Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3527 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2012 at 4:43 PM (2 years 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 05:40:06 PM  
why football obama, why?
 
2012-12-12 05:41:25 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: 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.


Your comment is dismissive and snarky, but you didn't read what wrote before you made it. Settle down.
 
2012-12-12 05:42:42 PM  

Nobodyn0se: 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.


That's not my argument. Nice try.

I'm in favor of shutting down any athletic department that drains money from the university, football and all. College athletics has become the tail that wags the dog.
 
2012-12-12 05:44:15 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm in favor of shutting down any athletic department that drains money from the university, football and all. College athletics has become the tail that wags the dog.


So in other words, you are NOT in favor of shutting down football programs?

I can't get your argument straight here. Are you, or are you not, in favor of shutting down football programs when the majority are profitable?
 
2012-12-12 05:44:32 PM  

Nobodyn0se: 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?


Nope, you can continue misstating my position if you so chose.
 
2012-12-12 05:45:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Nope, you can continue misstating my position if you so chose.


Then please, correctly state your position so I'm no longer confused:

Do you want to shut down college football programs, the majority of which are profitable?
 
2012-12-12 05:46:46 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm in favor of shutting down any athletic department that drains money from the university, football and all. College athletics has become the tail that wags the dog.

So in other words, you are NOT in favor of shutting down football programs?

I can't get your argument straight here. Are you, or are you not, in favor of shutting down football programs when the majority are profitable?


I am quite in favor of shutting down football programs as part of shutting down athletic departments that lose money for universities. They contribute nothing to the primary mission of the institution.
 
2012-12-12 05:46:56 PM  
red5ish: Your comment is dismissive and snarky, but you didn't read what wrote before you made it. Settle down.


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

It's dismissive and snarky for a reason. We're not discussing the implications of keeping the kickoff, we can see that any given Sunday. What we are discussing is how to replace it if removed. You say 1 and 10 at the 20, others point out that this would eliminate the chance at getting the ball twice in a row currently afforded by the use of the on-side kick. And then, instead of addressing that issue, you go right back to keeping the kickoff. Circular, stupid and either meant to deliberately drag things off into the weeds or warn us about your brain.
 
2012-12-12 05:50:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I am quite in favor of shutting down football programs as part of shutting down athletic departments that lose money for universities. They contribute nothing to the primary mission of the institution.


So you want to shut down football programs that don't cost the university anything, because they don't contribute anything to education?

Ok man, you keep herping that derp.
 
2012-12-12 05:52:42 PM  
i remember when Fartbongos energy polices were going to double my utility bill. I'm still waiting!
 
2012-12-12 05:54:33 PM  
Since this came from WND I assume the exact opposite is true

Off to my federally-mandated two-a-days!

Got drafted by the New New Jersey Generals
 
2012-12-12 05:54:41 PM  
Get rid of Title IX. Let universities give out unlimited athletic scholarships, but make them pair it with an academic scholarship to a person of the opposite sex.
 
2012-12-12 05:55:44 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: I am quite in favor of shutting down football programs as part of shutting down athletic departments that lose money for universities. They contribute nothing to the primary mission of the institution.

So you want to shut down football programs that don't cost the university anything, because they don't contribute anything to education?

Ok man, you keep herping that derp.


No I want to shut down athletic departments, including football. You keep lying your ass off about what I am saying.

Tell us, what should be a Universities highest priority education and students or the athletic department budget? If cuts must be made, should professors be laid off and tuitions raised, or should the money losing athletic department be cut?
 
2012-12-12 05:56:56 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: 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.


Even so, I'm not seeing how that's some kind of evil liberal plot.
 
2012-12-12 05:58:41 PM  

Isitoveryet: *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.


He's not going to let you keep anything! Socialism means that PROPERTY IS THEFT, so you would be forbidden from owning anything!
 
2012-12-12 05:59:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No I want to shut down athletic departments, including football. You keep lying your ass off about what I am saying.

Tell us, what should be a Universities highest priority education and students or the athletic department budget? If cuts must be made, should professors be laid off and tuitions raised, or should the money losing athletic department be cut?


You're like the Texas Legislature, who just cut 73 million dollars for family planning, and now has to pay 273 million dollars in costs due to more children being born. Their idea was stupid, and yours is just as stupid.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd be saying "Let's get rid of all the athletic programs EXCEPT football and basketball, and then use those profits to fund more educational priorities." But you're not saying that, because you're not trying to be intellectually honest. You just don't like sports, and don't want anyone else to like what you don't like.

