UTDD

I'm on the fence as I think Bethesda is really good at world building and narrative, but this is kind of a different direction for their studio. Having no human NPCs is a negative to me as I would have loved to have some kind of cool "hub" area/town with NPC traders and quest givers (maybe even a seedy bar, etc) where players can just chill, role play, trade, etc. I think the initial launch will likely be riddled with server issues, but that it will later stabilize and become a better game after 3-6 months. I think I would seriously be looking at this right about when something like Anthem is coming out or so.

Daniels is really good, he is making a couple of tough NFL throws that not too many college QBs can master even after a few years. He just needs some time to continue to develop and USC should be good to go at that position for a few more years.

I honestly don't know if other NBA teams have great policies or not -- every HR/legal department is different but you would hope organizations this large would be on top of this type of thing. I tend to think truly good leadership will translate to good standards more often than not, so having a few key executives with the vision and foresight to ensure the brand (team) is not in danger is of paramount importance. I am sure every team has some sort of policy but the issue is whether the policy is great (or not) on paper, and how it actually translates to solving actual issues that may arise. Let's not forget other things have come up in the past as well (for example Thomas with the Knicks) here and there. I still think the NBA could have taken this as a PR opportunity to commit somehow to all NBA teams following a very good set of uniform guidelines for reporting/standards that are somehow based on specific metrics that are recommended best practices by the appropriate organization(s) (experts in this area) to nip this issue in the bud in a big way (plus the positive PR both helps the league long-term and deflects the attention on reporters possibly investigating other teams and/or employees of other NBA teams coming out with their own stories more easily). The NBA certainly doesn't need to do this at all, but it would be very proactive and aggressive in ensuring maximization of their long-term brand.

Marvel clearly planned ahead with multiple films and years of connected stories and made everything tie together even with very distinct films and different heroes, etc. Star Wars clearly did not have a good plan for their new trilogy and having one director set up a bunch of story-lines and then the next one completely deviating in a disconnected way with his own take and the director replacements, etc. They should have had a complete trilogy planned with all three laid out right from the start and planned accordingly.

I don't think it's fair to compare Sterling to Cuban in that Sterling clearly initiated his own personal conduct in a way that was a danger to the entire NBA if something was not done swiftly. The players themselves would have revolted (this is a huge factor that made the owners act) and harmed the NBA owners with no action, and that (unfortunately in some ways when you think about it) is not the case with this situation at all. I think the actual harm of Dallas' workplace is much worse than Sterling's comments with real victims, but Cuban himself didn't conduct himself that way. I think Cuban's very strong level of cooperation with the NBA investigation and quick changes in the organization (new CEO a very big one) saved him from losing a draft pick or being suspended for some time this season. I do think the NBA missed a real golden opportunity to showcase a level of commitment to this issue for example creating a new campaign aimed to target these issues with say an NBA task force (even a new executive position perhaps just for this issue at the NBA) and set of guidelines and standards signed by all NBA owners in unison for all NBA teams with new reporting standards and many other changes that could have been a great PR move for them. The NBA has always been so superior to the NFL in being proactive with many issues, but I think they missed a good chance here.

Biggest impact play so far in 2018 with O'Neal/Sterns:

Alabama has always had the defense and a great punishing offensive game, but I don't know if Alabama has ever had this level of a passer in a long time. Tua can already make many NFL throws that need great anticipation, vision, and accuracy. They seem so far much more explosive than some of their other great teams. I am skeptical Clemson (at least right now) is really close to Alabama and I would be surprised if A&M can keep this under a 25 point gap.

Interesting list but the injury issue with Kawhi made a difference... Here is another list of Top 15 that was composed by a group of people internally that do a lot of analytics so there is likely some bias towards specific metrics that are relevant to their own work... 1. LBJ Sports Illustrated (1) 2. Durant (2) 3. Curry (3) 4. AD (5) 5. Kawhi (12) 6. Harden (4) 7. Giannis (6) 8. Westbrook (7) 9. Paul (8) 10. Embiid (9) 11. Jokic (not in top 15) 12. Butler (10) 13. Gobert (14) 14. Green (13) 15. Oladipo (not in top 15)

Texas could end up having a solid year if things break right, but realistically I doubt Texas can truly win 10+ games with Sam's upside even beyond this year. He can end up pretty good, but he just will never be an elite passer in terms of borderline and up NFL level anticipation and accuracy. I hope I am wrong, but I think one has to hope Rising (or maybe Card or someone else later) in fact can end up the starter down the road as an elite QB.

I would like from to see from Shaka better player development (both basketball IQ and skills), better adjustments to the talents of the roster, and better game to game adjustments with opposing personnel. Recruiting is good considering (realistically) the program overall.

It's interesting to see what things bother people specifically. I consider myself totally immune for the most part to the typical lies and B.S. spewing from both political parties at time, and don't really get into the semantics of who is worse as I feel the severity of an action is often the circumstances of opportunity versus intent. Having said that, what Trump did with not honoring McCain at first was far, far, more worse to me than anything he has ever said or done and that single act forever took away my vote. (I did vote for him in 2016 because I did not trust Hillary Clinton but was open to other Democratic candidates)

If anyone remembers this, Herman had clearly said three backs (kind of like Tier 1) in his own presser before Maryland, but Beck kind of kept sneaking in "4 backs" a few times about the running game and I had this sinking feeling...kind of played out how I feared.

