They don't care. Notre Dame told them they'd be getting paid for 40 years.
"4 for 40"
They don't care. Notre Dame told them they'd be getting paid for 40 years.
"4 for 40"
Writers beware of jedi mind tricks when discussing fathers of Ohio State football players:
"These are not the fathers you're looking for."
Anyone who doesn't give "85YTTHOTS" gif/video an automatic upvote until the end of time is not a real buckeye fan in my not so humble opinion. :)
Thanks for that.
I knew Tim Spencer was the father, but I took one look at Cole Spencer and I was like WTF?
Mrs. Tim Spencer got some 'splainin to do. LOL.
Cole Spencer played in the NFL? I did not know that.
Bennett not getting drafted yet is due to the same type of thinking that let Drew Brees fall to the late 2nd round. Not sure how it happened, but somewhere along the way the NFL got this crazy notion in it's head that all you really needed was bodies with the right physcial attributes and actually playing really well wasn't as important.
I suppose that wouldn't actually be the case if didn't work for them in the long run. With that much money on line you can be sure they study this stuff as scientifically as possible. But it definitely undervalues players like Drew Brees, Jerry Rice, Chris Spielman and dozens of other greats that were "lacking" in physical attributes. You just can't measure the will to succeed coming from the heart of a champion.
Yeah, they concluded right then that Bennett had no knowledge of "juicing" and wouldn't be able to keep his rage levels into "KILL A MAN" territory long enough to excel in the league.
Not that familiar with NFL offensive schemes these days, but I wonder, given his blocking ability, if someone could use him in a hybrid TE/FB/WR type role?
To my eyes, his only weakness is a lack of speed. But in that kind of hybrid role, any thing below a 4.7 forty starts looking pretty dynamic.
Unless they changed it, you can't get ESPN 3 online if you don't have cable service with one of the major providers that ESPN favors. The guy just said he dumped cable. ESPN benefits greatly by fighting against ala carte channels for as long as possible, be it via cable or internet. They aren't going to do anything to kill their cash cow until they absolutely have to.
If Braxton heals completely and reaches his pre-injury arm strength that wont be an issue. Pre-injury, Braxton had no problem at all throwing 40 yards on a rope, which indicates at least Troy Smith type arm strength if not putting him in Cardale Jones territory.
Braxton's short comings have always been passing touch and timing. Those will be the things keeping him from playing QB in the NFL if he can't show progress in those areas this coming season. Regardless of how next season plays out, I really believe he'll be drafted no later than the 5th round, based purely on his elite athleticism. There's too much potential upside there for NFL teams not to keep him around for a couple of seasons and see how he develops, be it QB or some other position.
I originated that meme about two and half years ago. Hard to believe it's still going strong. :)
There have been more than a few questionable game management situations at the end of halves/games during Meyer's years IMO.
But I didn't have much of a problem with the decision to throw long to Spencer on First Down for the following reasons:
1) Alabama selling out on a run, with the talent they have, is VERY likely to be able to hold you to a 3 and out, and there was still going to be sufficient time for a game winning scoring drive.
2) There was a good chance Spencer's speed wouldn't be respected, or the DB would hesitate/misread his route, because breaking long is not a route Spencer normally runs.
3) Spencer has great hands and body strength, so even in a one-on-one fight for the ball, he's a decent bet.
4) That throw would make it easier to run on 2nd and 3rd downs, by letting Bama know we weren't afraid to go for the throat.
5) Spencer was mauled by the DB, who should have been called for Pass Interference.
You also have to keep in mind that the offensive coaches have been charting defensive tendencies against certain looks for the whole game and have a reasonable idea of what the chance of success is for a play by that point of time.
Would the throw in that situation look so bad if the coaches felt there was actually about a 90% chance of Spencer being wide open? That's the sort of thing we don't know.
I love it when people say, "Why didn't such and such just do such and such?". Now, there are bad movies where the plot leaps are just ridiculous and the viewer loses all faith in the movie's integrity.
But you know what a creative work is called that never takes literary license and never asks the reader to suspend a certain amount of reasonable disbelief?
It's called NON-FICTION.
Just remember the words of Groucho Marx, the greatest Philosopher King that ever lived:
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. And inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Wow, you touched a sensitive spot there. But c'mon folks, those are good and valid points not deserving of downvotes. Deserving of counter arguments for sure, but not downvotes.
I personally believe it goes a lot deeper than you're implying. If there's such a thing as a soul, animals have them, they're just different and smaller than ours - can't contain as much as we can. However, there's no question that people do a lot of projecting their own souls onto animals - that's why they get so surprised and shocked when an animal does something horrible (to us) that's entirely within it's nature, like try to eat somebody's baby, or kill another pet.
I would also argue against the notion that pets primarily just love the one that feeds them. My significant other has a female daschund that she got a couple of months before I moved in. That dog took to me immediately, favoring me over six other people in the house. There was just something about our natures that clicked. It didn't have anything to do with food.
