More pie

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350060724

• Nude photos of police chief's wife spark row
  Says he can't `control' 300-lb. woman. Oklahoma officials resign after uproar
  
  SNYDER, Okla.—The police chief, the mayor and a councilman in this small town resigned yesterday amid an uproar over nude photos of the chief's 300-pound, tattooed wife that she posted on a website.
  
  Some of the pictures show her with an American flag draped off her shoulder.
  
  He said he has had long talks with his wife about the photos but does not tell her what to do.
  
  "My wife is 6-foot-3 and weighs 300 pounds," said Ozmun, who became chief in January 2005. "If there is somebody that thinks they can control her, have at it. I have tried for 11 years and haven't been able to.''

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ditto re: ACC/Clemson.

Clemson always should have been in the SEC.

Celtic have drawn Manchester United in the Champion's League and will face each other tomorrow in their first competitive match ever. They have played many friendly / exhibition matches in the past, but this time it means something.

Manchester United are heavy favorites. I think the odds were 33-1 the last time I looked. But miracles can happen.

So I propose the following: I will wager up to three months of board support that Celtic will get a result (as defined below).

What this means is that if Celtic lose, I will pay one month of board support (up to a total of three months) for each person (up to a total of 3) who accepts my wager.

If Celtic draw, you pay. If Celtic win, you pay.

Here is the catch: the game will be carried live tomorrow at 2:30 PM on ESPN2. You have to watch the game. I don't care if you Tivo it or tape it or whatever and watch it later. But in order to collect you will have to demonstrate to me that you watched the game by showing some non-googleable knowledge of the match -- this can be done by either volunteering some piece of information that proves you watched it or answering a question or two that convinces me you saw it.

Any questions? Any takers?

Note: this offer is not open to minors or residents of the Land of Fu.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ironweed
Celtic have drawn Manchester United in the Champion's League and will face each other tomorrow in their first competitive match ever. They have played many friendly / exhibition matches in the past, but this time it means something.

Manchester United are heavy favorites. I think the odds were 33-1 the last time I looked. But miracles can happen.

So I propose the following: I will wager up to three months of board support that Celtic will get a result (as defined below).

What this means is that if Celtic lose, I will pay one month of board support (up to a total of three months) for each person (up to a total of 3) who accepts my wager.

If Celtic draw, you pay. If Celtic win, you pay.

Here is the catch: the game will be carried live tomorrow at 2:30 PM on ESPN2. You have to watch the game. I don't care if you Tivo it or tape it or whatever and watch it later. But in order to collect you will have to demonstrate to me that you watched the game by showing some non-googleable knowledge of the match -- this can be done by either volunteering some piece of information that proves you watched it or answering a question or two that convinces me you saw it.

Any questions? Any takers?

Note: this offer is not open to minors or residents of the Land of Fu.

I am considering taking you up on this here wager, but am not sure I want to find myself rooting for Man U.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Celtic have drawn Manchester United in the Champion's League and will face each other tomorrow in their first competitive match ever. They have played many friendly / exhibition matches in the past, but this time it means something.

Manchester United are heavy favorites. I think the odds were 33-1 the last time I looked. But miracles can happen.

So I propose the following: I will wager up to three months of board support that Celtic will get a result (as defined below).

What this means is that if Celtic lose, I will pay one month of board support (up to a total of three months) for each person (up to a total of 3) who accepts my wager.

If Celtic draw, you pay. If Celtic win, you pay.

Here is the catch: the game will be carried live tomorrow at 2:30 PM on ESPN2. You have to watch the game. I don't care if you Tivo it or tape it or whatever and watch it later. But in order to collect you will have to demonstrate to me that you watched the game by showing some non-googleable knowledge of the match -- this can be done by either volunteering some piece of information that proves you watched it or answering a question or two that convinces me you saw it.

Any questions? Any takers?

Note: this offer is not open to minors or residents of the Land of Fu.

how can the odds be 33-1? are they at different levels? i bet the first superbowl wasn't that high.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clemson always should have been in the SEC.

The SEC doesn't want teams that lose to BC. Except for Vanderbilt. Every conference needs a Baylor.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how can the odds be 33-1? are they at different levels? i bet the first superbowl wasn't that high.

I may have exaggerated the odds. Looks like 9-1 for an away win (i.e. Celtic).

http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_soccer_level1

They play in different leagues and Man U spends more on two or three players in a year than we spend on our whole team.

ETA: you can get better odds on Werder Bremen to beat Chelsea. And we all know what crap Werder Bremen is.

[Shape Shifter]

Or at least a Kids in the Hall fan:

• "You are agents of Iran and Zionism. We will crush your heads," Hussein shouted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The SEC doesn't want teams that lose to BC. Except for Vanderbilt. Every conference needs a Baylor.

I remember on the Politics board when Ty told me i couldn't count wins against you anymore. You were D-2, or something.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dude - you're mocking Fireman Eddie Anzalone???? He's an institution. WTF?

He's a dick. The guy is famous for spelling a four letter word over and over.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You probably hated bleachers Ali with the cowbell before he passed on.

Now, a cowbell is a different story. It brings some flavor to the game. And everyone knows you can always use more cowbell.

Whoever picked up for him after he left (his son, I think), didn't have the same flair and hasn't been showing up, which is just inexcusable.