I don't think Roberts will ever vote for a complete removal of Roe as a fundamental right to privacy. I could be wrong, but I feel he really does respect stare decisis and also thinks about the institution of the Supreme Court itself a lot more than some of the other Supreme Court justices. He might have no problem not giving the right of abortion if it was a new legal issue, but it's quite different to remove a right that has been granted and affirmed again. Having said that, you certainly could see states chip away at abortion rights with access, what time period of pregnancy, and so forth. A possible best and worst case scenario I see depending which side you are on is that in the end it becomes difficult enough to get abortions in a specific state so people will have to cross state lines perhaps for easier access or even do something themselves. Hard to say though.

No one can do what Steph does especially causing such gravity from opposing defenses, but Nash was nearly a 43% shooter from 3 for his career, which is pretty amazing frankly and just below Steph's career percentage (.436 vs .428). Plus, his shooting tailed off his last four years (3 years under 40% from 3 versus only one injury season shooting under 40% in just 40 games prior to that in his entire career) as he aged (he was over 36 from that point) so his percentage before that was even higher. I think he would be fine with today's schemes favoring his style of play even more than during his own playing days and his playmaking would still be dangerous. His poor defense would still be bad though.

I'm trying to imagine Nash playing today in Golden State's offense with that roster minus Curry. That would be a lot of fun to watch. I think today's game would benefit his skill set even more than during his playing days.

I would be curious to know how overall benefit costs and PT vs FT are possibly impacted by wages in certain sectors. I only wonder based on a specific example where I consulted with a company for something else (not tied to wage increases as that was being consulted by others), and long story short they ended up with the exact same FTE (full time employee "slots" based on budgeting with basically 200+ full-time slots based on hours) but when you actually broke it down further, they compensated for higher wages by splitting their workforce from 80/20 FT/PT (basically full benefits or not) to about 30/70 and their benefit costs were tweaked down. Their overall budgeted payroll was down, but of course that is not factoring turnover, training, and other ancillary costs I am not familiar with for this example.

I think an important difference this time is that Texas has now suffered for a longer period of ineptitude and just went through the culmination of the Kansas loss with Strong so I would think patience wears more thin the longer it lasts.

On the outside: "I'm in full support of your vision and direction of the program. What else can we do together to improve our football program? What are your biggest concerns right now with everything and where do you see the team right now and going forward and how can we make it better?" On the inside (internally in one's own mind): Evaluate his responses, vet his strategic evaluations, but externally give full support knowing he likely needs it right now, but take mental notes to specifically evaluate the progression of the program over the season just in case you need to make a move in about 2020/2021. If progression seems stalled later in the season, quietly vet with trusted football minds that you can 100% trust with confidentiality and evaluate if their insights and issues they see mirror/differ from Tom knowing of course that they are not from the same perspective as Tom and taking that into account.

They need an elite QB to return to prominence. You need other things as well, but that's a huge one. How many games even last year did we realistically lose on bad QB play? I don't think they have one on the roster right now except maybe a low chance on Rising but he's not burning his red-shirt this year.

I just try to imagine Herman playing Tua in the second half against Georgia last year, and I just don't see it. As for Texas, I'd even rather take a chance and maybe even lose an extra game or two now if it means playing the best players overall for the long-term. You can watch Ingram for all of a few plays to see he should be playing more this season and I can't understand why anyone would play Porter for any reason. Even in literally only two plays with a first time freshman playing his first ever game, you could see right away Ingram is light years ahead of multiple seasons of watching Porter for his vision and ability to both cut back on his blockers and make people miss. I just don't understand how they are deciding personnel decisions on offense sometimes...

I think the Lakers have done pretty well to at least set themselves up to have options and flexibility without sacrificing their young core. (Hart, Kuzma, Ingram, Lonzo) The Deng/Mosgov contracts are essentially almost indefensible and a prime reason the Lakers were right to strip Buss (son not Jeanie) of basketball operations. I also like having a former super agent with deep ties to the league, players, and the salary cap as a part of their GM team now. They have managed to minimize that contract damage and even got rid of IMHO a bad seed (no way he can likely ever be a leader) in Russell going to the Nets. The Lakers won't likely get KD, but they should target him, Kawhi, and also Klay Thompson (very unlikely too, but he would feast maybe as well or better as with GS with LeBron and Lonzo as play makers on the same team) next year. I wouldn't go after Butler personally, I think he is a pretty good player but not worth the max salary slot he would command for their specific roster going forward. If you imagine a Lakers death lineup in key stretches of Lonzo, KCP/Hart, Kawhi, Ingram/Kuzma, and LeBron that's a pretty good overall lineup with the ability to switch well, good passers, and a lot of speed, length, and athleticism everywhere. Offensively, not as sure.

Nod on the rule, but I still doubt they play Rising this early just in case of a real injury. I do think they can play Rising before the final four games, but I doubt he plays before that rough four game stretch.

The better the offensive line, the more I might wonder if Shane can do a little better. At best. I need to see the offensive line against a little more talent on the other side to really feel better about this unit for the year. I also don't think they can waste Rising until the last four games absent injury.

I legitimately so far think their QB is a better passer than Sam. He seems pretty accurate for a game plus, nice size and a pretty live arm.

The first and third explanation bother me. I would have wanted him to flat out say it doesn't matter the circumstance, it's on me as the leader of the team if we turn the ball over in crunch time.