If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Obama is coming for Football next   (wnd.com) divider line 156
    More: Scary, football, aberrant behavior  
•       •       •

3525 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2012 at 4:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 04:56:43 PM

LiquidTester: kronicfeld: Marcus Aurelius: If you will recall, his latest fevered brainstorm is a 4th and 15 in lieu of the kickoff.

Except it wasn't his, it was Greg Schiano's. And he wasn't advocating for it, he was citing it as an example of an alternative to kickoffs that had been submitted to the Competition Committee.

I like this idea. I don't like the new kickoff rules since returns are so rare. But honestly, if you can't put any of your good players on something that happens 4 times a game because it's too dangerous, something has to change.


Why not just substitute the kick off for 1st and 10 at your 20? Seems like a no-brainer if you're getting rid of kick offs.
 
2012-12-12 04:57:03 PM
Hey remember what Obama did about guns!!!!


/a:nothing.
 
2012-12-12 04:57:05 PM

js34603: I like to envision football evolving into the game they were playing in Starship Troopers.

/would not be surprised to see it morph into 7-on-7 passing competitions with no run after the catch and no tackling


So... Ultimate Frisbee?
 
2012-12-12 04:58:42 PM
Particuarly enjoyed the part where Limbaugh is telling us that "they will throw the race angle into it. Just watch." What I just watched was Limbaugh throwing the race angle into it.

Fark you, you fat, drug addicted boy diddler. You lasted on ESPN what? 20 minutes? And why did you get fired from ESPN Rush? Oh yeah, because you forgot that this country doesn't think like your hateful Metamucil swilling audience and you tried running your crypto-racist line of crap on national TV and got fired for it.

But mainly Rush, you're an Eagles fan, so fark you double.



/all for the 4th and 15 instead of kickoffs.
//And every time a team scores, the opposing team's cheerleaders must remove 1 article of clothing
 
2012-12-12 04:58:59 PM

Lost Thought 00: js34603: I like to envision football evolving into the game they were playing in Starship Troopers.

/would not be surprised to see it morph into 7-on-7 passing competitions with no run after the catch and no tackling

So... Ultimate Frisbee?


Yeah but with a football!
 
2012-12-12 04:59:19 PM

Lost Thought 00: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: It's not Obama, it's private lawsuits that will kill the sport off, at least at the high school and college level.

Killing off football would be a great thing for University education in this country.

Maybe. You could make a case that it does help keep marginal schools in business since it is usually revenue positive


That's actually untrue. Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. In most every state the highest paid state employee by a very large margin is a football or basketball coach.
 
2012-12-12 05:00:17 PM

Rapmaster2000: I haven't watched the NFL since they banned crackback blocks, leg whips, and nunchucks. It's a woman's game now.


Oh, they brought back nunchucks. It's just that now they can only be used above waist outside the tackle box when they qb has crossed the line of scrimmage.
 
2012-12-12 05:01:02 PM
red5ish: Why not just substitute the kick off for 1st and 10 at your 20? Seems like a no-brainer if you're getting rid of kick offs.


----------------------


And what replaces the on-side kick as a last ditch chance to get the ball back? No brainer indeed.
 
2012-12-12 05:01:38 PM

red5ish: LiquidTester: kronicfeld: Marcus Aurelius: If you will recall, his latest fevered brainstorm is a 4th and 15 in lieu of the kickoff.

Except it wasn't his, it was Greg Schiano's. And he wasn't advocating for it, he was citing it as an example of an alternative to kickoffs that had been submitted to the Competition Committee.

I like this idea. I don't like the new kickoff rules since returns are so rare. But honestly, if you can't put any of your good players on something that happens 4 times a game because it's too dangerous, something has to change.

Why not just substitute the kick off for 1st and 10 at your 20? Seems like a no-brainer if you're getting rid of kick offs.


They still want a team who is losing, but scores late, to have a chance of getting the ball back.
 
2012-12-12 05:01:53 PM
emergentnovels.com
 
2012-12-12 05:02:54 PM

Insatiable Jesus: red5ish: Why not just substitute the kick off for 1st and 10 at your 20? Seems like a no-brainer if you're getting rid of kick offs.


----------------------


And what replaces the on-side kick as a last ditch chance to get the ball back? No brainer indeed.


being a better team?
 
2012-12-12 05:03:11 PM
In Obama's NFL the Patriots would always lose.
 
2012-12-12 05:03:36 PM
Obama wants to snatch your pig-skins and force you to eat only turkey bacon.
 
2012-12-12 05:03:52 PM
He also lost the election, right World Nut Daily?
 
2012-12-12 05:03:55 PM
With the effects football as we know it has upon the players... either it has to adapt to be less harmful in the long-term for those who participate, or it will simply cease to exist.
 
