What?!? Why would you even consider this?
First, this is a gedankenexperiment, not an actual proposal. Sometimes you just have to think about the world in different ways. Secondly, the clock rules in football are stupid, and other than tradition no one would create them the way they are. While this is an extreme example, here is the kind of things that happen with the current rules:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ELRub8n7s
What would replace them?
Simple, there would be a play counter. Each quarter would consist of 35 plays from scrimmage (28 in High School). Exceptions would be extra points and plays with an accepted penalty (dead ball penalties occur during a dead ball and would be no different from today). Kickoffs and free kicks are not from scrimmage and would not count as plays. Field goal attempts and punts would. Thirty-five works out about right. Current NFL teams run just about 70 plays per game on average. Most colleges run a bit more, but see below for how that would change.
There would still be a play clock, but its rule could be set for whatever pace of play is wanted, without concern for the game clock.
How would this change the game?
In many ways, not at all. In others, dramatically. The big changes would be:
- Passing vs Running – We wouldn’t have 4.5 hour long Washington State games because a pass play, whether complete or incomplete, in bounds or out, would take up the same “time” as a running play. On the other hand, an 18 play, all run, death-march drive would take up half a quarter instead of 60 to 65 percent of one.
- High tempo offenses wouldn’t get more plays. A high tempo offense would still have advantages, but adding extra possessions onto the game isn’t one of them.
- The end of half/game would change dramatically.
- If you have the lead, 1st down and 4 or left on the play counter, you can take a knee (or 4). Much easier to figure out when you can go to victory formation.
- Time outs aren’t for stopping the clock, they would be used like they are in the first half, to avoid confusion or to give a team a rest. We could probably reduce the number of them.
- The field opens up for comeback offenses. You no longer need to throw sideline routes. The middle of the field is opened up, as is running plays if you think that would be more successful.
- Clocking the ball goes away. No need to waste a play stopping the clock. In fact, it would be counterproductive.
There are other ways it would change the game, discuss in the comments.
What was the point of all this again?
It was a fun idea I had about a decade ago and have been noodling around with since then. I do think it would make end of games more exciting, without the extra time out breaks and letting teams run whatever play works best. It gets rid of some of the arbitrariness in the rules, especially with the fast vs slow moving referees and the silliness over checking the clock to see if there is 1 second left or not. But it’s not a serious proposal…no wait, yes, it is. This would make football better. It should be done. There are no down sides, in my opinion, and plenty of advantages. You might disagree, but you would be wrong. It will never happen, this is further outside the Overton window than the Single Land Tax. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwYX52BP2Sk
While we are on the topic of clocks in football, how about we get a clock that counts down and stops for injuries in soccer?
You would probably have to have that run as an experiment at the HS level – then maybe DIV II NCAA…if it is TV friendly (designate commercials after play X, Y and Z) then you might get the NFL to listen.
Each quarter would consist of 35 plays from scrimmage … Thirty-five works out about right. Current NFL teams run just about 70 plays per game on average.
Is your idea actually to have 35 plays per half, rather than quarter, or are you proposing to double the number of plays per game?
Check your math. 70 per team is 140 total. 35 per quarter is 35 x 4 = 140
It was my understanding that there would be no math.
Tundra says “Math class is hard!”
I read it as 70 plays per game, not 70 per game per team. Makes more sense the second way, I guess.
Privatize it (college football).
^This. If the NFL wants a minor league, let them pay for it.
I like it! Especially since the Vikings and clock management parted ways many years ago.
Might I humbly suggest this song?
Not only during the game, but during the draft, too.
We wouldn’t have 4.5 hour long Washington State games
Will there be a play clock? Will there be a limit on sideline “conferences”?
The refs will be issued cattle prods. It will be epic!
Will there be a play clock?
I think there would have to be. Otherwise, you’d still get games that are damned long, because somebody’s strategy is to fiddle-fuck around for 5 minutes between plays.
There would still be a play clock, but its rule could be set for whatever pace of play is wanted, without concern for the game clock.
Right there in the article.
We’re supposed to read the article before commenting? crazy.
