live football would ultimately make you better, particularly if you hadn't played in 2 years. That's my opinion, anyway. Right now, the guy hasn't been on the field since 2010. If the decision was based on the idea that he'd rather be at the school to which he intended to transfer... why not do that in the first place? Keep in mind that Scottsdale had a game on August 25. They won 49-27 and Berglund didn't see the field.

That's what I keep reading, which is part of what tempers my enthusiasm. That, and going into next season, he won't have played football for almost 3 years.

If North Texas had that approach, your seat would be in Fouts.

Cooperstein and Nate were talking this afternoon about the North Texas - LSU game. I randomly caught it. They were very impressed particularly with Chancellor, the defensive play, and how hard the guys worked. They basically felt that, despite getting run on as we did, being overmatched, that our guys harrassed the LSU QB relentlessly. The exchange went something like this: Coop: "I LOVE Dan McCarney and what he's doing up there at North Texas. Those guys play the right way. They play hard. That team is going to win a lot of games in the Sun Belt this season." Nate: "We could use that D-Line coach up here (referring to the Cowboys)."

Injury did him in. He's still in a pretty good position, though. If he makes it to the practice squad, he's likely to see the active roster at some point this season, given the injury histories of Dallas' "proven" backs. If he doesn't make it to the practice squad, it'll be because he's given a chance on someone else's roster. Anyway, best of luck to Lance.

Source: RB Lance Dunbar to be released http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4696685/running-back-situation-settles

Yeah, the runs are one thing. Being a contributor on special teams in addition to it opens the door big time.

Because Carpenter is eligible for practice squad and McGee isn't. I suspect that they won't have McGee on this roster much longer, but this is simply maneuvering.

Dunbar and Tanner both probably ought to be there. If the Cowboys really want Felix on the team, they should just have him eat a sandwich and be a backup guard.

Inside out is wiggity wiggity wiggity wack.

Lance Armstrong doping has been the worst kept secret since Clay Aiken's sexuality. As soon as people left the team, they got caught doping. Did they decide all of the sudden to start doping, or were they simply afforded protection under Armstrong's big happy yellow feelgood umbrella? Armstrong gave it up once it was clear that arbitration would go forward and the testimony of guys like Hincapie would go public, a proceeding that he tried to block by suing the agency. THAT'S the point at which he stopped the fight. Now he gets to keep his righteous indignation, and doesn't have to refute the specific testimony of his accusers. This way he keeps that testimony out of the press. Yes, he's never tested positive. Neither did Barry Bonds. Neither did Marion Jones. Neither did Basso or Ullrich and a slew of other proven dopers. It's not a coincidence that as the anti-doping orgs have started showing their teeth, the performances in these sports have suffered. Cycling's always been dirty, though. And having been in Austin during some of the height of the Lance Armstrong era and being around the guy, good riddance.

36yr old Colon + 89mph + done + roids = 39yr old Colon + 96mph + 10 wins + 3.43 ERA

http://www.kcrg.com/sports/78472867.html

I BELIEVE (could be wrong) that Chelf had offers but chose to walk-on at Iowa with some of his high school teammates. He was part of the Iowa City team that won state. He had knee surgery this last year, and should just now be recovered.

Just wait til people start getting that East Nile Virus. It makes West Nile look like South Thames. Hope you've stocked up on nipple plugs.

The article is the percentage of people completing their 4-year degree within 6 years, though. UNT's 6-year graduation rate is, I believe around 48%.

This is the only thing that matters in this whole silly debate.

We've gotten down to the core of it. I'm hearing "aggressive" and "forced" to and that the US should adopt legislation NOT BASED ON SCIENCE, but on beliefs. We should ignore that net positive feedback is not agreed upon even by the scientists who agree on anthropogenic global warming. We should ignore that no one can give accurate lead times (meaning it's impossible to say whether or not policies adopted would even work, or even prove them after the fact). We should just DO it, even if it does nothing but make things worse (like AC and refrigeration policy did), or if it doesn't work at all because the basic science is faulty (like most "green" technologies that ignore energy production requirements and long-term storage capacities). As I said before, if we want it to be about science, fine. But the science isn't there, so it's intellectually dishonest to claim that it is. That's why people have largely ignored the very real science (which is far from basic) when it comes down to it. I've worked for an environmental consultant firm, for and against the EPA/TCEQ, and as an information broker in the field. The science around which people want to "aggressively" adopt policy changes is mostly noise, and severely flawed. I'd love for the US to go to more nuclear power based sources (even though it has it's own flaws), but instead we're bailing out battery companies that get sold to the Chinese at pennies to the dollar, financing electric cars that brick on dirty power, and building new windfarms while old ones sit out in the desert decaying. Smart, economically sound policies aren't what people are advocating, because they're not something that EITHER base wants to hear. THIS ISN'T FOR SCIENCE. IT'S FOR DOGMATIC BELIEF. But, I'm done with this topic. I won't change anyone's mind. But I'm frightened by anyone willing to adopt radical policy change so they can feel good, even if it's a loser economically or scientifically.