- 12:08 PM
- 11/21/24
So besides the condescension, what was the point you were making?
posted by Aardhart at 06:45 PM on April 20, 2011
rcade, you missed the context in which I used the word psycho-babble. If a label has no value except to sound authoritative, it is babble. I used psycho-babble to contrast with conditions that explain behavior.
In the Rosenhan experiment, psychology researchers (and other non-insane people) gained admission to psychiatric hospitals by calling for an appointment and feigning auditory hallucinations. While admitted, they acted normally. From wikipedia:
Hospital notes indicated that staff interpreted much of the pseudopatients' behavior in terms of mental illness. For example, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as "writing behavior" and considered it pathological. The patients' normal biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was expected of schizophrenics by the then-dominant theories of its etiology.
Calling note-taking "writing behavior" is psycho-bable. Similarly, if "kleptomania" is not a cause for theft, the term has no value and must be psycho-babble.
posted by Aardhart at 04:08 PM on April 20, 2011
Only if you don't understand the difference between causes and possible explanations.
Yeah, help me out here. I thought the explanation was that he stole stuff because he was a kleptomaniac, or had kleptomania, or whatever. But I think the condition is purportedly a cause, or a reason, for the action.
If there is no causal link, then I think there would be no value to couching a description of an action into psycho-babble. If saying that he has kleptomania is the same as saying he stole something, the label has no value. It also constitutes neither a cause nor an explanation.
Am I missing something, or is there something of value behind your condescension?
posted by Aardhart at 02:02 PM on April 20, 2011
When mental disorders can be uniformly diagnosed, more people will believe that they are "just like cancer."
The sad fact is that nearly any kid can be diagnosed with something that can be treated with anti-depressants, and anti-depressants have a similar effectiveness rate as placebos but they keep the drug companies' profits up. Is there any bad behavior that can't be blamed on a mental disorder?
posted by Aardhart at 08:53 PM on April 19, 2011
First thing I did was check the date of the article. I thought there was a good chance it was from April Fools. But it wasn't. Although surprising, I understand him not playing football because he hated it. This article was somewhat similar to the one on Jake Plummer. "People don't realize, he explains, how hard these guys train (15 to 20 hours a week) or how little they earn (less than $6,000 annually)."
posted by Aardhart at 11:55 PM on April 10, 2011
I think a few Cubs slid on the tarp during the rainout of their first planned home night game on 8-8-88. Then a few drunks from the crowd did it too. I remember them being criticized because of risk of injury.
posted by Aardhart at 02:12 PM on April 09, 2011
Any chance Notre Dame would join Big 10 hockey as a hockey only member? Would anyone care now that Nebraska is on board?
posted by Aardhart at 09:49 AM on March 22, 2011
Does soccer have a coin flip to determine who kicks off? (I casually follow big-time soccer. It did in my AYSO soccer league, but I can't recall any coin-flips at the World Cups.) If so, replace the coin flips with a shoot-out. Use the shoot-out for possession and to break a tie.
Using it only to break a tie that might not exist just seems somehow unacceptable to me.
posted by Aardhart at 03:00 PM on March 17, 2011
I got stuck with the Yankees.
posted by Aardhart at 01:49 PM on March 05, 2011
What are Brandon Davies' options now? Can he play Div. I basketball elsewhere on a scholarship next season? Can he get a scholarship to sit out a year at another school? If he has to take a year off, is that a year of eligibility forfeited or is like a red shirt year? Can he make it as a pro, NBA, Europe, or otherwise?
I assume he is done with BYU.
posted by Aardhart at 07:10 PM on March 03, 2011
What's sad is that that tradition is hopeless corruption.
posted by Aardhart at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2011
rcade, I like sports. I do not think sports should be banned. I just don't think that the connection between sports and college makes much sense.
I don't think the University of Chicago suffered too much from ending their football program, the Monsters of the Midway. I do not think Harvard and Yale suffered too much from ending their participation in bowl games and from dropping down from big-time football.
I did not choose my MAC college based on its athletic program. I chose it because it had the academic program I wanted and it was cheap. I went to football and basketball games while I was there, but they were free.
UNT, MAC schools, and Sunbelt schools will never have athletic programs that could rival Ohio State, Texas, Florida, or USC. Yeah, there is an occasional upset, but rarely is there a new member of the elite programs.