Next, you’ll want me to read the instructions before assembling the gas grill.
Its the poor craftsman that get out the instructions.
Check the thermostat first.
I don’t know the rules in and out, so does this mean the league would set the play clock?
I assume so. If you want sedate and relaxed, set it at 60 seconds. you want to make it fast and furious, set it at 15 seconds. (Current play clock is 40? I think. Dunno, didn’t watch last year)
Clock interactions are some of the most interesting strategic considerations to me as a fan. Watching Peyton Manning slow down a game to reduce the variance available to a bad opponent was fascinating. The newer up-tempo offences are a lot of fun to watch. Giving running a unique ability to keep the game clock going while (possibly) netting first downs keeps the otherwise inferior run choice from being dominated by passing.
BUT
Officials have too much impact late in the game in football. Basketball and hockey refs can and should swallow their whistle at the end of a game, but that’s just not possible in football. Every play could be a hold in the O-line or defensive backfield. Now, every miraculous endzone catch is determined by a very complicated Rube Goldberg machine made of Schrödinger’s cats that spits out random numbers. Any time the ref is “on the clock” be it setting the ball or anything else, the clock should stop and it there should be a clock operator who’s only job is to hold down a button when the refs do or should be controlling the ball. And the NFL’s catch rules can just fuck right on off. But getting rid of the clock would improve this too.
Also, I think that this would mean that the game would favor boom-or-bust play styles. If you have a set number of plays (instead of a set number of drives), I would think that optimization would require you to try to optimize the number of drives (and thus projected points) per play allocation. So we’d see the return of the 70’s long ball or the Joe Flacco Throw It Up And Pray for PI style. I can’t see a running game in that world. That may be good or it may be bad, depending on what you like to see.
the NFL’s catch rules can just fuck right on off
Hear, hear!
I don’t get the problem with the catch rules.
Other than the fact that they are not intuitive, aren’t logically consistent, can’t be administered equally by all officiating crews, are decoupled from a world with force vectors, and are vague on important concepts, there’s not much wrong with them.
Aren’t logically consistent? A catch is when you catch the ball without it falling out of your hands and it touching the ground. If you are going to the ground while completing this action and the ground makes the ball move in your hands, it’s not a catch. That is pretty logically sound to me.
Those are no longer the rules. The catch rule now is “he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.”
I was going to link to the official rules. but NFL.com is now updated with the new rules that were recently voted in place. The used to have vaguely overlapping but certainly contradictory descriptions of control and possession such that it was possible to have possession without control, control without possession, both, and neither, depending on what you do. Then other places in the rules would use them interchangeably as if they were the same thing.
There’s also the gibberish about making a “football move” or somesuch.
The ball doesn’t touch the ground until after the whistle. Whoever has it when the whistle blows caught the ball. This doesn’t need to be so fucking complicated.
Who cares if the ball moves in your hand when you hit the ground, as long as it doesn’t touch the ground. If I land on my back and the ball pops out of my hands five yards straight up in the air, and the d-back catches the ball on the way down, its an interception. If I catch it on the way down, its a catch.
CPRM linked to a clip down thread of a Bucs playoff game where a receiver made what would be considered a completed catch now but was ruled incomplete then because part of the ball touched the ground following a leaping catch. It fit every reasonable definition of a catch, but because of the rules at the time it was overturned.
Oh, and they’re apparently talking about bringing the “football move” standard back. I always hated that shit. I would think, “What’s a football move? You mean like catching the ball?” But, the argument for it is that at least it’s a standard. Currently,
“There’s also the gibberish about making a “football move” or somesuch.”
Which doesn’t appear in the rules, and is not ever referenced by the refs, only by the talking heads.
The “football move” is the equivalent of “She won the popular vote!”
“If you are going to the ground while completing this action and the ground makes the ball move in your hands, it’s not a catch.”
Except when it is. There’s a certain amount of movement some refs are willing to tolerate, and there’s a tremendous amount of subjectivity. And then there are the “catches” made when it’s maybe a split-second difference between the receiver’s hands getting the ball and the ball touching the ground as he goes down. Christ, they’re even thinking about going back to the “football move” standard, which IMO was awful.
