-
Posts
13701 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Huckleberry
-
-
My family's tickets are for 10:30 tomorrow night. Kids' activities schedules weren't finalized until after the first showings were sold out. Local theater added a 10:30 about a week ago so that worked out well.
-
Tucker just got paid.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26594192/tucker-sets-kicker-records-4-year-extension
The Baltimore Ravens and kicker Justin Tucker have agreed to a four-year extension, it was announced Wednesday.
The extension makes him the highest-paid kicker in NFL history. The $23.05 million deal includes $12.5 million fully guaranteed in the first two years and an $8 million signing bonus, a source told ESPN's Adam Schefter.
The total value of the extension, the guaranteed money and the signing bonus all set records for a kicker.
Tucker, the most accurate kicker in NFL history, had been scheduled to become a free agent at the end of the 2019 season. This deal keeps Tucker with the Ravens through the 2023 season.
The 29-year-old Tucker has put himself in a class by himself among kickers, converting 90.1 percent of his field-goal attempts. No other kicker has hit over 88 percent for a career.
Known for his strong leg and big personality, Tucker is the first kicker in league history to make at least 30 field goals in six consecutive seasons. Excluding blocked kicks, he hasn't missed a field goal from inside 50 yards since 2015.
He made 35 of his 39 field goal attempts last season, including five of 50 yards or longer, and finished with 141 points.
Tucker joined the Ravens as an undrafted free agent and tryout player in 2012. He beat out Billy Cundiff for the job and quickly established himself as one of the top kickers in the game.
He was named a first-team All-Pro for the third time last season, however Tucker has not made the Pro Bowl the past two seasons despite missing a combined five field goals in 2017 and 2018. In those seasons, Tucker is 62-for-67 for a 92.5 percent success rate.
Tucker has spent his entire seven-year NFL career with the Ravens, making 237 of his 263 attempts and missing only one PAT in 242 regular-season attempts for a total of 952 points.
With Tucker signed, other Ravens in line for extensions are outside linebacker Matthew Judon, inside linebacker Patrick Onwuasor and defensive tackle Michael Pierce.
-
2
-
-
Yeah, that jacket isn't doing her argument any favors. Talk about distracting.
-
On 12/26/2018 at 1:40 PM, Doc Reeves said:
The reason that exact scenario hasn’t occurred yet it very telling of what the NCAA cares most about
No, the reason is that it's a stupid idea.
Do other students on scholarships (academic, etc.) have their transfer options limited by their department chairs? Or by their university's accrediting agency? Of course not. If you want to treat the football players like students then treat them like students. They can transfer wherever the hell they want whenever the hell they want.
-
2
-
-
All of the last few posts are obviously correct. He's gotten to the point of absurdity with his tinkering. My biggest personal issue with it is that there is no logical philosophy that underpins any of his changes. He has undertaken this huge experiment to try to consistently beat the spread and has abandoned any and all sound reason in the pursuit. There is zero reason to keep preseason polls in your formula until the end of the season. That completely corrupts and invalidates your system as, quite clearly, you are saying that players and coaches who no longer have anything to do with the program affect the current season ratings.
He's correct that a college football season doesn't have enough data points for a full analysis, but that doesn't mean you throw in data points that you know don't belong. And let's discuss this conference input to his formula now. What he should have realized is that conferences are just a proxy for something else his formula must be missing (if he is going to refuse to stop this quest). An arbitrary grouping of teams that all play a more strongly interconnected subset of the schedule graph is already overemphasized in a ratings set because of that interplay. My first inclination is that bumping up that contribution is a proxy for the fact that his system still isn't accurately determining garbage time despite his efforts. Conference mates are typically closer in strength to each other than non-conference games, so those games will indeed be a typically more accurate representation of true team strength than non-conference games.
But instead of various other possible tweaks that would make more sense (weight closer games significantly more heavily, including plays occurring outside of garbage time in the play-by-play analysis, instead of just throwing out garbage time; there are several different methods to do this) he just declares that he's going to throw in conference strength because he back-checked it against a few seasons.
