Sundancer
-
Posts
1,560 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sundancer
-
-
7 minutes ago, GG said:
The same questions were asked about Young, EJ and Boller at this exact points of their careers. Allen is a lot closer to them than he is to Eli or Stafford.
I'm going to go ahead and imagine Josh Allen could throw to Megatron...or have Tiki Barber in his backfield (2000 total yards in Eli's first year) and Shockey at TE for a second and wonder if Allen would be having a better season.
He probably would, wouldn't you think?
-
43 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
I see a lot of your points...I really do. I'm just frustrated that our offense is still struggling....
Imagine you get rid of your entire offensive starters minus 2 guys, one of who is a project QB. 8 games into the following year, do you expect a really good offense?
And oh yeah, his WRs lack a true #1 and are mostly smurf-y. And many drop the ball.
-
I think we should give up on Allen after 20 games and 8 games into a season with 9 new starters on offense, no true #1 WR, his best TE is a rookie 3rd round pick, and no particular running game yet.
Who's with me?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Seven-N-Nine said:
Hmm, not sure I have a problem with the question. They've gone through the "process" to get Allen and build the team they want, and they are no better off...
Tyrod had shown his ceiling. We are 20 games into a guy we all knew was a project, and so far he's shown an ability to grow and change his game. What he's not shown is an ability to put it all together yet. Some of that will come from having 9 new starters on offense this year. Some will come from a little lack of talent. Some will come from just not being ready in all phases.
Josh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tryod
-
1
-
-
In terms of keeping the show going post-Rick, it seems like the path forward is making Neegan into a big player again. That episode was the first one in a while that was good. The plot moved along towards new things for the first time in a while: (1) Eugene's 1-900 friend, (2) Capturing a Whisperer, (3) Neegan's insertion into the Whisperer freakshow, which injected some much-needed fun back into the show (his line last week, "What's a guy gotta do to get eaten around here" is classic.)
The poisoning is a dull sidelight with some predictable outcomes...a few people will die and there will be a mass internal killing of walkers. There will be a revolt to attack the Whisperers once they know what's going on. Yada yada.
Thank you to the person who noted that Carol was cooking on a propane/gas stove. I didn't catch that. Fantastic.
I expect one of the next episodes will be back to the boring kingdom of they dying King and the Gamma-Tinman relationship (yawn central). That crew can all end up dead along with the musical guy, and the 2ish deaf people, none of which have made any impression on the plot except to give Daryl a momentary love interest (yawnx2). We probably won't see Maggie until the last 5 minutes of the last episode this season, when she pulls up in a TESLA or lands in a Harrier.
-
UC system considering eliminating the SAT, which many schools have done, but with the student numbers it accepts, that would be a shockwave to the standardized test business.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-02/uc-sat-test-optional
-
The NFL average for kicks over 50 is about 64%. Houschka is a bit below that in the last years. He had maybe a 6/10 shot at making the kick at best. He missed it. It'll happen sometimes.
The other kick was a worse miss.
-
1 minute ago, Seven-N-Nine said:
I would like to see McDermott fired yes,
Firing the coach and turning over the team culture every 3 years has worked so well that you would like to repeat it?
How long, exactly, did you think the rebuild of the Whaley/Ryan disaster would take? 2 years to become a playoff powerhouse? 3 to the SB?
-
Angry snowflake fans. Gets a little warm and they start crying for their blankets!
The Wahmbulance is coming fellas.
-
1
-
-
Just now, JR in Pittsburgh said:
This.
people need to relax. The browns have elite offensive skill players and an excellent pass D. TheY suffer from bad coaching and bad mental errors— very Billsy-like things. But they can beat anyone.
i wish our D held at the end, but they didn’t. Not the end of the world. Let’s move on.
The Bills have no WR as good as either of the Browns' WRs, and they have no RB as good as probably both of the Browns' RBs. The Bills have a project QB playing in his 20th game who has largely outplayed the #1 pick of the draft last year.
This was not going to be a 12 win team. They may go 9-7 and miss the playoffs. The Bills have 9 new starters on offense and guess what, they still have holes to fill, some gaping. Im enjoying the season, and remain cautiously optimistic that they are good enough to beat 1-2 of the better teams they need to to get into the playoffs.
We will see.
-
Repeating this.
Browns have lost to
Niners
Rams
Titans
Seahawks
Pats
They destroyed the Ravens.
They are a long ways from a bad team.
That's not apologizing for 266 yards passing, 2 missed FGs, throwing 3 yard passes in the last two minutes, 8 rushing attempts for Singletary, giving up 150 on the ground almost every game seemingly...but they lost to a team playing at home that is far from as bad as their record indicates.
-
3
-
-
Browns have lost to
Niners
Rams
Titans
Seahawks
Pats
They destroyed the Ravens.
They are a long ways from a bad team.