Unless you’re in the end zone. And then a catch is different from any other touchdown where merely possessing the ball within the boundaries of the end zone is an automatic touchdown.
Calvin Johnson has a sad. Still that 2010 call was nuts. And I say that as a Bears fan. I still remember it 8 years on.
And replay officials get them wrong too.
“how about we get a clock that counts down and stops for injuries in soccer?”
Under discussion: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/17/football-rule-makers-reducing-games-60-minutes
Interesting. I like pretty much all the suggestions, especially this one:
Interesting article, though I don’t see any of those rules actually being adopted. Hell, it took them a decade just to start using goal-line technology and VAR. Also, when it comes to time-wasting, diving etc. it’s already on the books; the damn refs just have to start actually enforcing the rules. Dawdling to get off the field during a sub, yellow card. Keeper counting blades of grass before taking a goal kick, yellow card. Diving, fake injuries and defenders standing over the ball on free kicks, yellow card, yellow card, yellow card. Players won’t stop doing it unless they’re actually getting penalized for it; a stern talking to from the ref isn’t gonna cut it.
If the whole WC looked like the first round, with refs holding the whistle and trusting to VAR, it would have been great. Make dives reviewable. The defenders on free kicks is fine. If the offense wants to set up, they ask for their 10 yards, and the ref will enforce it. Its like letting the defense sub in American football any time the offense does.
Right there in the article.
You slay me.
wait, is that 35 plays per team? Then you’d run into a problem with a team with a lot of turn overs having extra plays when the other doesn’t have any left. If it’s 35 total, then you can have it even worse with dink and dunk teams taking all the plays, it’s a lot easier to waste a play than it is to waste time.
Total, but you are wrong. For example, a triple option team can eat up 9+ minutes with an 18 play drive, no problem. But that is actually a slightly smaller percentage of the plays per quarter than the clock. Honestly, the numbers aren’t too different. The only difference is a team with lots of incompletes can now eat up “clock”.
I think strategies would just change, and there would be plays designed to be wasted. With a clock even the teams trying to play the clock will try to get the first down on 2nd and 1. But I think if it was simply based on play count you’d have more teams try wasted that play.
I dont think so, because no one does it when trying to burn the opponents time outs at end of game either. With the rare exception of the 1 pt lead, the worst case scenario of not using enough plays up is you score a touchdown. You are more likely to screw that up trying to use 3 downs to get each first down than just getting what you can get.
One of my all time favorite drives is at the end of the GT-Clemson game in 2011. Momentum had totally swung and was going Clemson’s way with 10:30 to go. GT runs up the middle 3 times. First down. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. 4 more plays, turn the ball over on downs, Clemson has time to do diddly left. 16 plays total, 4 first downs, all on 3rd down.
Running up the middle was intentional. But getting the first downs faster would have been better if possible. It might have meant kicking the FG or clinching the game with a TD.
Yes, but how does this scenario solve that pesky, “did he catch the damn ball or not” problem?
I don’t get the problem with the catch rules.
It depends on what the meaning of
iscatch is.The NFL is well on their way to having fine tuned me right out of watching.
People still watch Pro football?
Sunday is a holy day in the SP/OMWC household.
I prefer college these days, but yeah, the siren song of the NFL tempts me on occasion. I’m a Redskins…survivor…so it’s not usually a happy time, although there is a lot of booze involved. Kind of like a wake.
Speaking of the other football… England at the U19 Euros… currently being totally demolished by France. And there’s still 20 minutes left. Don’t dust off your World Cup dreams any time soon, Brits.
This year was the closest they’re gonna get for another 50 years.
A catch is when you catch the ball without it falling out of your hands and it touching the ground. If you are going to the ground while completing this action and the ground makes the ball move in your hands, it’s not a catch.
Get back to me when you can put 50 referees in a room, show them a series of “catch or no catch?” replays once at 100% speed and consistently get the same call from at least 45 of them.
I know there is a problem with refs being inconsistent, but before these rules we had this.