I think we just disagree on the cost-benefit analysis, and whether it is appropriate to spread the costs to unwilling students and tax-payers.
posted by Aardhart at 10:35 AM on February 25, 2011
FYI. I'm an alum of a MAC school.
You act as if the only point of college sports is to make money and entertain people.
No. I act as if the primary purpose of colleges is education, not to provide subsidies for sports.
posted by Aardhart at 09:14 AM on February 25, 2011
What's cool about abandoning 140 years of collegiate sports tradition and severing the tie between college alumni and their school teams?
I don't think my system of spinning off the teams would sever the ties. In pro sports, fans essentially cheer for one private company against another. Red Sox fans really have no ties to the team, except for they like that company more than the 29 other companies. The Buckeye Athletic Club, although no longer run by a University, would be a continuation of The Ohio State U. athletic tradition. It's just that the 30,000 undergrads would no longer be forced to pay fees to support athletes, whether they like them or not. And the University would no longer be forced to choose between using funds for building a new arena or building a academic research facility.
You'd be turning college football and basketball into second-tier pro sports leagues with arbitrary age restrictions.
They already are. Except instead of pro, shamateur.
Do you sense a lot of excitement among soccer fans for under-20 leagues?
No, but there is a lot of excitement for lower division soccer leagues.
Do you pine for the day the Buckeyes relocate to Los Angeles because they couldn't get Ohio to fund a publicly financed stadium?
I think there should never be publicly financed stadiums. You failed to stir my sympathy with this question.
The problem with college sports is shamateurism, not the idea of colleges fielding teams.
One problem is shamateurism. It's not the only problem.
95% of college sports are completely amateur by virtue of the fact they make no money at all.
I do not see why forcing other students to pay for the "education" of jocks that no one would pay to see is a good thing. The Sunbelt/MAC bowls cost schools millions of dollars, yet no team would turn down an invite to the dandelion bowl. Also, few fans/alums would make the trip.
Anyone who is sick of college football's ruling system has the non-BCS schools, the Football Playoff Subdivision and lower divisions to enjoy.
These schools are the ones that lose money, which has to come from somewhere. College students are adults. I don't think their recreation has to be subsidized by other students.
As far as I know, my proposal is supported by no one except me. I have never heard it suggested by anyone else, and it will not happen anytime soon.
posted by Aardhart at 08:04 AM on February 25, 2011
All athletics should be severed from the college educational system in the US. Spin off the athletic programs into private athletic clubs that compete in Under-23 leagues, and let them do what they want. There is no reason for an elite football player or basketball player to go through the motions of maintaining academic elegibility when they have no desire to obtain a BS degree in communications. There is also no reason for students at a MAC or Sunbelt school (i.e., a Div I school that loses money on athletics) to unwillingly subsidize a football player or basketball player, or for any student to subsidize the education of a fencer or badminten player.
Spun-off athletic clubs can pay kids tuition money or more to play or not, or charge kids to play non-revenue sports, and the kids could get an education or not.
I like sports. I just do not see its connection to college education. I think severing the two would be cool. Of course, I realize it will not happen any time soon.
posted by Aardhart at 07:21 PM on February 24, 2011
yerfatma, I've argued that LBB's critique's of the study were not valid. I think it has been established that the study did define the stretching it investigated, contrary to LBB's initial claims.
posted by Aardhart at 11:19 AM on February 23, 2011
It may well have. Again, as I said, there was no link to the study.
Yet, without reading the study (or even the article on the study apparently), you concluded it was worthless, and its flaw was failing to define its basic term, which it actually did.
As for what was reported in the article, I've been giving it the benefit of the doubt,
Do you know what "benefit of the doubt" means?
but if I were to go with my gut, I'd say that what most people typically do when they "stretch" quads, hamstrings and calf muscles -- that is, a static stretch of a cold muscle -- would not be beneficial.
So your gut is pretty much consistent with the study you proclaimed to be worthless?
On the other hand, it's also very common to see people label warmup activities as "stretching", even though there is no lengthening of the muscles involved -- it is a misnomer, but it is what many people mean when they talk about pre-activity "stretching".
So . . . since "many people" misuse the word stretching, you were right to conclude that any study of stretching is worthless?
posted by Aardhart at 12:49 AM on February 23, 2011
LBB, your proclaimation is worthless. As you have done before, you assumed a strawman, and then argued against the strawman. While use of the term "stretching" could be ambiguous, not all uses of the term streching is necessarily ambiguous.
