• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,127 Excellent

About OnWis97

  • Rank
    It should always be Christmas in New Jersey
  • Birthday 06/05/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Favourite Teams
    U of Wisconsin, Twins, Vikes, Wolves, Wild

Recent Profile Visitors

25,282 profile views
  1. I thought it was the liberals who were wussies. Unlikely. It's going to be close. Trump's probably going to win on the Hate Hillary factor, but he can't carry some traditionally blue states. And look for nobody to get anywhere near a majority of the popular vote. Trump will eek her out in the popular vote and the EC. Trump in a close one.
  2. Giants kicker Josh Brown gets a game for domestic violence. I'll be stunned if he does not serve more at some point. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17345996/ex-wife-new-york-giants-kicker-josh-brown-says-was-physically-violent-20-s
  3. Some of the ideas may be the same but at least the qualifications and the desire to actually be President will be far more intact. If not for the SCOTUS nomination being held hostage, I could deal with, say Mitt Romney (though not Paul Ryan) beating Hillary. Nice work regarding the bold. It's astonishing how a candidate running for his own self-amusement, no more qualified to be President than 9 out of 10 people you randomly choose at the bar you go to, is this close. There are always un-serious people throwing their names into the ring but major parties don't nominate them. It's frightening that a novelty candidate made it to number 2 and still has an outside shot at a win. And it's in no small part because even the "serious" candidates were complete buffoons (with the exception of Kasich, who just had no presence). The GOP is kinda making the DNC look great, which is no small accomplishment. I almost hope a Republican finds his way to the White House. I am burned out on the obstruction and the hate for Obama that will surely carry to Hillary. And maybe a GOP Prez will calm us down on "hating career politicians" to the point that we keep nominating the unqualified. After one or two terms of another Clinton, I fear who the GOP will nominate next. Maybe George Zimmerman.
  4. That game was the worst. The best. The worst.
  5. I once saw Dolphins while looking at the water from Fort Sumter in Charleston, so the name would fit! We've debated this a lot so I guess it makes sense to have a thread. I'll miss the "franchise" model. At my snarkiest, I feel like this charts history for the curious fan, while just treating each city as the team is for the fans who like to go to the games but don't really know anything about the sport. The franchise model is probably dead in the NBA and the NFL. The NHL surprised me by how it handled the Winnipeg/Atlanta/Arizona situation so there may be hope there. MLB, the most history-minded (and history-dependent) sport will hopefully hold to that. There's no doubt in my mind that most fans probably want a new name when a team relocates to their city. We lament Utah Jazz and Los Angeles Lakers. I can deal with that, I guess. Minnesota Senators would not have worked (though Baltimore Browns--in both sports--would have). Even if there's more liklihood to forget history that way. Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants history is better-remembered than Washington Senators and St. Louis Browns history, though that is at least partly because of the futility of those latter teams. Particularly for the most historic franchises, I like to see the names stay. I am glad the Rams, Colts, and, Cardinals never changed names. Had they all changed, we'd be a little more removed from an understanding of the league's history. Hell, after the Cleveland Deal, we'd probably have also had a Baltimore Deal and the current Ravens (named "Colts") would be attached to the Baltimore Colts and the Indy Colts would retroactively have been considered a 1984 (?) expansion team. So yeah, I wish we had the Baltimore Browns. Because the long-standing franchise in Cleveland moved there and history should follow that. At the time, I was OK with the Deal because I thought it was just name/colors/uniforms/lack of logos...it was only years later when I realized it was history. To me that just seemed odd. The NBA is probably done with the franchise model. The current relocated franchises will carry history. But future moves and expansion teams in departed cities (e.g., Seattle) will probably inherit old histories, retroactively create expansion teams and just make the history-minded fan throw up his hands in frustration. You think it's bad that Kevin Durant ditched OKC for Golden State? He left Seattle after one year! Talk about disloyal! As a fan of the Twins, I don't embrace Senators history a lot. But I know about it and I don't pretend they were an expansion team. And as a fan of the North Stars, I am glad the Dallas team honors the history. They went with the franchise model (with the obvious need to drop "North") and honor retired numbers from Minnesota. The 1980s are over, but at least we're not pretending the team never existed. And the current Wild team could be called North Stars, but Neal Broten never played for it...well unless we take White-Out to the