Nah. Go NAVY BEAT ARMY!!!
For some reason, they seem to be forgotten when the airborne divisions of WWII are discussed. When you say 82nd or 101st airborne everyone thinks of the PIR but the GIR played a significant role as well. One advantage to gliders was they landed with all their troops and supplies in one place, unlike a paratrooper unit that could wind up dispersed heather and yon and need to regroup and find their supply drops.
As a completely off topic thought, I read in the book "Grand Old Lady" that the Army also experimented with using DC-3's as gliders. They apparently had a better glide ration and if you replaced the streamline covers over the engine nacelles you could fly them out of the landing area. An unarmed DC-3 also shot down a Zero during WWII, but that's another story...
Yes. They have not forgotten. I recently learned my dad fought in the Ardennes Campaign with the 9th Armor Div. I knew he was with them at Remagen but didn't know he aksi fought in the Battle of the Bulge.
Here is link to 101st airborne soldiers showing the flag on the uniform. Of interest is they are glider troops, who also were part of the airborne divisions.
That appears to be historically correct for their WWII uniform.
If I die on the old dropzone box me up and ship me home
pin my wings upon my chest, tell my momma I did my best
If that chute don't open wide I've got another one by my side
if that chute don't open round, I'll be the first one on the ground...
Fixed my typo. For some reason I can edit on an iPad but not an iPhone. As a historical note, it's the All American because it was made up of troops from all over America.
Go Navy, Beat Army
I would include Luke Fickle in that list. He stepped up and held the team together until UFM arrived, and despite his record most of the games were close, except for Miami, that a lucky bounce or two would have changed the outcome. I think he deserves credit for what he did, especially since ehe was in a no win situation, even if he went undefeated he wasn't getting the HC job, IMHO.
Houston we have a problem.
Did anyone at UH really think Herman would be there long term? He wan't going to be more of a hot commodity next year and when a job like UT comes along no way he'll pass it up. Besides, all the butt hurt fans would be screaming for his head next year if they had a bad season.
Always being number 3, at best, in Texas is no doubt hard to accept; but that is the way it is.
Have you tried Mint? It can be setup to boot from USB and you should be able to install Flash and not need to keep reinstalling it.
Mozilla may block Flash by default so I'd check preferences as well.
Yup. Which is even when someones uses the same location, camera, etc. it still dieen't match him. I was in San Francisco a while back and the hotel had an Ansel exhibit. He also did commercial photographybsndvthr hotel found ones he did of the hotel. His eye for light was smazing.
Not that is anything new. Photographers have been enhancing shots since the first one.
The camera captures the scene, the darkroom makes the photograph.
My favorite was the poster who said "name one good thing about Ohio..." That's simple, for starters, it's not TSUN...
Another issue I have with the study is it assumes bowl games are profitable for conferences; yet there is evidence that some teams actually lose money in the post season when all costs are included. If conferences were looking to maximimize profit, not revenue, refs should be acting to keep money losing teams out of post season play, since it would be better only for the true money making teams go to bowls. Does the evidence support this; if the answer is no then it would appear that conferences are not encouraging refs to make beneficial calls, since that would cost them money. If profit was the motive, I'd expect only a handful of teams to get preferential calls while most, in games that don't include the prefered winner, to go against the prefered teams. If the data shows any preferred teams get better calls then I would discount conference induced, actually or perceived by refs, bias not to be the reason calls go one way in game.
+1 for your Ocam's Razor point. At a minimum, they should have had impartial experts decide what the right call was, and compare it to the actual call. Even then, they would be looking at film that may or may not be conclusive; even if the film was conclusive there is still latitude over what really is a penalty in discretionary calls. For example, did a specific ref always give the benefit of the doubt to the offense or defense, and call penalties the same way in all games they officiated?
Having refed myself, I know I let some things go that others would have called and vice versa. Did I have a bias? Maybe, but I tried to be consistent, even if someone else may have called it differently.
The bottom line is many calls aren't black and white; I'd be more interested in seeing if refs constantly made or did not make calls in favor of one team when the call could give one team a decided advantage and the call influenced the outcome.