Fair point. I’m in favor of a catch rule that most closely mirrors what someone who has never watch football and doesn’t care about sports would deem a catch. In other words, Pajamaboy should be able to see a borderline case and say definitively, “That guy caught the ball” or “That guy didn’t catch the ball.” That will necessarily eliminate some things that are currently considered catches, or allow catches that are currently considered incomplete, but as long as it’s as consistent as possible and eliminates as much subjectivity as possible, I’m for it. So, like, maybe some standard where the receiver receives a live ball and holds it in at least one hand without the ball moving independently. Essentially, a completed catch is the moment when the act of catching the ball has ended successfully and the ball would be referred to by someone on the street as “caught”.
I caught some of the Speed Rugby tournament the other night. Good stuff.
That looks like a catch to me. He had control and retained possession. Move the sticks.
OT – The moral of this story: Dems need to get better at lying about their intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support
I would rather stick a fork in my eye that listen to the Guardian progsplaining Trump’s support.
Ixnay on the ax-tay ut-cay eanuts-pay!
The Supreme Court, period.
My life, my kid’s lives, my grandkid’s lives will all be better because Trump, and not Clinton, is filling SCOTUS vacancies.
Agree. If RBG is off soon, Trump will have picked a third of the court instead of Clinton.
Can we call it divine intervention at that point?
Seconded. I don’t care if he burns the White House down, so long as he gets a few good judges in the SC.
Nor are Trump’s voters united by racism and sexism, as many on the left presume. Analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute’s Emily Ekins found that Trump’s general election support broke into five groups. Only one, the American Preservationists, contained a large number of voters who could be said to be generally hostile to racial and ethnic minorities per se. They were outnumbered by another group, the Free Marketeers, whose attitudes towards racial and ethnic minorities were as or more tolerant than the attitudes of Hillary Clinton supporters.
^hey, looks who no longer polling millennials!
“contained a large number of voters who could be said to be generally hostile to racial and ethnic minorities per se”
Wanna bet the poll questions used to generate that are along the lines of “Do you think the border should be secured?”
dead ball penalties occur during a dead ball and would be no different from today
Are Neuticle substitutions permitted?
OT – So after a couple of years of absurdly over the top headlines, the NYDN leans “get woke, go broke” the hard way.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33413/new-york-daily-news-announces-mass-layoffs-staff-ashe-schow
Even in NYC people’s tolerance for hyperbolic hatred of Republicans/conservatives is limited.
They got bought out by Tronc, Inc (Tribune), which is probably the dumbest name for a corporation that ever existed.
I’m pretty sure Tronc was a popular dance move that lasted about 3 months on twitter and got Controversial Ballman in trouble when he did it during a game, then was never heard from again when the winds of popular culture changed.
I thought Tronc was a card game played by gangster rap aficionados in the 90s.
Tribune already owned NYDN. Tribune got bought out by a complete moron.
LOL I am shocked. That rag has been unreadable for a few years now. It was actually middle-of-the-road for a long time before going hard left.
NYDN to Cruz – Drop Dead, Ted.
Ted Cruz to NYDN – Hows that working out for you?
Related:
https://twitter.com/kebejay/status/1021426380150484992
OT – Now’s she free to have sex with other men! Oh wait…
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/07/23/stormy-daniels-getting-divorced/
What a trainwreck. Trump sure can pick ’em.
You think some normal, healthy 35 year old in a happy marriage is gonna bang some 60ish orange dude who is known to be married?
When he is a billionaire sure maybe.
Remember, all bitches be crazy at least a little so the “normal healthy 35 year old” still rates at a minimum a 4 or 5 on the batshit crazy scale
I saw a documentary with Woody Harrelson, Demi Moore, and Robert Redford about this very subject.
Which one played the normal woman?
People have weird kinks.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/07/how-to-make-an-open-relationship-work-and-more-advice-from-dear-prudence.html
Q. Not getting any: My husband of four years and I have an open relationship and date people separately. Lately, he has been fairly successful in dating, whereas I have not. I am happy for him, but I also feel jealous and angry that I am not having similar results. To compound things, our sex life has dwindled. He works evenings and is always tired when I initiate—which I totally believe!—but it leaves me feeling depressed and unwanted.