2012-12-12 05:03:57 PM

ds615: If the NFL went away, what would all the script writers do?

/You're not dumb enough to think something worth that much money is left to chance, are you?
//funny because my niece asked Santa to "cancel football".




Wake up Sheeeeeeple!!!
 
2012-12-12 05:04:15 PM

LarryDan43: Romney was the one who was going to change football since Mormons are not allowed to work on Sundays. He was also going to take our liquor and beer and replace it with watered down beer and liquor vouchers.


Liquor vouchers. Lol. I'm stealing this.
 
2012-12-12 05:04:43 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: It's not Obama, it's private lawsuits that will kill the sport off, at least at the high school and college level.

Killing off football would be a great thing for University education in this country.

Maybe. You could make a case that it does help keep marginal schools in business since it is usually revenue positive

That's actually untrue. Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. In most every state the highest paid state employee by a very large margin is a football or basketball coach.


Great job moving the goalposts.

Hint: "Football is usually revenue positive" and "Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable" are not mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-12 05:05:06 PM

Rapmaster2000: I haven't watched the NFL since they banned crackback blocks, leg whips, and nunchucks. It's a woman's game now.


If they gave all of the players nunchucks I might actually watch a game.
 
2012-12-12 05:05:41 PM

Cinaed: With the effects football as we know it has upon the players... either it has to adapt to be less harmful in the long-term for those who participate, or it will simply cease to exist.


Like boxing. No one would voluntarily suffer repeated blows to the head given what we know about the damage that causes.

Right?
 
2012-12-12 05:05:46 PM
Good. Fark football.
 
2012-12-12 05:06:42 PM
Why would OBama want to mess with the most socialist league in sports?
 
2012-12-12 05:07:15 PM

Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: It's not Obama, it's private lawsuits that will kill the sport off, at least at the high school and college level.

Killing off football would be a great thing for University education in this country.

Maybe. You could make a case that it does help keep marginal schools in business since it is usually revenue positive

That's actually untrue. Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. In most every state the highest paid state employee by a very large margin is a football or basketball coach.

Great job moving the goalposts.

Hint: "Football is usually revenue positive" and "Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable" are not mutually exclusive.


Hint: The money football makes doesn't help keep marginal schools in business if the athletic department as a whole is losing money.
 
2012-12-12 05:08:05 PM

The Gentleman Caller: Why would OBama want to mess with the most socialist league in sports?


No doubt. SHARING revenue? The Russians have won.
 
2012-12-12 05:08:21 PM

Shaggy_C: In Obama's NFL the Patriots would always lose.


2/10.
 
2012-12-12 05:08:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: It's not Obama, it's private lawsuits that will kill the sport off, at least at the high school and college level.

Killing off football would be a great thing for University education in this country.

Maybe. You could make a case that it does help keep marginal schools in business since it is usually revenue positive

That's actually untrue. Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. In most every state the highest paid state employee by a very large margin is a football or basketball coach.

Great job moving the goalposts.

Hint: "Football is usually revenue positive" and "Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable" are not mutually exclusive.

Hint: The money football makes doesn't help keep marginal schools in business if the athletic department as a whole is losing money.


I agree, but that's not what the argument was about. The argument was about college football specifically, not college sports in general.

Stick to the topic at hand please.
 
2012-12-12 05:10:30 PM
I hate to say it, but that's the least-retarded thing I've read on WND.

/still pretty retarded
 
2012-12-12 05:15:27 PM
College football is shameful. A lot of people are making a lot of money off of college football, but the kids who are risking serious brain injury don't see any of it. It's total bullshiat. Some kid is on TV in front of millions of people and can't even get a new phone out of it or anything.

/or get some "escorts" brought to his room.
//It's bullshiat I tell ya! Bullshiat!
 
2012-12-12 05:15:46 PM

Ed Grubermann: 2/10.


Bah, I thought it was humorous. How about this one:

In Obama's NFL, Tebowing would require an East-facing stance and a prayer rug.
 
2012-12-12 05:15:57 PM

Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: It's not Obama, it's private lawsuits that will kill the sport off, at least at the high school and college level.

Killing off football would be a great thing for University education in this country.

Maybe. You could make a case that it does help keep marginal schools in business since it is usually revenue positive

That's actually untrue. Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. In most every state the highest paid state employee by a very large margin is a football or basketball coach.

Great job moving the goalposts.

Hint: "Football is usually revenue positive" and "Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable" are not mutually exclusive.

Hint: The money football makes doesn't help keep marginal schools in business if the athletic department as a whole is losing money.

I agree, but that's not what the argument was about. The argument was about college football specifically, not college sports in general.

Stick to the topic at hand please.


I am sticking to the topic. Running the NFL minor leagues does nothing to help the vast majority of universities educate students.
 
