billyhoyle

Basketball is much more legitimate of a sport than MMA/UFC, but I completely agree on the Connor/Khabib example. Or the Conor fight with Mayweather (one of the greatest successes in his career). Aksren was mediocre at the actual sport of MMA, but he had great success promoting himself. The moment of him getting knocked out by that knee will always be part of the history of the sport. It's the UFC equivalent of the Nike jumpman or Jerry west logo. That is something that most heels can only dream of.

I think the amount of doping needed to succeed in UFC negates a lot of the advantage of being a D1 wrestler. You can easily dope strength and conditioning (2 of the main advantages D1 wrestlers had). Then if you train kickboxing technique during the years that an athlete is a D1 wrestler and learn how to sprawl, you're going to be at an advantage against a guy who learns striking after wrestling in college until age 24. So the best base for MMA at this point is probably just any type of striking (muay thai, kickboxing, boxing). Add on doping, and you have a winning combo.

Askren was part of one of the most succesful UFC fights in history. Sure, his job was being on the receiving end of a knee for it, but given that UFC is essentially an extension of WWE at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he won or lost, as long as he got people to watch. and engage.

Edinboro coach if it were the year 2003

Not if you win.

It would not be smart because of the muscle loss associated with it.

That's pretty awful if true.

The rules of the 401K have to be the same for all employees.

Your company isn't going to change how run their 401K match based on you trying to negotiate. I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about with this stuff.

That's great. But if you max out your contribution and your company doesn't "true-up" until the end of the year, and then you leave your company, you won't get the matching contribution from them.

I'm not talking about long-term vs short-term. My point is just that not all companies will give the full match if you max the account out early, and many of those that do will wait until the end of the year to "true-up" the contributions. If they wait until the end of the year for their match, it pretty much defeats the purpose of maxing it out early (as opposed to spreading it out and investing extra money in an IRA or brokerage account).

Many match based on contribution/paycheck. I believe most of the ones that allow you to front-load then do the "true-up" contribution at the end of the year. If that is the case, it doesn't necessarily even pay off to front load because you are losing the matching amount for months.

Assuming you have an employer match, you should not increase your contributions and max out early, because most places will not give you the full match if you do. You could try to be tricky and front-load it to some degree (but not enough so that you won't get the full match). Instead, what I am doing is contributing to my IRA faster than I normally would (have been doing this for the past week). I will also begin to invest some extra money into an after-tax brokerage account if the market continues to fall.

"Obama didn't include the public option." Way to rewrite history. They couldn't pass the ACA to include the public option because there weren't 60 senators who supported it. And what Sanders want isn't a public option, it's the elimination of all private health insurance and an UK-style public healthcare system.

I think the tariffs are idiotic. But so pretty much every "idea" that Bernie has ever had on how to "help" the economy.