Legally, it's a pretty straightforward issue and one that is well settled. His chances at even getting an en banc review are slim, let alone actually winning it.
Ditto. And, it maches my new north face and old old navy scarf
I remember reading somewhere that the paper is always supposed to be facing inside. I'm not sure if that changes when doing multiple layers though.
I was at the game. It was a pretty entertaining meltdown.
Ahaha I hadn't seen the bacon one yet.
The last one is disturbing...
The Max really lost a lot of business those last few years. It used to be packed.
There was a brief discussion of video games and NIL in determining injuries. In rejecting the $5k stipend, the court more generally rejected "NIL cash payments untethered to [athlete's] education expenses." They court went on to say "We cannot agree that a rule permitting schools to pay students pure cash compensation and a rule forbidding them from paying NIL compensation are both equally effective in promoting amateurism and preserving consumer demand. Both we and the district court agree that the NCAA’s amateurism rule has procompetitive benefits. But in finding that paying students cash compensation would promote amateurism as effectively as not paying them, the district court ignored that not paying student-athletes is precisely what makes them amateurs."
In sum, it seems that the court found that amateurism is one of the pro-competitive aspects of the NCAA and that paying players would (obviously) destroy that. There is also some strong language defining a clear line between education related payments and non-education payments. On the whole, I think the NCAA might consider this a victory.
Quickly skimming it, the court seems to only acknowledge that antitrust rules apply. Under this framework, they found full cost of attendance scholarships as being procompetitive and allowed; and a ban on any payment, which would include additional costs e.g., cost of living that is variable between schools (that could go beyond a fixed "price" for all schools) as being anti-competitive. The court said forcing further payments (e.g., up to $5k) as another procompetitive measure was wrong. Thus, I'd think the status quo seems acceptable.
It looks like OL Austin Pasztor was signed via waivers from Jacksonville the same day West was traded. Then signing Austin Davis was offset by placing Charles Gaines on the 6 week PUP list or whatever it is.
I don't understand: 1) the thought process, and 2) the numbers (if West was sent for only draft picks, wouldn't his spot still be open? was someone else signed that I missed?)
+1 for Case
Not sure if this is the same, but I can attest that you'd have to pay me a lot of money to move to Alabama or Mississippi.
Love going to the local short tracks friday/saturday nights. I'll put the races on the TV, but it's hard to sit down and watch the whole thing anymore.
I can't take it anymore. I'm retiring at 26 to Arizona.
Right. I much preferred the Dave Shula years.
I believe they did say it was because he had no chance of competing for the second string spot. The twitter thing was kind of an add on gripe that ESPN threw into their article.
There is some tension between in those parts over such misunderstandings.
I think I saw a picture on cleveland.com with Dontre in a boot. Any ideas?
On the one hand, I can see/sort of understand the misapplication and misunderstanding resulting in the arrest. Perhaps that could be an honest mistake and "retraining" may be appropriate.
However, the article says:
Dash cam video obtained by 19 Action News suggests that Smith had little trouble navigating the test. Officer Peters seemed to agree, telling Smith there were only "minor problems" in his test performance.
In his official police report, Peters appears to contradict the dash cam video, saying Smith "loses balance" and "does not follow instructions."
Granted, that is the media's perception of the video, but a flat contradiction seems more like covering your ass and lying than an honest mistake. I'd think that is the biggest issue with the whole event.
I watch both actually (being a Bengals fan in Cleveland), and I will tell you that the Browns are the most entertaining team to watch (and follow, especially talk radio) in the NFL. They manage to get themselves into and out of situations you couldn't even dream of.
There's nothing unreasonable about your amount of happy.
Oh, I totally agree. Win over Bama > win over the other team that beat Bama. Just noting that I've only heard that logic once on ESPN. Maybe others have heard it more?
Heard a comment last night on TV about how TCU could end up #2 if there were a particular result in tonight's game. To be fair, I think the comment was directed at any blowout, not necessarily as an anti-OSU comment. That's the only mention I had heard of that line of thinking in the media after the Sugar Bowl. TCU fans have obviously pretty keen on the idea (and some mentioning an AP #1) since they won.
This was my thought. On the one hand, in games like this the players go out and play up like in '87... but on the other, I don't think they feel the same way about Hoke. TTUN has never really looked like they cared this year.
+1 for the blazing saddles reference