Seasons 6, 7, and 8 already did enough damage.
Don't drink anymore, but when I did, I used to go with this every time we played these assholes:
AKA Ann Arbor Island.
Percentage of random group of 1000 people who were spanked who think they "turned out alright": ~99%
If you polled those same people on whether they would judge that all the other people from that same group "turned out alright": much lower, probably around 50-60%
My point is that this is all very subjective. People who like spanking say they were spanked and that it made them a better person and point to other people they judge as good, who were also spanked, as further proof. But they ignore the undoubtedly numerous others who were spanked, and yet still turned out to be shitheads. And as confident as they are that spanking made them better people, it is impossible for them to know how they'd have turned out if alternative discipline techniques had been applied to them instead.
There are obviously a ton of people who were not spanked and grew up to be good people. So to me, the real question is not at all whether or not spanking is effective. The real question is, is it necessary? The fact that many people were not spanked, yet still grew into productive members of society, proves it not necessary. So my question is, why not focus our attention on developing effective parental discipline strategies and techniques that don't involve committing violence of any degree against children, since as stated, it's clearly not necessary?
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ Totally agree with the next comment!!!!
I upvoted this. Anyone feel free to downvote this comment. I deserve it.
My initial reaction is to cringe at hearing his name in the same sentence as the word 'ma(i)ze,' but this is pretty damn cool.
I'm fine with how much they ran him overall. It's a vital part of our offense. But I do agree with you in some instances. Specifically in this game, at the end of the first half when we were just running the clock out, they had Barrett run up the middle. Entirely unnecessary and no excuse for the risk, in my opinion.
Interesting to think about for sure. Could have cost us the 2002 Championship, but also might have allowed us to win one in 2005. Would have loved another shot at Texas that year.
We need to destroy everyone from here out, and at least win convincingly in both the MSU and B1G title games, and also get some help from other teams as well. Definitely not being negative though. This team has gotten better every week and that should continue. Crazier things have happened, like when we got back in the Championship game game against LSU in 2008 after it seemed like we were way out of it.
Simultaneously love and hate this.
I agree completely. Do we really think we'd have flipped Baker if Florida had just won 4 games in a row in convincing fashion, while the Bucks were slogging along through a .500ish season while wearing alternate uni's? Hard to say for sure, but seems much less likely to me.
If I could upvote this comment, I would. Should only be a few helmet stickers away at this point.
Dantonio, and I agree with some of the first comments, Hoke and Muschamp. Anyone who does what those 2 did to those 2 programs are quite alright with me.
I still think the best case would have been that they won out the rest of the season, because we could still have played the 'we were young and inexperienced, still played a very good team tough, and are much better now' card (especially if we continue to win impressively). But now that they've lost a few, I agree with what you're saying here.
Kentucky trying to flip recruits from us:
When we want one of theirs:
What did the 5 fingers... say to the face!?!?
Honestly, after watching Nebraska so far, I'm not sure I want them representing the B1G in the playoff anyways. If they were the best the B1G had to offer, it wouldn't deserve a spot.
I'd rather Nebraska wins. That way, whether we or Nebraska wins the B1G title game, a B1G team has a shot at making the playoff (assuming we each win out the rest of the way). If MSU beats Nebraska, then loses to us, I don't know that a 1-loss Nebraska gets in if they beat us. Plus, I just dislike MSU more. I know the primary concern is us, but I honestly don't see much a difference between us having 2 victories over 1-loss teams vs. a victory over 1 undefeated Nebraska.