Woman who is willing but can’t get laid — at home or away from home. Hmm, I wonder why.
But where do Vicky Vallencourt’s boobs factor in?
This Larry Fedora CTE comment was being talked about on sports talk radio the other day and the radio host was saying football wasn’t under attack and no one is trying to ruin the game then in the next sentence talked about how they will probably get rid of kick offs.
OT: So, wait, what exactly is the illegal thing that the adorable Maria Butina is alleged to have done? Be Russian? It seems like the biggest gotcha they’re kicking around is that she might actually be Russian intelligence instead of just a Russian person interested in lobbying for Russian stuff in the US. But, even if that’s the case, foreign interests lobby Congress all the time. That’s not illegal to the best of my knowledge.
Also, I mean, I’ve got several guns and I vote, so if she or perhaps a sister or cousin of hers is interested I’d be happy for her to infiltrate the Naptown organization.
They got bought out by Tronc, Inc (Tribune), which is probably the dumbest name for a corporation that ever existed.
They didn’t fall into that vat of toxic sludge on purpose.
LOL, I’m old to know what you’re referring to, which means I’m too old.
I’m also old enough to accidentally a word.
Also-
What the fuck happened to “The ground can’t cause a fumble”?
It still can’t, but it can cause an incomplete pass.
I abandoned football a long, long time ago.
I was shocked to find out that the rules no longer said a catch was control of the ball and the ground can’t cause a fumble. This is essential football. What the fuck have they done to the game?
You are down or the pass is incomplete.
Incorrect. This hurts comeback attempts at least as much as it helps them.
First. If does not open up running plays at ALL. In fact it likely forces teams to abandon running plays far earlier in the game.
Scenario 1: we are down 2 TD’s with 17 plays left to go
Scenario 2: we are down 2 TD’s at the start of the 4th quarter
In scenario 1 I know that I am going to need to get a minimum of ~80 yards or roughly 5 yards per play in order to score the 2 TD’s I need. Hard to find the room to mix more than 1 or 2 more running plays into that 17.
In scenario 2 I know that I need the same number of yards but assuming I can control the ball for 10 of the final 15 minutes it means I need about 8 yards per minute and I can easily mix 1 run and 2 pass plays into a minute for at least the next 7 minutes
Second while it does open up the middle of the field it does not really expand your viable play selection at all. Sure you no longer need to worry about the clock but under the clock situation you could afford to have a large number of 0 gain plays mixed in with a handful of moderate to large gains. With a play limit a single 0 gain play is as devastating to you as wasting 30 seconds on a running play
Third unlike the current situation where a team with a lead is more concerned with preventing a big play and therefore dropping back and playing prevent thereby opening up underneath routes to short and intermediate gains with a play limit the goal is to prevent the other team from advancing the ball at all on as many plays as possible and so there is never an incentive to loosen up the defense. While that does leave the opening for a broken play to lead to a quick score far more often it will serve to just shut down the comeback attempts in a handful of 4 and outs.
No this does not help a team trying to come back AT ALL and likely makes it harder to come back from a deficit.
What it does do however is make blowouts far more likely. Since you know exactly how many plays a game you are going to get you need to ensure you can score on them as often as possible meaning you have every incentive to run up the score. Currently with the clock once you have a comfortable lead the incentive is to go heavy running game to burn as much clock as possible. Since that heavy running game no longer gives you any advantage at all and you know they are going to eventually get to run just as many plays as you there is no reason to not try and score a touchdown as quickly as possible on every possession.
Nope sorry this would have exactly the opposite effect on comebacks and blowouts as you suggest. You would find far more 45 – 10 games in the NFL than ever and “4th quarter” comebacks would become a thing of the past because coming back from a 2 score deficit with 1/4th of the game still left to play would almost never happen.
If that were the case then teams would do that now, as the best way to defend against a comeback with the clock is to just force a 4 and out. But, the fear of the big broken play is exactly why teams play prevent.