That not apologizing for 266 yards passing, 2 missed FGs, throwing 3 yard passes in the last two minutes, 8 rushing attempts for Singletary, giving up 150 on the ground almost every game seemingly...but they lost to a team that is far from as bad as their record indicates.
-
Just a little reality check on what the Browns are. Their losses are to:
Rams
Pats
Seahawks
Niners
and they beat the Ravens.
My biggest comlpaint wasn't with Allen's 266 passing...it was the last several plays and the 3 yard throws not playing for the W. Jauron-like offensive feel to that.
-
1 hour ago, SoTier said:
That's a very partisan and elitist statement -- and it's untrue. Maybe it's not where you're coming from, but most of the proponents of this view are the same people who advocate subsidizing private elementary and secondary education via vouchers; are always worried about "unqualified" people color being admitted to prestigious educational institutions while being just fine with "unqualified" children of alumni taking spots at competitive colleges, etc; and who actively promote the idea that college degrees are unnecessary when, in fact, statistical data shows just the opposite.
The rise in the cost of tuition coincides with the decline of government support for higher education, especially on the state level with aid to public colleges and universities; with the rampant inflation of the 1970s and 1980s which raised costs for all organizations and businesses; with the unionization of collegiate faculties which raised the wages of teaching and research staff; and finally, a massive increase in demand, especially for prestigious schools.
Except for the issue of government support, these same factors have resulted in massive tuition increases in private elementary and secondary schools where government backed loans have never existed.
Inflation does explain the rise in college tuition except in very small part:
With more money in the form of loans, colleges found themselves flush with cash. What they didn't do with all that money was keep tuitions steady and build only necessary buildings for education. They built tons of new buildings in the university arms race to get more students, hired lots of administrators, and raised salaries. They did what most people (and government officials) do when they get more money. They spent the new money. Weeeeeee!
Then because they had more bills, they, wait for it, raised tuition. And started a cycle.
Government funding flooding the university system wasn't the only factor in rising tuition but there's hardly an economist who's looked at this problem that doesn't identify it as the prime one.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Everyone knows if the school library is named after your grandfather, or for that matter if your parents and grandparents are alums, you go into another admission pile at an Ivy League.
It's not just Ivy League. They are only a handful of schools.
All private schools do this.
-
1 hour ago, SoTier said:
Alumni contributions seldom actually reduce tuition for all students. The Ivies have monstrous endowments (which are used to provide a reliable revenue stream for operating expenses) and it took an expose by the media about a decade ago to embarrass schools like Harvard and Yale to give almost all students reduced or free tuition. Most contributions to colleges go into endowment and building funds -- often for building Taj Mahal-like sports facilities -- as well as providing inflated salaries for institution administrators, big name professors, and football and basketball coaches. Donations to scholarship funds are the only dollars that are actually earmarked to help students with college costs with the income from those scholarship funds.
Some of this is true and that's why my sentence was written the way it was.
Tuitions rose because the government backed student loans. All that extra money, intended to help students who couldn't afford tuition, poured money into the system that resulted in massive tuition increases.
Late 70s, and into the 80s to today were an era of massive federal student loan expansion (the bright green in the bars below).
The tuition at a school these days is less an amount to be paid, and more the amount that will be paid if you're rich. Colleges get a lot of PR saying they give need-based scholarships in massive amounts but what they really do is have a target tuition (let's say 40K) they have to get in the door, and charge people who can afford it the sticker price of 55K and those who cannot a lesser price of say the 40K they really need for their budget, and can make that 15K difference into a need based "scholarship" that looks like a great effort of good will, but it's really just an inflated number that was reduced. It's a strange system, and the only truth in college financial aid and admissions is that everyone feels screwed.
Which is amusing because our university system is the envy of the world as it should be. But we Americans can sure whine about the good life!
-
9 hours ago, RochesterRob said:
I've never heard of a reduction in tuition because somebody donated a million dollars or two. Now if you want to talk about a scholarship to offset tuition that is a different matter but once again is seldom the case. Usually a donation is made with the intention of buying hard assets such as land, buildings, or equipment. It's sad to see people such as yourself to say it is OK to screw over a deserving student in favor of an undeserving student. In a lot of universities there are only so many spots or chairs as they say so you can't assume they will make extra room for the non-privileged student. As far as rarity goes if accomplishments are near equal you can bet the administrator has a wide latitude to work with in terms of doing a quid pro quo so in that respect it happens more than you think. Just because something is not a crime by statute does not make it ethical or moral. Maybe it should be a crime.
I didn't say there was a reduction in tuition.
Scholarships are often given as the result of donations so it's not "seldom."
I never said it's "OK to screw over a deserving student."
Colleges are recruiting non-privileged and first generation students like mad right now and if they are qualified, they will get excellent treatment in admissions.
