Wrestleknownothing

Using the odds for the whole field, and not knowing what happens at the conference tournaments, I put 1 champ odds at 10.9%, or almost 10:1. Using odds based on how PSU typically performs, and not knowing what happens at conference tournaments, I put 1 champ odds at 0.3%, or about 330:1. So if you believe this team is different than past PSU teams, take the 50:1. But if you are worried they are the same guys they have been, you might want to walk away.

None that I am aware of.

My problem is the childish simplicity everyone wants to wrap around things. To hear Trump tell it the Chinese Communist Party controls the canal. But the canal is owned by Panama, not China. And these ports are owned by a Hong Kong-based, publicly traded, multi-national company, not China. I know that does not preclude the Chinese government from having influence on the company (exactly what is happening in the US), but at the end of the day it is still a public company with shareholders, fiduciary duty, and reporting requirements such that what is being done is very visible. Will Trump also claim that Canadian airport parking lots are controlled by communists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_'N_Fly_Airport_Parking

What book?

Coming in hot. Strong return to the forum. Welcome back.

No one does it on purpose, but it happens. Think man.

What a dumb thread title.

Well purchase it back by a private company is not exactly take it back. The question then is did BlackRock get a deal because of Trump's rhetoric? Or did they overpay, rhetoric be damned? Or did they pay fair value, and this is just a thing? And how do the American people benefit from private ownership?

It went well. But a speech is not going to determine much. All these speeches are full of bluster and are meant to put the most positive light on everything. Facts are often in short demand. Take for example when Trump praised Musk and his work and then almost immediately stated that we will not have unelected bureaucrats running the government. If he can end the war in Ukraine without doing Putin's bidding, if he can end inflation, and stop attempting futile trade wars, if he can balance a budget and decrease the debt, then things are going well. Until then all he has done is cost me money. When I voted against him I thought it was a vote against my economic interest, but for my moral compass (barely, who are we kidding). So it is a real kick in the teeth that he won, and that turns out to be against my economic interests.

Here is an editorial from the head of the Security Traders Association (an industry advocacy group) on the STOCK Act and what needs to change. In short it will require action from Congress to allow the SEC greater enforcement tools. Will the Republican controlled Congress have the guts to do what the Democratic led Congress could not/would not; cut off its own source of enrichment? Paul Atkins will soon testify before the Senate Banking Committee for his potential SEC Chairman nomination, with no set date. If approved, a full Senate vote could confirm him within three weeks. In addition to facing questions on his regulatory philosophy, enforcement priorities, and the SEC’s mandate: protecting investors, ensuring fair markets, and supporting capital formation, Atkins will face more specific inquiries. In this second of a multi-part series about the topics he will most likely face, we highlight the limitations that the SEC has in policing stock trading by government officials. Congressional stock trading continues to captivate and confound the American public, raising persistent questions about fairness and accountability in government. Every day, we learn about these occurrences through a steady drip of financial disclosures mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) of 2012 shared via platforms like X, news outlets, and watchdog organizations that scrutinize trading reports for suspicious patterns. Yet, despite this transparency, many wonder why such behavior is seemingly allowed to persist, especially when the same actions would land private citizens in legal jeopardy. For those of us in the financial industry, frustration and anger run very high. In our jobs, we face strict regulations on trading stocks in our personal accounts. We’re subject to pre-clearance requirements, before executing trades, and holding period rules, which prevent quick buy-and-sell transactions to avoid short-term speculation. Additionally, we are restricted from trading stocks of companies where we have material non-public information, which for anyone on a trading desk includes every company under the sun. These policies are monitored with great proficiency and when violated individuals face severe consequences in the form of fines and lifetime bans from our industry. These regulations and industry standards prevent the occurrence and perception of widespread insider trading. The STOCK Act mandates federal government officials to disclose their financial transactions within 45 days and prohibits them from using material non-public information for personal profit. While the STOCK Act applies to all federal officials, it is not equally administered. Many three-letter agencies like the FDA, FCC, IRS and others have discretion on what is demanded among their staff, which leads to inconsistent levels of transparency. Reporting standards by congressional members is stricter with information on trades more easily found in the public domain. This is why almost all the attention is on them. Today, there is widespread skepticism about the efficacy of the STOCK Act in restoring public trust. Enforcement has been virtually nonexistent due to significant challenges within the legal framework. Investigating and proving intent, as well as a breached duty of trust, is nearly impossible and often leads to a political minefield. One major legal obstacle is the Speech and Debate Clause—a constitutional provision that grants members of Congress immunity from prosecution for actions or statements made in the course of their legislative duties—which hinders regulatory agencies’ investigations. Another barrier is the lack of direct authority over Congress; while the SEC can investigate individual members, it lacks explicit power to regulate or discipline them, leaving enforcement to the Department of Justice or congressional ethics committees. That said, the STOCK Act has successfully increased transparency in an area where none previously existed. SEC Chairs face significant limitations in policing insider trading by members of Congress, making it difficult to find meaningful courses of action within those constraints without additional authority from Congress. Until such reforms are enacted, public frustration is likely to persist, underscoring the urgent need for legislative action to close these loopholes and restore faith in governmental integrity.