Also, as the number of plays is approximately the same as today, it really doesnt change anything, you just cant map the plays to a flat clock. Teams play slower for 28 minutes and then faster for 2. But the same number of plays occur. So it would be as if teams went to the 2-minute offense sooner, but in terms of plays, it isn’t any faster. With 2 minutes to go, coaches think “I have about 10 plays left, I need to change how I play”. They will change the thinking to “I have 10 plays left, I need to change how I play.” Which is exactly the same thing.
And, if you want to play the “rules then vs rules now” game, go look at some of Jim Brown’s runs. He would have been called down three or four times. So what.
Football post with no cheerleaders. Sad.
https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/images/Houston-Texans-cheerleaders-GettyImages-492021718_master.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d6/7f/ee/d67fee017bea72a3ad52beef5e62a068.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/27/73/65/27736564a96068873d641cdf9f644101.jpg
Excellent, danke!
I’m old to know what you’re referring to, which means I’m too old.
“Tronc” makes me think of the guys who made those spectacularly awful “Toxic Avenger” movies. Troma, I think.
Troma, Tronc, same diff
Don’t you be badmouthing Cannibal! The Musical.
Apparently, the new rule is for the exiting Supreme Court justice to pick his/her/its replacement. What are the odds RBG bequeaths her seat to Mulatto Nixon?
They do it for Congress, why shouldn’t it be the same for Supreme Court Justices?
She’s going to have to wait until 2024 for President Hillary “Cryogenic” Clinton
No worries. Whoever reanimates Hilldog can do the same for Weekend at Ruthie’s. We can look forward to another millennium with them at the wheel!
Sorry, I really didn’t mean to reanimate Hillary. I just can’t help pushing the realms of scientific knowledge.
Overall this is a horrible idea.
My offense is great and my first 7 possessions average 10 play drives leading to 27 points.
Over the same time my opponent has averaged 6 plays per possession and only 10 points
I now only have 0 offensive plays for the remainder of the game while my opponent has 34 offensive plays left
Their next possession is 9 plays and they get a field goal.
What happens now? They kick off to me and kick it out of the end zone. I take over on the 20 yard line and then what? I have no more offensive plays left. Do I just kick back off to them? from where? They get the ball back and go 4 and out then turn it over on downs on their own 40. Problem is I can’t take advantage because once again I have no offensive plays left so what, do I kick off again? From where this time? Now the problem sets in. A little while later the real problem sets in. my defense has been on the field for 15 consecutive plays without a rest and the other team still has 20 offensive plays left. 20 offensive plays against a gassed defense to score 2 TD’s and tie the game up all because I used up my plays far more efficiently and quickly than my opponent
My reading is that it’s total plays for both teams.
Your reading is correct. It is a clock, just with plays instead of time. Teams don’t get exactly 30 minutes TOP per game, why would people think I was suggesting exactly the same number of plays?
One question. Is it 35 plays per quarter or half?
35 plays per quarter, 70 per half, 140 per game.
The incentive would be to be able to consistently run 4-7 yards per play to maximize control of the number of the limited amount of possessions available while still scoring. Assuming you run from 20 yard line, you need to cover 80 yards to score a TD. 10 yards per first down and 3 plays to move 10 yards means a scoring possession that met the incentives would be 24 plays in a single possession. Leaving the other team only 11 plays to score that quarter. I think it makes 3 and outs way more dangerous for the offense.
As the fan of a triple option team, I like that incentive.
I originally though of this concept before Johnson was hired by GT. So that wasn’t the reason behind it.
I’m in favor of making offensive holding 5 yards instead of 10. Way too subjective to destroy an entire drive with a 10 yard penalty.
No penalties for holding behind line of scrimmage. If a defender can grab you and throw you out of his way, then you should be able to grab him.
It used to be 15 yards.
On the original topic: my thought was to give each team a fixed number of possessions…say 14 or 15. Sort of like innings.
You’d still have to have a play clock, definitely.
