madbad2000

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.

So I'm still trying to decide on a final destination and age. I hit 30 years of service at 61, which is a nice mark to hit. I do have young kids, so that puts me middle of college for the youngest which may delay me a few more years. It is nice having some time and options in terms of where to settle down and when. My current plan for my end of career (Government) is to take a final assignment in Europe for 4-5 years and then move to my final destination after that. That way I do a lot of the prep work for a move (down sizing household goods, selling home, etc.) and can get a pseudo start to retirement by living it up in Europe and seeing a lot places on the bucket list cheap. Once I'm done, they can ship me back to my desired location. If I had to choose a spot right now, I'd probably choose Florida/Alabama Gulf somewhere. I'm not down for doing the Phoenix/desert lifestyle. I've been there quite a bit, love the food, do not love the summer weather. Not interested in snow birding either. I'm currently in the Huntsville area and we love it here. Lots to do, cost of living is low, weather is very good with fairly mild winters. Seeing as how I'll have a paid off house in a beautiful neighborhood, we could just choose to stay here and not mess around. The Rocket City Trash Pandas are a very short walk away, so that could consume my time easy enough. We have talked about doing the expat thing a bit, but nothing too concrete in terms of planning. I loved Thailand when I was there and it's easy to do expat thing. I also looked into doing it in Europe, such as Croatia, Portugal, Italy, Greece (basically southern Europe/Mediterranean) and would need to do more research. I see the appeal of Central America and that is on my research list as well. Having time to plan makes it nice because I can identify good spots and hopefully travel there for vacation/scouting before having to commit.

His accuracy in college absolutely holds weight even if it doesn't help some arguments. He has had success in the past as a pass first QB. It's obvious to anyone including Fields himself that his goal is to get back to being a pass first QB who has the ability to run. It could probably be argued that his first two years don't really hold weight based on where he was, how he was used and the lack of any support. I love his ceiling and hope this offseason continues building to give him a fair chance at showing what he can do. You're spot on though, he has not had a fair shake and that's rough because you're two years into your 5 year rookie window.

In college he completed 69.2, 67.2 and 70.2% while his highest rushing total was 484 yards in 2019. Hard to complete passes when you don't have time or reliable targets. I suspect he probably falls closer to 700 yards rushing and passing closer to 65% with a lot of deep shots. It's not like we are talking about Anthony Richardson where he has zero track record of passing accuracy in college. I like Fields a lot, but acknowledge that this is the critical year for him to show out. The biggest impact of that trade is DJ Moore. Eliminates a lot of excuses, pushes the current receivers down to more favorable pairings and should have better protection.

The Bears trade looks fantastic if they believe in Fields and he becomes the star he is capable of becoming and the trade also looks fantastic if he crumbles into nothing. If he increases his passing only a bit, they have their WR1 and more picks to keeping building up around him next year. If he fails, they are likely picking high again and have additional capital to try to get Williams or Maye while already having a WR1 to help the new rookie. I think we obviously disagree on Fields ceiling. There are maybe 3 QBs in history that have the playmaking ability with their feet to single handedly destroy defenses. Fields already has a great deep ball and has shown success in college with passing at a high level. It's easy to forget he got hamstrung by the Nagy experiment year 1, he had a new system last year with a severe lack of protection and weapons to help him out. Hard to hit timing throws when you're constantly fighting off defenders in your face immediately. I fully expect that to improve and Fields will get the Hurts hype all year long. Fields is a throw first QB that has amazing running ability and not the opposite that casual fans/observers seem to think he is. That along make his ceiling sky high, now whether he fully peaks is another debate.

That's interesting that you feel Fields is not a long term answer. I am impressed with his development in the face of a bare roster and expect him to make the major leap this year now that they finally added some protection and weapons.

Quality of life is a major consideration and one that I just talked about with my wife today. It is really hard to come up with an economic equivalent, but for us it is one of our biggest factors in choosing a just or location to live.

This right here, I can't recommend it enough. Apply for those jobs that you think you would like to do and can give you a skill, certification, clearance, travel, location or work life balance that you desire. I think this advice transcends industries too. It is very often the case that training a good candidate with potential is cheaper than waiting on the unicorn to walk through the door. Show them your potential, what you can do and that you have a plan. Don't blow off the 3/5/10 year question, show them how both sides benefit even if it means you plan to leave after 5 years. Odds are other candidates will probably leave before then, but they would have a chance to get 5 years of production with a possibility of keeping you longer. Plans can and do adjust as new data arises. When I left the Army, I had a very specific skill set that pigeon holed me into a very good job with decent location, but not everything else I was looking at achieving. I set my limits: no shift work, no nights/weekend, no bitter cold locations (wife), and no extreme travel. My field often has 2-3 of these per job. I eventually added goals for pay bands, retirement system and workload (no excessive overtime). I got a chance to step into a completely new field adjacent to my skills, hit more money than I was anticipating and lined me up perfectly for a Government role because they liked my potential and skillset. The skills needed for that role were so unique the only way to get them was to do my job which maybe 3 people were actually qualified and I could point them out by name. I furthered my experience and I am now very specialized in a field I had no idea existed 3 years before doing it. 5 years later I am now in the senior role and setup on the career path I identified for myself until retirement. Great feeling to know you hit your goals, but it is much easier by making a plan and being honest with your skills and desires. I have plenty of direct examples from friends applying for jobs outside their comfort or skills. My buddy got a ridiculous network engineer position without even having a college degree because of his actual work experience and he already lived in Alaska. If you're willing to take a tough assignment/relocate, that is another way to build your portfolio. He wasn't going to apply because it required a degree in engineering, but the circumstances of the job, employer and his demonstration of knowledge made that degree req disappear quickly as he accepted one of two open positions from a highly competitive process. Be honest with yourself, make a plan and apply...push boundaries and surprise yourself. Motivation session over.

Clickbait doesn't have to be sensational and most are benign even if it haves some crazy headline. "You won't believe what Packers GM Brian Gutekunst said in his post draft interview! Everyone does the same, bland article post draft because they know it will get views which generates revenue and potentially improves their personal brand. It is exactly like mock drafts, but should be taken with the same low level of accuracy. I'm fine with generating discussion, but I agree completely with you that it shouldn't be taken as gospel or even any real authority. Anything that starts with so and so had a good/bad draft because their grade on ABCDEFG.com said should elicit some eyerolls. I will acknowledge that some analysts are much better than others at evaluating player talent, but scheme fit and opportunity will play a big role in the future success of the player and teams. How can you rate someone going to a team with a new offensive, defensive or general management system?