Anyways, I'm going to dinner. You have fun herping and derping. Maybe someday you'll take a long hard look at your positions on this issue and realize that you're not making any sense, but I doubt it.
 
2012-12-12 06:00:13 PM  
They can't do it...The times football is on TV, are the times I know the majority or rednecks and
hicks are busy and it's a good time to get to the grocery store and run errands without Lerline and
Billy-Joe-Bob and their brood of droolings fighting and yelling at each other and clogging the aisles
and stinking up the place.
 
2012-12-12 06:00:27 PM  
No sport must remain popular. Boxing was once the most popular sport in the country. Horse racing was big once. Sometimes it just happens.

If it's going to happen to football, it'll be because Goodell does too much to sterilize and genericize the NFL (he's even genericized the Super Bowl logos, for Pete's sake), because he takes the fans for granted to the point where the fans rebel, because NCAA football gets so mired in scandal and controversy that fans simply can't stomach it anymore (and if the SEC continues to run roughshod, despair and apathy can start to set in amongst the non-SEC fans because what's the farking point in even watching anymore if the result is such a foregone conclusion?), and because player safety issues make people uncomfortable watching and makes parents keep their kids from taking up the sport.

Right now, football is fine. But the proverbial sea levels are rising.
 
2012-12-12 06:00:35 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.


Football programs are, by and large, profitable. Athletic departments are not, due to other sports...and the fact that they are non-profit entities.

Also, your talking point about highest paid state employees is a red herring, because they aren't paid with tax dollars, they're paid by private donations and athletic department revenues.

If college sports went away tomorrow, your typical academic department would see almost no change at all, except for a few less kids in their classes that have no business being there. OTOH, many scholarship athletes are excellent students that couldn't otherwise afford to attend the university.
 
2012-12-12 06:01:24 PM  
Fark you Subby, for exposing my eyes to the idiotic filth that is WND.

/Yes, I know. Don't click it.
/Eyes missed the Wacko Nutjob Diary logo
 
2012-12-12 06:04:08 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: It's dismissive and snarky for a reason. We're not discussing the implications of keeping the kickoff, we can see that any given Sunday. What we are discussing is how to replace it if removed. You say 1 and 10 at the 20, others point out that this would eliminate the chance at getting the ball twice in a row currently afforded by the use of the on-side kick. And then, instead of addressing that issue, you go right back to keeping the kickoff. Circular, stupid and either meant to deliberately drag things off into the weeds or warn us about your brain.


I did address the on-side kick question. Did you miss this:

red5ish: 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.

 
2012-12-12 06:05:13 PM  

Loki-L: Shouldn't American conservatives be all for that?

Isn't American football rather communistic compared to real football? What with the draft to make things 'fair' and no real chance of failure for losing teams by being relegated. It all sounds very much like something a true conservative should be appaled by.


Absolutely agree. Most stadiums are built with...gasp....public money. It's pure socialism.
 
2012-12-12 06:06:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: I am quite in favor of shutting down football programs as part of shutting down athletic departments that lose money for universities. They contribute nothing to the primary mission of the institution.

So you want to shut down football programs that don't cost the university anything, because they don't contribute anything to education?

Ok man, you keep herping that derp.

No I want to shut down athletic departments, including football. You keep lying your ass off about what I am saying.

Tell us, what should be a Universities highest priority education and students or the athletic department budget? If cuts must be made, should professors be laid off and tuitions raised, or should the money losing athletic department be cut?


Or look at it this way. Football and other sports employ more people in the real world than some of your liberal arts studies. It is up to the University to provide real skills that will help graduates maximize their earning potential. It would be neglectful to eliminate these from the university, especially in light of the fact that Div 1A schools provide this real world experience at a far greater return than your traditional studies.
 
2012-12-12 06:07:05 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: No I want to shut down athletic departments, including football. You keep lying your ass off about what I am saying.

Tell us, what should be a Universities highest priority education and students or the athletic department budget? If cuts must be made, should professors be laid off and tuitions raised, or should the money losing athletic department be cut?