Contrary to your claim that stretching was not defined, the USA Today article indicated that the stretching in the study was "stretch[ing] the quadriceps, hamstrings and calf muscles for three to five minutes before starting their run." This definition is fairly narrow, even if it could perhaps be more precise. Without looking at the actual study, we cannot know if the study used a more precise instruction.
You assumed the conclusion was flawed, not because you assessed the methodology or evidence, but because you disagree with it in your gut.
I read a book on running by 1972 Olympic runner Jeff Galloway. He said he never strecthed when he was a competative runner. He said his wife was getting him to stretch, and recommended stretching. The bandwagon is not new. But whatever fits your narrative.
The study does not support the conclusion that stretching is bad or that people should stop stretching if they do so now. Even the USA Today article says that "stretchers who stopped stretching had a 40% higher chance of injury."
FWIW, a GWU website links to an article with this excerpt:
"[A doctor criticizing the study] said, Your study's not any good, because if you're going to get any results from your stretching . . . you're going to have to spend at least 10 minutes per muscle group','" Pereles recalls. "Well for a typical runner . . . that's going to be 30 to 40 minutes of stretching. I said, What kind of weed are you smoking? Most people have 30 to 40 minutes to run'."
posted by Aardhart at 06:24 PM on February 22, 2011
LBB, did you look at the study or just the USA Today article on the study before you "pronounce[d] this 'study' worthless"?
posted by Aardhart at 01:48 PM on February 22, 2011
Richard Pryor strongly disavowed the use of Nigger. He stopped using, and said that he was wrong to use it.
posted by Aardhart at 11:23 PM on February 17, 2011
Update on the Butt Drag case: The kid was expelled, but the criminal charges were dropped without him having to admit wrongdoing.
posted by Aardhart at 11:13 PM on February 17, 2011
This is like Facebook spam I used to see. "Which Care Bear are you? Your friend Skippy is sneezy bear. Take our quiz and find out which one you are."
posted by Aardhart at 09:38 PM on February 16, 2011
There are two issues at play here. City decay because of abandonment to the suburbs, and the deterioration of Michigan/Detroit/Flint due to the decline of American automotive manufacturing. I am a city boy, but not a Michigander. I am more sensitive to the first issue.
I think it was a good commercial, but misleading. If it also talked about a revival of Flint, it would be swell. But "Imported from Michigan" or "Imported from Sterling Heights" suck as tag lines.
That cars built anywhere could be "Imported from Detroit" if you see what I mean.
I understand the argument that they could be built in Detroit's suburb, but that line could not apply to cars built in Mexico or South Carolina.
posted by Aardhart at 08:31 PM on February 09, 2011
The commercial does not talk about the Detroit Metropolitan Area. It talks about "this city" and "a town that's been to hell and back." Its whole "Imported from Detroit" separates Detroit from everything else. Without the separation, I think the whole point is undercut.
People don't think of Ann Arbor and Farmington Hills as being bombed-out hell-holes. People do think that of Detroit. A large reason that cities have been hit so hard has been white flight to the suburbs. I think it is strange to equate Detroit with a contributor to Detroit's problems (the suburbs).
Chrysler has two assembly plants in the city and several other factories located in Detroit.
They also have plants or factories in Canada, Mexico, elsewhere in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. Most of their stuff is not "imported from Detroit."
But to suggest that the livelihood of those who live both in Detroit and its suburbs aren't intertwined is ludicrous.
I didn't.
The economies of the USA and Canada are intertwined as well, but it would be misleading and inaccurate to say that Vancouver is a nice American city. Maybe that one is, but not the other one. I mean the Canadian one. And I mean American as in 'Merican, not as in "of the Americas."
I've never been there, but Wikipedia does not make it seem like Sterling Heights, Michigan (incorporated as a city in 1968) is a town that's been to hell and back.
The car is manufactured in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, that is what matters.
I think that's nice, but not what the commercial said.
posted by Aardhart at 12:25 AM on February 08, 2011
I thought it was a good commercial, but it set my bullshit detector off. I thought all the assembly plants were outside the city. It turns out that I was right. The Chrysler 200 is assembled in Sterling Heights, Michigan. It's a suburb that's 90% white, with a median family income of $70,000. I think that undercuts the whole point of the commercial.