Anyway, the appropriate analogy isn't Fireman Eddie:Cowbell Ali. It is Fireman Eddie:Freddie Sez.

Now go get your spoon and pot.

TM

[Alex_de_Large]

Or at least he took it in 1999.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
First off, the signing bonuses are a large share of the actual salary, so they're not so easily dismissed.

Second, what TM is basically arguing for is a redistribution of salary from players who do perform to those that don't. Guaranteed contracts inevitably lead to lots of money for injured players or non-performing players who are either cut or retained and played (look at some baseball rosters for examples of hte latter). That takes money away from the players who play well.

If the union is worried about unfairness, then they should mandate insurance against injury for everyone. But they've decided not to, and instead offer pensions only to people who have played over a certain number of years.

Oh, stop. Don't put it on the players. If it was simply a matter of redistribution of player salaries, the owners wouldn't mind if the cba was copied straight up from MLB. Are you arguing that NFL players are in as favorable a position relative to owners as MLB players? I doubt it.

I believe that part of what makes the NFL so successful is the PARITY.* And one of the reasons why they can have that PARITY** is because teams can cut players and void their contracts. Teams often sign players to long contracts who have huge potential, giving them little guaranteed money. There is very little risk for the team, since if they perform to their potential, you've most likely got them locked in to a bargain, long-term contract. If they perform below potential, but are still workable players, you tell them to restructure. If they get injured or perform below what you can replace them with at a discount, you simply cut them.

If that player exceeds expectations, he is expected to honor the contract. Please explain to me how this makes sense for anyone but the owners. It's great for teams, because they have minimal risk. But it's a disaster for a great deal of players who come into the league, get injured and are thrown away. Demanding insurance is a red herring because it's simply a matter of assigning the cost of insurance. Either you ask for more money and do it yourself or it comes out of your salary and the team does it for you.

True value for the players would be giving them a better bargaining position w/r/t their contracts. And the NFL doesn't want that.

TM

*Damn it. Damn it. Damn it.
**Did I say "Damn it" already?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Oh, stop. Don't put it on the players. If it was simply a matter of redistribution of player salaries, the owners wouldn't mind if the cba was copied straight up from MLB. Are you arguing that NFL players are in as favorable a position relative to owners as MLB players? I doubt it.

I believe that part of what makes the NFL so successful is the parody. And one of the reasons why they can have that parody is because teams can cut players and void their contracts. Teams often sign players to long contracts who have huge potential, giving them little guaranteed money. There is very little risk for the team, since if they perform to their potential, you've most likely got them locked in to a bargain, long-term contract. If they perform below potential, but are still workable players, you tell them to restructure. If they get injured or perform below what you can replace them with at a discount, you simply cut them.

If that player exceeds expectations, he is expected to honor the contract. Please explain to me how this makes sense for anyone but the owners. It's great for teams, because they have minimal risk. But it's a disaster for a great deal of players who come into the league, get injured and are thrown away. Demanding insurance is a red herring because it's simply a matter of assigning the cost of insurance. Either you ask for more money and do it yourself or it comes out of your salary and the team does it for you.

True value for the players would be giving them a better bargaining position w/r/t their contracts. And the NFL doesn't want that.

TM

I can't tell whether TM is serious or whether he's writing a parity.

eta: Anyhoo, Burger's point is that (from an economic perspective) the players are going to demand the same share of overall revenue, whether contracts are guaranteed or not. TM's point is that NFL players incur a lot of risk that players in other sports do not. You're both right. If contracts in the NFL were guaranteed, you'd have players who cannot perform because of injury collecting money. So everyone would make a little less. The interesting question, IMHO, is whether NFL players prefer to roll the dice and accept larger, riskier contracts, or whether the lack of guaranteed contracts is something of a historical accident that evolved into a norm.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I generally avoid my neighbours. Once you open that door, its way to close for comfort.

Understood.



By the way, Cyndi still looks pretty good.

Then:



Now:



TM

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Oh, stop. Don't put it on the players. If it was simply a matter of redistribution of player salaries, the owners wouldn't mind if the cba was copied straight up from MLB. Are you arguing that NFL players are in as favorable a position relative to owners as MLB players? I doubt it.

I believe that part of what makes the NFL so successful is the parody. And one of the reasons why they can have that parody is because teams can cut players and void their contracts. Teams often sign players to long contracts who have huge potential, giving them little guaranteed money. There is very little risk for the team, since if they perform to their potential, you've most likely got them locked in to a bargain, long-term contract. If they perform below potential, but are still workable players, you tell them to restructure. If they get injured or perform below what you can replace them with at a discount, you simply cut them.

If that player exceeds expectations, he is expected to honor the contract. Please explain to me how this makes sense for anyone but the owners. It's great for teams, because they have minimal risk. But it's a disaster for a great deal of players who come into the league, get injured and are thrown away. Demanding insurance is a red herring because it's simply a matter of assigning the cost of insurance. Either you ask for more money and do it yourself or it comes out of your salary and the team does it for you.

True value for the players would be giving them a better bargaining position w/r/t their contracts. And the NFL doesn't want that.

TM

IF NFL players had any skill (other than raw speed or size) they wouldn't be playing in the NFL and wouldn't have this problem. If they don't like it, tell them to learn how to hit the curve ball or dunk.