Foosters

LHN available everywhere with DTV trial, or limited to Texas?

Agreed. Who said that?

Who among us doesn't wish this classic moment would have been played on turf so Ricky could have been covered in bits of minced tire.

LOL what? The two airports are 25 miles away from each other. I'm thinking its more like 8-10 minutes.

Fair enough

14 teams use turf. 14 use natural grass. 2 use some weird hybrid. FWIW, European soccer is pretty much exclusively grass and they balk at the prospect of their players having to play on field turf. This summer, UNC was forced to truck in pallets of sod to cover their turf field for an exhibition between Chelsea and Wrexham because the two UK clubs refused to play on the artificial surface. The point being, the issue of safety predates Rogers's injury. Also, here's a link to an essay by the NFLPA President from April, 2023 where he discusses the issue. This also is prior to the Rogers injury. https://nflpa.com/posts/nfl-approach-field-surface-uneven

Depends on whether the owner can convince the local gov't to make the taxpayers pay for it.

Sounds like your issue is more with the conclusion that grass is safer. FWIW, the NFLPA is basing that on the number of injuries over a 10 year period. Feel free to take a look at the numbers. You're a smart poster, so I know you're not trying to say that because there were numerous injuries on a grass field, the conclusion that grass is safer is incorrect.

This all makes sense, but what about the many NFL and NCAA stadiums that already use grass? About half of all NFL stadiums have natural grass. Don't they all have to deal with the same issues that you're describing?

Other than a true dome, how is not feasible? Yes, the injuries are occurring because its a contact sport. Does not mean it cannot be made safer.

My bad. Didn't know this case met the elements of a willy-nilly transfer.

Taking the NCAA's side here? Ok....

Negs probably have less to do with "wokeness" and more to do with the fact that on a thread about explicit racist taunts directed towards our players, you jumped in with, "actually, it is I, the white man, who is the real victim here."

Wrong. Aggy only hires coaches with Nattys on the wall. Mack Brown, come on down.

Bless your heart

Thank god we're not in the big xii where horns down is a penalty. Thanks SEC!

Anyone seen a list of recruits hosted by Alabama this weekend?

Yeah smoke all your weed before you cross into that god forsaken land

Whatever happened to that dumb girl who had to go to LSU bc she was too stupid to get into any halfway decent school? I assume she's a grifter with a podcast?

Cooperating in the prosecution of others is a totally different story. Choosing to not give up a constitutional right should not be seen as "not cooperating." There are other ways to incentive pleas that don't involve increasing the punishment by several orders of magnitude should the plea be rejected.

Because the government is now in front of a judge saying "your honor, this person is such a grave threat, that they must be imprisoned for 33 years." Anything less is insufficient. Yeah, its true that just a few months ago we thought this case was worth 7 years, but now we think its worth more than 4x the amount. There are no additional facts, btw, that would justify the departure. Everything we knew about the defendant's conduct, we knew when we offered 7. Had the defendant accepted the plea, the Gov would have found itself in front of the same judge, justifying why 7 years is an appropriate sentence on the case. And LOL at you're use of "cooperate." Giving up a constitutional right, pleading guilty, and being sentenced to years in prison just so the gov't doesn't have to do their job is not what I would call cooperating. Two days ago, a colleague lost a trial. The defendant was offered "time served" from the people prior to the trial. He maintained his innocence. A jury disagreed. The people are now asking for 3 years in prison. Is that fair? Is that justice? But this is a regular practice. I've begged clients not to take a deal bc I believe the defense was solid and they were innocent. But they had offers to plead for "time served" and knew the DA would be asking for multi-year prison sentences at trial if they lost. So they took the deal, got out of jail, and now have a felony on their record. The entire concept is built around scaring people into pleading guilty, regardless of the state of the evidence; and, bottom line, you are punishing people for exercising a constitutional right.

I couldn't help but go to the anti-Semitic/pedophilic/racist website because the alternatives aren't convenient is a take. TBH, its not so much using the site that bothers me. Its posters who bitch non-stop about the grave threat of the messages being amplified on twitter, but still use the product. Edit: I understand that the media's reliance on Twitter to push their stories is mostly to blame, and its left users without much of an alternative. If the larger media groups decided to stop using Twitter as their primary form of disseminating their product, the site would be rendered obsolete overnight. But, that would hurt the bottom line. So instead, you have *very serious* think pieces written in serious publications about the dangers of the rise of antisemitism, posted on twitter right next to a post by GastheJ3ws1488. Feels like I'm taking crazy pills.