You're like the Texas Legislature, who just cut 73 million dollars for family planning, and now has to pay 273 million dollars in costs due to more children being born. Their idea was stupid, and yours is just as stupid.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd be saying "Let's get rid of all the athletic programs EXCEPT football and basketball, and then use those profits to fund more educational priorities." But you're not saying that, because you're not trying to be intellectually honest. You just don't like sports, and don't want anyone else to like what you don't like.

Anyways, I'm going to dinner. You have fun herping and derping. Maybe someday you'll take a long hard look at your positions on this issue and realize that you're not making any sense, but I doubt it.


Ohh I didn't realize you were unaware of the existence of Title IX.

It would be a violation of Federal Law to eliminate all of the athletic programs except for men's football and basketball.
 
2012-12-12 06:08:51 PM  

Nobodyn0se: 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?


The issue really is pretty complicated, and the answer isn't the same for every school. Here comes the scrolling wall of text:

The college I work at recently added hockey as an intercollegiate sport. A hockey team is basically a guaranteed 30 FTE of students. That means kids in beds at the residence hall, eating at dining services, and butts in seats of classes that were running under capacity. It creates economies of scale in quite a few areas. The cost is the hockey coach's salary, paid for with state tax dollars/student tuition ("hard money" in higher ed finance terms), and usage of soft money (mostly student activity fee dollars) to help subsidize the program, which doesn't generate a profit by itself. It could be argued that the hard money being spent on a coach instead of instruction deviates from the organization's mission, and if activity fees are used to subsidize the program, that's just additional costs being pushed onto the students. On top of that, the reason behind adding hockey was to improve the likelihood that our new residence hall would run at near-full occupancy, cause if it hadn't we would've defaulted on our bond. Hockey has generated an increase in overall interest in the college from the community, and an increase in gifts to our Foundation, most of which is not restricted to the athletic programs and therefore helps fund scholarships and reduce educational costs for students who are both athletes and not athletes. The additional sport adds additional strain to many support functions of the college, specifically facilities and finance. Our fall campus housing was all spoken for in February, and now we're short on housing and the public perception is that we just built a dorm for athletes.

So...was adding hockey good or bad for us? I deal with the consequences of it daily, and I honestly don't know. People saying that football is inherently good or bad for colleges financially, without any evidence to fall back on, they're just full of shiat. Each school is going to have a different cost/benefit equation for their football/athletic programs, and to paint them all with the same brush is flat-out delusional.
 
2012-12-12 06:08:57 PM  
Well, the right can't win on racist fearmongering, class warfare so maybe the NFL is their last great hope. LOLOL

What a bunch of ding dongs (no offense to Hostess Ding Dongs).
 
2012-12-12 06:11:29 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Philip Francis Queeg: Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: I am quite in favor of shutting down football programs as part of shutting down athletic departments that lose money for universities. They contribute nothing to the primary mission of the institution.

So you want to shut down football programs that don't cost the university anything, because they don't contribute anything to education?

Ok man, you keep herping that derp.

No I want to shut down athletic departments, including football. You keep lying your ass off about what I am saying.

Tell us, what should be a Universities highest priority education and students or the athletic department budget? If cuts must be made, should professors be laid off and tuitions raised, or should the money losing athletic department be cut?

Or look at it this way. Football and other sports employ more people in the real world than some of your liberal arts studies. It is up to the University to provide real skills that will help graduates maximize their earning potential. It would be neglectful to eliminate these from the university, especially in light of the fact that Div 1A schools provide this real world experience at a far greater return than your traditional studies.


Bullshiat.

You know how many player there are in all of the NFL? Under 1,700.

Secondly your answer is bullshiat because of this statement: It is up to the University to provide real skills that will help graduates maximize their earning potential.

Universities do not exist merely as vocational programs designed to maximize individuals earnings. That is a perversion of the entire idea of education.
 
2012-12-12 06:19:48 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: machodonkeywrestler: Philip Francis Queeg: Nobodyn0se: Philip Francis Queeg: I am quite in favor of shutting down football programs as part of shutting down athletic departments that lose money for universities. They contribute nothing to the primary mission of the institution.

So you want to shut down football programs that don't cost the university anything, because they don't contribute anything to education?

Ok man, you keep herping that derp.

No I want to shut down athletic departments, including football. You keep lying your ass off about what I am saying.

Tell us, what should be a Universities highest priority education and students or the athletic department budget? If cuts must be made, should professors be laid off and tuitions raised, or should the money losing athletic department be cut?