My other demand is that any pass caught behind the line of scrimmage should be scored as a running play. Including cheap screens and checkdown passes in the QB’s passing totals is bullshit. And get rid of ineligible receiver downfield–they should only be penalized if they attempt to catch the ball.
I’m torn. On the one hand, a well-executed offensive hold that goes under the radar can be a massive advantage to the offense, so I like the idea of making the price of getting caught so high as to be dissuasive. On the other hand, as you say, there seems to be a hell of a lot of subjectivity in the calls, and that’s a big penalty to impose on an offense that might not have earned it.
I think offensive linemen should wear boxing gloves.
I liked 10 yards from spot of foul like college rule used to be.
Right now, holding to prevent an 8 yard sack is only a 2 yard penalty and repeat the down.
Could do like grounding. make it spot of foul and loss of down.
Defensive holding shouldn’t be an automatic first down.
Any players (usually it’s going to be the WR) who mimes the “throwing a flag” motion to try to goad the ref into throwing a flag will get 15 yards for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
OT. One of the most brutal bits back hands I’ve read about a peer-reviewed in some time. Never heard of this think tank, but I like the cut of their jib so much I’m going to have to get familiar with them.
Large randomized trial finds state pre-k program has adverse effects on academic achievement. Reform is needed to increase effectiveness.
I’m also going to bundle this with the recent WSJ article on the Fed Soc about why conservatives have to, and do, learn more in academia than progressives.
Solution: more money; more teachers, higher pay, bigger and earlier pensions; & more drugging kids.
Spitballing: forcing immature children, almost infants, into regimented school structure at too early of an age.
The last thirty years of childhood progression is like something out of a deliberate attempt to fuck up children. Discouraging free play, particularly physical outdoor play, then expecting docile behavior for extended periods, and rather than using breaks along with expectations backed up with appropriate discipline, recommending medicating and therapy. At the other end, treating teens and young adults as children unable to make their own decisions (unless it’s abortion or sex) until they’re well into adulthood.
“deliberate attempt to fuck up children”
Prog sez: feature not bug.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
I would venture a lot of it is simple selection. Parents who are either unable or unwilling to keep their children at home and work with them send them to pre-K as an alternative baby sitting service. Development is not a concern.
This was my thought too.
OT – *Nelson laugh*
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_32023333/boulder-wore-me-down
Selvans, buddy, I’m not sure they’d have you.
perfect dense, walkable city that “doesn’t give a (expletive) about parking (and) where housing isn’t this inaccessible thing.”
So he is looking for a medieval city but with reasonable rents.
You know what makes housing expensive? Environmental rules and safety regulations. As long as you own or rent the land you should be free to live with 50 people in a pole building with a dirt floor, if you so desire.
From the article it looks like he was fighting some of that to allow higher density building but the NIMBY’s were fighting this.
Detroit, MI. If you’re dumb enough to park on the street, that’s your problem. Housing is cheap, its dense and “walkable” (not safely, exactly).
Not really very dense. In fact, it’s the opposite – it has a huge footprint, and isn’t walkable even if the city was thriving.
But they have a rapid transit thingy!
Kidding, I just looked up Boulder. Its like 50×80 city blocks. No wonder they don’t have any housing.
It’s walkable like Robert Hays walking through the airport.
Housing is affordable in Zurich? Maybe I’m way off, but I believe I’ve heard that living in Switzerland is rather expensive.
Based on my experience in the early 90s, it is super expensive.
Isn’t Zürich an extremely high cost of living city?
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Good riddance, wanna-be tyrant
Complaining about high cost of living then looking at Zurich… I’ll defer to Swiss, but “inexpensive” is not a word I associate with Zurich. Perhaps I have the wrong impression.
1. Major in warmista policies
2. Move to city with one of the highest costs of living in the world
3. ????
4. Somebody else will pay for it.
Doesn’t look terrible
One-bedroom 2017 average rental price in Boulder: $1,596
Monthly rent for 85 m2 (900 Sqft) furnished accommodation in EXPENSIVE area … $3,142
Maybe he’s just not good with math.
One-bedroom 2017 average rental price in Boulder: $1,596
That’s basically my mortgage on a 3-bedroom house on 1 1/6 acres.
