billyhoyle

Yeah, but what would the revenue have been for a conference consisting of the worst pac12 teams?

Look up what a hydrogen bond is. Water molecules condense in the gas phase and then come back down from the sky as they adhere to each other and transition to a liquid. We call the result of this process clouds/rain/humidity. CO2 does not form a liquid except at extremely low temperatures or extremely high pressures. Do you really think people are going to read the nonsense you are writing and say, "Oh yeah, water vapor! That disproves that CO2 is warming the planet!" No, the science makes perfect sense if you have even a high school-level understanding of chemistry and read the wiki on the greenhouse effect.

All that matters is football. I agree that it's crazy they took the deal, but they had no other choice. And when the ACC collapses, they'll have no choice but to start cutting sports. It's a terrible situation and Koll was smart to jump ship. I hope wrestling can survive.

When Florida State, Clemson, UNC, and Miami leave the ACC, that is going to be 30% of a much smaller number?

At what age and after how many warnings is somebody no longer considered a kid and allowed to be held accountable for his actions?

None of these allegations are actually new. It's kind of interesting that so much is being made of the unsealing of these documents when the reporting on it was already there previously. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-new-mexico-ranch-official-says-there-is-a-story-to-be-told-in-new-mexico/ https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed https://www.thedailybeast.com/sleazy-billionaires-double-life-featured-beach-parties-with-stephen-hawking

I thought this was America. We didn't fight a war to repeal the 18th amendment to have these coaches ban drinking on campus. This is an outrage!

It's a significant overreach for a coach to police whether an athlete drinks or. not. Obviously drinking too much would hurt athletic performance, but some of the greatest athletes ever drink from time to time (this is an understatement). And of course, if you're showing up to practice or matches hungover, that is a problem. Should coaches decide whether athletes are allowed to have relationships? Obviously they would perform better if they only focused on school and wrestling. What about policing exactly what an athlete eats? Should a coach be allowed to create a rule banning eating certain foods? You really think people can't drink in their dorms? What do you think those minifridges that every college student brings to campus are for?

A test that adjusts on the fly would be much more difficult for me than one that does not. In the old SAT, I think getting one question wrong dropped your math score to like 760 or 770 because there were so many easy questions. If now there are a ton of difficult questions, that is by definition a more challenging test. Something else I liked about the old test was that I could do all the easy questions really quickly and then go back and spend more time on the couple of difficult questions in each section. If you have to answer everything now in order, I would find that much more challenging.

Why is somebody who doesn't drink the right person? Yes-at least they did a decade ago.

What point are you trying to make? If all water vapor stayed in the atmosphere instead of coming back down to land as rain/humidity, we would be totally screwed. CO2 is kind of hard to get back to earth once it's released.

There could be many reasons. 1. Differences in the way the scores are scaled (I'm sure this factors into it significantly). 2. More low-scoring people taking the test now than before, not because the average person is dumber, but because taking the test itself is encouraged. 3. More affluent people opting to take the ACT instead of the SAT. Also, if you go from 1972 to until today, the scores look fairly similar..I don't think much can be taken from seeing the average be 500 one year, 495 the next year, and then 510 a different year. That's a 1-2% difference.

There's no question about it at the top level because there's just much more competition now. It's like comparing any sport in the 1980s and 1990s vs today. Sure, the NFL/NBA/MLB all were more gritty back then, but the competition is significantly stronger now. The SAT has always been an easy test once it became widely used. You can't have a test that is meant for every high school student to take unless it is easy. It's not meant to be difficult-that's why it only covers math through algebra. I guarantee you that the AP Calculus BC, AP Physics C, AP Chemistry, Sat Math section II, AP US History, etc are still very difficult tests.

Despicable action. This guy should not be wrestling in the NCAA anymore. End of story To the legal minds of the forum-is Northern Colorado potentially financially liable for continuing to send this guy on the mat? Obviously, if you are injured wrestling that's a down side of what everyone signs up for. But not a case where you have somebody who is known to go beyond the rules of the sport-and has repeatedly done so- to inflict injury. Is this a situation that will go to court? Should Northern Colorado have known not to let this guy put on their singlet? https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/sports-violence-lawsuits.html

If they start to complain, Brands can just go into his "you have to earn it" spiel.

Something else to think about… If you’re the Iowa AD and your football team just had a very strong season (the main thing you’re judged on), and you have what will be one of the biggest stories in sports in March with Caitlin Clark, do you really want to risk it with wrestling?

If all he did were goofy antics on the mat, sure I'd agree. But given the past accusations and the actions he's documented to have done (with his driving and guns), I don't think he should be on a college campus. There could be a number of people negatively impacted by his presence there... and for whose gain? Our entertainment?

Hi, welcome to the message board.

You keep posting that this vigilante approach solves the problem, which sounds tough on the internet, but in reality those people would go to jail too. I don't see you volunteering for that, and most people wouldn't either, which is why your solution doesn't work. Travis Bickle isn't going to help. There is already a blueprint to stop this, which is the legal system. And yes, civil and criminal cases have impacted the way organizations like the catholic church, boy scouts, and schools/universities deal with abuse. So the only way to actually solve this is to ask first of all if the people who are profiting can be held criminally and civilly accountable under current law. And if not (as is the case for not being able to sue Youtube and other corporations profiting), work to change laws.

Not if he does at Iowa what he was accused of doing at OSU. Then they have a lawsuit situation for bringing him on campus and will all get fired.

Yeah I know. My post wasn’t clear. I wasn’t asking what part of the law protects YouTube from liability. I’m asking why it is still such a blanket protection.

Youtube tells you exactly where your videos are embedded as a content creator. All law enforcement would have to do is 1. get that info from youtube. 2. Search this person's computer and internet history to show he's posting stuff there. The real question is why doesn't youtube do this and then report it to law enforcement? Why has youtube allowed this crap on their website for so long? And why can't parents sue youtube for hosting the content and profiting off of it. Yes, Youtube has made money off of this sick shit, but for some ***ducked** up reason isn't allowed to be held accountable for it.

So they're saying he's likely to be an Iowa student-athlete. Good reporting SHP