Taro T

They definitely are, and the incumbant's party always loses ground in year 6, but I'll hold off on cheering getting Reid out of the driver's seat and Pelosi getting pushed farther to the back of the bus until it actually happens.

I'll believe people will vote the D's out when it actually happens. We could have had a grown up with executive experience in the WH but people didn't want one.

You have my deepest ccondolences.

Could you make it 2,980 words? Those extra 20 will make it unbearable.

Realistic answer for a fair # of them is the more total bodies in the programs, the more 'power' those running the programs end up with. Answer they'd likely give you will have something to do with either 1. accidentally knocking more people that qualify for the benefits off them than they'll actually knock off that don't qualify for them or 2. causing people that qualify for benefits to not get them due to the difficulty of getting them.

Westfall - my thoughts and prayers are with you and your wife.

Too bad prior to Obamacare 250MM Americans had access to good quality health insurance.

They were just the set up for bringing in the ferret. EVERYBODY knows ferrets and beer go together like wings & beer.

Very well written article. Peggy is one of my favorite columnists.

It's definitely inaccurately low. As an aside: Added to the state sales tax is anywhere from 3% (Saratoga, a few others) - 4.875% (NYC, yeah, didn't see that coming).

Yes. Yep. The rest of the 8% or so is county sales tax. Yea NY!

If they did want to lower the odds of making long kicks it would be easy enough to calculate how much lower the success rate would be at different widths / heights by reviewing kicks from the past x years. It wouldn't be precisely accurate as kickers would be expected to be able to tighten where they'd put the ball with narrower goal posts &/or a higher crossbar, but it would be a good starting point. They also could move the goalposts further back if they saw this as a particularily big issue. They were moved back from the goalline in the 70's. Move them 5 yards further back and then getting to the 33 gives you a 55 yard attempt.

Apparently $50MM initially according to the article.

Which probably stems from so many of them storing their heads near their coccyges.

Except those eyeballs are located outside the US and don't factor in for Nielsen ratings. Which are the ones the league really cares about. Expanding to TO is more like expanding to London rather than the last push into the Carolinas and North Florida.

It'll be interesting to see how many fewer penalties Wood takes next year with at least 1 upgraded guard next to him. After Urbik's play seemed to deteriorate, Wood's penalty count seemed to go up significantly. Tough to stop your own guy and help the guy on each side of you at the same time.

That would go against what they do now. They currently reseed by seed (if 3 and 4/5 make it out, they are seeded 3 & 4 of remaining teams; and 4/5 & 6 become 3 & 4 respectively); that is how I would expect them to reseed in the new system (so if 2, 4, & 6 come out, they become 2, 3, & 4).

to the bolded. To the rest: fair enough.

I'd put it more at 50-50, as his hands never stopped moving before the ball was on the turf. Either way, whichever way they'd've called it on the field, I'd expect the ruling wouldn't be overturned.

Quite possibly, as he likely wouldn't have been trying to put the ball down and begin his celebration asap.

Not disagreeing with your comments, just noting a certain irony that Houston wouldn't sell out the dome in the Glanville/Pardee era unless Pittsburgh or the Pokes were in town w/out Randall's buying the last few hundred / several thousand seats and that was in the midst of a 6-7 year playoff run.

Except that play isn't set up the way Beerball described it. He set the ball on the ground (intentionally, I'll grant you) at the end on the same motion that he'd caught the ball with. Though I might agree that he clearly intentionally 'dropped' the ball, he didn't take steps while already in possession of the ball. He got his feet on the ground in the process of making the catch. There didn't appear to be any steps after he'd caught the ball, the steps were made while the catch was being made. Which is a significant difference IMHO.

An example of where the receiver had control of the ball while taking steps and then lost the ball after hitting the turf and not getting the TD isn't immediately coming to mind. Do you have an example? What you have described seems more analogous to a runner that was already bobbling a ball before crossing the goalline. The runner wouldn't be awarded the TD unless he recontrolled the ball after crossing the line. Once the ball is controlled in the endzone, the play is dead. On a catch the ball isn't controlled until the catch is complete. Running a few strides without bobbling it would complete the catch and establish control.

If it has been controlled for a couple of steps, then there would have been the proverbial 'football move' and the receiver is now a runner and it's a touchdown when he crosses the line.

But there is a difference between the 2. The runner has possession of the ball once it is handed to him and if he maintains that possesion until the ball reaches the goaline, it is a touchdown. The reciever doesn't have possession until he has 'completed the catch.' As soon as he has possession and the ball has reached the goalline, it is a touvhdown. If simply touching the football, rather than controlling it were the rule (as you seem to be advocating), then James Hardy would still have a job.