But you live in Deploranazi-Land, not awesome, cool, dynamic, wonderful Boulder!
/sarc
Deploranazi-Land
We are down to 90.4% white people. We grow less deplorable every year.
Race – Population
Total – 3,134,693
White – 2,834,162
Black or African American – 111,867
Asian – 74,805
Two or More Races – 57,293
Some Other Race – 42,129
American Indian and Alaska Native – 10,488
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander – 3,949
29% more expensive than Boulder according to that website.
See. Not terrible.
Of course, you’re surrounded by Swiss.
Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
+1 It handles like a Bistro
Swiss approves!
Besides, I’m more interested in the 26% I would save by moving to Santiago.
Dude, check out Buenos Aires! Then I’d be stuck with Argentines.
Having just watched the Somebody Feed Phil episode in Buenos Aires, I want to go now. Food looks awesome.
According to that site, Albuquerque is in the bottom 50% cheapest places to live in the world. We’re slightly cheaper than Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and slightly more expensive than Amman, Jordan. And we’re in the bottom 10% in the U.S. So we’ve got that going for us.
Plus, blue meth.
Also, Gruet – I’d legit move for that. My favorite New Mexican
champagnesparkling wine.TIGHT! TIGHT! TIGHT!
$12 for 1 lb f boneless chicken breast, $7 for 1 gallon of Milk, $8 for a dozen eggs
That is one hell of a diet plan they got going on in Swiss country
It would literally cost me $3500 a month to feed my family with prices like that
The truth is that he’s never going to get what he wants becuase what he wants is contradictory.
So you’re saying he’s a woman?
gedankenexperiment
Wissen Sie, wer auch Deutsch anstelle von Englisch sprechen?
http://www.oktoberfest-dirndl-blog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/stockerpoint-trachten-minidirndl-flower-azur-50cm-a.jpg
Her significant other has good taste.
That’s kind of middle right, so she’s married but still a virgin?
Anal only.
Zehr gut!
Gosnell “got tired of being called a ploy and a puppet” for developers; tired, too, of watching friends move away when they could no longer afford to live here; tired of watching residents disparage renters, students and the poor in support of policies that slow growth and change — and yet divorce themselves from the real effects of those policies.
“When folks advocate against density in their neighborhood, they’re excluding people they purport to want here: artists and activists and all these people who make Boulder weird,” she said. “There’s a real human cost to saying no. I don’t feel this town actually, structurally wants me here.”
Boo fucking hoo.
WHYCOME THEM HICKS NO DO LIKE I SAY?
I remember reading an article about the artist types in some European city bitching about gentrification pushing them out. I wanted to see an interview with the people pushed out in the 60s and 70s by these artists.
Indeed – I want to ask the hipsters around here bitching about higher rents how the blue-collar Irish and Italians felt when the hipsters were moving in.
They could stay, they admit, if they took higher-paying jobs and sacrificed some of their time now dedicated to advocacy efforts. But both are fiercely committed to remaining active in their respective spheres.
Nagging and hectoring the rubes (who actually… you know… work for a living and pay the taxes to fund Boulder’s awesomeness) doesn’t pay well?
Maybe George Soros can cough up some grant money.
This is straight up stupid. Currently, the number of plays can vary greatly between he two teams. Of those 140 plays per game, it’s possible under the current system that one team would be running 100 plays while the other team is only running 40. Giving each team 70 plays each is just to damn egalitarian. Why not just have both teams play catch with each other and then at the end of the game, everyone gets a participation trophy, including everyone in the stands? What are you? Some sort of fucking Millennial?
A millennial commie!
Canadian football has bigger balls.
No seriously. The balls are bigger. When I say balls, I mean the pigskin. No, wait.
Forget it.
Giving each team 70 plays each is just to damn egalitarian.
Yeah, its a good thing the proposal sets the number of plays at 140 per game, instead of 70 per team.
I guess I misunderstood that.
Speaking of Tesla. Guess which company wants retroactive discounts from its supplier?
https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/23/report-tesla-wants-money-back-from-suppliers/