madbad2000

Let's bring this back to current investments please. While I'm down for interesting discussions like this, the temperature is a little high and veering a little too political for the intent of the forum.

Im not sure on Tyrone Tracy. He has been a nice surprise, but I'm not sold on him long term. And being on a Giants team that may be resetting at QB/HC/GM? Too many questions marks to go all in on, but if you already have him then it's a cheap option to hold on to for now.

I love dynasty and will not go back to a redraft format again. I have been playing as a co-manager in my current league for 6 years and it's great. And since it's a dynasty league, we are active all year with trades and draft talk. Highly recommend it to anyone that likes fantasy, but make sure you get active managers that know what they are doing and committed.

I also like the different take on the OC. I liked that they used the normal boats that do tours on the seine. Nice touch to include everyday Paris in it I thought the biggest downside was the water horse and how long it was out there. I get they were emptying athletes from the boats and getting them into the stadium, but just keeping the shot on the horse for what felt like 30 mins was overkill. Then another long stretch on the torch where they are taking it on the river. I would have cut away to some crowd shots just to break up the single shot on these legs. And please have your crew wipe off the camera lens in between cuts too. They probably also had too many people on the last leg of the torch. Even my 7 year old was mocking them. How many more handoffs can they get in? Loved the balloon cauldron. Celine crushed her set. A bit long overall on the OC, but enjoyable.

I'll come in and also vouch for Bad Boys and Beverly Hills Cop - Axel F. Bad Boys - Ride or Die is easily my favorite of the series and had many scenes where I was laughing out loud.

That's funny. After the games had started, my wife told me she filled out a bracket at her work. She does not watch, follow or know anything about college basketball. I asked her who she picked: Wisconsin (my college) over Auburn (her college) in the title game. Well at least she played.

I think there are two types that retire abroad. Those that planned it out and prepared and those that dreamed. Visiting a place on vacation does not usually give you the feeling of how it's like to live in a place on the day-to-day. I've known quite a few that did their research, visited for long periods of time and then prepared either by buying property and/or getting everything setup before arrival. Those are the people that stick it out. I've also known the early retirees that take off and basically move to a location like it's vacation. Those are the ones that quickly get homesick because they soon realize the comforts they don't have and/or ease of finding their niche. If you're going to go abroad, research and prepare to include long stays living in that locale. Don't just pickup and move to a place because it's the new hot spot.

Carolinas #1 in 2024 belongs to Chicago thanks to the Bryce Young trade. So either #2 in 2024 or #1 in 2025 are your top options.

He took the job at Colorado to prove that he can succeed against better competition. He went to Jackson State to showcase that HBCUs can be successful and help that program get upgrades to their program. He won a lot, but constantly fought off the level of competition argument. He took the CU job, brought in his sons through the transfer portal, brought over the number one recruit in the country he got at Jackson State, Hunter, and then proceeded to transfer in basically a whole new team (51 new transfers) and brought along a lot of good coaches. Can't really blame him though with the way the Buffs have been struggling recently. Deion has always done hype really well. The hot start has fueled that and it will be interesting to see if they can maintain that success this year. Rumors are that recruits are responding well to the atmosphere during recruiting which may keep the success train going.

Yes, gladly, voluntarily and happily taking these cuts in salary. The benefits of remote work, cost savings and overall improvements in family life/health..absolutely they are gladly taking pay cuts. And I'm not talking insignificant either. Im seeing it in my field and they can be in the $10/20k range. I've seen reports of people taking $35k cuts to maintain their remote status. We are in a very different work environment where other things are prioritized over achieving every last cent at whatever cost that entails.