All my facts are belong to Wikipedia.
posted by Aardhart at 09:31 PM on February 07, 2011
lil_brown_bat: I'm not going to respond to any more comments from you. It is pointless for me to argue with someone who thinks college basketball should be whites only.
posted by Aardhart at 01:18 PM on January 28, 2011
lil_brown_bat:
So why are you comparing the two? I didn't.
Yes you did. You compared how to eliminate homophobia and homophobia-baiting in recruiting with how to eliminate segration and oppression on racial grounds. You introduced "white-only" into this thread.
"acceptance and agreement of most Americans" (your phrase),
No. No, it was not.
I wrote that it would be impossible to convince most Americans that family is employed as a homophobic code-word.
In short, the bigots get to have their cake and eat it too. That's what you missed.
(I realized that you addressed this comment to someone else, but I will address it anyways.)
I responded to a comment that implied that it could simply be addressed with a rule against negative recruiting. It is not that simple.
You imply that I endorse and apologize for homophobia-baiting recruiting. I do not. I just do not know how it can be addressed as long at it is disguised so well. I do not think eliminating "family" from recruiting language is advisable.
Although you have been condescending to me and other posters for not getting it to you satifaction, I do not think you expressed whether to punish recruiters who just use the family cliche (which the majority of the time is not homophobia-baiting, but probably is in the context in the article). Do you think the Iowa State coach should be punished for pushing "family" without any explicit expression of gay-bashing?
rcade:
So are you catching coaches that use "family" or those that "slip up and reveal his or her bigotry more explicit"?
posted by Aardhart at 12:16 PM on January 28, 2011
"We are a family" is one of the most used cliches in team sports. How would you regulate it?
"Whites only" is not a code for racism. It is an express, overt, obvious invocation of racism.
posted by Aardhart at 06:37 PM on January 27, 2011
The NCAA has a million stupid rules, but they can't have one that prohibits negative recruiting, or at least this type of discriminatory negative recruiting?
I skimmed the article, and I don't think there was any program that was unambiguously and openly employing negative recruiting. Iowa State and UConn coaches were quoted as saying "family" is not negative recruiting or code for anything negative.
While I understand that family is employed as a homophobic code-word, it would be impossible to convince most Americans of this. It would be perceived as an extreme measure by the PC thought police.
posted by Aardhart at 06:07 PM on January 27, 2011
I followed that link. How does Farvrer have receiving stats of 2 yards on 0 receptions in 2008?
posted by Aardhart at 10:58 PM on January 17, 2011
I would guess the product of some PR firm - a very, very bad and undoubtedly overpaid PR firm.
"Pentagram is a distinguished international design consultancy with offices in New York, London, Austin and Berlin."
I think the first clue that the PR firm was going to suck would be that it named itself after a symbol for Satan. Nothing says public relations like associating yourself with devil worship.
posted by Aardhart at 06:26 PM on December 13, 2010
The championship game will match the division leaders, not the Leaders Division.
I really hope these names don't make it til August.
In the explanation of the logo, BIG is supposed to look like B 10 (big 10). Yeah, the G is supposed to look like an 0, even though it is no different than any other G.
posted by Aardhart at 04:07 PM on December 13, 2010
Leaders? Purdue is one of the Leaders of the Big 10, and Michigan is not? That name don't make no good sense.
posted by Aardhart at 02:31 PM on December 13, 2010
Waiting for a rugby player to step up here.
I've seen or heard about stories of stuff going on in Rugby. There was recently video of a player in the NFL doing something like this.
The difference is that in Rugby and the NFL, everyone knows that it is dirty. In this case, some people are defending anal penetration as an intentional and acceptably intentional part of wrestling. (There are also people who acknowledge it's dirty, but dispute that criminal charges should be brought. These are not the people I'm astounded by.)
If the coach was teaching this like the wrestler said, there could be a big lawsuit against the school district with punitive damages. Institutionalized sexual assault could be frowned upon by juries.
posted by Aardhart at 09:46 AM on December 09, 2010
Wow. That site has extensive coverage. A long main article and multiple other articles.
Afterward, Preston told the boy, "I told you I was going to do that," according to the boy's account to police.
. . .
Preston said he inserted his two fingers between the victim's buttocks for three seconds as a wrestling tactic, because he wanted to get the boy to wrestle him.