-
6
-
-
-
Yes, we all know that. But the out isn't a K. The out is a putout at first base (typically scored "K 2-3" indicating, again, the out at first base). In a strikeout that directly records the out it is just a K and the catcher gets the putout.
-
Lying that his decision to stay at Tennessee was due to God is fake godliness and 100% BS. Everyone knows it."fake godliness"? uh, have any of you guys paid attention to the man at all during any point in the last decade+? this is who Rick Barnes is and has been for some time. It's been talked about here and on shaggy at some length. it's widely known that he turned religious and then changed his entire demeanor/behavior/approach to coaching and life, and he's been committed to it this entire time. he's certainly not faking it, and he's certainly not the first person to pray on something, but yeah, let's single him out for that as if that's unique to him or something. it then i again i guess there isn't anything he does that *doesnt* upset most of you, so pat for the course.
The argument that a guy is actually religious so he'd never insert God as an explanation for his financial decisions isn't persuasive at all. Religious people do that constantly to make themselves look and feel better. -
This is an incredibly, and surprisingly based on the poster, terrible post.In other words, they see as equivalent things that may or may not help (federal solutions, identity stuff), and things that are already abject moral crimes (Christian hegemony, minority targeting, military gluttony, war on drugs, etc.). In fact they are resolved to tolerate the latter, but will, in the end, work against the former as they may impinge on their comfort.And yes I'm way behind.
-
Yeah, fake godliness actually makes it much easier to dislike someone.
-
1
-
-
They're wrong. That is the example of striking out three batters but not striking out the side.OSU announcers just said that their starter struck out the side.Plate appearance 1: Ellis strikes out
PA 2: Kennedy strikes out but reaches on a wild pitch
PA 3: Todd flies out to center
PA 4: Hibbeler strikes out
Verdict?
It does bring up the only scenario about this I think is debatable. Two strikeouts are clean but the third is a drppped third strike put out at first. It's a strikeout but technically the out is recorded as a put out at first base. I can see either argument on this one. I think the fair answer would be it's striking out the side if it was a passed ball or straight drop by the catcher but not if it was a wild pitch. But I'm not really sure what the technically correct answer would be in that situation. I'm inclined to say it counts if the batter who struck out doesn't reach first safely. If something crazy happens and there's a wild throw and he's tagged out going for second then it wouldn't be.
-
side = half-inning by definition
half-inning = three outs by definition
therefore
strike out the three outs = strike out the half-inning = strike out the side
Q.E.D. -
Striking out the side means obtaining all three outs in a half inning via the K. A 1-2-3 inning is sitting them down in order. Striking out the side without it being a 1-2-3 inning likely means it was a fairly inefficient inning for the pitcher in terms of pitch count (though not always)
These guys are absolutely correct. A half-inning is a "side" (hence the term "retiring the side" when the defense makes the last out). If you get all of the outs in a half-inning via strikeout, then you have "struck out the side." If a runner reaches on a third strike via wild pitch or passed ball then it would take 4 strikeouts to strike out the side.“The side” is a half inning, 3 outs. You get all 3 outs by strikeout, you’ve struck out the side.You strike out the first 3, you’ve struck out the side in order.
Anyone who thinks it has to be 1-2-3 is wrong and they should feel bad about not knowing the actual meaning of the word "side" in that context.
-
1
-
-
The entire season is a miserable failure.
Ha.
-
Just wanted to point out that this game is ridiculous.
Now I worry that City will suffer by letting off the gas too soon. I guess we'll see.
-
14 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:
"Cull" means to select a few (usually the least desired or most inferior) from a large number. When you cull a herd of cows, you remove the ones you don't want.
I think the word you are looking for is "exterminated".
Not a lot to disagree with in this post.
But it also reminds me of how the word decimated is now used to mean roughly the same thing as annihilated even though its actual original meaning was to kill every tenth soldier (so only 10% of a population).
Carry on.
-
I bet Art Briles can really spin a yarn, too.
A bunch of spineless morons on this thread.-
2
-
-
Unless it's San Jose State.When you have a distinct traditional look like Pitt, you should always stick to it. When they are on T.V., I don't have to look to see who is playing because I can recognize their colors and uniform. I'm glad they have gone back to it.