I understand the debate and the examples you provided are interesting to consider. Maybe I'm an old grouch, but I would probably put a lot of that on technology and likely the internet. For all the good it does, it has really added/reinforced so many other bad things to include changes in communication mores/lack of tact, isolation from others and the continual reinforement of any position without point/counterpoint. The ability to communicate over the internet also facilitates remote working capability. Like so many other high level debates, there is not a one size fits all solution. For all the examples you provided of the past with community, I guarantee there are many people who hated that homogenous society and interactions. We may actually be evolving into an ideal labor posture with those that want to remote work having that ability and those that want other permutations having that ability. It will absolutely take time to adjust those into each position without forcing a remote worker back into the office or an in-person favorite having to work at home.

This right here is the thing that far too many people don't understand or are unwilling to do. There is no right that says there has to be good jobs at what you want to do in your area. We have the ability to make choices. If someone wants to live in a certain area, they have to accept a trade off of their employment opportunities or be financially independant. There are a lot of jobs out there right now and those that have flexibility to go wherever they are can really reap the benefits of that. And these moves do not have to be permanent. Move to get a job/experience, then parlay that into another job in your old stomping grounds or somewhere else that fits your work/life goals. That's not a new posture post pandemic/remote environment. I would argue that flexibility of where you live is a big benefit of remote work. Being able to bring good quality jobs to all areas of the United States without having to stack everyone on top of each other in major metorpolitan areas. Maybe I'm biased since my experiences have led me all over the US successfully.

I'm not sure I agree that remote work is bad for society. There have been plenty of great examples of where remote work has societal benefits: less commuting time/air pollution, more time for rest/exercise, less exposure to germs/healthy society. Many desire the reduction in stress that remote provides. I loved that I had pre-school age children at home while I was remote working. I was able to have all 3 meals with my full family during the day and interact with them throughout the day. If I'm in office, I only see them for the 3 hours between getting home in the evening and their bed time. My productivity is consistently higher at home than the office. My meeting invites are probably only 25% of what they were pre-pandemic which gives me far more work time to be productive than getting stopped and pulled into a discussion. I still collaborate with my colleagues, but it's a 5 minute phone call versus a 30-45 min meeting. I think the biggest thing about remote work is that it's forcing changes in the workplace/work force more quickly than the current leadership was able to predict or handle. I think the change to remote work was invevitable, but would have been a more gradual change as foreward thinking leaders take the plunge and show success. This success motivates others to try and then it spreads through the work force as an option that would fit with more people who seek that out. You get a more gradual acceptance at leadership levels as the more archaic leaders are phased out by attrition/retirement and other leaders move forward that embrace it. The pandemic did not really lets this transition happen and the old way was forced to accept the new way. No one likes that, especially those stuck in their ways which is why they are now trying to make the office great again. My prediction is that remote work will be the most productive since it will become the most competitive and acquire the best employees. I'm just waiting for the change in pay where companies will realize they can pay people less to work remotely and lower their costs on office expenses as employees will gladly take a pay cut to achieve the many benefits of working from home.

Yep, and those people have the ability to go into the office with plenty of jobs looking to hire in person. Their needs are met. Those that place great value on the remote side are the ones that are fighting for what they want and have proven they can be productive in a remote environment.

I'm very interested in following the remote/hybrid/in office debate. I'm fully telework, but not listed as remote. I only have to go in when certain meetings dictate that posture for the day. I fully anticipate my job going hybrid, but probably not more than once a week. Since I live 15 mins from the office, that's not a deal breaker. I do have others on my team that are fully remote and they are likely to make a decision to leave if more than 1 day in office. I also have contractor support that are already flexing and trying to push back about a return to office/hybrid arrangement and/or making fully remote requests. Im curious to see the quality debate about potential employees. If the best and most productive don't accept going back, how does that affect the outcome of the in person teams. If the best don't accept office life, does that change opinions.

Good luck, keep us updated on your job search. I'm curious how job seekers in the current environment, especially those that are looking for more telework from home/remote options, fare in the face of many trying to get people back into the office.