"Everyone does this to motivate people who don't move on the mats," he said, according to the police report.
. . .
"I don't think the punishment fit the crime, because we all use it, " said [Preston's friend] Negrete, a senior.
Once the coach blew his whistle, Preston -- who is bigger and stronger than the freshman -- pulled the boy down to the mat, the police report said. Preston pressed his forearm against the boy's neck to hold him down while he rammed his two fingers into the boy's anus for at least 30 seconds, the boy told police.
Wow. Anal pentration cannot be taught as a legitimate part of any sport.
posted by Aardhart at 06:37 PM on December 08, 2010
I like the sound of "Scotland: Now Brought to You By Qatar!"
This reminds me of a segment on TV Nation, the old Michael Moore show.
In the 90s, the British government declared that they will leave the Falklands if that is the wish of the islanders. The Argentinian government promised to give each and every citizen of the Falklands $1,000,000 if they will vote to become part of Argentina and give up their British citizenship, but they still voted to stay part of the British Empire or whatever.
TV Nation went to a town in Wales with a similar population of the Falklands, and found that the residents were willing to renounce their British citizenship and become part of Argentina for $1,000,000 each.
Too bad the town did not have a World Cup class stadium.
posted by Aardhart at 06:36 PM on December 02, 2010
You do that, you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know. And then you get free.
posted by Aardhart at 08:24 AM on November 18, 2010
It isn't really that much to ask to allow people who wish to discuss football to actually do so.
It wasn't the joke that derailed this thread. It was the admonishing.
Look at the first 12 posts of this thread. Number 5 was the "dog (killing) years" joke. The next seven posts were about the football game, and not about dog fighting, Vick's connection to it, and related issues about forgiveness, crime, and punishments. After the admonishment, those issues were almost all that were addressed in the posts.
posted by Aardhart at 06:00 PM on November 17, 2010
That was a joke? Really?
"What's that in dog years" is almost always a joke. I thought it was kinda funny in this instance.
posted by Aardhart at 11:40 AM on November 17, 2010
Greg Maddux killed one prostitute (to start), and that came up every time he won a Cy Young.
With regards to comments about dog killing, I think they should be ignored (by those who want to ignore them) rather than suppressed.
posted by Aardhart at 09:27 AM on November 17, 2010
Jim McMahon is one of my favorite players of all times.
My favorite story, which I do not remember hearing about at the time, is when he visited the White House after Superbowl XXXI. He just won the Superbowl as a back-up QB with the Packers in his final year. It was his first time visiting the White House. The Bears never made it after Superbowl XX because of scheduling problems.
Since he valued the Bears' Superbowl win and never got his White House visit, he wore his Bears jersey to the White House on the Packers visit. Of course, he never played for Green Bay again.
I've surfed the web looking for pictures, but never found any. If anyone knows of any, I would appreciate it.
posted by Aardhart at 11:19 PM on November 12, 2010
I remember when Northern Illinois beat Alabama in 2003. That was fun.
posted by Aardhart at 11:19 PM on November 12, 2010
It appears like there is no mid-court stripe. That seems important for back-court calls. Even if it is there but barely visible, it seems like a problem.
posted by Aardhart at 03:27 PM on November 08, 2010
I've been hoping for this for several weeks. I did not go to a Big-6 school, so my primary cheering interest is always chaos. How soon would a playoff be introduced if either of them are in the title game?
posted by Aardhart at 10:12 AM on November 07, 2010
rcade, I think you have some good points, but I think all of it goes to violating an NCAA rule. I asked for reasons it would be morally wrong other than violating an NCAA rule.
If the system is entirely immoral, I think we all would have some culpability. The NCAA would collapse if we stopped posting about it on SportsFilter.
posted by Aardhart at 02:05 PM on November 05, 2010
Kids or their family getting paid $100,000+ to sign with a school is not wrong?
Why is this morally wrong? Is it morally wrong for the New York Yankees or Washington Nationals to sign players out of high school with a signing bonus? If it is morally wrong for an athlete to be paid to play for a college team, wouldn't professional sports be just as morally wrong?
I mean, other than violating an NCAA rule.
posted by Aardhart at 12:01 PM on November 05, 2010
I'm kinda disappointed this thread did not erupt. I thought the golf driving thread was kind of entertaining. I'm guessing that there is nothing really controversial about a female-to-male transgender man that has not undergone any hormonal treatments competing against women. The other thread probably also got everything out that could be said.