history books. Not worth it. So while @ColeJ spikes the football a little too much for my taste, I totally agree with the premise that they were not an expansion team. Could they have changed to "Dallas Armadillos" and had the new franchise be the North Stars? Sure...but hopefully it would be a Jets and not a Hornets situation. In any case, that ship has sailed. A few problems going with the "my city, my city, my city" model: Right now the Washington Nationals would have three teams as part of its official franchise. OR better yet, the 1961 move could have treated the Twins as expansion, given that Washington had an expansion team that year. And now the Rangers would be the team connected to all that history, despite that history packing up for Minnesota. What history would the NY Mets have? Would they be recognized as having two teams from 1901 to 1954 (or whenever the Cali move happened)? Or would they have picked, say, the Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers would mothballed while the LA Surfers are considered expansion? We'd have all sorts of defunct teams "waiting" for expansion teams to "pick up" its history. Montreal Expos, Cleveland Rams, Chicago Cardinals, Kansas City Kings, etc. Tracing history would be lots of fun, I suppose. The current Minnesota Timberwolves, called the Lakers, would claim the six or so titles won before the LA move. No. Did not happen. I live in Minnesota, where championships are elusive...I'd love my pitiful franchise to have them. But it does not. Those titles happened in Minnesota. Nobody's pretending that they did not, but they happened to a team that plays elsewhere. Milwaukee Brewers, 1901, 1970-present. Seattle Pilots, 1969, 1977-present. Cleveland Rams, Defunt. Los Angels Movie Stars, 1946-1994, 2016-present. St. Louis Redbirds, 1995-2015. I cannot speak for European sports, but in North America, we track history. We have beloved all-time records. We know which team has won the most titles and who leads the franchise in goals, home runs, rushing yards, and points. We know that for the Twins, the all-time wins leader in franchise history is Walter Johnson. And it's OK to know that the leader since the move is Bert Blyleven. But Johnson is not the leader of the franchise that currently resides in Washington...because history happened and was caused by events that included a relocation. Is there a statue of Walter Johnson by the ballpark in DC? If so, that's fine. But don't play make-believe with history because some fans find it unpleasant to deal with what actually happened. East Germany had a crappy run...but we don't pretend it did not exist.
  6. Born and Raised in Robbinsdale, MN (perhaps the most pro wrestlers per capita in the US) College in Madison, WI (U of Wisc) Grad School in Iowa City, IA (U of Iowa) Peoria, IL New Britain, CT Winona, MN St. Paul, MN
  7. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/curt-schilling-says-hes-going-to-run-for-president-in-2024-080816 Curt Schilling wants to run for President if Hillary wins. Two years ago, I'd have laughed. Now I just wonder whether he'll be able to take down Joe the Plumber for the GOP nomination.
  8. So it seems USA Gymnastics has some Mike McQueerys, JoPa's, etc. in the ranks. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2016/08/04/usa-gymnastics-sex-abuse-protected-coaches/85829732/ It's really sad how people will eschew common decency to take the easy way out and protect an organziation's reputation.
  9. My worst experiences have been due to weather or airplane maintenance. Th most aggravating one was a flight from Madison back home to Connecticut. Stop in Detroit. After that stop, the plane got to Connecticut and I actually heard the wheels go down. They turned us around and landed us back in Detroit. Yes, I flew Detroit-to-Detroit. Turns out that Hartford had four inches of snow in less than an hour (or some such ridiculous amount). My biggest pet peeve is with the overhead compartments. I will never forgive the airlines for charging for checked bags. Most of the "extra weight" just comes into the cabin anyway, with half of the bags being checked from the front door of the plane after the bins are full. It slows everything down, causes people to hover around the ticketing area waiting for their group to be called, and leads to people leaning over me and occasionally even dropping bags on me. I know some people are scared to check bags anyway, but it was much easier when they were not charging for bags. I totally agree with this and have in fact thought about it before. I am already taking a $25 ($50?) bullet to contribute to making lives easier. When I have a connection and have to wait forever for people to grab their bags, it's infuriating. The people carrying their bags with them are the problem, the rest of us should get a break. I carry a small bag with reading material, prescriptions, tablet, and a change of socks and underwear and put it under the seat in front of me. I legitimately feel I deserve to get off the plane first and have all these jerks wait for that before they start running around and getting their bags. Plus it would provide some incentive not to bring full-sized suitcases onto the plane, making everything more efficient.
