So these are god-awful.
"Yeah, well, you too!"
Solid counter-argument. As if Detroit being a shithole somehow makes Cincinnati NOT Kentucky.
Cincinnati sucks. You're basically Kentucky anyways. Congratulations. You're slightly better than Kentucky.
I completely get the notion that Larry David was reminding the audience that, essentially, these were four horrible people we had been watching for almost a decade. The problem is that 1.) it really kind of rubs the audience's face in that fact, and, way more importantly, 2.) the episode is just not funny. Like, at all.
"You're giving me the 'it's not you, it's me' routine? I invented 'it's not you, it's me.' Nobody tells me it's them, not me. If it's anybody, it's me."
"All right, George. It's you."
"You're DAMN RIGHT it's me."
While I think Izzo is a tremendous coach (obvs) the methodology here relies solely on expected tournament wins based on seeding, and I think a very good argument could be made, and has been made elsewhere, that a big part of the reason Izzo regularly outperforms MSU's seeding in the big dance is that the committee just as regularly underseeds MSU. This is probably based on the fact that Izzo usually schedules a monster non-con slate, so his teams pile up a few more losses than most teams in the area where his teams should be seeded based on quality (not resume).
Just looking at his farthest runs: in the kenpom era, he has made three final fours. Those teams were seeded on the fifth, second, and fifth seed lines. According to kenpom's rankings, those teams should have been seeded 1, 2, and 5. In the same era he has made two elite eights. Those teams were seeded seventh and fourth. According to kenpom, they should have been 4- and 2-seeds. Hell, this year's sweet sixteen team is a 7-seed; Kenpom would have had them on the border between the 4/5 seeds.
Izzo is an all-time great coach and his coaching is probably a competitive advantage in March. But if all you're looking at is performance relative to seed, a significant factor in his great numbers according to that measure is the fact that the Spartans are usually underseeded by the committee. It's a lot "easier" to outperform your seed expectation when the committee regularly gives you worse seeds than your actual quality would indicate.
Possible reading comprehension fail on my part.
Sriracha or GTFO.
I was being flippant. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions. But yours is wrong.
It's okay to be wrong about things. You're wrong about The Dark Knight.
As for 2001, it's a gorgeous movie and when it's on TV I often find myself getting swept up into 10-15-minute stretches of it, but every time I try to watch the whole thing start to finish it just bores me to tears eventually.
Roger Ebert does a commentary track on the Citizen Kane DVD that is utterly fascinating. People don't realize it because it's not flashy action or CGI, but that film is LOADED with practical special effects shots. But then, I'm one of those assholes who doesn't understand how someone can not like that movie. It's a damn good story.
Just say no to horrifying diarrhea sludge. Your palate deserves better. Yes, even yours.
Fido is the one that's right.
I wish I could give you a million recs. In my opinion, Blade Runner might be the most overrated movie - and Ridley Scott the most overrated director - of all-time.
As for answering the question itself, to paraphrase a critic I like, when I saw Dr. Strangelove I immediately thought "I'm not sure how much I liked that movie, but that's okay because it clearly liked itself PLENTY ENOUGH for the both of us." That movie is about half as funny and half as satirical as it thinks it is.
His jumper looks much better. Still not great, but a lot better.
1. '10-'11 -- That team was constructed so well. Sully surrounded by shooters. Unguardable.
2. '06-'07 -- Oh, Mike Conley. How badly I wanted a second year.
3. '98-'99 -- Shock of the new. Scoonie was unbelievable that season.
4. '01-'02 -- The Brent/Brian/Boban team. Regular season co-champs and B10 conference tourney champs, and I'm still not sure how they did it.
5. '11-'12 -- Some rough patches during the season, but the run to the final four was a lot of fun.
That is a terrible, terrible foul call at the :20 mark of that video.
It is pretty widely-believed that Giamatti used just the tip of the iceberg of what they had on him. Like, just enough to get the ban, and no more.
Or an easy signifier to show that the person making the ad hominem attack is completely full of shit.
Thank you for bringing ad hominem to the conversation.
The rule hasn't changed. And it won't, and shouldn't, for the reasons Broseph stated, below.
It is literally the only rule in baseball that carries a lifetime ban. That makes it the cardinal rule.
What I think about steroids is utterly irrelevant.
And this "it's not that bad because he only bet on them to win" argument is BS. Even if it were true (which we don't know), it's essentially passive-aggressive fixing. "You know what, on second thought, I think I'll save my best reliever for tomorrow. Oh and by the way, lay an extra five large on us to win that game." But none of that matters: there is a rule, posted in every single locker room, that says if you bet on baseball, you're banned for life. He bet on baseball. He's banned for life.
The penalty for betting on baseball is a lifetime ban. There is no reason to "lift" it.
1.) He's not two different people, Manager Pete and Player Pete. He's one person. One person who broke the cardinal rule of baseball, the one rule that everyone knows, the one rule that, if broken, will result in you being banned from the game for life.
2.) He's banned from the game for life. You can't put someone who's banned from the game for life into the game's friggin' hall of fame.