I'm trying to think of some Allums/Alumni/Alumnae joke, but I don't think I could pull it off funny, nor without being offensive. As an American-speaker, I think that alumna/alumnus/alumni/alumnae should be eliminated and replaced with alum and alums. But that's neither here nor there.
posted by Aardhart at 06:30 PM on November 03, 2010
"Lesnar will outweigh Velasquez by about 25-30 pounds."
I don't claim to have any insight into either fighter, but this seems to be a big factor in Lesnar's favor.
posted by Aardhart at 02:04 PM on October 22, 2010
Youtube has the Honduran and Costa Rican calls of the Jonathan Bornstein goal in the 95th minute of the USA-Costa Rica qualifier that sent Honduras to the World Cup, at Costa Rica's expense. I don't speak Spanish, but the pure emotion (elation vs. crushing blow) of those two calls are classic.
posted by Aardhart at 09:44 AM on October 22, 2010
This is contrary to what I remember reading about curves of soccer balls. A few years ago, a study concluded there can be a change in the path of a soccer ball. "This change from turbulent to laminar airflow, produces the sudden dips of the best free kicks as the ball approaches the goal, Carre said."
I think that this baseball study showed a non-breaking explanation for a breaking ball, and concluded that there is therefore no breaking in a breaking ball. The scientists that conducted this study are not physicists. One is in psychology and one is in cognitive neuroscience.
posted by Aardhart at 12:25 PM on October 17, 2010
It wasn't an own goal. It was just a gift of a goal.
posted by Aardhart at 07:27 PM on September 29, 2010
arts major with terrific career prospects
Huh?
posted by Aardhart at 05:45 PM on September 17, 2010
One reason I'm somewhat anti-baseball is I got sick of baseball fans complaining about how boring soccer is during the 1994 World Cup. I'm glad this happened so that the next time a baseball fan bitches about soccer diving, there is a crystal clear example that Jeter is a fraud.
Jeter should receive a 7-game suspension. The commissioner has the power to protect the game, right? There has to be a deterence. If he tried to fake it but failed to convince the ump, would there have been any consequence? No, he would not have gotten tossed for faking unless he swore at the umpire. Rivaldo did not receive a suspension for one of the worst faking jobs in one of soccer's largest games. If I had my druthers, Jeter would get a 7-game suspension and Rivaldo would have been suspended from all soccer, club and country, for six-months. Any soccer player that grabs his face when it was not touched should be suspended. Any baseball player that needed a trainer to come out to tend to a foul ball should also be suspended.
posted by Aardhart at 02:05 PM on September 16, 2010
Coaches could essentially invalidate the first few polls of every season by ranking the MAC and Sunbelt in alphabetical order.
posted by Aardhart at 09:31 AM on September 16, 2010
It is a fair question to ask how much tax revenue the stadiums generated, though.
I think the relevant question is not how much tax revenue the stadiums generate, but how much revenue the sports would continue to generate if there was not a race to the bottom. Without government providing stadiums, the NFL would continue to thrive.
If all local and state government stopped providing subsidies to the billionaire owners, there would be a lot more benefit for all the local governments (although LA might benefit at St. Louis's expense).
I like sports, but I do not think the government should be subsidizing adult millionaire players or the franchise owners.
posted by Aardhart at 04:47 PM on September 08, 2010
No disrespect to the legions of dedicated adults who do right by kids as coaches and mentors, but most of the negative forces in youth activities can be traced to grown-ups.
I don't have a comment about that line. I just like it and think it is important.
The article linked a few weeks or months ago on the Ajax Amsterdam youth academy speculated that the American focus on winning kids' games hampered the skill development of individual kids. This article did not say much about the effect of no score leagues on skill development.
posted by Aardhart at 06:55 PM on August 22, 2010
FIFA May Eliminate World Cup Ties.
No it won't.
This seems to me like one of those "might happen" things that won't. E.g., they might split California into two states, Northern California and Southern California.
posted by Aardhart at 01:51 PM on August 15, 2010
SportsFilter: The Thursday Huddle
I think the baseball plan may be like the 96-team field NCAA tourney plan. A bad idea that actually gets rejected because it is such a bad idea, after it was presented as a inevitability.
I hope.