I think the answer is probably yes. I would honestly like to see football breakaway from the conference model. It's something entirely different. You could keep the smaller conferences for non-revenue sports to cut down on travel and keep the academics in line since most don't have professional avenues in sports anyways. Football probably goes to an NFL model with a lot of eggs being broken in terms of teams left out and current BIG/SEC schools getting kicked out of the adults football table. The question then becomes how many schools in that new league? You could probably do 4 divisions of 12 for 48 total teams. Everyone in the division plays the others for 11 total games. Winners of each of the 4 division have a playoff. You have a total of 24 games every week to sell with all of them good matchups and a lot of great matchups. You have all media types bidding for control of the best college football in the country. That's how you get and maintain the best media rights deal. You still have a bunch of other possible matchups to fill bowl games for teams that didn't get to play during the divisional regular season.

I was thinking that an East v West, 10 team division works well for 9 conference games in your division, winners play for BIG title. But you lose your crossover and ability to play everyone since you want to ensure everyone in the division gets a head-to-head. Five team pods work well since you'll have 4. Sets up a big ten playoff with 4 pod winners and you get an extra couple of marquee games to sell. Wisconsin would definitely have a favorable draw in that pod with MN, Iowa, Neb and NW. With the BIG as large as it is, do you even bother with non-conference at this point? You have major brands, play major games. I'm sure the networks would love that.

It seems so anti-climatic at this point. It makes sense to have a pod out west, but it seems to me like what is next? 18 just doesn't seem like a final number to me. 20 seems more final. When the options always come up, I was probably in the following order of preference: Notre Dame North Carolina FSU Miami Oregon Virginia Washington Stanford ASU Utah I'm curious if there are any discussions about realignment of conferences with kicking some schools out to allow for more prominent football programs into the conference (BIG or SEC).

I agree that without offsides the game would be different, but likely not by that much if you add in more substitutions to counter the fatigue of having to run more on both sides of the ball. The main thing it will do is open up the game strategies. I would like to see the ability for teams to have more strategic options on both sides of the ball which could play to your strengths or to attack an opponents weakness. That also includes strategic substitutions to take advantage of another teams fatigue. When watching soccer, I feel like the defense has a big advantage over the offense during normal play, mainly due to offsides. And you hint at the same where you state that the defense can control the line of the offense. That immediately switches to a huge advantage for the offense when going to penalty kicks and closer free kicks. This link has some interesting stats on penalty kick conversion rates with a fair number at 75% conversion rate. That's huge when you consider the conversion rate on normal shots on goal during game play. https://playtoday.co/blog/stats/penalty-kick-statistics/#:~:text=Editor's Choice,a conversion rate of 86.41%. Corner kicks also seem to favor offenses for simply keeping the ball near the goal and having a chance at a random bounce or the ball finding a seam. With the change in advantage, working to get a penalty kick/free kick nearer the goal incentivizes offenses as a legitimate strategy to flop. I'd rather force the offense to earn a goal with ball movement, teamwork and great offensive shots. I'm curious, do you enjoy watching a game where an outmatched team parks the bus and tries to grind out a tie? I have no problem with defensive battles, but I'd like to see that actually come from the performance of the players and not mainly from a rule. I honestly don't even care about having more goals. Low scoring hockey games, pitcher's duels in baseball, tough defensive games in football are all exciting to watch normally when they come from great performances. Watching soccer games that are decided by a pentalty/free kick/corner kick is never as satisfying as watching a game that has great goals from regular action. Flopping is a joke and if it's the only way to get a ref to call a foul, maybe you should have more refs than 1 and a couple of side judges who mainly look for offsides. Is flopping still a thing in basketball? The last I saw it was kind of getting called more to avoid it becoming an actual strategy. Offensive fouls need to be called more according to the rules. So the more important aspect is to have better refs that call the foul instead of rewarding flopping. I don't need soccer to be Americanized to enjoy it. I am fine with low scoring and pass, pass, pass if the game is decided by skill and both teams have a chance to use strategy/talent. That's not happening in most games and it's a bit sad with the lost potential.