Or look at it this way. Football and other sports employ more people in the real world than some of your liberal arts studies. It is up to the University to provide real skills that will help graduates maximize their earning potential. It would be neglectful to eliminate these from the university, especially in light of the fact that Div 1A schools provide this real world experience at a far greater return than your traditional studies.

Bullshiat.

You know how many player there are in all of the NFL? Under 1,700.

Secondly your answer is bullshiat because of this statement: It is up to the University to provide real skills that will help graduates maximize their earning potential.

Universities do not exist merely as vocational programs designed to maximize individuals earnings. That is a perversion of the entire idea of education.


Umm, you know the NFL/MLB/NBA hires dozens of people per player, and the hires by the networks, advertisers, support staff is even greater.

Secondly, while your statement above is true (the first part bolded, not the hyperbole at the end), neither do they exist merely to support and open ended education or learning for learning's sake. For you to assert that is even more of a perversion of what colleges do than your (erroneous) assumption that I meant that that statement was all that colleges do.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:28 PM  
pic too big for fark: Link
 
2012-12-12 06:25:27 PM  
red5ish: Insatiable Jesus: It's dismissive and snarky for a reason. We're not discussing the implications of keeping the kickoff, we can see that any given Sunday. What we are discussing is how to replace it if removed. You say 1 and 10 at the 20, others point out that this would eliminate the chance at getting the ball twice in a row currently afforded by the use of the on-side kick. And then, instead of addressing that issue, you go right back to keeping the kickoff. Circular, stupid and either meant to deliberately drag things off into the weeds or warn us about your brain.

I did address the on-side kick question. Did you miss this:

red5ish: 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.



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


Which 20 are you talking about? There is no "the 20", there is "your 20" and "their 20". Maybe that's the problem here because many have been suggesting just giving the ball back to the other (team that didn't just score) team on THEIR 20, which is effectively how most kickoffs turn out now.
 
2012-12-12 06:28:17 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Umm, you know the NFL/MLB/NBA hires dozens of people per player, and the hires by the networks, advertisers, support staff is even greater.

Secondly, while your statement above is true (the first part bolded, not the hyperbole at the end), neither do they exist merely to support and open ended education or learning for learning's sake. For you to assert that is even more of a perversion of what colleges do than your (erroneous) assumption that I meant that that statement was all that colleges do.


So should Universities run the minor league of NASCAR because lots of people are directly and indirectly employed by NASCAR? Should Universities be taking out bond issues to build state of the art race tracks and be hiring the best coaches for their NASCAR team, not matter what the cost?
 
2012-12-12 06:29:29 PM  

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


To replace the onside kick, each team gets 1 "5th down" per half... or maybe 1 per game.
 
2012-12-12 06:38:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: machodonkeywrestler: Umm, you know the NFL/MLB/NBA hires dozens of people per player, and the hires by the networks, advertisers, support staff is even greater.

Secondly, while your statement above is true (the first part bolded, not the hyperbole at the end), neither do they exist merely to support and open ended education or learning for learning's sake. For you to assert that is even more of a perversion of what colleges do than your (erroneous) assumption that I meant that that statement was all that colleges do.

So should Universities run the minor league of NASCAR because lots of people are directly and indirectly employed by NASCAR? Should Universities be taking out bond issues to build state of the art race tracks and be hiring the best coaches for their NASCAR team, not matter what the cost?


Umm there are NASCAR "Universities", etc. Monies to pay for stadiums are usually a mix of private donors and revenue neutral municipal bonds. Don't really see your point, are you just misinformed about how these things are run?
 
2012-12-12 06:42:43 PM  

vegasj: I wonder if Belcher was on anything... like anti-depressants or other "ma'm, your son is a bit slow/hyper" drugs...


Seems today, schools, Dr's, & authority are quick to medicate America's kids


Some of it is that we're able to catch more cases that are still dysfunctional, but before we just couldn't explain because they were atypical or just not severe enough. I know a lot of people who are honestly worried about over-diagnosing, and there are some over-diagnosed disorders, but across the board psychologists and psychiatrists have actually gotten a little better at catching disorders before the patient does something drastic. That's usually a net bonus for everyone. :p
 
2012-12-12 06:50:37 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Which 20 are you talking about? There is no "the 20", there is "your 20" and "their 20". Maybe that's the problem here because many have been suggesting just giving the ball back to the other (team that didn't just score) team on THEIR 20, which is effectively how most kickoffs turn out now.