For those interested in this topic, I strongly recommend the book Scorecasting; it looks at this, and other topics, in depth. A good TL;DR summary of home field advantage is at http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
While I agree the Hawthorne Effect could come into play, if you ran the experiment across a number of groups, and had a control group that only saw non preferred teams you could still look at the delta between the calls and see if some teams consistently got fewer calls. Even if both groups constantly made what they thought were the desired call if the preferred team got more preferential treatment it should still show up. As others pointed out, 10% is still only 1 call per game, a difference that could easily be attributed to normal variance or better playing than bias. It would also be interesting to see how results skew if participants were told before hand Team A had a better shot at winning a championship than Team B and not telling them who A and B were' that way you could control be splitting the A and B team's chances evenly between the participants, so each team had an equal number of participants who thought each was the prefered team without knowing who the were.
In addition, how did they control for which team was the home team, and any (real or not) bias for a home team. Did the home team get more calls even if they weren't preferred, for example?
As a result, I question the studies methodology.
TBH - If you look at the number of people cutting the cord, that's the real driving force, IMO. People are tired of paying $200 a month for 500 channels they rarely watch.
While I fully agree with you on this, IMHO there are some basic economic issues that need to be addressed before cord cutting truly becomes viable:
1. Most of the cable bill goes to the major channels since those are what people watch. The other 480 get a few pennies per subscriber but since the scriber base is big enough they make enough to stay on the air. Take away that revenue stream and most of those channels disappear and you'll be paying $190 for 20 channels.
2. Even some of the big, non-premium channels don't sell a la carte but require a cable subscription to stream. They are not willing to risk cable revenue by going it alone, especially since they probably won't get the subscriber base that cable has and thus will have to charge a lot to make up for lost revenue.
3. Since many of the companies that provide internet access are also cable companies, they will not want to be merely a dumb pipe and provide streaming access while their cable revenue dos. Data caps will be used to make up for the lost revenue, and even 300gb gets chewed through quickly when you stream everything. As a result, internet access process will use a s subscriber bases fall. My cable company drops the cap and charges less if I also subscribe to cable as a way to make cord cutting less attractive financially.
4. How do you reach the people who don't have high speed internet access? If cable revenue shrinks to the point that providing service to rural areas is a drain on profits you could see areas that all of a sudden only can get OTA broadcasts. That has political implications as elected officials are sure to try to prevent companies from dropping service.
Do i think cord cutting is the future, yes; but it won't necessarily be cheaper. In addition, cord cutting has significant implications for sports broadcast rights; if the major networks get less revenue they aren't going to want to pay top dollar for sports. That means current salary structures and other areas that benefit from the revenue windfall will have to change; and schools that really n the TV revenue sharing money will face tough decisions about how to keep their programs viable.
The beauty of such a situation is you are an attractive place for a top flight coach to come as an assistant since many go on to becoming HCs. You don't have to settle for a so-so hire.
$11 million in buyout does give one a few options that a mere $3.5 million doesn't....
While I admit a bit of Buckeye Pride is involved, for me it wasn't the kicking but the spitting. I don't even mind mild taunts, like eating, after a big play, even if my coach wouldn't tolerate it, since they are in the game zone and fired up. Hell even Desmond 's Heismann pose doesn't bother me much since he backed it up with action. I just think some things cross the line dividing rivalry and low class; and sitting on an opponent's symbol is one of those that does.
I remember the TTUN sign incident, and yes even if it is bit hypocritical, I smile when I remember it and would place it just at the line. You unfurl a banner in front of the visiting team at the big rivalry game be ready for some reaction.
I never understood how a coach would put up with a player spitting on or disrespecting the home team's logo like that. My coach would have killed any player did that, he even held out a star player for a a half who skipped a practice before our rivalry game that would decide if we went to the playoffs. Sent a real message to the team about what it meant to be part of the team. Then again, anyone who made all the practices, even if they were a 1 star, made the team. Great lesson about not giving up, since most guys quit after a few days of wind sprints. It was an object lesson in persistency and determination are omnipotent.
For those who missed it, here is video link of Pepper's spitting:
Very classy, and what I would expect from them; it shows that no matter how fierce the rivalry there is a bond that transcends it.
Hang in there. We had a similar situation at my daughters school that thankfully turned out to be a false alarm but I know how scary it is to get that text and then wait for news.