Similar background from rural Wisconsin and not exposed to the game as much as a child. I've given it many chances over the years after marrying into a German family, but it still hasn't grabbed my full attention. I find the game frustrating to watch most of the time and have narrowed it down to two aspects: off sides and lack of substitutions. Off sides may be the worst rule in the sporting world. It purposely slows the game down and I feel it really is there to keep the game closer and anticipation high. This places more emphasis on getting free kicks, penalties and corners where a lucky bounce can turn the game completely ...and far too often that comes from flopping. I'd prefer to let teams have more strategy options and let actual skill determine winners/losers. The lack of substitutions is also fairly ridiculous. All that does is make the teams take long stretches where they have to walk/stand/half jog to conserve energy for the few runs they can actually make. I also dislike the argument that soccer is the most popular sport in the world, so it must make it the best. Like so many other beliefs, it highly depends on what you're exposed to and conditioned for during your formulative years. It would be different if every country in the world has the same exposure to every sport growing up and then the most people still chose soccer. After all of that negative, I do see the appeal of soccer. I would probably enjoy the game more in person where the hype and crowd could add additional sensations and excitement. I'm open to new stuff outside of my youth and would recommend Australian Rules Football to anyone looking to learn about new sports outside of their current norms.

So I've seen the number from as either 11 or 13 players that have came forward. That's only the public responses and does not include anyone who has chimes in behind the scenes which is typically a lot more. And based on this Tribune article, includes current players. https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-northwestern-hazing-longterm-consequences-20230715-jwcxzdeh7vfh5cdbp2cckmnrga-story.html There are quite a few reasons why the Northwestern gig is not a desirable position. First off, it's an academic school and this article highlights that perfectly. The administration and staff care more about academic reputation than sports success. Higher standards make it harder to recruit. You can do it successfully, but you have razor thin margins. It's always going to be hard for NU to find success long term. It'll likely be a stepping stone job if anyone starts to have success but there will always be suitors because it is a B1G job.

While there is no hard and fast rule for language usage in these situations, I would probably consider something like Relatively Signable to mean that the player places a dollar value on their talent and the team just needs to hit it. Their preference is to sign, under this one condition. There are players out there that place a higher value on their talent/college situation, such as mid-first round or first round value. That makes them relatively unsignable since it's harder to meet those demands with cobbling together a big enough signing bonus package after playing the underslot manipulations. I think the thing to remember is how fluid these situations are behind the scenes. Scouts do a lot of work to find out what the numbers and situations are for these kids. And it's easy to see situations where HS Player A puts a number out there, say $2M, to forgo their scholarship to College A. But Player A may have a minimum where their bottom line may be $1M or $500k, etc. because they really want to start Pro Ball. We don't know what that number is and perhaps some of these HS kids change their mind once the draft starts and they get hyped for pro ball and will take whatever decent is offered. It makes what these scouts do even more impressive. It's not just travelling around to whatever small school/college/D1 program to watch and evaluate talent, but to have to build relationships with players, coaches, and agents to get an idea of the signability/desires. What a tough gig and I can only imagine how busy these people are during draft prep and the days of the actual selections.

Nice one. With a name like Yoho, I assume the Pirates were heavily interested. Gotta love beating a division rival to the punch. 😉

"Anyone out there still reading, PUT MONEY AWAY for retirement! Start with your first paycheck, even if that means you only put $25 per check into a fund. You can always do more when you have more. It all adds up!" This! So much this. I'll also add a tip for those that care about retiring early, set a standard of living that is comfortable/affordable and keep it there. When you get promotions or pay bumps, try to keep your life at the same comfortable level and move that increase out of sight/out of mind into your retirement or investments. I have been doing this for awhile now and its amazing. I'm at the point where I have started building up my kids accounts too to help them down the line. 50-60 years of untouched growth..yes please.