2012-12-12 05:16:39 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: It's not Obama, it's private lawsuits that will kill the sport off, at least at the high school and college level.

Killing off football would be a great thing for University education in this country.

Maybe. You could make a case that it does help keep marginal schools in business since it is usually revenue positive

That's actually untrue. Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable. In most every state the highest paid state employee by a very large margin is a football or basketball coach.

Great job moving the goalposts.

Hint: "Football is usually revenue positive" and "Only about 12% of college athletic programs are profitable" are not mutually exclusive.

Hint: The money football makes doesn't help keep marginal schools in business if the athletic department as a whole is losing money.


Sure it does. How would killing football help if it's the rest of the athletic programs that is the cost drain and the football program is making money. You should instead be arguing for getting rid of all athletic programs BUT football if the argument was to make sense. Not only getting rid of foobtall.
 
2012-12-12 05:17:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I am sticking to the topic. Running the NFL minor leagues does nothing to help the vast majority of universities educate students.


As we've pointed out, many/most college football programs are profitable. Hell, Texas gets tens of millions of dollars from their football program.
 
2012-12-12 05:18:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I am sticking to the topic. Running the NFL minor leagues does nothing to help the vast majority of universities educate students.


So why cut football? Why not argue to cut all other athletic programs?

Sorry wasn't you argument to cut football only? That would then take even MORE money from "the vast majority of universities educate students." to fund the rest of the athletic programs that lose money. You are making no sense.
 
2012-12-12 05:20:46 PM
*rolls eyes*

how about these people start making shiat up that Obama isn't coming for?
I mean, eventually they're gonna run out of things he's coming for, so, tell us what he will let us keep.

at least make it somewhat interesting and truthful.
 
2012-12-12 05:21:05 PM
But Obama would be replacing it with the lingerie league instead. Win-Win!!
 
2012-12-12 05:21:14 PM

Insatiable Jesus: And what replaces the on-side kick as a last ditch chance to get the ball back? No brainer indeed.


Am I mistaken in believing that the on-side kick is a variant of the kickoff play? I don't think I am. If you do away with the kickoff then the on-side kick is also gone.

I'm not advocating getting rid of the kickoff, personally, I think it's part of the game, dangerous as it may be.
But if you are going to remove the kickoff then why not just start with 1st and 10 at the 20? It seems to me to be a simple, easy to understand, and reasonable substitution. Some of these other suggestions seem overly complicated.
 
2012-12-12 05:22:16 PM

Corvus: Sure it does. How would killing football help if it's the rest of the athletic programs that is the cost drain and the football program is making money. You should instead be arguing for getting rid of all athletic programs BUT football if the argument was to make sense. Not only getting rid of foobtall.


Yep, get rid of them all and focus on education. That's what Universities exist to do. In time where University budgets for actual education are being slashed and tuitions are rising, it is nothing short of obscene that the budgets of athletic departments, including football, are off limits. In a time where teachers making $40,000 are attacked as greedy, it is farking absurd that there is never a complaint about paying the university football coach $2,500,000.
 
2012-12-12 05:22:52 PM

Gyrfalcon: The NFL is concerned about cumulative head injuries and wants to prevent excessive spinal damage in its players....and somehow this is Obama's fault.

Wow.


The NFL wouldn't be concerned about any of that were it not for the lawsuits they are facing from hundreds of players right now.
 
2012-12-12 05:22:58 PM

red5ish: Insatiable Jesus: And what replaces the on-side kick as a last ditch chance to get the ball back? No brainer indeed.

Am I mistaken in believing that the on-side kick is a variant of the kickoff play? I don't think I am. If you do away with the kickoff then the on-side kick is also gone.

I'm not advocating getting rid of the kickoff, personally, I think it's part of the game, dangerous as it may be.
But if you are going to remove the kickoff then why not just start with 1st and 10 at the 20? It seems to me to be a simple, easy to understand, and reasonable substitution. Some of these other suggestions seem overly complicated.


That's the problem. We want to get rid of the kickoff, but not the onside kick.
 
2012-12-12 05:23:23 PM
Years from now people will look back on football and boxing and shake their heads that we were so barbaric.
But it'll be many years.
 
2012-12-12 05:23:59 PM
WND is a little late with this scare article. If they had published it in late October, Wisconsin would have voted overwhelmingly for Mitt.

Not enough to give him the EV he needed, but maybe there's another state or two that considers the sport the be-all end-all of existence.
 
2012-12-12 05:29:11 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, get rid of them all and focus on education. That's what Universities exist to do. In time where University budgets for actual education are being slashed and tuitions are rising, it is nothing short of obscene that the budgets of athletic departments, including football, are off limits. In a time where teachers making $40,000 are attacked as greedy, it is farking absurd that there is never a complaint about paying the university football coach $2,500,000.