Illegal quid pro quo is... illegal?
Donations should not be a crime. If you donate a building to a school, that's a boon to generations of students, and if the school (a private institution in most cases) admits a student as thanks to that donor, that admission more than benefits the many other students for years.
Setting those issues aside, your post is right on!
-
-
10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:
The ends justifies the means? A substandard student gains entry and the campus gets a new building so everybody is a winner? More like a deserving student gets the shaft because their family did not win life's lottery. That aside the money virtually never falls in a way where all the students benefit. How does the Elizabethan Poetry major benefit from a new wing added to the law school? It's like you have never been on the campus of a major university to hear all the cross talk on undeserving students. It takes more than money to get an undeserving student into a curriculum without the instructors and other students placing that person on a firing line. The record of the undeserving student would have to be cleaned up (lies) to get instructors to work with this student. Are you saying that fabricating a record does not matter? t
A donation to the school is less money needed to be paid by tuition to secure some benefit.
The bribe buys a coach a BMW.
This ain't rocket science. One is better and not a crime...And rare.
-
4 hours ago, RochesterRob said:
The ethics are highly questionable if the donation was done solely to get the kid admitted and I thought that point was coming through. More so if a very highly ranking official does so in terms of doctoring a kid's application. I would bet that as part of the "service" an undeserving kid's record is cleaned up so there is not all kinds of resentment by instructors, administrators, and fellow students towards that kid most of the time. Usually the doctoring is done to make the student's background look reasonable if not top notch. Further, I was also making a point that what the women did was plain stupid in terms of trying not to get caught. It's like they were trying to work the bargain bin in terms of payola which does not make sense. I am not saying the second method is not fraudulent but a majority of the time a general donation is pretty much the same thing although quite a bit less risky. If you were the dean of a school or even the president of the university I would think that if you are bright enough to hold either post that if some big shot calls you out of the blue about a meeting it would take a split second to realize they want to place some kid there. The minute you gain access to that kid's files and see issues it will dawn on you that a bribe of some kind is going to be pitched at you. Again, the first approach mentioned in this regard is far less sloppy than the second but no more ethical if the donation was not happening without the admission. After all nobody makes a donation for a million or two on the basis of "if you can."
The difference is substantial. Money donated to the school, which money benefits all the students vs. money going to the personal pocket of some admissions person/coach.
-
1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:
The difference is that the Kennedy's and the Bush's "did it right" while the actresses "did it wrong." Meaning the Kennedy's and the Bush's made donations to the school overall with an understanding while the actresses bribed an official who was not on the top layer of administration. Also, 400K is a little light in the bribery dept if you ask me. We would not be hearing anything about it if each woman had offered say a couple million dollars at a lunch with a dean.
If you donate a few million to the school, are an active alum donor, that's a benefit to the entire school and student body. And such donations are legal.
Greasing a guy's pocket and doctoring transcripts, tests, and photos is bribery and fraud--and benefits only the kid that is the subject of the fraud. Pretty big difference.
1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:Being a legacy helps but certainly is not a guarantee for admission. For the most part a legacy gives the edge if test scores are close. But there are certainly exceptions when heavyweights are involved such as politicians, lawyers, captains of industry, etc..
Test scores mean less and less, but your point is true if applicants are close. It's a plus in the column of students who are children of alum.
-
1
-
-
He is impossible not to like.
-
On 10/14/2019 at 9:21 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:
I'm intrigued by this intermittent fasting idea. Can you say more about what you're doing?
I've lost 36 lbs between February and August. Mostly between February and April, but maintained/lost 3 lbs slowly over the summer.
I'm done with vacation and ready to get back to it, but having trouble with motivating myself to really be disciplined and log everything I eat, which seems to be what I have to do to lose significant weight.
16/8 fasting means only eat during an 8 hour window, and fast for the other 16.
There's more to it on what you consume in the window (if you eat 4 pizzas and drink 6 liters of coke in 8 hours, the other 16 fasting are not going to help) but that's the general idea. It tends to keep you from eating late before bed, and focuses your eating at two meals. Most would skip breakfast.
-
The Bills drafted a kid that EVERYONE said was a project QB.
We are into the 19th (?) game of the project. He's better now than when he arrived, and that's what I'm looking for in a project QB.
And he's improved year to year with accuracy, poise, and decision making. Plus, I like that he remains confident when he makes mistakes. He is in a great spot, except when the fans put unrealistic expectations on his growth. He's going to have bad games in a row. Just look at the upward trends and how he corrects his mistakes.
McDermott Weds Presser: Sullivan asks whether Allen is an improvement over Tyrod
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by Sundancer
He learned that from Reid. I like it. Coach the team. That's all that matters. You know who else gives an awful press conference? Belichek.
Rex gave great press conferences. Maybe the best ever.
Giving fun answers to reporters is the last thing I care about.