  10. Nowadays that would not matter, except, of course, for the bold. Because of that it was a done deal.
  11. The "What Grinds Your Gears" thread seems to be reproducing.
  12. I am not part of that. But I am starting to think that there are no solutions to make the game appreciably safer. A big hit, no matter how property done, is always going to contribute to the long-term quality of life of both players involved...isn't it believed that a perfect hit (arms wrapped around the waist, no contact at all with either head) still causes that "neck-snapping" action that leads to head problems in the long run? It's not entirely about concussions any more. It's about collisions...collisions on the line, collisions tackling the ball carrier, big blocks, etc. We can mitigate. But we cannot solve. As long as the game is played in a fashion that actually attracts fans, the collisions are numerous enough that many players will come out of their careers with an impacted quality of life. My gut (and yeah, that's all I have) is that helmet technology will have roughly no impact. Maybe removing helmets will, though. Regarding kickoffs, are those plays a big part of the CTE problem? Maybe they are, but they are such a small proportion of the plays that I wonder. Not that I care; I actually don't like the impact that long kick returns have on the game; I'd probably be happier with getting rid of it than most. Some ways to potentially MITIGATE could include: Getting rid of helmets? Part of me thinks it would work and part of me thinks we'd just get a bunch of horrid injuries in pre-season game #1. Flat out removing contact from practices. I am not sure about this. How much full-contact do guys take in practice vs. games? Then, how much is the quality of play impacted if practice is dialed down so much? It's a tough balance because no-contact practices could hurt in-game technique. 18 game schedule. Stop it. Stop it now. Eliminate youth football? Is there a way to tech proper techniques but not have kids, who are still developing, butting heads with each other from age 10 to 18? Is that contact a big part of the long term problem? Maybe only seniors (or juniors/seniors) should be playing full-contact high school ball. Again, I am sort of just thinking out loud but I wonder if slashing the number of hits players take as kids could be beneficial. Cap a player's career at a certain number of years? I dunno, there'd probably be a successful lawsuit over that one. Strict benching of players with concussion-like symptoms or even after any helmet-to-helmet hit. Of course, you'd have a ton of star players missing a lot of time. I think it was the NFC Title Game a couple of years ago when Russel Wilson was playing and should not have been...we want him in there, not T-Jack. We'd really get to know our depth charts. NFL: really try to be a positive player in this. Acknowledge the problem we all know is there. That would at the very least get them to stop with the extending the season non-sense. They've determined there is about a 1/1000% chance that having more than one helmet can impact safety; so what's the chance that Thursday games could? Maybe consider dropping that greedy endeavor in favor of safety? There are two problems we have today that we did not have in the old days. First (and most importantly) we no longer have the blissful ignorance that if you can remember you own name you are fine. We are learning more and the news is grim. Secondarily, the combination of speed and size players have today would have been unheard of in the 1980s. The impacts probably have become greater on many hits. And, short of taking the "football" out of football, I am not sure what can be done about that. We can mitigate all we want; and I suppose we should. But players and parents still need to understand that long-term quality of life is not well-served by playing football. If the players that are playing are well-informed* I guess I'll feel OK about watching them damage each other. *Most today are not; or, at least they were not when they were getting into the game as kids. Even as recently as five years ago, we thought it was all about concussions and helmet-to-helmet. If only it were that simple. I don't have (or want) kids. But if I did, it's the one sport I would not let them play (well, boxing/MMA, maybe). You could make arguments about, say, hockey, but given the way youth hockey is played, I tend to doubt the risks would be nearly as great (and anyone related to me is not playing pro). OMG, I would be a participant in the Wussifacation of America I'd be thinking of their long-term future. There are risks of broken bones, etc. I can live with that. CTE, not so much.
  13. That Gretzky one is awesome. I see it is from 2000 which explains why it nailed the three-layer sleeve numbers (compared with the Boomer one, which could not even get a stroke on the front number).
  14. I see Ronald Grump's been suspended for being a troll account. But when he comes back, won't he still be a troll?