I had an experience about 20 years ago with a couple of cats that finally got me beyond that corrosive and de-humanizing idea that animals are just these soulless automatons driven strictly by reward and punishment. (That philosophical sickness can mostly be attributed to B.F. Skinner and Behaviourism, which did a lot of good work and provided a lot of great experimental data but ended up being a perfect illustration of that old saying, "To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.")
We had a male cat named Basil who was about 4 years old and took in a female kitten stray that had been sneaking in through a second floor bathroom window and eating Basil's food. We were living in a small, old, rear apartment above a garage, near campus on King Ave., that didn't have air conditioning, hence the open window. The extraordinary thing was in order for that kitten to get to the window, short of scaling a gutter downspout that it's arms were not long enough to wrap around, it needed to leap a span of about 4 feet from a neighboring roof to our roof, which is something not even Basil would do - he would go out on the roof and "sun-bathe" for awhile, then come back in. At any rate we befriended the kitten - who we named Pia - got her vaccinations and let her come and go as she pleased. Basil also took to her, and the two would often curl up together, looking like a yin-yang symbol. The thing that worried me though, was that Pia was highly aggressive and impulsive - case in point being the first time I opened a can of food in front of her from across the room, she leaped off my girlfriend's lap, hit the floor doing about 70MPH, jumped two feet in the air and knocked the food out of my hand as I was bending down to put it in the bowl, then cleaned up the spilled food on the floor in about 5 seconds. It was the single most impressive thing I've ever seen an animal do. I was more astonished than annoyed. That sort of behaviour was likely the very reason she had survived on the streets. And if we had tried to keep her in, she'd have clawed a hole in the door or taken us apart when we opened it and were in her way. But other than that aggressiveness when she wanted something, she was normal and affectionate.
Anyways, to make a long story short, a month or so after we had taken Pia in, I was sitting at my computer when Basil, who had been lying peacefully on the bed, suddenly became agitated and started pacing around the room and meowing at me. He jumped on my lap and was agressively nudging at my arms, meowing in distress. That went on for about 5 minutes, with me unsuccessfully trying to figure out what he needed, before he settled down and went back to lie on the bed again.
I had to leave for work about 5 minutes later. When I turned out of the alley onto the side street, I was immediately confronted with what Basil's "problem" had been. Pia was lying in the street in a pool of blood. She had been run over, likely due to impulsively darting at warp speed, as she was prone to do, right into traffic. As I scraped her up off of the street, I could tell that she had just expired a few moments before.
So not only do I believe that animals have "souls", I also believe that they have some sort of psychic access to other souls that humans have mostly lost touch with. Having grown up a strict scientific materialist, that was a difficult position to arrive at. And it took awhile to integrate those possibilities. I initially tried to rationalize about pheromones, sub-audible distress calls, or any other mundane logical explanation, etc, etc. But none of that felt like the truth. I simply wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't experienced it. And once you allow a crack of open-mindedness to let some light in, the universe (or God, Allah, the Singularity or the eschaton strange attractor at the end of time, if that is your preference) will show you synchronicities to validate your trust. And before long you come to realize that your strictly rational, materialistic, air-tight world only seemed so solid because of the negative filtering you had set up as a defense mechanism. That almost every time you dismissed some idea with the supposedly scientific battle-cry of "There's NO evidence!", you were disengenuiously shutting out possibilities and not engaging in scientific method at all, because no evidence almost always meant either no one had yet thought of a good way to collect evidence or no one yet was couragious enough to go against establishment thinking and do the experiments. And then you come across the large number of cases where reputable scientists did have the courage to do the experiments and promptly got blacklisted when their data didn't agree with establishment thinking. Even if you generously ignore the influence that vested interests have in keeping away from truths that invalidate them (and almost every scientist, with rare exceptions, whose work/career is part of currently established thinking is a vested interest), the only conclusion you can come to is that our currrent "science", rather than being the method allowing our scientist soldiers of light to make ever steady progress against the darkness of ignorance, is a lot more like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp post, "because that's where the light is."
I think Harbaugh's Bipolar with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
Gary Busey suffers from Bipolar with ODD - Obsessive Drug Disorder. ;)
Had to sign in just to defend Interstellar. I guess there's a certain type of person that just can't tolerate being presented with any concepts that are beyond the normal things their 5 senses present to them everyday (in which case they'd probably best avoid ALL Chris Nolan movies - LOL). I can't imagine anyone else not thoroughly enjoying the movie. If you're at all a science fiction fan or just a fan of interesting ideas, don't miss this movie!
I'm going to go ahead and say it - Interstellar is a great movie. It's got a heart and a soul that transcends genres, much like another great movie that was sniped at by cynical critics and lambasted by the dull as being "too long" when it first came out. Only to year by year grow in popularity, continuing to the point where it consistently makes everyone's top 100 movies of all time list.
The other movie I'm referring to is The Shawshank Redemption. Interstellar feels like it will have a similar trajectory. I've seen the movie three times now, and I can't think of a single scene in it that struck the wrong emotional tone, or seemed extraneous. I can't say that about The Shawshank Redemption.