Football. Programs. Are. Profitable.

How many times must this be repeated? If you got rid of football, the lack of funds for education would get WORSE, not better.
 
2012-12-12 05:29:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Corvus: Sure it does. How would killing football help if it's the rest of the athletic programs that is the cost drain and the football program is making money. You should instead be arguing for getting rid of all athletic programs BUT football if the argument was to make sense. Not only getting rid of foobtall.

Yep, get rid of them all and focus on education. That's what Universities exist to do. In time where University budgets for actual education are being slashed and tuitions are rising, it is nothing short of obscene that the budgets of athletic departments, including football, are off limits. In a time where teachers making $40,000 are attacked as greedy, it is farking absurd that there is never a complaint about paying the university football coach $2,500,000.


There are plenty of Universities that don't have football or athletic programs. If you have any evidence they are providing better educations to their students than universities with football programs, than spit it out.

Otherwise, you're just making up numbers and trying to obfuscate the argument with your random opinions about athletic budgets and whether football coaches are worth what they're paid.
 
2012-12-12 05:31:35 PM

Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, get rid of them all and focus on education. That's what Universities exist to do. In time where University budgets for actual education are being slashed and tuitions are rising, it is nothing short of obscene that the budgets of athletic departments, including football, are off limits. In a time where teachers making $40,000 are attacked as greedy, it is farking absurd that there is never a complaint about paying the university football coach $2,500,000.

Football. Programs. Are. Profitable.

How many times must this be repeated? If you got rid of football, the lack of funds for education would get WORSE, not better.


Football. Profits. Do. Not. Fund. Education.

How many times must this be repeated?
 
2012-12-12 05:32:53 PM

js34603: Philip Francis Queeg: Corvus: Sure it does. How would killing football help if it's the rest of the athletic programs that is the cost drain and the football program is making money. You should instead be arguing for getting rid of all athletic programs BUT football if the argument was to make sense. Not only getting rid of foobtall.

Yep, get rid of them all and focus on education. That's what Universities exist to do. In time where University budgets for actual education are being slashed and tuitions are rising, it is nothing short of obscene that the budgets of athletic departments, including football, are off limits. In a time where teachers making $40,000 are attacked as greedy, it is farking absurd that there is never a complaint about paying the university football coach $2,500,000.

There are plenty of Universities that don't have football or athletic programs. If you have any evidence they are providing better educations to their students than universities with football programs, than spit it out.

Otherwise, you're just making up numbers and trying to obfuscate the argument with your random opinions about athletic budgets and whether football coaches are worth what they're paid.


Please point out which numbers are made up.
 
2012-12-12 05:34:21 PM

Corvus: So why cut football? Why not argue to cut all other athletic programs?


I think the real issue here is tailgating. Students get drunk and skip their studying and classwork because of football. Won't somebody please think of the children?
 
2012-12-12 05:34:28 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Football. Profits. Do. Not. Fund. Education.

How many times must this be repeated?



You could repeat it a million times and it still wouldn't be relevant.

Your problem with football is that it takes money away from education, and yet we have told you time and time again that football doesn't take a DIME away from education, but you still insist that football should be banned because it takes money away from education.

Seriously, your argument makes ZERO SENSE.
 
2012-12-12 05:34:33 PM

Tman144: That's the problem. We want to get rid of the kickoff, but not the onside kick.


Couldn't you have the option of turning over the ball to the 20 with first and ten, OR, doing an on-side kick?
It's not like on-side kicks aren't telegraphed to the other team as it is now.

Aren't the injuries they're trying to avoid sustained primarily during regular kickoff returns?
If onside kicks are as dangerous as regular kickoffs then why keep them as part of the game (if your goal is to avoid those injuries).
 
2012-12-12 05:36:44 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: Football programs are bad because they cost money
Everyone Else: Football programs don't cost money
Philip Francis Queeg: Football programs are bad because they cost money
Everyone Else: Football programs don't cost money
Philip Francis Queeg: Football programs are bad because they cost money
Everyone Else: Football programs don't cost money
Philip Francis Queeg: Football programs are bad because they cost money
Everyone Else: Football programs don't cost money


Is there any point in continuing, or should I just let him continue to herp and derp?
 
2012-12-12 05:37:25 PM
red5ish: I'm not advocating getting rid of the kickoff, personally, I think it's part of the game, dangerous as it may be.But if you are going to remove the kickoff then why not just start with 1st and 10 at the 20? It seems to me to be a simple, easy to understand, and reasonable substitution. Some of these other suggestions seem overly complicated.


--------------------

If you don't understand how removing the one shot a team has of getting the ball twice in a row by their own efforts would substantially change the game and lead to more garbage time football, well then there is nothing left to discuss here.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report