Just sayin'.-
1
-
1
-
-
In my opinion, it's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.
Then your opinion is wrong. I can think of lots of scenarios where exercising those specific rights would be done out of arrogance. Hell, we could probably come up with a dozen examples just from movies. -
You are the only annoying Liverpool fan I know. I think I will keep posting on other threads just to even things out.
-
6 hours ago, Goo Punch said:
dude you talk about a frozen rope...this coulda killed someone:
That game was on where I was picking up dinner last night. Sounded like they had a microphone in everyone's bat, it was absurd. Every foul ball sounded like it had a 120mph exit velocity. Is that the thing now?
-
F United but a clear penalty.
-
Wait, this thread is still around? Does Monster still think anyone is buying his charade?
-
30 minutes ago, DanRydell said:
I don’t think the numbers are racist, just irrelevant. The job of the Texas education system is not to educate a hypothetical kid controlled for demographics better than Connecticut does. It’s job is to create an educated workforce and citizenry of the kids who are actually in the Texas education system.
They may not paint a full picture, but they are absolutely relevant. I would prefer an update that uses household income as a covariate, or even a proxy like reduced lunch program eligibility, but the bottom line is that at the time of the study, Texas student performance was superior to Wisconsin student performance in every group, the only difference was the ratio of the groups. If you were white then you did better in Texas than in Wisconsin. If you were black then you did better in Texas than in Wisconsin. If you were Latino then you did better in Texas than in Wisconsin.
As formermav43 alluded to above, it's more than a little disingenuous when the same people who (correctly) point out the inherent racial bias in society and standardized tests want to shout down statistics like these because they think they're racist. It's a completely absurd position to take, and more than a little hypocritical. Why do white students perform better than minority students (Asian exception, of course) when it comes to standardized tests? Well I think it's pretty obvious that a history of racial inequality has led to socioeconomic inequality which has a direct influence on scholastic performance. Then add the next layer where standardized tests are created by predominantly white adults who will of course subconsciously create tests that are more familiar to and therefore easier for white students. This is a national problem and when using national tests it obviously will have a larger impact on States with higher minority populations. You can't cry racial inequality and then protest when someone is pointing out the impact that said racial inequality has.
Equally important is that recognizing this situation, as I said before, does nothing to absolve Texas of its overall failings. If we simply replace race with other covariates that race is unfortunately and disgustingly a reasonable proxy for then the conversation can move away from race, which means people are less likely to react absurdly without thinking. If instead of race it's based on household income and number of college graduates in the household, things get much clearer. So let's discuss this same scenario using those terms instead of race and throw in some numbers to illustrate the point (obviously a hypothetical):
Students in households with $80,000 annual income or above and two college graduates (Group A):
Texas 250, Wisconsin 248Students in households with less than $80,000 but at least $40,000 annual income and one college graduate (Group B):
Texas 240, Wisconsin 237Students in households with less than $40,000 annual income and zero college graduates (Group C):
Texas 230, Wisconsin 225Percentage of students in each group:
Texas - 20% Group A, 20% Group B, 60% Group C
Wisconsin - 40% Group A, 40% Group B, 20% Group CResulting total scores:
Texas - 236, Wisconsin - 239Now looking at the above, how would anyone rationally argue that the education system in Wisconsin would be better than in Texas? The education system is not the problem in Texas, the problem is that a much higher percentage of students are coming from disadvantaged home situations that are forcing them to start the educational process in a hole and fight their way out. In fact, just like in the racially separated figures, in this example poor students actually perform closer to their more well-off peers in Texas than in Wisconsin. Texas outperforms Wisconsin by every reasonable metric, but if you just look at the final number you will come to the completely wrong conclusion about the education system in each place.
That is why I said the education system in Texas is fine but we are failing elsewhere. The GOP proposal that started this thread would only further exacerbate that problem and that's why it's a terrible idea. Texas public education is doing better work than most States in this country, especially considering that we handcuff the system due to other policy areas.
-
7
-
Anderson High senior murdered by two Murchison eighth graders
in Daily Texan
Posted
Well yeah, they're dorks.