On what would have been the "receiving" team's 20, requiring an 80-yard drive to score. Yes, it is effectively how most kickoffs turn out now, which is why I suggested it.

Or, the "kicking" team could opt to execute an on-side kick. They would need to modify the rules to define what constitutes an acceptable on-side kick (it would have to be a squib kick).
 
2012-12-12 06:55:34 PM  
If you need neck injuries, head trauma and possible death to get your jingle bells off to this sport, you're doing it wrong. Football doesn't exist to give a fix to your farking violence fetish.

/Go Bolts
//fark you Norv. AJ, you too.
 
2012-12-12 07:04:41 PM  
Well, if he comes after it the way he came after your precious guns, I guess we can expect more football.

/you dumb crackers
 
2012-12-12 08:02:16 PM  
I missed the part of the article that says Obama is going to do this.
 
2012-12-12 08:12:58 PM  
Oh noes! So I won't get to watch 350lb "athletes" running into one another again and again and again?
Lose the silly putty pads and play football as it was meant to be played, with your feet.

Now, if Obama also comes for baseball, I might just vote for him for Grand Pooh-Bah for life.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:12 PM  
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2778
 
2012-12-12 08:49:52 PM  
Football? You mean headbrick?

43% of college football (and basketball) programs are not profitable. At most of the other 57%, the sports that must exist for Title IX parity cost more than the football profits, meaning the existence of football is a net loss for the school. In either case, the shortfall is made up from tuition dollars. Meanwhile, head football coaches make 10 to 40 times a professor's salary... all while providing no tangible benefit to the school, and essentially providing the NFL with its minor league for free.

Get rid of college (and high school) sports, across the board. Nothing of value would be lost, there will be no more severe head and neck injuries, and tuition costs, while they'll continue increasing, will increase more slowly with the bloated burden of sports. Sports can be intramural.

Want to go to school for football? Create a few football academies.
 
2012-12-12 09:21:41 PM  

whidbey: vegasj: I wonder if Belcher was on anything... like anti-depressants or other "ma'm, your son is a bit slow/hyper" drugs...


Seems today, schools, Dr's, & authority are quick to medicate America's kids

You're always this paranoid about shiat, aren't you?


I'm just amazed he didn't blame Belcher for being violent on account of blackness.
 
2012-12-12 09:25:47 PM  

Tman144: 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.


That's why the Schiano plan is saying that the kickoff is now 4th and 15. You can punt, fake punt or go for a 1st down.
 
2012-12-12 09:29:46 PM  

LazarusLong42: Get rid of college (and high school) sports, across the board. Nothing of value would be lost, there will be no more severe head and neck injuries, and tuition costs, while they'll continue increasing, will increase more slowly with the bloated burden of sports. Sports can be intramural.

Want to go to school for football? Create a few football academies.

 
2012-12-12 09:43:34 PM  

BSABSVR: That's why the Schiano plan is saying that the kickoff is now 4th and 15. You can punt, fake punt or go for a 1st down.


I believe the best response to this plan was something along the lines of "The Patriots Win the Super Bowl 102-3"
 
2012-12-12 09:51:45 PM  
Because limpballs says it will end, he must be right.

/So vote Republican to save the NFL?
 
2012-12-12 09:55:22 PM  
"He's coming for X. He hates X and wants to get rid of it."

How do you know that?

"All the things he's said and done that clearly point to it."

Well, there's not one shred of evidence.

"That's PROVES it!"
 
2012-12-12 10:08:57 PM  

red5ish: BSABSVR: That's why the Schiano plan is saying that the kickoff is now 4th and 15. You can punt, fake punt or go for a 1st down.

I believe the best response to this plan was something along the lines of "The Patriots Win the Super Bowl 102-3"


ESPN just collectively creamed themselves.
 
2012-12-13 12:19:37 AM  
I think it will be the past and present NFL players who eventually push for major rule changes in the sport, once they've had time to think about how the sport damages their health and shortens their lives (pro footballs players' life expecitency is something like 20 years shorter than the rest of the population).
 
2012-12-13 01:50:35 AM  
I farking despise football. Would be delighted if it went away, but know it never well.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report