In the hearing the lawyer for the NJSIAA said the police had detained him and his father only and were completing their investigation before deciding to whether to charge anyone. You can read their delay as based on the later attitude of the accused, or as being extra certain given that he has hired a high profile attorney and has already gone to court, so we better be sure we have this right.

To be clear, I am not making any kind of "PSU is too virtuous" argument. First, I do not frame transfers that way. I find it silly. Second, everyone everywhere does, or will, bring in transfers. Third, I am very pro-athlete. Let them get paid. They did not for too long. All that said, I will play. NIL started in 2022. But not the way we see it now. In 2022 guys were getting free pizza (RBY) and burritos (Eierman) or doing commercials for local car dealerships. Things got a bit more serious in 2023 and have ramped up each year since, if reports are to be believed. 2022 - I expect the debate to now be about what constitutes "hasn't been a pre-season AA contender". If it is a true or redshirt freshman, is that non-pre-season contender? Or does recruiting rank matter? Eye of the beholder stuff. Clearly 125 was a hole and they brought in a 1 year guy, Drew Hilldebrandt. 149 Bartlett bumps up to cover the weight rather than bring in a transfer. 157 wasn't a transfer, but a call back from retirement and coaching with Brady Berge. 165 they went with what they had and redshirted Alex Facundo while starting Creighton Edsell. That leaves 197. Was Michael Beard considered a pre-season AA contender? Some say yes, some say no. But two-year guy, Max Dean bumps up a weight because there is a future four-timer at his desired weight. This is a tough call. Did PSU "bring him in", or did Dean "escape the COVID restrictions" of the Ivy League, and in the process sacrifice by going up a weight? Depends on which narrative you prefer. 1 of 4. Or 2 of 5. Depends on your perspective. 2023 - 125 Gary Steen, they clearly went with what they had. All other weights are either locked down, or they had a freshman AA contender. 0 of 1 2024 - 125 rolled with a freshman in Braeden Davis who was not the clear starter in the pre-season. He had to beat Gary Steen in the Journeyman to win the job. I do not think you can call anyone at the weight an AA contender until after the season began and results rolled in. 133 brought in multi-year transfer, Aaron Nagao. 165 A healthy Alex Facundo takes an Olympic redshirt as Mitchel Mesenbrink comes in. Hard to argue Facundo is not a pre-season AA contender. 184 Bernie Truax cuts back down to 184, ala Max Dean, for the same reason as Max Dean, allowing Josh Barr to redshirt. If Barr goes is he a pre-season AA contender? Could go either way. 1 of 3, or 2 of 3. 2025 - Loaded top to bottom. So counting conservatively PSU brought in 4 transfers out of 8 weights where they were not pre-season AA contenders. Of those 4, 2 were one year guys.

That was special. The way that kid lit up was amazing.

Stick to the prepared speech. When he goes off the cuff it is gibberish.

Hard to speak for everyone, but I think the general view is, "Huh, that's a shame. Are we still winning this year?"

Do you use Hulu+Live TV or YouTube TV? If so, it is on there. If not, you may be able to do a free trial.

You are correct. I misread. Oops.

PSU rolls with who they have rather than pick up a one year guy. Iowa likes their guy. The next two big pocket books are Michigan and Oklahoma State. I think Oklahoma State wins a bidding war with Michigan. Thought here is a twist. Oklahoma State whispers sweet nothings in Isaac Trumble's ear to pick up a guy with two years left. And Ghadiali goes to Michigan.

Nobody trusts your memory

I sure hope that is not what you think the important part of the quote is.

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

and you get a cookie

I still struggle with Kueter vs Keuter

I did not have an AA requirement in the query. And rather than biggest jump I went with the slope of the line since the beginning of the season. Some guys didn't have a huge jump, but they just kept moving up the ladder. Busy at work today, but I will see what I can do.

Looks like I have used 102% of my DM storage. Time to clean house.